GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

What Happens When You Blow the Whistle on Goldman Sachs?

Sometimes whistleblowers are treated well and protected and other times they can be harried and mistreated.  The US has the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 that protects federal whistleblowers.  The UK has a Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 that provides "legal protection for individuals who disclose information" on "malpractice."

However, the article below shows that becoming a whistleblower can be both frightening and intrusive.

How HMRC treated its Goldman Sachs tax deal whistleblower as a criminal
Tax officials used intrusive powers to rake through Osita Mba's personal data in attempt to prove he had spoken to the Guardian
By Rajeev Syal - The Guardian

Tax officials used intrusive investigative powers meant to catch serious criminals to try to prove that a whistleblower who uncovered a "sweetheart" deal with Goldman Sachs had spoken to the Guardian, it has emerged.

The belongings, emails, internet search records and phone calls of the HM Revenue and Customs solicitor Osita Mba and the phone records of his wife, Claudia, were examined by investigators, according to previously undisclosed documents.

The powers, which are supposed to be used to combat large-scale criminal tax frauds, were used because the tax inspectors suspected that Mba had been in contact with the Guardian's former investigations editor, David Leigh.

Leigh's telephone numbers and email addresses were cross-referenced with Mba's, but investigators found no evidence of contact, documents show.
The disclosure has prompted serious questions about HMRC's behaviour.

See the article here


Laser Haas said...

I challenge anyone - to find ANY case - where Goldman Sachs is "properly" punished and the whistle-blower "properly" rewarded for pointing out GSachs bad faith deeds!

We pointed out that Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs attorney in Delaware is . We also were able to prove and force MNAT to Confess that the firm "LIED" under oath 15 times; in order for MNAT to become eToys bankruptcy estate attorney.

Goldman Sachs took eToys public for $85 and eToys received less than $20 (see N.Y. Times March 2013 story "Rigging the I.P.O. Game" and the Rolling Stone September 2012 cover story "Greed and Debt" and the Wall Street Journal story at Scoop.It

The judge actually responded that she didn't want to hear about it - and that;

"if there's nothing else, I'm going back to Tweeter".

Actual transcript records...

Post a Comment