WikiLeaks Will Be Nothing Compared to FinCENLeaks

/13 Comments/in , , /by

According to Reuters, the Treasury Department is planning on expanding access to FinCEN reports — which include Suspicious Activity Reports from over 25,000 financial institutions — to the intelligence community, including CIA.

The Treasury document outlines a proposal to link the FinCEN database with a computer network used by U.S. defense and law enforcement agencies to share classified information called the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.

[snip]

More than 25,000 financial firms – including banks, securities dealers, casinos, and money and wire transfer agencies – routinely file “suspicious activity reports” to FinCEN. The requirements for filing are so strict that banks often over-report, so they cannot be accused of failing to disclose activity that later proves questionable. This over-reporting raises the possibility that the financial details of ordinary citizens could wind up in the hands of spy agencies.

There’s so much to say about this batshit crazy plan…

First, when I made fun of John Brennan’s confirmation vow, people assured me CIA doesn’t operate in the US. Maybe not. But now they have free access to all this data on Americans.

And remember that DOJ, as far back as 2002, argued it was legitimate to use FISA to collect information on crimes the government could use to coerce people into becoming informants. Imagine how much easier that will be with access to people’s bank irregularities.

Finally, think of the security nightmare here. While I doubt anyone is going to leak a whole database of FinCEN data to WikiLeaks (though how much fun would that be?!?!), I can imagine a lot of people might avail themselves of this access to profit off the financial information. Maybe that’s how CIA will fund their ops, instead of (or inaddition to?) drug running: profiting off sensitive financial information.

There’s a whole slew of reasons why this is a bad idea. Which is precisely why it is bound to be pushed through regardless.

James Clapper Sneaks Climate Change — But Not Bankster Speculation — Into His Threat Assessment

/3 Comments/in , , /by

You wouldn’t know it by looking at his written statement, which lists Cyber, Terrorism and Transnational Crime, Counterintelligence, and Counterspace before it lists Natural Resource Insecurity, but water and food insecurity was actually the first threat Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described in today’s Worldwide Threat Hearing.

That said, in his spoken statement, he didn’t utter the words “climate change.”

Though those words do appear in the written statement, as a subcategory of resource scarcity, as follows:

Food security has been aggravated partly because the world’s land masses are being affected by weather conditions outside of historical norms, including more frequent and extreme floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes, coastal high water, and heat waves. Rising temperature, for example, although enhanced in the Arctic, is not solely a high-latitude phenomenon. Recent scientific work shows that temperature anomalies during growing seasons and persistent droughts have hampered agricultural productivity and extended wildfire seasons. Persistent droughts during the past decade have also diminished flows in the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Niger, Amazon, and Mekong river basins.

Note: the head of our intelligence community seems to have missed that “persistent droughts” have not only diminished flows in the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Niger, Amazon, and Mekong river basins. Last year’s drought also diminished flows right here in the US, in the Missouri-Mississippi basin.

I guess somehow the US is exempt from climate change, intelligence folks?

I’m glad Clapper got climate change in his statement, I’m glad he put water and food scarcity at the front of his presentation (last year just water scarcity appeared in his written statement). But if we’re going to treat climate change merely as one underlying factor contributing to resource scarcity, perhaps we should also look at bankster speculation, which is increasingly recognized as a key driver of rising food costs. Food speculation, after all, is something we can do a great deal to fix, here in the US. But we have refused to do so, choosing instead to deal with the instability that results.

Ah well, baby steps, people. The Director of National Intelligence just implicitly said that climate change and resource scarcity is the most urgent problem facing us. I’ll take it.

Carl Levin Takes on Tax Cheats and Dark Money in Retirement Statement

/15 Comments/in , /by

[youtube]gLx2Xc1EXLg[/youtube]

Carl Levin, a pretty old but very healthy 78, but relatively young given MI’s very old Congressional delegation, announced his retirement today.

