The report claims:
The UK’s Financial Services Authority “hampered” an official investigation into money laundering allegations against banking giant HSBC and UK Chancellor George Osborne sought to influence the inquiry to prevent prosecution. US officials claimed that they were concerned it might cause a global financial disaster – but this is not believable.
Kindergarten level logic shows that between the two extreme positions – doing next to nothing (what happened) and closing the bank down – there were millions of alternatives which would give a measure of justice while protecting the legitimate financial system.
Despite its overwhelming criminality, HSBC had the gall to have New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer forced out of office after it reported three transactions totalling $10,000 in 2007. Spitzer had prosecuted many criminal banks. HSBC’s criminal Statement of Facts states :
….. HSBC Bank USA processed over 100 million wire transfers totaling over $300 trillion. Over two-thirds of these transactions involved customers in standard or medium risk countries. Therefore, in this four-year period alone, over $200 trillion in wire transfers were not reviewed ….
How and why did HSBC isolate 3 small transactions by a criminal bank opponent – when it had established a system which ignored 67 million others totalling over $200 trillion? The logical explanation is that there was some type of tip-off or trade-off.
HSBC’s 2012 settlement detailed how Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel and Colombia’s Norte del Valle cartel laundered $881m through HSBC and a Mexican unit, and how the bank violated US sanction laws by doing business with customers in Iran, Libya, Sudan, Burma and Cuba.
On a a side note: HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit to stop then NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer from looking at lending data in 2005. Spitzer subpoenaed the banks to obtained data about their then predatory mortgage lending practices to low-income borrowers.
Another predatory lending lawsuit…
In what the plaintiffs’ attorneys are calling a “first of its kind” decision, a federal jury in Brooklyn ruled this week that Emigrant Savings Bank and Emigrant Mortgage Company engaged in predatory lending by “aggressively marketing toxic mortgages to Black and Latino homeowners with poor credit” in the run-up to the housing crisis.
According to Legal Services NYC, which represented several aggrieved homeowners in the case, a federal jury found that Emigrant Bank violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and New York City Human Rights Law.
The decision is the first jury verdict finding a bank liable for targeting grossly unfavorable and predatory financial products to African-American and Hispanic communities, a practice known as reverse redlining, Legal Services NYC said in a release.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys also said that this is the “first case where a jury had the opportunity to hold a bank accountable for predatory practices that contributed to the financial crisis in 2008.”
According to Legal Services NYC, the jury awarded six plaintiffs a combined $950,000 in damages.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear arguments during its next term on whether the city of Miami can sue Bank of America and Wells Fargo for alleged predatory lending.
According to Reuters and ScotusBlog, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to the banks, meaning it will consider the city’s lawsuits against Bank of America and Wells Fargo during its next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2017.
The Supreme Court will not rule on the merits of the lawsuits, but rather whether the city of Miami is allowed to bring the lawsuits, which accuse the megabanks of engaging in long-term mortgage lending discrimination in the city.
A BORROWER TAKING OUT a $500 loan could still pay over 300 percent in annual interest, despite new rules designed to crack down on predatory small-dollar lending out Thursday from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The proposed consumer protections for payday loans, auto title loans, and high-cost installment loans focus on making the lenders document borrowers’ incomes and expenses to confirm that they have the ability to make their payments and still maintain basic living expenses. Payday lenders currently do minimal financial checks before issuing loans.
That could prevent deceptive practices. But actually enforcing underwriting standards is more difficult than enforcing specific product safety rules.
One more enforceable provision, limiting monthly payments on some loans to no more than 5 percent of a borrower’s paycheck, was considered by the CFPB but rejected.
A Supreme Court order this week forces the Obama Administration to make a decision: either save consumers tens of billions of dollars at the expense of debt collectors, car loan specialists, and student lenders, or defend those financial entities.
In a one-line order, the justices on Monday asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the legal representative for the federal government in Supreme Court matters, to file a brief in the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, “expressing the views of the United States.”
In Madden, a class-action case, borrowers argued that loans sold by a bank to a debt collector should be subject to the usury law in New York state, which limits the interest rate that can be charged. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appealsagreed, and Midland Funding appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal experts are following the case closely, since it could, after nearly 40 years, herald a return to prominence for state-based usury laws, a key safeguard against predatory lending.
“Does the White House stand for consumer protection, or will it support Wall Street when no one is looking?” asked Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University. Levitin, a pioneer of the argument that state usury laws apply to non-banks, believes the White House’s views will likely determine whether the Supreme Court takes the case.
A San Diego businessman will spend the next nine months in prison after being convicted for his role in a fraudulent mortgage loan modification business that presented itself as a “law firm” in order to con more than 1,000 struggling homeowners out of more than $3 million total.
According to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, Michael Nazarinia worked as the manager of a “predatory loan modification law firm,” which promised loan modifications in exchange for money but did not deliver on its promises.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office said that Nazarinia worked as the manager of “Haffar & Associates,” which was owned by figurehead attorney Mohamed Haffar, and recruited new customers using telemarketers who lied to clients in order to induce more than 1,000 people to sign up to pay more than $3.5 million in total.
According to the release, Nazarinia supervised Haffar & Associates “case managers,” who submitted loan modification applications and negotiated with the banks on behalf of clients.
A new state law may make it nearly impossible for victims of wrongful foreclosures to regain their homes.
If enacted, An Act Clearing Titles to Foreclosed Properties would drastically reduce the time that victims have to sue to get their property back. It would drop from 20 years down to one or three years, depending on when the foreclosure occurred.
The Massachusetts Alliance Against Predatory Lending — an organization that seeks to delay the law’s implementation — held a meeting at Tent City last week, where attendees shared stories and spoke out against the law. The new deadlines provide far too little time to ready oneself to sue, attendees said.
And once that timeframe is up, the law would essentially make erroneous foreclosures valid, said City Councilor Tito Jackson, who spoke with the Banner by phone.
“Improper procedure carried about by banks [would be] able to be made permanent without actually a court process that determines whether right or wrong has been done in these cases,” Jackson said.