You could not invent it:

"Libya was furious at Goldman over the nearly total loss of the $1.3 billion it invested in nine equity trades and one currency transaction, people involved in the matter said. A confrontation in Tripoli between a top fund executive and two Goldman officials left the bankers so rattled that Goldman arranged for a security guard to protect them before they left Libya the next day, people familiar with the matter claimed." (link)

God's work, baby.

(Love to see who wrote those options contracts....)

Bookmark and Share


"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like."(Edward Thurlow)

So much for the $63.8m hitherto thought to have accrued over 7 years to Galleon's investment savvy.

Pending appeal, Raj Rajaratnam did not beat a single charge of the 14 against him for insider trading. His prosecutor, the race-card trumping US Attorney Preet Bharara (how many Punjabi-born federal prosecutors were there to choose from?) said this post-verdict:

“The message today is clear — there are rules and there are laws, and they apply to everyone, no matter who you are or how much money you have.”

Those would be rules and laws unevenly 'applied' by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Last August Barclays paid $298 million to settle accusations brought by the DoJ that it proactively helped Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and everyone's favourite model citizen Myanmar transfer dollars hither and thither in contravention of United States sanctions. Erm, over a decade.

The DoJ examined the matter carefully and in due course concluded - like Barclays' senior managers who must have been shocked by the persistence of their underlings' law-breaking initiatives (when, of course, they found out) - that it was a perpetrator-less crime in terms of management responsibility.

But the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, choked on that:

"“Why isn’t the government getting tough with banks?...The public looks at this and says, you know, they’re getting a free ride here...You expect the court to rubber stamp, but we can’t [yet he did, Ed]...You agree there must have been some human being who violated U.S. laws?...Can I just share a thought with you?...You know what? If other banks saw that the government was being rough and tough with banks and requiring banking officials to stand before federal judges and enter pleas of guilty, that might be a powerful deterrent to this type of conduct." (NYT article)

What, one might ask, were the uses the monies that Barclays (and earlier fine-payers Lloyds, Credit Suisse and perhaps others) so enthusiastically shuffled for its sanction-busting clients put to?

Bookmark and Share
Related Posts with Thumbnails