By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Cross posed from New Economic Perspectives
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California is Benjamin Wagner.
Once the U.S. government built a case against J.P. Morgan and settlement talks began, the Justice Department made several threats that it would file its civil lawsuit, and each time J.P. Morgan responded by offering to talk more or increase the amount of money it might pay, the people familiar with the discussions said.
One critical moment came as the department set an internal deadline, Sept. 24, to file a suit against the bank.
The day before the deadline, the bank offered to pay $3 billion to settle a case tied to mortgage-backed securities—an offer the attorney general rejected. That same day, Ben Wagner, the U.S. attorney from Sacramento, Calif., flew to Washington with two large charts he meant to display at a news conference describing the bank’s alleged misconduct. A criminal and civil investigation into J.P. Morgan’s past sale of mortgages bonds had been handled by Mr. Wagner’s office.”
Note both aspects of the last paragraph. To ramp up the pressure on JPMorgan to settle, Wagner was prepared to file a civil suit against JPMorgan. Press leaks suggest that the suit focuses on Washington Mutual’s (WaMu) control frauds in sale of fraudulent originated mortgages to the secondary market through fraudulent “reps and warranties.” JPMorgan acquired WaMu. The same leaks claim that Wagner is pursuing that rarest of investigations under the Bush and Obama administration – a criminal investigation of the elite bankers who led the three most financially destructive epidemics of accounting “control fraud” in history – the twin loan origination fraud epidemics (appraisal and liar’s loans) and the epidemic of fraudulent sales to the secondary market.
Wagner’s, reported, unique pursuit of a criminal case against elite bankers led to “local boy makes good” praise in an October 25, 2013 article entitled “Sacramento’s chief federal prosecutor is the top investigator in JPMorgan Chase case”
When U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner was a line prosecutor in Sacramento, the Internal Revenue Service loved him.
The agency goes after financial crimes, but they are often complex, hard to prove and time-consuming. Thus, many prosecutors shy away from them as not cost effective, given that white-collar crooks routinely get comparatively light sentences.
But Wagner always welcomed IRS agents and their loads of Byzantine evidence with open arms.
“If we don’t do them, nobody will,” he said in an interview Friday. “We have the resources, sophisticated equipment, specially trained investigators, and national jurisdiction.
“You can’t look just at the prison time. I personally believe these kinds of cases offer more opportunity for deterrence than other areas, such as street crime,” he added. “Just on a personal level, big, white-collar crime is the most challenging, the most interesting, and the psychology of the defendants is fascinating. It’s very rewarding.”
This viewpoint was recognized after President Barack Obama appointed Wagner in 2009 as U.S. attorney in the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California and he began to have more and more contact with the top brass at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
His high standing there led to Wagner and his office taking on JPMorgan Chase & Co., the nation’s largest bank, over questionable mortgage securities it bundled and sold in the run-up to the financial crisis.
Word of a tentative $13 billion settlement between JPMorgan and various stakeholders leaked out a week ago, and the national press has waxed amazed that a prosecutor from Sacramento is spearheading the Obama administration’s move on the leviathan financial institution. Wagner was even called an ‘upstart’ in one article.
But, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder set up a working group “to bring more resources to bear on the role of the big banks in the mortgage crisis,” Wagner was chosen as a member. The group is headed by Tony West, a Holder confidant and the third-ranking official in the department.
It became obvious last year, Wagner said, that “there weren’t enough attorneys in Washington and New York” qualified to investigate the labyrinthian business of the banks, and some U.S. attorneys who head larger offices were recruited for the task.
“I kinda put my hand up to take the JPMorgan case,” Wagner said. “They (Justice Department officials) have a lot of confidence in this office, so it was natural we would be asked to step up.”
On Sept. 23, Wagner flew to Washington prepared to announce the next day a multibillion-dollar civil suit against the bank. He and his two assistants had amassed what they saw as nationwide evidence of fraudulent activity in the packaging of home loans as securities by JPMorgan in the pre-crisis era.”
I will note three puzzling aspects to this story as preliminaries. Why did JPMorgan (or WaMu) engage in “nationwide … fraudulent activity” in its sales to the secondary market? An honest bank does not have to make fraudulent reps and warranties to sell its loans. The officers controlling a bank engaged in accounting control fraud, however, fraudulently originate hundreds of thousands of bad, often fraudulent, mortgage loans because doing so optimizes the fraud “recipe” for a lender. Given that I am writing about JPMorgan, I will quote a JPMorgan official making the point. As Jamie Dimon explained in his March 30, 2012 letter to JPMorgan’s shareholders:
Low-quality revenue is easy to produce, particularly in financial services. Poorly underwritten loans represent income today and losses tomorrow.
