<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Quag9dp1Nn4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Obama-Corzine Were Wrong
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
No Criminal Case Is Likely in Loss at MF Global
By AZAM AHMED and BEN PROTESS
Jonathan Ernst/ReutersJon Corzine, the former chief of MF Global, at a House panel last year.
A criminal investigation into the collapse of the brokerage firm MF Global and the disappearance of about $1 billion in customer money is now heading into its final stage without charges expected against any top executives.
After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm?s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.
The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government?s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals ? none of them top Wall Street players ? have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses.
Article Tools
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
E-mail
Share
Print
.
Related Links
Documents: Reports on MF Global's Bankruptcy
.
In the most telling indication yet that the MF Global investigation is winding down, federal authorities are seeking to interview the former chief of the firm, Jon S. Corzine, next month, according to the people involved in the case. Authorities hope that Mr. Corzine, who is expected to accept the invitation, will shed light on the actions of other employees at MF Global.
Those developments indicate that federal prosecutors do not expect to file criminal charges against the former New Jersey governor. Mr. Corzine has not yet received assurances that he is free from scrutiny, but two rounds of interviews with former employees and a review of thousands of documents have left prosecutors without a case against him, say the people involved in the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
While the government?s findings would remove the darkest cloud looming over Mr. Corzine ? the threat of criminal charges ? the former Goldman Sachs chief is not yet in the clear. A bankruptcy trustee on Wednesday joined customers? lawsuits against Mr. Corzine, and regulators are still considering civil enforcement actions, which could cost him millions of dollars or ban him from working on Wall Street.
Mr. Corzine, in a bid to rebuild his image and engage his passion for trading, is weighing whether to start a hedge fund, according to people with knowledge of his plans. He is currently trading with his family?s wealth.
If he is successful as a hedge fund manager, it would be the latest career comeback for a man who was ousted from both the top seat at Goldman Sachs and the New Jersey governor?s mansion.
A spokesman for Mr. Corzine declined to comment.
Even with the worst behind him, Mr. Corzine?s reputation has suffered lasting damage.
After the collapse of the firm, which left farmers and other MF Global customers out millions of dollars, Mr. Corzine became another face of Wall Street recklessness. Lawmakers called him back to Washington, a humbling return to the town where he once served as a Democratic senator from New Jersey, to seek answers and to criticize him. With a criminal case unlikely to materialize, the anger over the collapse of MF Global is likely to grow.
Typically in white-collar cases, investigators start their interviews with lower-level employees and build up to the top executives of a firm. In July, when federal authorities first approached Mr. Corzine?s lawyers, it was not clear whether he would agree to an interview. But the signs were good. In such cases, if prosecutors have damning information, they often file charges rather than extend an offer for a voluntary interview.
Though he is now expected to attend the meeting, questions remain about which government agencies will join. Because Mr. Corzine still faces scrutiny from regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, their attendance could pose a problem. These agencies, which have a lower bar to proving civil wrongdoing than do criminal authorities, are examining whether top executives misled investors about the firm?s health and failed to protect customer money.
The C.F.T.C, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States attorney?s office in Manhattan declined to comment for this article.
As the government?s focus shifts away from Mr. Corzine, it remains interested in a lower-level employee in the firm?s Chicago office, who was known as the ?keeper of the books? at MF Global. That employee, Edith O?Brien, oversaw the transfer of customer money during the firm?s final week, when the client cash vanished into the hands of banks, clearinghouses and even other customers.
Ms. O?Brien, an assistant treasurer, has declined to cooperate with authorities without receiving immunity from criminal prosecution. The government is hesitating to grant her request, suspecting that Ms. O?Brien is the highest-ranking employee with potential liability, one of the people involved in the case said. Ms. O?Brien has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
If Mr. Corzine agrees to a meeting next month with the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors, the authorities are expected to question him about his interactions with Ms. O?Brien. But Mr. Corzine is unlikely to offer damning evidence or a critical view of Ms. O?Brien, another person briefed on the matter said. The statements Mr. Corzine provides cannot be used against him under the expected terms of the interview, but authorities can use it to build their broader case. And if Mr. Corzine were to arouse suspicions during the interview, he could find himself a target.