I don’t always agree with Levin. But he is one of the smartest, most effective (when he wants to be) Senators in the Senate. I will miss having him represent me in DC.

I expect Gary Peters will replace Levin.

I’m just as interested in how Levin will go out. Here’s most of his statement:

I have decided not to run for re-election in 2014.

This decision was extremely difficult because I love representing the people of Michigan in the U.S. Senate and fighting for the things that I believe are important to them.

As Barbara and I struggled with the question of whether I should run again, we focused on our belief that our country is at a crossroads that will determine our economic health and security for decades to come. We decided that I can best serve my state and nation by concentrating in the next two years on the challenging issues before us that I am in a position to help address; in other words, by doing my job without the distraction of campaigning for re-election.

Here are some of those issues. Years of bipartisan work by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that I chair have shed light on tax avoidance schemes that are a major drain on our treasury. The huge loss of corporate tax receipts caused by the shift of U.S. corporate tax revenue to offshore tax havens is but one example of the egregious tax loopholes that we must end. Thirty of our most profitable companies paid no taxes over a recent three year period although they had over $150 billion in profits.

Tax avoidance schemes that have no economic justification or purpose other than to avoid paying taxes may be legal but they should not be. These schemes add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. They lead to cuts in education, research, national security, law enforcement, infrastructure, food safety and other important investments in our nation. And they add to the tax burden of ordinary Americans who have to pick up the slack and accelerate the economic inequality in our country. I want to fight to bring an end to this unjustified drain on the Treasury.

Second, I want to ensure that the manufacturing renaissance that has led Michigan’s economic comeback continues. We’ve made progress in building the partnerships we need to help U.S. manufacturers succeed, but the next two years will be crucial to sustaining and building on that progress.

A third item I want to tackle is a growing blight on our political system that I believe I can help address: the use of secret money to fund political campaigns. Our tax laws are supposed to prevent secret contributions to tax exempt organizations for political purposes. My Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations needs to look into the failure of the IRS to enforce our tax laws and stem the flood of hundreds of millions of secret dollars flowing into our elections, eroding public confidence in our democracy.

Finally, the next two years will also be important in dealing with fiscal pressures on our military readiness. As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am determined to do all I can to address that issue. I also believe we need to pursue the rapid transfer of responsibility for Afghan security to the Afghans. And, as our troops come home, we must do a better job of caring for those who bear both the visible and invisible wounds of war.

These issues will have an enormous impact on the people of Michigan and the nation for years to come, and we need to confront them. I can think of no better way to spend the next two years than to devote all of my energy and attention to taking on these challenges.

Carl Levin has said his priorities in the next two years will include finding a way to tax the rich and prevent the rich from stealing our elections. Having made the decision he will not need those rich donors to fund his reelection, he will have significant flexibility to piss them off.

Levin has never been known to shy away from pissing people off in any case.

May Senator Levin go out in style, taking on those rich looters who are gutting our country.

 

Once Again, Lying to Courts to Protect Banks Goes Unpunished

/10 Comments/in , , /by

This story — about how Occupy Wall Street protestor Michael Premo beat an assaulting an officer charge when his lawyers found video evidence to disprove the NYPD’s claims — might make you believe in justice.

Except for this. Premo’s lawyers first went to the cops for video, knowing they had tons of officers deployed with cameras during the protests. They found the cop who had relevant video. And … he apparently lied in court about whether he had that video.

Prosecutors told them that police TARU units, who filmed virtually every moment of Occupy street protests, didn’t have any footage of the entire incident. But [Premo’s lawyer Meghan] Maurus knew from video evidence she had received while representing another defendant arrested that day that there was at least one TARU officer with relevant footage. Reviewing video shot by a citizen-journalist livestreamer during Premo’s arrest, she learned that a Democracy Nowcameraman was right in the middle of the fray, and when she tracked him down, he showed her a video that so perfectly suited her needs it brought a tear to her eye.

