> In 2014, the DoJ asked Citigroup (C.N) to pay $12 billion to resolve an investigation into the sale of shoddy mortgage-backed securities, sources said. The fine eventually came in at $7 billion.
> In a similar case, rival Goldman Sachs (GS.N) agreed in April to pay $5.06 billion to settle claims that it misled mortgage bond investors during the financial crisis.
What pisses me off is how can a bank pay $5-$7 billion in fines, and yet not even have to admit that anyone was guilty? No individual responsibility whatsoever, not even from the CEO.
If they pay $7 billion in fines, which is a lot, but they make $70 billion from that fraud in profit over a period of years, is there really any incentive to make them stop doing things like that in the future?
Read the court notices some time. A few years ago, BofA sent me a notice saying they were settling all kinds of accusations of fraud for some billions of dollars, but noted that the voluntary settlement was in no way an admission of having committed any of the violations enumerated.
Banking entities that admit guilt risk having all sorts of government business pulled or other limitations placed on them. The Feds are protecting their own interests to a great extent. I think it's still the case that you can't even trade in US treasuries as a primary dealer if you get slapped with a major conviction.
> In a similar case, rival Goldman Sachs (GS.N) agreed in April to pay $5.06 billion to settle claims that it misled mortgage bond investors during the financial crisis.
What pisses me off is how can a bank pay $5-$7 billion in fines, and yet not even have to admit that anyone was guilty? No individual responsibility whatsoever, not even from the CEO.
If they pay $7 billion in fines, which is a lot, but they make $70 billion from that fraud in profit over a period of years, is there really any incentive to make them stop doing things like that in the future?