Bank of America admits fraud in US antitrust case
WASHINGTON — US banking giant Bank of America has admitted it committed fraud in the municipal bond derivatives market and will pay 137.3 million dollars in damages, the government said Tuesday.
"Bank of America entities have agreed to pay a total of 137.3 million dollars in restitution to federal and state agencies for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids in the municipal bond derivatives market," the Department of Justice said in a statement.
Bank of America entered into agreements with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and 20 state attorneys general, the department said.
The combined outcome provides for payment of restitution to the IRS and to municipalities harmed by the bank's anti-competitive conduct in the muni-bond derivatives market.
Bank of America employees engaged in illegal conduct, including bid rigging, in connection with the marketing and sale of tax-exempt municipal bond derivatives contracts, the department said.
The department also said the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank, the biggest US bank by assets, had entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve Board "to address certain remedial measures."
The bank's board of directors is to submit a written plan within 90 days to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in Virginia aimed at strengthening the board's oversight of the bank in competitively bid transactions, according to a document posted on the Fed's website.
Dec 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Reader Comments (8)
So aggravating . . .
"The bank's board of directors is to submit a written plan within 90 days to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in Virginia aimed at strengthening the board's oversight of the bank in competitively bid transactions, according to a document posted on the Fed's website."
So the bank's board is going to determine how it can strengthen it's own oversight - of their own bank - and they will give that plan to the Fed. Are you F@#$ing kidding me? Where was their 'oversight' to begin with? They sure as hell aren't going to put together any meaningful oversight now, much less "strengthen" anything. Remember, they had zero oversight to begin with. Let's do some simple math . . . Zero, multiplied by anything, is still Zero! Pure hogwash.
http://banking.senate.gov/00_02hrg/022900/paulson.htm
That's when Judge Jed Rakoff lost it. He blasted the S.E.C. for its complicity in BAC's fraud, and set an order for trial. He dropped footnotes implying that fuckhead Lewis should augment his witness list with names like Paulson and Bernanke. In the end, however, the BAC-S.E.C. relationship was the stuff of Usher's House. Mary Schapiro just slurped down more BAC baby batter--but made sure Kenny wrote a bigger check for ma and pa to see.
Rakoff gave up at this perversion of the adversarial process, and dismissed the case in disgust.
Justice, however, doesn't sleep. The bankers fuck with the courts at their peril. The next venue won't be so friendly.
Thanks for the link, that was some read. I noticed it was written back in 2000 by . . . Hank Paulson.
When I read his name my head nearly exploded.