For one thing, the video prominently shows a TARU cop named Bosco, holding up his camera, which is on, and pointing at the action around the kettle. When Premo’s lawyers subpoenaed Bosco, they were told he was on a secret mission at “an undisclosed location,” and couldn’t respond to the subpoena. Judge Robert Mandelbaum didn’t accept that, and Bosco ultimately had to testify [Correction: Bosco didn’t take the stand; he had to appear at the District Attorney’s office for a meeting with Maurus and prosecutors. Judge Mandelbaum accepted that Bosco would likely say on the stand what he said in the meeting, and didn’t require him to testify.] Bosco claimed, straining credibility, that though the camera is clearly on and he can be seen in the video pointing it as though to frame a shot, he didn’t actually shoot any video that evening.

Bosco almost certainly lied. The NYPD clearly lied, repeatedly.

And yet there’s no hint they’ll be charged with obstructing justice.

While you’re reflecting on that, remember what the cops were doing (funded, in part, by JP Morgan Chase $4.6 million donation to the NYPD Foundation). They were making sure that a bunch of hippies could not continue to engage in a highly visible challenge to bank power, and certainly not in the banks’ turf around Wall Street.

Sure, OWS did not present as significant a financial threat as preventing banks from foreclosing on homes they did not hold the proper paperwork on — the threat that robosigners lied under oath to combat. But they did present an ideological threat to the banks.

And here we are, again finding people — cops! — lying in court to protect the banks. And here we are, once again, finding those liars go unpunished.

Lanny Breuer Enters the Free Agent Market

/14 Comments/in /by

Sheesh. Lanny Breuer sure seems to need — and be able to demand — frequent fellations from the press.

The latest version comes from an excerpted interview with the NYT. Much of it covers familiar ground, with Lanny asserting that, really, he shares the public outrage about the banksters, then suggesting it was the USA Attorneys, not him, who chose not to prosecute them.

Q. You agreed to go on “60 Minutes” and “Frontline” to discuss the lack of crisis cases. Why open yourself to such scrutiny?

A. People have been asking legitimate questions about what happened in the wake of the financial crisis, and they deserve answers. Someone had to go on television to explain the Justice Department’s point of view, and it was appropriate that, as head of the criminal division, I would do it.

Q. But federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere also played big roles in the crisis cases. Why you?

A. As you point out, the U.S. attorneys don’t report to me, but someone had to tell the public how hard prosecutors across the department have been investigating these cases. I was willing to talk about these issues, to continue to talk about them in the face of criticism, and I’m still willing to talk about them.

As with the earlier versions of this lame excuse, neither Lanny nor the interviewer mentions the larger task forces (like the foreclosure fraud one) where Lanny was a central player in not prosecuting banksters, nor do they mention Lanny’s past descriptions of talking to experts and CEOs before making decisions on not indicting banksters.

But the lame excuse also comes with a new twist.

Q. Given that you’ve taken a beating on crisis cases, what is your legacy here?

A. The criminal division is now at the center of criminal law enforcement, both in prosecutions and policy. I don’t think that was ever the case before.

The very next question — at least as excerpted — after reporting Lanny dodging any direct responsibility for not prosecuting banksters, Ben Protess records Lanny claiming credit for putting the Criminal Division solidly at the center of criminal law enforcement — or lack of enforcement, in the case of the banksters.

Not responsible. Responsible, In four lines or less.

The only news in this article, as far as I can see, is this exchange.

Q. What’s next?

A. I’m probably going to take a few months off. I’m also going to start talking to law firms and the like and make a decision about where I’m going to go.

Q. The interviews are just a formality, right? The legal world assumes you’re heading back to Covington & Burling.

A. I love Covington. But I’m going to look at Covington; I’ll look at other firms. It’s certainly not a formality.

The man who just finished 4 hard years of not prosecuting any banksters is going to shop around and perhaps may not return to his former spooked up, corporatist, but not necessarily the most bank focused firm.