Of course, the “income today” is fictional because the bank has, fraudulent, failed to establish loss reserves for the losses that are inevitable “tomorrow.” Again, the key is the point made by George Akerlof and Paul Romer in their 1993 article (“Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit”) – the fraud recipe for a lender produces three “sure things.” The lender – even without sales to the secondary market – is sure to report record (albeit fictional) earnings in the near-term, the controlling officers are sure to be made promptly wealthy, and lender will suffer severe losses.
Note that selling the bad loans to the secondary market does not avoid this last “sure thing” because fraudulent originated bad loans can only be sold through fraudulent reps and warranties. (There is no fraud exorcist – fraudulent originated fraudulent loans remain fraudulent throughout any chain of sale.) Indeed, Fannie and Freddie’s suits (which DOJ hijacked to claim some of the credit) have made that very point in the context of JPMorgan and over 15 other massive banks. WaMu and Bear Stearns (which JPMorgan also acquired) and JPMorgan all originated enormous numbers of endemically fraudulent liar’s loans and WaMu was infamous for inflating appraisals. It was inevitable that if they sold such fraudulently originated mortgages to the secondary market, and they did in enormous amounts, that the sales would have to be made through fraudulent reps and warranties. If the leaks are accurate, then the FBI and Wagner’s investigation has confirmed this fact.
But note that the DOJ’s vaunted “task force” only investigates secondary market sales of residential mortgages. So Wagner, according to these reports, only looked at one of the three fraud epidemics and ignored the twin loan origination fraud epidemics. This is a bizarre means of (dis)organizing an investigation because the two types of fraud by lenders (origination and sale) are inextricably linked and the witnesses and documents needed to understand the fraud schemes overlap. Ignoring the loan origination fraud could lead jurors to ask the question I posed above – why would the lenders sell loans the DOJ is treating as honest through fraudulent reps and warranties?
Recall that the DOJ leadership and President Obama routinely downplay “fraud” as a cause of the financial crisis, yet the DOJ’s insipid investigations have confirmed “nationwide” fraud by the world’s largest banks. The DOJ, however, refuses to prosecute anyone to date and refuses to even bring civil fraud cases against the twin epidemics of loan origination fraud.
How can this be? Wagner exemplifies the answer to the FBI’s and the DOJ’s most profound failure. Because criminal referrals by the regulatory agencies virtually ceased against elite bankers in this crisis as the anti-regulatory agency heads destroyed the essential agency criminal referral process, the FBI and the DOJ were systematically shorn of vital industry expertise. The FBI’s white-collar section suffered grievously in response to the 9/11 attacks because the FBI’s leaders transferred hundreds of agents that the leaders viewed as being the best investigators with the best financial investigative skills. The FBI was so desperate for industry expertise that it formed a “partnership” with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) in 2007. The MBA foisted a preposterous “definition” of “mortgage fraud” on the FBI and DOJ under which control fraud is defined out of existence and the senior bank leaders are always honest and faithful in their lending. Thus began the myth of the “Virgin crisis” – conceived without sin in the “C-suites.”
I have long urged reporters to ask the regulators how many criminal referrals they made during this crisis. David Heath, an investigative reporter at the Huffington Post was the first to do so, over three years ago. The answers he received (“no referrals”) were chilling, but they began to explain DOJ’s humiliating failure to prosecute any of the Wall Street elites whose frauds drove the crisis.
Heath did the Nation a great service by reporting the death (not dearth) of criminal referrals by regulators. Heath added to that service by asking the U.S. Attorney for one of epicenters of the accounting control fraud epidemics that drove the crisis to respond to my criticism of DOJ’s failure to prosecute. The U.S. Attorney responded that accounting control fraud was fictional because it required irrational actions.
Benjamin Wagner, a U.S. Attorney who is actively prosecuting mortgage fraud cases in Sacramento, Calif., points out that banks lose money when a loan turns out to be fraudulent. “It doesn’t make any sense to me that they would be deliberately defrauding themselves,” Wagner said.