Mr. Corzine has already given his version of events publicly. In Congressional testimony last year, he detailed an exchange he had with Ms. O?Brien days before the firm?s collapse. The back and forth involved a $175 million transfer to JPMorgan Chase to cover an overdrawn account. The transfer, it turned out, came from customer money.
But internal e-mails suggest that Mr. Corzine did not know the origin of the funds. An e-mail reviewed by The New York Times shows Ms. O?Brien explicitly stated that the money belonged to the firm, not customers. It is possible that with the books in disarray, Ms. O?Brien was not aware that customer money was in jeopardy.
A lawyer for Ms. O?Brien declined to comment.
While Mr. Corzine also testified that he never authorized or intended to authorize the misuse of customer money, his risky trading strategy helped pave the firm?s downfall.
Known as an obsessive trader who had the highest returns at the firm, Mr. Corzine frequently inhabited a desk on the trading floor. One visitor to MF Global recalled that during a tour of the firm?s Manhattan headquarters, his guide suggested that if he ?stuck around? he might catch the chief executive trading a few million dollars in bonds.
As the firm?s leader, Mr. Corzine was upbeat about its future, writing an e-mail to employees in January 2011: ?Let?s be an example of how to do it right and play a leadership role in restoring confidence in our industry.?
But a $6.3 billion wager on the European sovereign debt proved fatal. The size of the bet was enough to wipe out the firm many times over, and as questions about Europe?s health grew, a run on MF Global ensued. In the panic, the firm tapped customer money to stay afloat, which scuttled a last-minute deal to save the firm. Mr. Corzine resigned just days after the firm filed for bankruptcy.
I guess being a DEMOCRAT means you are above the LAW.
What was the point of Sarbanes Oxley?
Sarbanes?Oxley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D?MD) and Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R?OH-4), the co-sponsors of the Sarbanes?Oxley Act.
Accountancy
Key concepts
Accountant ?Accounting period ?Accrual ?Bookkeeping ?Cash and accrual basis ?Cash flow forecasting ?Chart of accounts ?Convergence ?Journal ?Special journals ?Constant item purchasing power accounting ?Cost of goods sold ?Credit terms ?Debits and credits ?Double-entry system ?Mark-to-market accounting ?FIFO and LIFO ?GAAP / IFRS ?Management Accounting Principles ?General ledger ?Goodwill ?Historical cost ?Matching principle ?Revenue recognition ?Trial balance
Fields of accounting
Cost ?Financial ?Forensic ?Fund ?Management ?Tax (U.S.)
Financial statements
Balance Sheet ?Cash flow statement ?Income statement ?Statement of retained earnings ?Notes ?Management discussion and analysis ?XBRL
Auditing
Auditor's report ?Control self-assessment ?Financial audit ?GAAS / ISA ?Internal audit ?Sarbanes?Oxley Act
Accounting qualifications
CIA ? CA ?CPA ? CCA ?CGA ?CMA ?CAT ?CIIA ?IIA ?CTP
v ?
t ?
e
The Sarbanes?Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 29, 2002), also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes?Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).
The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the SEC, led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes?Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure. The nonprofit arm of Financial Executives International (FEI), Financial Executives Research Foundation (FERF), completed extensive research studies to help support the foundations of the act.
The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The era of low standards and false profits is over; no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law."[1]
In response to the perception that stricter financial governance laws are needed, SOX-type laws have been subsequently enacted in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, India, South Africa, and Turkey.
Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Opponents of the bill claim it has reduced America's international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, saying SOX has introduced an overly complex regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets.[2] Proponents of the measure say that SOX has been a "godsend" for improving the confidence of fund managers and other investors with regard to the veracity of corporate financial statements.[3]
By AZAM AHMED and BEN PROTESS
Jonathan Ernst/ReutersJon Corzine, the former chief of MF Global, at a House panel last year.
A criminal investigation into the collapse of the brokerage firm MF Global and the disappearance of about $1 billion in customer money is now heading into its final stage without charges expected against any top executives.
After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm?s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.
The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government?s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals ? none of them top Wall Street players ? have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses.
Article Tools
Google+
Share
.
Related Links
Documents: Reports on MF Global's Bankruptcy
.
In the most telling indication yet that the MF Global investigation is winding down, federal authorities are seeking to interview the former chief of the firm, Jon S. Corzine, next month, according to the people involved in the case. Authorities hope that Mr. Corzine, who is expected to accept the invitation, will shed light on the actions of other employees at MF Global.