Lanny’s gonna see how much helping banksters avoid prosecution is worth.

Free agency riches: It’s not just for sports figures anymore.

Obama’s Treasury Department: Our Sanctions Regime Is SEKRIT

/7 Comments/in /by

Screen shot 2013-02-20 at 12.48.34 PMTreasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controljust sent out its invite for a symposium helping the Financial Industry learn about how to comply with sanctions. The symposium will include the following:

The Financial Symposium will feature a Keynote Address by OFAC Director Adam Szubin and presentations by key OFAC personnel on topics such as:

  • Changes to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, NDAA and CISADA
  • Enforcement guidelines and enforcement actions
  • SDN List updates and information on the designation process
  • Securities and Insurance
  • Licensing procedures and guidance
  • Compliance with U.S. economic and trade sanctions

In addition to formal presentations, OFAC staff will be available throughout the day for individual questions and ad hoc roundtable discussion on issues unique to the financial industry.

It’s actually fairly important that the sanctions regime be well-publicized. Not only does it help ensure compliance from any entity that might be considered liable. But that’s what gives it legitimacy: not just the fact that sanctions and their rationale appear well thought out (if you believe Iranians should have no access to medical devices and dental equipment, that is), but also that sanctions are somewhat fairly applied (which they’re not).

Apparently, Obama’s Treasury Department doesn’t see it this way.

 The event is closed to press.

Lanny Breuer Now Blames 94 US Attorneys for Immunizing Banksters

/15 Comments/in , /by

Remarkably, on the same day two Senators (one of them named in the article) reminded Eric Holder that Lanny Breuer said this,

I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.

The WaPo managed to ask no direct questions about this quote–or some of the obviously spiked cases against big banks–in this sloppy fellation of Lanny Breuer.

Granted it does ask about the Frontline show itself (though, refreshing as it was, Frontline focused on just one aspect of the mortgage fraud that Lanny’s department ignored; it’s pretty clear WaPo’s Sari Horwitz doesn’t even begin to understand that, though).

In a “Frontline” program on PBS last week, Breuer and the Justice Department were harshly criticized for not bringing criminal prosecutions against any Wall Street executives in connection with the 2008 financial collapse.

Curiously, rather than admit he consults with regulators and experts before he charges banksters, rather than repeat his theory that all it takes to deter CEOs (as opposed to little people) is to chat them up,

Look, I want to be clear, I don’t want to suggest for a moment that we don’t–and we will–aggressively pursue cases criminally but, I guess both as a defense lawyer, which I was for many years, a white collar defense lawyer and now as AAG, I don’t think we should completely discount the deterrent effect when we investigate cases even if we don’t bring them.

If a CEO or CFO of a major institution feels that he or she is subject to criminal liability, when we interview them or put them in the grand jury, they have lawyers and this is hanging over their head for years and years. It may be at the end we decide not to prosecute the company or the individual but I think it’s really inaccurate to suggest that that doesn’t have a very strong effect. I’m not sure CEOs on Wall Street right now feel as if they can do what they want and there’s no deterrence.

Lanny instead adopted a new excuse to deny responsibility for letting the most destructive criminals in the country walk free (note, Lanny appears to be ignorant of SarBox regulations that wouldn’t even require this kind of intent):

“I understand why people are upset,” Breuer said. “But we have 94 U.S. attorneys and they don’t report to me. Not one of them determined that there was a criminal case to be had. These are very complicated cases and they were just simply, on the merits, not cases that could be brought criminally.”

Breuer said Wall Street executives would have been prosecuted if the investigators could have proved criminal intent. “I have the same DNA in all of these cases,” Breuer said. “It’s just not plausible that in one area we would be overly scared and in all the other areas we would be aggressive.”