I was appalled by Wagner’s comment, but delighted to have the claim made publicly, expressly rather than implicitly, and in such stark, unqualified terms. I wrote him privately to explain accounting control fraud and its decisive role in driving prior crises and the current crisis and to provide citations so he could review the relevant economics, criminology, and regulatory literature. I gently explained the obvious logical error embedded in his word usage. “They” refers to the CEO. “Themselves” refers to the bank. “They” are not “defrauding themselves.” The lender’s CEO makes far more money, and obtains a “sure thing” of being made promptly wealthy by causing the lender to make “fraudulent” loans that cause the bank to “lose money.” I, of course, received no reply.
Wagner thinks the motivation of elite white-collar criminals is mysterious: “the psychology of the defendants is fascinating.” The psychology of elite financial frauds can be “fascinating” in the sense of how twisted sociopaths are, but the more typical financial fraud’s motivations are boringly banal – they know that while it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain vast wealth in Tyler Cowen’s fantasy of a “hyper-meritocracy” it is simple to do so through the “sure thing” of accounting control fraud.
If I were JPMorgan’s criminal defense counsel the first witness I would call to testify would be Wagner. I would have him explain to a jury why loan origination fraud “doesn’t make any sense” for elite bankers and then explain how “reps and warranties” work and why “banks lose money when a loan [sale] turns out to be fraudulent.” That should blow up Wagner’s case in record time.
Can we have some Mythbuster programme that is on say psychology and more “soft” stuff than the physics one?
The very first program (with repeats every other week) should be “there’s no such thing as organization, there are only people”.
Sentence “it does not make sense for the bank…” is irrelevant. It’s the same (well, actually worse) than to say “it doesn’t make sense for the moon to ..”. Bank does nothing.
Bank acts only though (and only because) of its officers and employees, and affects its shareholders/suppliers/customers. It is a _social contract_ (as is any organization). It does not exist in vacuum, in fact w/o the above it doesn’t exists at all. Hence asking whether something makes/doesn’t make sense for “the bank” is an entirely irrelevant question. A relevant question is “does it make sense for any party to that social contract”?
And it clearly does, since it happened.
If I was bent on corporate world domination, one of the first things I’d push for very hard is a personification of organizations, thus putting a layer of opacity (and loss of responsibility) in.
“If I was bent on corporate world domination, one of the first things I’d push for very hard is a personification of organizations, thus putting a layer of opacity (and loss of responsibility) in.”
Wow. Whaddya know? Those dang corporations beat you to it!
“… thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted so-called “rights” that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has:
– prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow’s, 1978)
– struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, 1996), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.
– prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee, 1933)
– struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action through what, theoretically, is the purest form of democracy. (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti).
The notorious 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is just one in a long series of Supreme Court cases that entrenched “corporate personhood” in law.”
Legally, corporations have a unique status which enables them to win in almost any conflict with the public. This is why I have predicted, for over two decades, that neo-feudalism is our future and one we ought to prepare for.
Corporations are virtual life-forms but they are not in any way shape of form “persons” they are monsters whose intentions are to eat us all.
Thanks Carla, for the link. This is as important an issue as any. It provides context for the TPP and TTIP.
I share Vlade’s frustration with how language is used to obscure and deceive. Specifically, how “our” legal system uses language to prioritize existence, from “illegal” aliens to super-citizenship of corporate “persons”. How corporate “personHOODLUMS” can make your rights and mine all but irrelevant.
As for the neo-“left” vision of preparing for neo-feudalism, one can argue that corporations are neo-feudal arrangements.
Vlade-true, but as Shaxton shows in “Treasure Islands”,
“Published to rave reviews on both sides of the Atlantic, Treasure Islands is an expose of how the corporate world uses tax havens to shirk paying its share of taxes. This costs the United States alone 100 billion dollars in lost revenue each year. While the United States experiences a recession and European countries face bankruptcy, Nicholas Shaxson, a former correspondent for the Financial Times and The Economist, argues that the problem can be traced back to the pervasive practice of offshoring financing in order to minimize taxable revenue. Journeying from Moscow to London to Switzerland to Delaware, he dives deep into a vast and secret playground where bankers and multinational corporations operate side by side with nefarious tax evaders, organized criminals, and the world’s wealthiest citizens. This is a fast-paced narrative that at last explains how bankers, traders, and other financial wizards are using the system to deepen our economic divide.”
