The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]

From the horse's mouth; this is the man who was the former Haitian President of the Senate.

He is alleging that Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation effectively "invaded" the nation and attempted to bribe him. When he refused the Clintons retaliated against him.

Gee, the Clinton Foundation is all transparent, all peace and light eh?  Not pieces, bribes, threats and scams?

Suuuuurreeeee it is.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Gee, an apology eh?

Authorities in western Colorado apologized to a family with several young children after officers smashed their way into a home, mistakenly thinking a large stash of drugs was inside.

Grand Junction police received a tip Wednesday that methamphetamine was inside a home in the neighboring town of Clifton. The informant provided an exact address and specific details about where officers could find the drugs.

Armed with a search warrant, sheriff's deputies and police officers knocked on the front door but no one answered. They plowed through the door and broke multiple windows to get into the home, only to find the innocent family. Two adults and five children between the ages of 3 and 12 live there.

"We got some pretty detailed information from this informant," police spokeswoman Heidi Davidson said. "The name we were given was associated with the address. It just wasn't current."

So here's what we know from what the cops said:

  • They "got information" from an "informant" that drugs were in the house.
  • They didn't bother to obtain any sort of independent verification of that information before seeking a warrant.
  • judge signed the warrant despite the lack of any independent verification (or the cops lied in seeking the warrant -- pick one.  We haven't seen the warrant application as of yet.)
  • The cops then violently breached the house, destroying property and violating the rights of the innocent people therein.

Warrants are supposed to be the check and balance that prevent this behavior.

Obviously, that didn't work.

It didn't work either because (1) the police sought a warrant without independent verification of the informant's claims and lied to the judge and claimed they had independent verification of their "informant's" claims when they did not or (2) the judge ignored both the law and common sense and signed a warrant knowing there was no independent verification of the informant's claims.

In either event these costumed individuals committed a facial felony against this family.  They broke into their home without any independent verification that any sort of criminal activity was going on inside, based only on the bald claim of an informant.

Probable cause requires more than a mere bald claim.  Without probable cause the warrant is a dead letter; legally, it is a blank piece of paper.  Lying to obtain a warrant is a crime and signing a warrant without actual probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment and thus implicates both 42 USC 1983 and 18 USC 242.

Without a valid warrant (and no, a mere signature does not make same valid) the acts of these persons were not the act of police officers in the lawful discharge of their duty they were the acts of violent felons.

Therefore, I ask: Where are the indictments?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Oh boy...

The Twittersphere now has up alleged documents pertaining to what appears to be a flat-out pay-for-play system.

If this is authentic then either:

1. There are a bunch of people headed to prison


2. The entire government of the United States, including but not limited to its judiciary and executive have just become willing parties to open violations of the law and, it appears, the literal sale of our government.

In the latter case I don't want to contemplate where that may lead -- it sure as hell isn't a place full of light, puffy clouds and daisies.

This is not limited to Hillary folks; it appears to implicate the entire DNC including, it appears, all the way up to Obama himself.

I cannot vet what's being passed around at the present time but this story definitely calls for very, very close attention in the coming days.  Stay tuned.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

So let me see if I get this right.

Wells Fargo put in place an extremely aggressive "cross-selling" requirement for their associates -- basically, to keep your job and advance you were required to sell customers new products, which means that as an associate you had to be openly pushy to the point of hostility in order to keep your job.

Employees found this, obviously, to not work so well.  You see, there's a point at which pestering customers who come into your bank to cash a check or similar in an attempt to sell them something else, whether it be a credit card account or some other financial product, get very tired of this crap and instead of transacting the business they intended they pull all their money out and close their accounts instead, going next door to the other bank (and there always is one.)

So to combat that problem these employees -- 5,300 of them -- committed open, outrageous and I might mention illegal acts.  They signed up customers for "new services and fees", in some cases transferring money into accounts they had never requested or opened.

Now let's think about this for a minute.  If you have money in some place and it is moved without consent that is both fraud and theft.  If you are charged money for something you never requested or ordered, and the funds are taken, that too is fraud and theft.

Wells says 5,300 people were fired for this.  However, Wells Fargo management was not prosecuted despite their policies being the reason the acts occurred, their willful lack of supervision being responsible for it going on for any length of time, their willful failure to check with customers on the their satisfaction with all these "new products" -- or their intentional concealment of knowledge that they were never ordered in the first place was the reason this went on for as long as it did and once again because Wells is a "big company" all we see is fines.

If I stole 1/100th of the money involved in this I'd be rotting in a prison cell right now -- and I should be.  This scam resulted in millions of unauthorized accounts being created -- not a few, not a few thousand, but millions.