Well okay then. In this article, Lanny takes or is given credit for the BP pleas, two Medicare cases, 40 corporate cases (by Robert Khuzami, almost all of which resulted in settlements), the La Cosa Nostra take down, and LIBOR “prosecutions” (reportedly DOJ will charge UBS shortly). Of those, I’m only aware of the BP investigation being led by a task force rather than a traditional US Attorney structure. Yet Lanny wants to claim credit for all these prosecutions and settlements, but blame his US Attorneys–all 94 US Attorneys (!) when we’re really talking maybe 4 or 5 who would face a complex bankster case, and really just New York’s Preet Bharara, whom Lanny himself gave jurisdiction over some of the highest profile cases–for not prosecuting the banksters.

It’s not Lanny’s fault the banksters have gone free, you see, it’s the fault of people like John Leonardo, Arizona’s US Attorney, Alicia Limtiaco, Guam’s US Attorney, or Felicia Adams, Northern Mississippi’s US Attorney, all of whom had no hint of jurisdiction in these cases.

This, in spite of the fact that Lanny has repeatedly admitted being personally involved in the bankster cases.

This, in spite of the fact that Lanny did play a leadership role in one of the few cases that had a similar task force structure as BP–the mortgage fraud settlement. In that case, Lanny under-resourced the investigative team, ensuring it would be unable to do adequate investigation to reach adequate settlement. And he didn’t even show up for the big announcement that–basically–the settlement was immunizing the banksters for stealing millions of people’s homes. Somehow, now that it’s time to claim credit, Lanny has forgotten about that willful attempt to help banks bury their crimes.

Lanny has, in the past, clearly admitted to actions that led directly to amnesty for banksters. But in his effort to shore up his reputation as he heads out the door (though not until March 1, unfortunately), he’s gonna blame everyone else for the fact that, on his watch, the most destructive criminals in the country got a pass.

Update: And he spewed the same line to NPR:

“This department has been incredibly aggressive in dealing with the issues of the financial crisis,” Breuer told NPR. “Aggressive U.S. attorneys have looked at this. But time and again the career prosecutors have come back on those cases, on those securitization cases, and said we don’t have a criminal case to be brought….My message to the American people is that this Justice Department calls it the way it sees it.”

Sherrod Brown and Chuck Grassley Watch Frontline, Too

/13 Comments/in , /by

Citing this line from Lanny Breuer in last week’s Frontline program,

I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.

Sherrod Brown and Chuck Grassley have sent a list of questions they want Eric Holder to answer by February 8.

The questions are:

  1. Has the Justice Department designated certain institutions whose failure could jeopardize the stability of the financial markets and are thus, “too big to jail”?  If so, please name them.
  2. Has the Justice Department ever failed to bring a prosecution against an institution due to concern that their failure could jeopardize financial markets?
  3. Are there any entities the Justice Department has entered into settlements with, in which the amount of the settlement reflected a concern that markets could be impacted by such a settlement?  If so, for which entities?
  4. Please provide the names of all outside experts consulted by the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions regarding financial institutions with over $1 billion in assets.
  5. Please provide any compensation contracts for these individuals.
  6. How did DOJ ensure that these experts provided unconflicted and unbiased advice to DOJ?

I’m interested in their focus on contractors. Has someone like Promontory Financial Group been making these decisions too?

In any case I await Holder’s non-responsive answer with bated breath.

Sheldon Adelson Should Have Saved His Cash

/9 Comments/in /by

When Mike Allen asked Sheldon Adelson in September why he had dumped so much money in what would be an unsuccessful attempt to help Republicans win in november, Adelson’s first reason was that he was being unfairly treated by DOJ.

Self-defense: Adelson said a second Obama term would bring government “vilification of people that were against him.” He thinks he would be at the top of that list and contends that he already has been targeted for his political activity.

Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. is being scrutinized by federal investigators looking into possible money-laundering in Vegas, and possible violation of bribery laws by the company’s ventures in China, including four casinos in the gambling mecca of Macau. (Amazingly, 90 percent of the corporation’s revenue is now from Asia, including properties in Macau and Singapore.)

