Daily Archives: February 19, 2013


Financial Supervisory Authority in Iceland has finished investigating the fallen banks

The Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) in Iceland has finished 205 cases related to the fallen banks since 2009. The FSA says that they have finished investigating financial crimes related to the fallen banks. This was reported at a press conference today at the FSA. A total of 103 cases are still being investigated or awaiting prosecution at the National Commissioner’s office for financial crimes.

A total of 66 cases related to the run-up of the financial collapse have been sent to National Commissioner’s office for financial crimes, or to the Special Prosecutor, for prosecution. A total of 37 cases related to violation of general criminal laws have been sent to the Special Prosecutor. This is a total of 103 cases.


  Number of cases
Sent to Special Prosecutor for prosecution 66
Sent to Special Prosecutor for further investigation 37
Administrative fine 4
Cases closed without further action 98
Cases in total 205


Many cases can involve different offences and the number of offences is a lot higher than the number of cases. Most of the offences are related to fraud and market manipulation, but there are also offences related to insider trading, high risk commitments and other offences.

Itemized list of offences  
Market manipulation 18
Insider trading 22
Fraud 47
Large risks 6
Pension funds mandatory insurance 6
Other offences related to financial firms 9
Other offences related to securities trading 3
Related to securities funds 3
Related to insurance companies 2


Proposed Foreclosure Law Designed to Accelerate the Foreclosure Process

Proposed Foreclosure Law Designed to Accelerate the Foreclosure Process

Earlier this month, the House Civil Justice Subcommittee approved a bill designed to accelerate the foreclosure process in Florida. Republican, Kathleen Passidomo, sponsor of HB 87, frames the bill as a way to speed up the foreclosure process while ensuring due process. But, lenders and borrowers alike are fearful of some of the Bill’s provisions.

The current Bill, which is a revision of a bill that died last year in the Senate, provides liability for entities that wrongfully claim to be holders of or entitled to enforce lost notes. Thus, the Bill might provide an incentive for the “foreclosure mills” to have their paperwork in order before filing suit. However, this penalty of perjury is not a new concept to the judicial system. The problem has not been whether there is a penalty for perjury, but rather whether a judge will deem evidence to be fraudulent. Discovery requests that attempt to uncover facts and evidence related to the validity of a lender’s evidence are almost always objected to on grounds of relevance. And these objections are rarely overruled when challenged in court. The borrower’s only hope is that the evidence (usually related to transfer of a loan) is defective on its face. In which case, the evidence is usually just disregarded as flawed–rather than deemed fraudulent.

The Bill would also require homeowners to show cause as to why a foreclosure judgment should not be entered when the lender appears to have its paperwork in order. This is problematic because some court systems have a knack for disregarding the rules of civil procedure in an attempt to read between the lines and judge a case before the issues have been fully developed. Some fear that allowing judges more discretion, at the expense of bright line rules of procedure, might lead to more wrongful foreclosures.