Just in deposit accounts alone (which generate fees) 1.5 million such fake accounts were apparently created and funds moved into them.  This then often resulted in the original account generating overdraft fees and returned checks not because the customer actually overdrew the account but because the bank stole the damn money and thus generated a bounced-check or overdraft charge when they generated the overdraft by moving the customer's funds without their knowledge or consent!

This is black-letter bank fraud folks, and its a crime.

Since it is a financial crime, there were literally thousands of people involved in it and it was a systemic, intentional set of acts it facially appears to meet the definition of Racketeering.

Wells says it will pay "full restitution" to victims.  Horse****.  Bounced check charges and other adverse financial events such as this wreck your credit report.  That in turn results in higher costs for auto and homeowners insurance, it can result in you being turned down for a home loan or being offered higher rates of interest for any money you borrow and it can even cost you a job.

This didn't happen a few times folks, it appears it happened upwards of 2 million times between deposit and credit accounts, which means there are a real crap-ton of actual victims who were actually robbed and took actual damages.

$5 million in customer refunds?  That's a joke.

Go screw yourself, CFPB and -- I might add -- the rest of the so-called "regulators" and law enforcement in this country.  If you cannot be bothered to indict the executives and employees involved this sort of crap then you are nothing other than a band of criminal thugs who exist for the explicit purpose of protecting, using the force of arms, criminal behavior by those who steal from everyone in this nation -- just as you protect the drug companies and hospitals.

Maybe you can explain why it's illegal to rob a bank and you will go to prison for stealing as little as $1 from it but when the bank robs you two million times exactly nobody is indicted or locked up.

Good luck.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Oh, so the banks don't just bilk investors and rip off municipalities, they also help Mexican Gangs run drugs?

This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers -- including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.

The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years.

That's nice.  Guns and ammunition cost money - lots of it.  Getting that money requires some means of transporting it and "laundering" it.  For that, we turn to the largest financial institutions in the world, who, it turns out, have never been prosecuted for these felonious acts.

Wachovias blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations, says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.

Blatant disregard?  Sounds like something you'd say at a sentencing hearing, right?  Well, no....

No big U.S. bank -- Wells Fargo included -- has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.

No Capacity to Regulate

Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory.

Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets, says Jack Blum, a U.S. Senate investigator for 14 years and a consultant to international banks and brokerage firms on money laundering.

The theory is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for big banks, Blum says.

Theres no capacity to regulate or punish them because theyre too big to be threatened with failure, Blum says. They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until theyre caught.


Facilitating drug-running is just one small part of it.  There's also ripping off municipal governments, such as the Jefferson County sewer deal in Alabama.  There's bid-rigging in the GIC market.  And, of course, there's laundering money for violent Mexican drug cartels, who used that money to buy automatic weapons (no, not from America - from China, Venezuela and even from corrupt Mexican law enforcement officials!) with which they then shoot civilians and government officials who refuse to be corrupted.

Oh, and it's not just Wachovia accused in this story.  It's also Western Union and Bank of America.

Workers in more than 20 Western Union offices allowed the customers to use multiple names, pass fictitious identifications and smudge their fingerprints on documents, investigators say in court records.

In all the time we did undercover operations, we never once had a bribe turned down, says Holmes, citing court affidavits.

Very impressive.

To make their criminal enterprises work, the drug cartels of Mexico need to move billions of dollars across borders. Thats how they finance the purchase of drugs, planes, weapons and safe houses, Senator Gonzalez says.

They are multinational businesses, after all, says Gonzalez, as he slowly loads his revolver at his desk in his Mexico City office. And they cannot work without a bank.


And we have a banking system that, in the United States, has insulated itself from having to obey the law or be prosecuted for violating the law by threatening the government.

Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke in 2008, remember?  "Tanks in the streets, martial law"?

Dateline September 21, 2008

Gee, it's not enough to steal from ordinary Americans, it's not enough to rip off state and city governments, it's not enough to rig bids in the municipal bond markets, we must sit still while these institutions literally make possible funding criminal gangs that are committing murder.

There's a name for this folks.

Formally this sort of thing is supposed to be called "Operating A Continuing Criminal Enterprise", or "OCCE":

The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in significant criminal activity. These organizations often engage in multiple criminal activities and have extensive supporting networks. The terms Organized Crime and Criminal Enterprise are similar and often used synonymously. However, various federal criminal statutes specifically define the elements of an enterprise that need to be proven in order to convict individuals or groups of individuals under those statutes.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, or Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(4), defines an enterprise as "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity."

The Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute, or Title 21 of the United States Code, Section 848(c)(2), defines a criminal enterprise as any group of six or more people, where one of the six occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management with respect to the other five, and which generates substantial income or resources, and is engaged in a continuing series of violations of subchapters I and II of Chapter 13 of Title 21 of the United States Code.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.