The country’s leading megadonor is irritated by the leaks. “When I see what’s happening to me and this company, about accusations that are unfounded, that kind of behavior … has to stop,” he said.

Adelson gave the interview in part to signal that he intends to fight back in increasingly visible ways. Articles about the investigations appeared last month on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He maintains that after his family became heavily involved in the election, the government began leaking information about federal inquiries that involve old events, and with which the company has been cooperating.

The aim of the leaks, he argued, is “making me toxic so that they can make the argument to the Republicans, ‘This guy is toxic. Don’t do business with him. Don’t take his money.’ Not all government employees are leakers, but most of the leakers are government employees.”

Asked to response to Adelson’s comments, the Justice Department said it does not comment on, or confirm, investigations.

While Adelson blames DOJ for leaks, much of the outlines of his corrupt business doings came from public court filings.

One thrust of the investigation pertains to whether the fixer Adelson’s casino company used in China, Yang Saixin, had engaged in bribery. Another involves evidence that a Chinese-born Mexican businessman with ties to the Sinaloa cartel, Zhenli Ye Gon, laundered drug profits through the Venetian casino in Las Vegas (using HSBC). And while Adelson himself has not been implicated in those and other money laundering and bribery allegations, the breach of contract suit brought by his former Macau CEO, Steven Jacobs, alleges that Adelson was personally involves in orders that Jacobs extort Chinese officials and sustain a “prostitution strategy.”

And while there were hints just before the election that Adelson and his company would be treated just like every other MOTU–given a wrist slap–the WSJ yesterday described the signs of the inevitable settlement. There’s the hiring of former US officials to internally police money laundering (and, probably, to turn the Sands into an espionage asset).

Sands has recently hired three former FBI agents to strengthen anti-money-laundering efforts and improve the background checks the company does on VIP customers and junket operators, the people familiar with the matter said.

And there’s the promises to stop allowing customers to hide their identity.

The casino operator also will no longer allow gamblers to transfer funds from their bank accounts under an alias, according to a person familiar with the matter.

[snip]

Sands and other casino operators have allowed important clients to deposit money—on occasion millions of dollars at a time, in the case of Sands at least—in accounts in one country and use it in another for gambling, according to casinos executives and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The casinos say their systems are safe against money laundering.

But law enforcement authorities say they are concerned about the use of these types of transfers across international borders, particularly from junkets; without the more specific source-of-funds and other requirements that banks provide, those fund exchanges could carry a high risk of money laundering, they say.

As well as generalized compliance improvements.

In addition, the casino operator is retraining its staff on U.S. antibribery laws and on ways to avoid doing business with people and entities on the U.S. sanctions list, which includes alleged terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and other perceived threats with whom U.S. firms are banned from doing business, according to another one of the people.

This is, in short, precisely what we see every time the DOJ lets a big financial entity off of money laundering charges that small fry like check cashing store managers would get indicted and go to prison for.

So Adelson need not have spent those millions to try to defeat Obama. Obama’s DOJ was always unlikely to go after his company aggressively.

I could be wrong, but it appears as if Lanny Breuer is about to declare the Sands casinos systematically important and therefore too big to jail.

Day after Frontline Exposure, Lanny Breuer Resignation Reported

/35 Comments/in /by

Last night, Frontline had a very good show exposing how derelict DOJ has been in not prosecuting any of the banksters who ruined the economy. It could have been far, far worse, as it dealt solely with the securitization crimes that were ignored. Nevertheless, it showed Lanny Breuer to be an arrogant jerk who insisted DOJ couldn’t prosecute, in spite of the abundant evidence of crime presented in the show.

Nevertheless, DOJ spent part of the day threatening Frontline to never cooperate again.

And, presumably, part of the day planting this way-too complimentary piece in the WaPo announcing Breuer’s departure.

Golly, was it only last week I was calling for Breuer’s firing?