tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post8190981283172615084..comments2024-03-18T23:59:39.885-07:00Comments on Skeptical CPA: FBI Protects Fortune 500Independent Accountanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07800220849565219709noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-22566780253748118202009-08-25T04:50:39.612-07:002009-08-25T04:50:39.612-07:00can anyone tell me how many company she scammed? l...can anyone tell me how many company she scammed? let me answer it myself no one will ever know since some of them are involved in this fraud...another con artist lives in vegas and l'oreal has filed a fraud charges againt him..the name is desageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-69893085396977479122009-08-24T09:33:52.448-07:002009-08-24T09:33:52.448-07:00DOJ: another reason lawyers have such a bad rep.
...DOJ: another reason lawyers have such a bad rep.<br /><br />honest, competent atttorneys will point fingers at dishonest, or at least incompetent attorneys. who else will know the weaknesses of their pack? <br /><br />only problems is the rarity of an attorney being honest and competent... and not afraid to open his/her mouth because of sure retribution.<br /><br />i remember daddy sitting with judge welcome and a few other attorneys when another judge's name was mentioned. welcome and daddy looked at each other, then judge welcome turned to the speaker: he and i have differing opinions on almost everything. let's return to the matter we were previosuly discussing.Robynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836345873601125705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-30040632760993580812009-08-24T09:18:03.748-07:002009-08-24T09:18:03.748-07:00Steve:
I have "interacted" with county a...Steve:<br />I have "interacted" with county and DOJ prosecutors too. I stand on my remark. I'll say this for county DAs I've encountered, at least if one declines prosecution he will tell you why. The Feds say, "You don't know what you're talking about". Let me clarify something, "The most corrupt of the most corrupt" refers to DOJ prosecutors.Independent Accountanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800220849565219709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-66227673668240927502009-08-24T09:03:22.054-07:002009-08-24T09:03:22.054-07:00As a preface: I have professionally interacted wi...As a preface: I have professionally interacted with with state (DA,St.AG) and federal prosecutors (AUSAs), and find them to be the opposite of "the most corrupt of the most corrupt."<br /><br />Having said that, there is great discretion in what cases they pursue. Crimes that are easily explained, easily (or already) proved, and have sympathetic victims are those that get prosecuted.<br /><br />Complex, sophisticated and difficult-to-prove are not good words when it comes to deciding what to present to a grand jury, and what to spend months investigaing. As a citizen, that is disappointing, but it is true.<br /><br />"we do not ignore a case of fraud just because other actors may be committing larger crimes against the public"<br /><br />Not consciously, perhaps. But one cannot deny that there are limitations of prosecutorial resources, and that by spending 500 man-hours of time on one case, you have 500 fewer man-hours of time available to spend on the complex, difficult, systemic fraud investigations. Easier to go after 20 small insider-trading instances than investigate systemic market manipulation on the part of prime brokers - right?<br /><br />The link between this DWR case and the lack of Wall Street investigations is as simple as the case management sheets of the SDNY securities fraud and economic-crimes units - this case, like the Mark Cuban insider-trading matter, distract from the cases that actually matter. (I accept that every case has some deterrence effect)<br /><br />Perhaps prosecutors could focus more on the actual systemic impact of what they are doing. I'd rather them spend 10,000 hours on a single case investigating the front-running antics of prop desks of prime brokers, which might have market impacts of, say, $100 million per quarter, than to spend those hours investigating a number of allegations of $100,000 inside trading by 2nd year financial associates at IBs.<br /><br />Which has greater impact on market efficiencies? Which erodes retail confidence the most? Spend available resources there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05037715549911352465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-31750086854265906072009-08-23T10:26:24.840-07:002009-08-23T10:26:24.840-07:00Anonymous:
The DOJ has total discretion to or not ...Anonymous:<br />The DOJ has total discretion to or not to prosecute. For my money DOJ prosecutors are "the most corrupt of the most corrupt". That is a quote from my brother, now deceased, who was a NYC attorney. I've followed the SDNY's "antics" for decades. If I were a SDNY US attorney I would choose different cases. Maybe you see nothing sinister. I say 45 of these agents could have been doing something else. What is the Feds' message: "mess with the Fortune 500 and we'll get yah. The FBI, Secret Service, US Marshall's Office, IRS CID, DEA, Postal Inspection Service and anyone else available". As for prosecuting, DWR, I say fine, she meets my "Blankfein test" i.e., over $6.8 million was involved. What, the Feds should ignore all frauds under $6.8 million. Yes, in my opinion. With "limited resources" the Feds should go where the dollars are. "Level playing field"? Who are you kidding?Independent Accountanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800220849565219709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-36903000291243790442009-08-23T10:10:20.038-07:002009-08-23T10:10:20.038-07:00As a white-collar crime prosecutor, this is not su...As a white-collar crime prosecutor, this is not surprising. The number of agents is probably related to the serving of a search warrant. Multiple investigators are needed to seize and examine computers, examine and remove certain (but not necessarily all) documents, interview employees, etc. <br /><br />This does not mean 50 agents were working the case; only that a bunch of agencies sent personnel to assist on that particular day. Is 50 a bit on the high side? Yes, but that probably means only that multiple agencies were involved, and each had to send some people to "represent" their agency at the scene. A bit of overkill, perhaps, but nothing sinister.<br /><br />As for the choice of defendants, we do not ignore a case of fraud just because other actors may be committing larger crimes against the public. This was fraud, correct? If we are to have a level playing field, we must reduce the number of illegal actors. <br /><br />Finally, as to why the government does not pursue Goldman, Sachs, I do not know. I only write to suggest that the two issues are not really related.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2611021408437270881.post-2166334613736383622009-08-22T17:58:28.816-07:002009-08-22T17:58:28.816-07:00Amazingly silly pursuit of "justice"... ...Amazingly silly pursuit of "justice"... 50 agents... yikes.<br /><br />Combine this with Goldman siccing the authorities on the developer who "downloaded" their trading software prior to leaving and it makes you wonder who set priorities for "law enforcement".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com