…you are missing Shaxton’s dissertation on “LLC’s”…”Limited Liability Corporations”…invented by Wall Street who bought state legislation to avoid individual accountability.
It is quite simply impossible to believe that Benjamin Wagner, or any minimally competent attorney, could be so breathtakingly naive as to entirely discount self-serving motives of individuals within a corporation. Occam’s razor tells us that Wagner was selected to handle the fix. His failure to answer Bill Black is stark evidence that his “ignorance” is about as plausible as Obama’s serial ineptitute.
Agree. I looks like Wagner was put in place to sabotage the whole investigation and trial. The tactic appears to be that they will not acknowledge origination fraud because that is clear evidence of intent to defraud and explains, instead of confuses, the reason “why would the banks defraud themselves?” This then leads to some manufactured conclusion that they were just sloppy. Sloppy like a fox. So if intent is not looked at via the originations, it will never be established and without intent there is no criminal fraud. Plus if they took an honest prosecutor’s look at originations they would also have to look at MERS which is a very mysterious organization and probably full of absolutely nefarious deals, all kept under wraps.
The only remotely exculpatory circumstance I can imagine for this relentless, ongoing miscarriage is fear of total systemic collapse, but for whatwver reason, it’s clear the Obama regime is aiding and abetting blatant crime.
Agreed. One has to wonder why this clown (Wagner) has a job. How could you possible call yourself a prosecutor and be that fuc*#ng clueless in terms of human nature. Logic would suggest that he’s more a tool than a clueless fool. Likely just padding his resume for the next gig with a few zeros added to the paycheck.
Inescapable logic = inevitable conclusion: the Ministry of Justice and its boss are owned by the Wall Street-“Fed” crime syndicate. It’s time for the public to face the reality staring at them. The Obama regime is dirty, and the rule of law and democracy are effectively suspended or revoked.
of course, we live in a corporacy, a place to plunder, cheat and suspend rule of law, accounting etc…..
Blah, blah, blah. When is Jamie Dimon going to the Big House???
Bill, can you explain the steps leading up to a civil or criminal case going to court? You have often said/written that “referrals” were not made (unlike the S&L crisis). What
specifically is a referral? Who is suppose to “bring it”?
What’s kept them from being brought (inadequate $ resources,
smart, knowledgeable,savvy staff, political cowards)? I can’t help but think if this were widely and vividly understood by the population there would be more pressure on
Congress and the Administration.
Sheila Bair’s book, “Bull By The Horns” answers your questions-from a true insider point of view:
“Sheila Bair is widely acknowledged in government circles and the media as one of the first people to identify and accurately assess the subprime crisis. Appointed by George W. Bush as the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 2006, she witnessed the origins of the financial crisis and in 2008 became—along with Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner—one of the key players trying to repair the damage to our economy. Bull by the Horns is her remarkable and refreshingly honest account of that contentious time and the struggle for reform that followed and continues to this day.
A level-headed, pragmatic figure with a clear focus on serving the public good, Bair was often one of the few women in the room during heated discussions about the economy. Despite her years of experience and her determination to rein in the private banks and Wall Street, she frequently found herself at odds with Geithner. She is withering in her assessment of some of Wall Street’s finest, and her narrative of Citibank’s attempted takeover of Wachovia is a stinging indictment of how regulators and the banks worked against the public interest at times to serve their own needs.
Bair is steadfast in her belief that the American public needs to fully understand the crisis in order to bring it to an end. Critical of the bank bailouts and the Can. $29.99 lax regulation that led to the economic crash, she provides a sober analysis as well as a practical plan for how we should move forward. She helps clear away the myths and half-truths about how we ran our economic engine into the ditch and tells us how we can help get our financial and regulatory systems back on track.
As The New Yorker said, “Bair has consistently stood out for her skepticism of Wall Street and for her eagerness to confront the big banks. A Kansas Republican, she has become an unlikely hero to economic liberals, who see her as the counterweight to the more Wall Street–centric view often ascribed to Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary”
Sheila has some interesting ideas if I remember her Washington Post article on solving our problems with funding individuals rather than banks.
Fix Income Inequality with $10 Million Loans for Everyone!
Wagner knows more than he lets on about banksta mentality. Father longtime Morgan vice chairman, Rod Wagner.
Federal attorney Wagner knows more about banksta mentality than he lets on. He’s son of long time Morgan hefe, vice chair Rod Wagner.