Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNBC analyst: Fed on the hook for trillions, essentially a pledge to cover up ALL illegal bad debt

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 09:51 AM
Original message
CNBC analyst: Fed on the hook for trillions, essentially a pledge to cover up ALL illegal bad debt
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 09:53 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Of course he did not put it in those words, but he said the markets are looking up long term because the government has essentially agreed to not only make the top banks in the nation whole for trillions in as-yet unreported bad debt, but help them finance the consolidation (buying up) of their equally criminal but smaller rivals.

He said that $700 billion was "just the tip of the iceberg" but that "thankfully it's irrelevant now because those institutions now have the full weight of the Treasury and unlimited resources behind them" to pay off trillions in debt that CNBC analysts refuse to talk about on-air except to say things like "we know what institutions people are talking about, but nobody wants to speculate on air" and that they are "the most successful banks" hence the need for the bailout of the BIGGEST banks instead of the ones that are already failing.

The reason for the bank failure is the same reason for the corporate crime collapses of 2000 -- Enron, Worldcom, etc -- criminal underreporting of trillions of dollars of bad debt in order to inflate the company's (bank's) portfolio, enabling them to buy billions of dollars in assets of other corporations to dominate the banking sector by essentially counterfeiting billions of dollars in fake assets or concealed debt on the books.

This is what they brought down Eliot Spitzer for attempting to investigate, which is why the Democrats are no longer talking about punishing corporate crime. They supported a bill that essentially calls for immunity on the part of the nation's top 9 banks from corporate crime -- underreporting -- that allowed them to become so big in the first place by lying to shareholders about the worth of their assets and investments.

This is the same trend we saw with FISA -- cover up the worst excesses of the Bush-Clinton legacy by legalizing the crime and making it a Federal mandate to continue to commit said crimes -- in this case, for the entities in question to continue to exist and finance them to continue to buy smaller rivals and quietly transfer the illegally overvalued assets to Treasury.

Imagine if the Federal Gov't had assumed Worldcom's debt in exotic derivatives in order to ensure that they continued to own half of the nation's telecom infrastructure on paper by declaring them "too big to fail" even though their success was on the basis of ill-gotten gains. That is what this bill does.

Also, Clinton and Greenspan and the Bush cronies tweaked the measurement of inflation and unemployment in order to create the big lie that the stock market has massively inflated since 1994, when in fact the underlying currency has massively inflated since 1994, mostly concealed in equity inflation (a Ponzi conveyor belt scheme which transfer money from the poor and recent immigrants into the hands of existing property owners), free-floating petrodollar (gold and oil have both gone up massively -- the Dow has gone down 75% in gold-adjusted dollars since 2001) and exotic measurements of inflation such as computing power (which doubles every 2 years, therefore consumer electronic buying power of the US dollar doubles every two years according to Greenspan).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's sweet of the taxpayers to cover the mobsters' asses.
Sooo sweet. Sicky sweet.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Link, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. See title of OP. "CNBC". On air analyst. This morning (and the past 8 days).
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 10:16 AM by Leopolds Ghost
They have repeatedly talked about this, usually in hushed but relieved tones.

One analyst even said the government should go after Moody's for adjusting the
rating on the criminally overvalued assets in the first place, which is what
caused the banks -- the ones WE KNEW managed trillions of these notional assets --
to fail.

In other words, these guys want to bring down the credit rating system to benefit
their cronies (and continue to focus their onus the poor, I imagine.)

The reason the big five are doing so well is because they have CONCEALED their
share of these notional assets -- which is EXACTLY why folks were talking about
"financial armageddon" if their books were suddenly forced to be revealed by
their actions (the only way to find out what they really have is to force their
hand with margin calls, which would bring down these supposedly healthy megabanks.)

Banks that large -- the top five manage a huge percentage of the nation's assets --
are not suddenly "in danger of failing" due to a liquidity crisis.

It is an underreported bad assets, financial instruments purchased on consignment from
hedge fund managers and soverign wealth funds, using the wealth of the nation as
collateral, illegally overvalued notional assets crisis.

The only reason the mid-size banks were allowed to go under is because THEIR ASSET
PORTFOLIO WAS LEAKED in order to tank their stock values and send them into bankruptcy,
allowing the Top Three (who have a similarly toxic asset portfolio) to buy them up.

