The letter to Eric Holder from Senators Brown (D) and Grassley (R) asking why the big banks appear to be “too big to jail” in the eyes of the DOJ.

Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, Sheila Bair, Mary Schapiro
The HSBC money laundering settlement is a classic example of this. The LIBOR scandal is probably another great example.

Regulators don’t want to rile the economy by enforcing the law and holding criminals accountable.

Got to keep everything calm. If we just act like nothing’s wrong then the public will go right along for the most part. We have to keep those animal spirits up at all cost.

In the long run of course this tack is suicide for any society.

(From The Office of Senator Sherrod Brown)

In an interview with Frontline, outgoing Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer defended the Department of Justice’s inability to prosecute large financial institutions by saying, “but in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.”

 

These statements raise important questions about the Justice Department’s prosecutorial philosophy. In order to explore the Justice Department’s treatment of potential criminal activity by large financial institutions, please answer the following questions and provide the following information:

 

1. Has the Justice Department designated certain institutions whose failure could jeopardize the stability of the financial markets and are thus, “too big to jail”? If so, please name them.

2. Has the Justice Department ever failed to bring a prosecution against an institution due to concern that their failure could jeopardize financial markets?

3. Are there any entities the Justice Department has entered into settlements with, in which the amount of the settlement reflected a concern that markets could be impacted by such a settlement? If so, for which entities?

4. Please provide the names of all outside experts consulted by the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions regarding financial institutions with over $1 billion in assets.

5. Please provide any compensation contracts for these individuals.

6. How did DOJ ensure that these experts provided unconflicted and unbiased advice to DOJ?

Click here for the entire letter.

21 comments
Curtis Owens
Curtis Owens

The banks were forced to do nothing more than take a lower percentage. They were making a huge profit before with very little risk. they then manipulated the system to hide who gets the risk.

Curtis Owens
Curtis Owens

Everyone in a home is not bad in and of itself. It is the method. there is statistical evidence that shows kids do better when they live in a stable home environment. The problem is that it also came along with the banks and National bank rigging the system to have much higher risk in things that looked as if they had no risk. It was a LIE to keep money going up. If that hadn't occured we would have seen risk levels rise in purchasing the debt that was meant to get interest if the debt was payed back. If it wasnt it would fall apart and the person who baught the debt would be out of luck. That risk NEEDS to be there, and it would have worked as it should have if it was left alone in its simple format. Paying off someones debt all at once and not knowing if they will be able to pay it off should not come risk free. It currently does. Those that pay it now are pretty much handed a golden ticket because right now, if those loans fail, the tax payers pay for it, not the person who took on the risk.

John Watts
John Watts

Eric Holder is not too big to jail.

Pete Petard
Pete Petard

HIDDEN AGENDA : In the last few days  ...OBAMA"A protege RAHM  (Mayor of CHICAGO)  decided to ATTACK Bank of AMERICA and other big BANKS ...saying they should WITHHOLD FINANCING FOR ANY WEAPON MANUFACTURERS that need a normal business loan.  NO destinction ... on even IF they are SOLE PRODUCERS OF MILITARY AND ESSENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ITEMS. Funny ...NOW ,,,ALL of a sudden ... PUT THE HEAT ON BANKS .. BY USING DOJ AS A PROXY AGENCY ..FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CURRENT ATTACKS ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND 4TH AMENDMENT ( Yep I SAID 4th also)  FEINSTEIN BILL IS ATTEMPTING TO GIVE ATF ....NO KNOCK ...NO WARRANT POWERS TO BUST IN A PERSON'S HOME TO LOOK ...FOR A RIFLE OR WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE. OMG

Ian Mackenzie
Ian Mackenzie

Holder should be sitting in GITMO awaiting trial someday

V. Scott Gaukel
V. Scott Gaukel

he's just trying to keep himself out of jail....idiots!

Jeffrey Baldwin
Jeffrey Baldwin

the dem part was the community reinvestment act. The repub part was repealing glass-steagall.

Jeffrey Baldwin
Jeffrey Baldwin

Ray - the whole thing was planned by the banks... Wake up

Ray Rochefort
Ray Rochefort

CHARLES, you forgot to name someone else on the finance committee, obama and reid, they financed fannie and freddie and forced banks to give loans to those they wouldn't, with the promise the fed would back those loans....then when it all crashed, now the banks are the bad guys....what a scam.

David Wilson
David Wilson

A BIG CRASH is COMING due to STUPIDITY!!

Charles Massey
Charles Massey

The housing started with Clinton, Barney Franks, and Feddie and Fanny

Dorotha Davis
Dorotha Davis

how much money is going into holders pocket ??

Niles Brush
Niles Brush

Why? Because many members of Congress, especially democrats would also share responsibility for encouraging and threatening banks to make the bad loans in the first place. Remember, democrats for a long time pushed for and passed legislation designed to put everyone in a home, whether they could afford it or not.