Deutsche Bank AG received a temporary exemption that allows asset managers affiliated with a South Korean subsidiary to continue serving retirement plans even if employees at the subsidiary are convicted of stock market manipulation.
The DOL granted the nine-month prohibited transaction exemption because without it, retirement plans and individual retirement accounts with assets managed by qualified professional asset managers affiliated with Deutsche Securities Korea Co. (DSK) “may incur substantial costs in being forced to liquidate and reinvest their portfolios, and hire new investment managers on short notice,” the department said in a notice issued Sept. 3.
A conviction against DSK was expected on or about Sept. 3 in Seoul Central District Court, South Korea. The company would be held liable for the alleged spot- and futures-linked market price manipulation under Korea’s criminal vicarious liability provision, the DOL said when the exemption was proposed Aug. 21.
LONDON— Deutsche Bank AG is considering sweeping changes that could include scaling back or closing operations in some countries, as well as overhauling the bank’s executive ranks, according to people familiar with the matter.
The German lender’s 19-member supervisory board is discussing those options as part of a broader array of possible strategic shifts as they meet at an annual gathering in the Bavarian Alps today and into the weekend, the people said.
The outcome of the discussions will mark the first major moves by Deutsche Bank’s new chief executive, John Cryan, who is looking to cut costs, boost profitability and help the bank recover from a series of regulatory missteps. Executives have promised to deliver adetailed strategy update to the public by the end of October.
Federal student loans made in recent years resemble the toxic subprime mortgage loans that helped cause the Great Recession, new data show.
Rather than paying down their balances after leaving school, borrowers with recent federal student loans are experiencing an increase in debt as they fail to make enough payments to offset the accumulating interest on their loans.
The situation parallels subprime mortgages before the financial crisis, when lenders gave borrowers loans they couldn’t afford by allowing them to make payments that didn’t actually reduce their balances.
But while borrowers with toxic subprime loans largely defaulted and lost their homes as their lenders recorded losses, borrowers with federal student loans are likely to have their suffering drawn out for years thanks to a stagnant economy in which wages are barely rising, and existing law and Education Department practices that make it nearly impossible for struggling borrowers to discharge their debt in bankruptcy.
The Justice Department’s memo to its prosecutors suggests they make more effort to hold individuals at corporations accountable. That move may be a response to, as reported on Monday in The Wall Street Journal, a federal appeals court’s consideration whether judges can quash the agency’s corporate prosecution agreements if the judges think the deals are too lenient. David Dayen, in an OpEd in the Guardian last November, said the Justice Department has been using non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements more than ever to extract big fines and the promise of change without having to single out any particular executive for the wrongdoing. Of the DoJ’s 283 deferred prosecution agreements since 2000, half have come since 2010, according to a working paper quoted. Dayen quotes Lanny Breuer, former head of the DoJ’s criminal division under former Attorney General Eric Holder, admitting that deferred prosecution agreements have become a “mainstay of white-collar criminal law enforcement.” The agreements put the company on probation, with the promise of never committing a crime again, under threat of renewed prosecutions. That rarely happens even for the most chronic repeat offenders.
An added footnote: Remember, during Eric Holder’s 2013 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said:
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”
Which is why there were so many deferred prosecution agreements and record fines (which is tax writeoffs for the banks) with the banksters and DOJ and not criminal charges against the bank execs.
Don’t worry. I’m not buying the beans either…
Without forcing guilty companies to plead guilty, corrupt culture will keep churning out corrupt individuals
If you ask, corporate criminal defense attorneys will tell you — as they have told me — the one thing their corporate clients want to avoid when facing off against the federal government is an admission of wrongdoing — to have to plead guilty to the crimes they have committed.
Everything else is possible.
Pay huge fines? No problem.
Accept a monitor to report back to the government? Bring it on, especially if the company gets to approve the monitor.
Turn over executives responsible for the crimes? Under the bus they go.
But no guilty pleas for the corporate parent.
That’s why people who follow corporate crime prosecutions closely are taking the release of a memo from the Justice Department that will implement new policies to go after individual corporate executives with a grain of salt.
The banksters always thinking about themselves!!! Doing God’s work!
With Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sending a letter to Congress this evening demanding they raise the debt limit as soon as possible, warning that cash balances have dropped below the “minimum target,” it is perhaps less than surprising that Goldman Sachs is warning that a government shutdown at the end of the month has become much more likely over the last several weeks. While out-months in VIX (beyond the prospective shutdown) remain elevated, Goldman finds a silver-lining claiming that the effect of a potential shutdown on financial markets and the real economy would probably be modest if it did occur. We shall see…
As Goldman explains…
- While it is a close call, we still think it is slightly more likely that Congress will avoid a shutdown and pass spending legislation just before the current funding expires on September 30.
- More importantly, while the risk of a shutdown is real and the outcome of the political debate is hard to predict, the effect of a potential shutdown on financial markets and the real economy would probably be modest if it did occur. Unlike 2013, a shutdown in October would be unrelated to raising the debt limit, and it would probably also be shorter in duration. If so, it would probably have little effect on output or personal income, though it could dent confidence.