That's why the liquidity is frozen up in the first place. Fear that these
assets would come to light now that Moody's and other credit analysts downgraded them
and publicized their actual (worthless) value.

And the Dems in Congress are facilitating a coverup of WorldCom proportions,
as are the Republicans and conservative market analysts of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Thanks.
I think it would be great for you to pull as much of this together as you, with whatever documentation you can find, can & start spreading it around to whatever sites will take it--Kos, even try HuffPost--and of course your own DU journal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. I probably should, but I'm terrible at research.
I pick up things here and there and have a big stack of newspapers mouldering away with references I wanted to cite on issues that get covered up below the fold. Unfortunately, the degree of covering up and covering ass by the Washington Post has become so great that I had to stop reading it or I would burst an embolism from having to glean articles written by people I hate. But there was a very telling below-the-fold article on the Wachovia collapse (the day they collapsed and siezed to be "given" to Citi) that detailed (buried the lede, naturally) how this was all in the Federal Government's plan to have the mid-size institutions fail in order to better deal with the asset & liquidity crisis by actively encouraging the consolidation the banking industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Could you at least pull it together & put it in a journal here so somebody else can pick up?
Maybe you could start some kind of collective project. Get people like Ozymandias and/or Ulysses to contribute. PM them with a link to your journal & see if you could solicit their participation. This kind of information really needs to get out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I could probably start a journal...
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 11:05 AM by Leopolds Ghost
others are much more knowledgable about the details of this issue, tho.

A journal is like a compilation of your own (and others) posts, right?

I agree this info really needs to come to light. You hear CNBC cronies
talk about it in hushed tones, like "we all know what banks people are
talking about, but nobody wants to say it on the air" because it would
tank those banks and presumably hurt the analyst financially somehow (?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why is this never discussed here on DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. What? Are you kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. All I hear is discussions of whether the banks deserve the money, or whether the economy needs it.
Not the 800 pound gorilla in the room of what would happen -- needs to happen -- were the banks deprived of these funds, which is that these massive corporate crimes -- that allowed the banks to consolidate into giant institutions like Worldcom -- would come to light. No one seems to want that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. The media is blaming poor people
and quite a few leading Democrats are helping them. I tried to argue your point with a very liberal Democratic activist and guess what, she quoted Bill Clinton's comments about Fannie & Freddie. So there you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. It should be all about cooking the books and playing fast and loose
with what little regulations there are. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. I Was Accused of TFH
When I started a thread that pondered how legal the wiretap on Spitzer was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. so...

what does this mean? The Fed is bankrupt?

A lot of interesting information, thanks. just wondering about what this means going forward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Lets put it this way. There is not enough money on the planet to cover all the bad debts.
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 10:33 AM by Neshanic
We are playing pass the bag of crap around. Now it's here, then, it's over there.

It's like the Martians came and asked the planet to pay the planetary debt in full. We would overdraw the planets checking account by trillions.

Thanks derivatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Not Enough Money in the World: The Real Monster in the Meltdown Closet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. My take on all of this debt is that it's not REAL debt. It's all "made up". This paragaph
in the article you linked talks around the issue:

"What has struck mortal fear in the heart of markets and governments is not bad mortgages, but the almost incomprehensibly huge and complex market for "derivatives," based in part on mortgage debt -- but also on a vast array of other sources that were "securitized," turned into tradable if ghostly commodities then sold off in a bewildering variety of increasingly arcane forms. This was accompanied by the expansion of yet another vast market in insurance mechanisms designed to protect these derivatives -- mechanisms which themselves became "securitized." "

Read that again: "based IN PART on mortgage debt". The thing about all this "debt" that is in the trillions so high that there is not enough money to cover it is BECAUSE it wasn't based on anything of value except some promises for some more promises. There is nothing material that was promised except money that wasn't there, in exchange for money that wasn't there.

What these guys have done is the biggest Ponzi scheme EVER. They have not produced anything that shows what, if any, actual material assets that these "derivitives" were based on. Some of them were "based" on mortgages, but they weren't trading the ACTUAL mortgages, in many cases, but only "bets" on whether the mortgages would be paid or not. The actual mortgages were bought by some pension funds. These "derivitives" were like smoke clouds. They keep saying that "nobody REALLY understands these derivatives". I say LIKE HELL THEY DON'T!! They just don't want you and me and our elected officials to understand them. Hell! 95% of our elected officials don't even understand computers!

