General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo our banks are over-regulated????
Doesn't seem to be true of one of our local banks, the customers of which were taken to the cleaners by the bank president ....
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/07/16/former-top-leader-waupaca-bank-faces-charges/87170300/
Overby was paid a total of $3,573,000 in salary and bonuses between 2010 and 2014, the OCC says. From 2010 to 2013, Overby proposed and voted on his own pay as a member of the bank's executive compensation committee, the OCC states. His salary alone in 2013 and 2014 was $700,000 a year. Overbay also is accused by the OCC of causing false entries in the bank's books and records.
In 2013, Overby hired his son-in-law as controller of the bank, making him the third-highest paid employee of the bank and Overby's future successor, even though his son-in-law had never worked at a bank or credit union as an officer or director. When the son-in-law and Overby's daughter moved back to Texas in 2014, Overby had the bank buy their house. His daughter continued to work remotely for the bank from Texas, receiving an annual salary of about $80,000, which later was reduced to $60,000.
In addition to salary and bonuses, Overby received other benefits, such as: a 100 percent match to the bank's 401(k) retirement plan; use of a new bank-owned vehicle every three years (including a Cadillac Escalade costing more than $86,000); two cellphones, three iPads and plans for the devices costing about $500 a month from 2010 through 2013; and a Waupaca Country Club membership. Overby used his bank-issued credit card to pay for part of a 2012 safari in Tanzania and charged expenses for trips and lodging in places such as New York, Disney World and Grand Cayman.
Seems a little more regulation would have served the banks customers better than our current laws.
My favorite part is that despite this fraud, the feds are still not seeking jail time.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)I'm not arguing that we need less banking regulation, not am I arguing for any leniency for this guy. However:
1. This is a case where existing regulations caught the guy.
2. The bank's customers likely weren't impacted by this at all, though the bank's shareholders certainly where. Had this been a member owned credit union, your argument that customers were ripped off would certainly be valid.
3. Not pursuing jail time here probably has a lot to do with who the victim was (in this case the bank). Banks protect their own, and I suspect that the board of the bank has told the feds "get our money back, but he doesn't need to go to jail".
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Your point # 3 is disturbing. The idea that the bank board could influence the feds to not pursue criminal charges runs counter to what should be a just justice system. The man made fraudulent entries in the bank's books, for crying out loud.
treestar
(82,383 posts)there has to be a statue to charge him under. Anyone could get that started. People misunderstand when they think they alone bring the charges. I recall my dumb cousin brought assault charges against her friend and was outraged at the legal system that she could not simply withdraw them when they made up. Didn't get the concept that the State actually prosecutes and might think they have the evidence to do so and they won't just drop them because the person who informed them of it originally thinks they can order the government to drop them.
This looks public enough that the state or feds could investigate. If they don't bother, they have bigger fish to fry or don't think there is a case against them or don't think they could get enough evidence.
ananda
(28,866 posts)I thought she and Clinton were getting together on this.
I guess I was wrong.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This is one case, the guy was caught - they don't get involved in every single case out there. They are talking about laws that could be passed.
Mosaic99
(1 post)The bank's customers were not impacted. If the allegations are true, it is the bank's shareholders who have a beef. You could be sued for libel and tortious interference with a business contract, be careful.