Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:38 AM Jul 2016

So 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/

The OCC alleges that during that four-year period, Overby — a major Waupaca Bancorporation Inc. stockholder who influenced many decisions at First National Bank — tallied $1,620,514 in bank-paid personal expenses. That was in addition to legitimate business expenses, the OCC says.

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.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So our banks are over-regulated???? (Original Post) Scuba Jul 2016 OP
A couple of points metalbot Jul 2016 #1
You're correct regarding your point # 2. It should read "shareholders." Scuba Jul 2016 #3
Jail time would mean treestar Jul 2016 #5
What does Elizabeth Warren think about all this? ananda Jul 2016 #2
What does that refer to? treestar Jul 2016 #6
You are wrong Mosaic99 Jul 2016 #4
Not hardly, at least for that post. Shrike47 Jul 2016 #7

metalbot

(1,058 posts)
1. A couple of points
Sat Jul 23, 2016, 06:39 AM
Jul 2016

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)
3. You're correct regarding your point # 2. It should read "shareholders."
Sat Jul 23, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jul 2016

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)
5. Jail time would mean
Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:38 AM
Jul 2016

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)
2. What does Elizabeth Warren think about all this?
Sat Jul 23, 2016, 06:43 AM
Jul 2016

I thought she and Clinton were getting together on this.

I guess I was wrong.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
6. What does that refer to?
Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jul 2016

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)
4. You are wrong
Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:31 AM
Jul 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So our banks are over-reg...