This whole smoke & mirrors about "derivatives" is designed to manipulate markets by making it look like there is some "there, there", by some maniacally wealthy megalomaniacs, and the "bailout" is designed to make the players even more maniacally wealthy, while everyone else suffers horrible consequences of poverty....which makes everyone else extremely vulnerable...kind of like sitting ducks...for exploitation.

There has not be one asshole indicted for this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. One of the comments begs the question...
if there is fiat money, why can't there be fiat debt? If the debt materialized out of nothing, why can't it be simply written off.
Because the wealthy minority are demanding their black hole of losses be reimbursed, losses that materialized out of nothing.

So yes, it is "made up" debt, simply because "they" say it's there.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You said it much better than I did.
That's exactly what I think is going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. It means the Fed (which is already a public private consortium) has declared 9 more banks
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 10:49 AM by Leopolds Ghost
(in addition to the privately-held banks that print our money) "too big to fail".

Which means that the hidden assets that caused the crisis in the first place --
whose reporting would cause the largest US banks to fail -- must never come to light.

The Gov't has five choices under Obama:

1. Give the existing money (and no more) to the existing crooks and let them sock
it away and retire, leaving the banks to fail in a few years' time when oil goes back up
and the worth of the derivatives and other instruments get called out by creditors.

2. Shovel trillions of dollars into the top 9 banks in the greatest transfer of wealth
in history, this is not just bankrupting the government it is creating a tiered society
ruled by mercantile (government supported) monopoly banking industry. This allows the
banks to honor their notional investment debt at near-face value when they are
finally reported where their money is socked away in these notional instruments.
It makes the government liable for sending all that money into wealth funds and
collapsing the dollar, turning us into a 2nd World nation.

3. Ensure the banks do not fail by helping them to conceal their investments and
have the Gov't (as stockholders) become a party to the sort of corporate crime
Enron committed, using their hidden worthless investments to buy up other
institutions whose worthless investments are not so well concealed, enabling
the consolidation of the banking industry so that all those notional investments
can be compiled under one roof, in private, and quietly written off. Think the
gov't would never do this? Look at Fannie Mae and the actions of the gov't
during the Clinton Administration to conceal bank fraud (and Larry Summers
was a big fan of the Gramm deregulation act.) They even allowed banks to begin
purchasing financial investment houses illegally before the bill was passed
by changing their name to "banc" in order to comply with the letter of the
Glass-Steagall Act which said "no bank" can buy an investment house.

4. Ensure the banks do not fail by going after the credit rating agencies and punishing
them for downgrading the rating on the instruments and securities that folks already
knew WaMu, etc. had (the only difference between them and BoA, Goldman, etc. is that
the latter are "too big to fail" and thus have successfully concealed their books from
the public, because analysts refuse to say anything in public about corporate crimes
that would bring down the largest institutions.) So, go after the ratings agencies
and create new ones that will declare these investments sound and rate the securities
AAA again, allowing them to be sold at face value. Perhaps they could commoditize
all those mortgage-backed securities and sell them to the public as casino investments.
In any case, this would set off a new credit and asset bubble.

5. Repeal the god-damn law after the first $300 billion is wasted and spend the remaining
money on things like mass transit (instead of 8-lane highways).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. In other words, the many (all of us) are going to pay and pay for the greed of the few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Welcome to capitalism, and its unholy spawn, fascism--
the Corporate State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. Here's how it works in a nutshell.

Money and the Crisis of Civilization
Charles Eisenstein


Suppose you give me a million dollars with the instructions, "Invest this profitably, and I'll pay you well." I'm a sharp dresser -- why not? So I go out onto the street and hand out stacks of bills to random passers-by. Ten thousand dollars each. In return, each scribbles out an IOU for $20,000, payable in five years. I come back to you and say, "Look at these IOUs! I have generated a 20% annual return on your investment." You are very pleased, and pay me an enormous commission.