Those developments indicate that federal prosecutors do not expect to file criminal charges against the former New Jersey governor. Mr. Corzine has not yet received assurances that he is free from scrutiny, but two rounds of interviews with former employees and a review of thousands of documents have left prosecutors without a case against him, say the people involved in the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
While the government?s findings would remove the darkest cloud looming over Mr. Corzine ? the threat of criminal charges ? the former Goldman Sachs chief is not yet in the clear. A bankruptcy trustee on Wednesday joined customers? lawsuits against Mr. Corzine, and regulators are still considering civil enforcement actions, which could cost him millions of dollars or ban him from working on Wall Street.
Mr. Corzine, in a bid to rebuild his image and engage his passion for trading, is weighing whether to start a hedge fund, according to people with knowledge of his plans. He is currently trading with his family?s wealth.
If he is successful as a hedge fund manager, it would be the latest career comeback for a man who was ousted from both the top seat at Goldman Sachs and the New Jersey governor?s mansion.
A spokesman for Mr. Corzine declined to comment.
Even with the worst behind him, Mr. Corzine?s reputation has suffered lasting damage.
After the collapse of the firm, which left farmers and other MF Global customers out millions of dollars, Mr. Corzine became another face of Wall Street recklessness. Lawmakers called him back to Washington, a humbling return to the town where he once served as a Democratic senator from New Jersey, to seek answers and to criticize him. With a criminal case unlikely to materialize, the anger over the collapse of MF Global is likely to grow.
Typically in white-collar cases, investigators start their interviews with lower-level employees and build up to the top executives of a firm. In July, when federal authorities first approached Mr. Corzine?s lawyers, it was not clear whether he would agree to an interview. But the signs were good. In such cases, if prosecutors have damning information, they often file charges rather than extend an offer for a voluntary interview.
Though he is now expected to attend the meeting, questions remain about which government agencies will join. Because Mr. Corzine still faces scrutiny from regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, their attendance could pose a problem. These agencies, which have a lower bar to proving civil wrongdoing than do criminal authorities, are examining whether top executives misled investors about the firm?s health and failed to protect customer money.
The C.F.T.C, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States attorney?s office in Manhattan declined to comment for this article.
As the government?s focus shifts away from Mr. Corzine, it remains interested in a lower-level employee in the firm?s Chicago office, who was known as the ?keeper of the books? at MF Global. That employee, Edith O?Brien, oversaw the transfer of customer money during the firm?s final week, when the client cash vanished into the hands of banks, clearinghouses and even other customers.
Ms. O?Brien, an assistant treasurer, has declined to cooperate with authorities without receiving immunity from criminal prosecution. The government is hesitating to grant her request, suspecting that Ms. O?Brien is the highest-ranking employee with potential liability, one of the people involved in the case said. Ms. O?Brien has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
If Mr. Corzine agrees to a meeting next month with the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors, the authorities are expected to question him about his interactions with Ms. O?Brien. But Mr. Corzine is unlikely to offer damning evidence or a critical view of Ms. O?Brien, another person briefed on the matter said. The statements Mr. Corzine provides cannot be used against him under the expected terms of the interview, but authorities can use it to build their broader case. And if Mr. Corzine were to arouse suspicions during the interview, he could find himself a target.
Mr. Corzine has already given his version of events publicly. In Congressional testimony last year, he detailed an exchange he had with Ms. O?Brien days before the firm?s collapse. The back and forth involved a $175 million transfer to JPMorgan Chase to cover an overdrawn account. The transfer, it turned out, came from customer money.
But internal e-mails suggest that Mr. Corzine did not know the origin of the funds. An e-mail reviewed by The New York Times shows Ms. O?Brien explicitly stated that the money belonged to the firm, not customers. It is possible that with the books in disarray, Ms. O?Brien was not aware that customer money was in jeopardy.
A lawyer for Ms. O?Brien declined to comment.
While Mr. Corzine also testified that he never authorized or intended to authorize the misuse of customer money, his risky trading strategy helped pave the firm?s downfall.
Known as an obsessive trader who had the highest returns at the firm, Mr. Corzine frequently inhabited a desk on the trading floor. One visitor to MF Global recalled that during a tour of the firm?s Manhattan headquarters, his guide suggested that if he ?stuck around? he might catch the chief executive trading a few million dollars in bonds.
As the firm?s leader, Mr. Corzine was upbeat about its future, writing an e-mail to employees in January 2011: ?Let?s be an example of how to do it right and play a leadership role in restoring confidence in our industry.?
But a $6.3 billion wager on the European sovereign debt proved fatal. The size of the bet was enough to wipe out the firm many times over, and as questions about Europe?s health grew, a run on MF Global ensued. In the panic, the firm tapped customer money to stay afloat, which scuttled a last-minute deal to save the firm. Mr. Corzine resigned just days after the firm filed for bankruptcy.
I guess being a DEMOCRAT means you are above the LAW.
What was the point of Sarbanes Oxley?
Sarbanes?Oxley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D?MD) and Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R?OH-4), the co-sponsors of the Sarbanes?Oxley Act.
Accountancy
Key concepts
Accountant ?Accounting period ?Accrual ?Bookkeeping ?Cash and accrual basis ?Cash flow forecasting ?Chart of accounts ?Convergence ?Journal ?Special journals ?Constant item purchasing power accounting ?Cost of goods sold ?Credit terms ?Debits and credits ?Double-entry system ?Mark-to-market accounting ?FIFO and LIFO ?GAAP / IFRS ?Management Accounting Principles ?General ledger ?Goodwill ?Historical cost ?Matching principle ?Revenue recognition ?Trial balance
Fields of accounting
Cost ?Financial ?Forensic ?Fund ?Management ?Tax (U.S.)
Financial statements
Balance Sheet ?Cash flow statement ?Income statement ?Statement of retained earnings ?Notes ?Management discussion and analysis ?XBRL
Auditing
Auditor's report ?Control self-assessment ?Financial audit ?GAAS / ISA ?Internal audit ?Sarbanes?Oxley Act
Accounting qualifications
CIA ? CA ?CPA ? CCA ?CGA ?CMA ?CAT ?CIIA ?IIA ?CTP
v ?
t ?
e
The Sarbanes?Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 29, 2002), also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes?Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).
The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the SEC, led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes?Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure. The nonprofit arm of Financial Executives International (FEI), Financial Executives Research Foundation (FERF), completed extensive research studies to help support the foundations of the act.
The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The era of low standards and false profits is over; no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law."[1]
In response to the perception that stricter financial governance laws are needed, SOX-type laws have been subsequently enacted in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, India, South Africa, and Turkey.
Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Opponents of the bill claim it has reduced America's international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, saying SOX has introduced an overly complex regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets.[2] Proponents of the measure say that SOX has been a "godsend" for improving the confidence of fund managers and other investors with regard to the veracity of corporate financial statements.[3]
Really pisses me off, Skul.
Corzine and all the execs at MFG should be in jail, awaiting trial.
You can not, as a financial advisor, commingle funds. it is rule #1.
And now, word is, Corzine is looking to start his own hedge fund.
Corzine and all the execs at MFG should be in jail, awaiting trial.
You can not, as a financial advisor, commingle funds. it is rule #1.
And now, word is, Corzine is looking to start his own hedge fund.
If you are TOO BIG TO FAIL, then you need to be broken up.
No one institution or # of institutions should have that much power over the US economy / financial system.
FINRA rules are there to explicity state that client -firm funds are NEVER to be co-mingled.
NEVER.
In another case of lost funds, JP Morgan is being given preferred status over investors in reclaiming funds - the investors LOST THEIR ENTIRE ACCOUNTS - JP Morgan had loaned the brokerage money, using the investors' accounts as collateral.
Now, a judge has ruled that the bank has preferred status over the investors in reclaiming the funds!!!
Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!
No one institution or # of institutions should have that much power over the US economy / financial system.
FINRA rules are there to explicity state that client -firm funds are NEVER to be co-mingled.
NEVER.
In another case of lost funds, JP Morgan is being given preferred status over investors in reclaiming funds - the investors LOST THEIR ENTIRE ACCOUNTS - JP Morgan had loaned the brokerage money, using the investors' accounts as collateral.
Now, a judge has ruled that the bank has preferred status over the investors in reclaiming the funds!!!
Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!