Now I've got a big stack of IOUs, so I use these "assets" as collateral to borrow even more money, which I lend out to even more people, or sell them to others like myself who do the same. I also buy insurance to cover me in case the borrowers default -- and I pay for it with those self-same IOUs! Round and round it goes, each new loan becoming somebody's asset on which to borrow yet more money. We all rake in huge commissions and bonuses, as the total face value of all the assets we've created from that initial million dollars is now fifty times that.

Then one day, the first batch of IOUs comes due. But guess what? The person who scribbled his name on the IOU can't pay me back right now. In fact, lots of the borrowers can't. I try to hush this embarrassing fact up as long as possible, but pretty soon you get suspicious. You want your million dollars back -- in cash. I try to sell the IOUs and their derivatives that I hold, but everyone else is suspicious too, and no one buys them. The insurance company tries to cover my losses, but it can only do so by selling the IOUs I gave it!

So finally, the government steps in and buys the IOUs, bails out the insurance company and everyone else holding the IOUs and the derivatives stacked on them. Their total value is way more than a million dollars now. I and my fellow entrepreneurs retire with our lucre. Everyone else pays for it.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-16-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. That's a really good article for breaking it down in simpler terms
for people like me to try to understand. Recommended and thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. bankers and the interest class maintain theirs -- the rest of you can pay the tax bill and pay your
mortgage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
19. Worldcom bankrupted back into MCI
and got billions in contracts, so essentially the government did bail them out too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggaehead Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. Didnt Randi say there was only 60 million mortgages total?
And their total in entirety was around 200 billion? Well I don't know where she got her facts from. Bur these numbers sound realistic. And from what RFK jr was saying only 10% of these mortgages are in jeopardy. Well we've approved 700B. or Thousand million if u studied math in the UK. Well, if only 10% of 200B or 20B is currently in jeopardy. Wouldn't the balance of that sum be best used in buydowns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. It's not the mortgages
They bundled the mortgages and the related real estate and marketed them as the basis for securities. People invested in those securities, the way they invested in the internet bubble stocks. The securities are way inflated, way way way, inflated. It doesn't matter if the mortgages are solvent, the securities are still going to crash because it was a bubble. They pushed the mortgages as a means to build more houses and create more inflated real estate so they could sell more securities. It all popped, only 1,000 times worse than any pop since the Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-16-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. A study out a few weeks ago on residential mortgages--
"The report, from Ohio State University, suggests total losses on mortgages for primary residences could range from $90 billion to $180 billion. A large amount, but not catastrophic, said study co-author Randall Olsen, a professor of economics and director of the Center for Human Resource Research at Ohio State.
(...)

The biggest losses will instead rest on commercial real estate loans and loans on homes bought as investments or built on speculation, without buyers lined up."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4168807#4169059

http://www.lvrj.com/business/30256439.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
28. Perhaps the next President will be interested in finding out who moved what OFFSHORE.
Lucy Komisar and Dave Emory are two of my heroes:



FTR #458 Interview with Lucy Komisar about Offshore Banking

Thursday, June 03, 2004
Recorded May 2, 2004
REALAUDIO

Supplementing information presented in FTR#’s 356, 357, 387, this broadcast presents more information about the Clearstream network and the important (though little recognized) issue of offshore banking. Visiting once again with the remarkable Lucy Komisar, we are presented with information about Clearstream, how it works and how it affects the political and economic health of the world. (The use of Clearsteam by Al Qaeda and the Bank Al Taqwa was discussed in the programs cited above.) Note that excerpts from a very important article by Lucy on this subject are presented in the description, rather than attempts at paraphrasing her answers.

Program Highlights Include: The genesis of Clearstream; the origin of its notorious “unpublished accounts”; the invention of “eurodollars”; Ernest Backes’ dismissal from Clearstream because of the Banco Ambrosiano scandal; the probable murder of Gerard Soisson of Clearstream; discussion of “transfer pricing”, “mailbox companies”, and the “Bermuda Inversion”—three of the devices used in the offshore banking business; the Enron scandal; the Stanley Works imbroglio; the use of Clearstream by Colombian drug traffickers; a French/Taiwanese arms deal conducted through Clearstream; murders initiated as a result of that arms scandal; the Menatep/Khodorokovsky investigation in Russia; Robert Douglass—the Rockefeller-connected head of Clearstream; the effect of offshore banking on the economic health of both industrialized and Third World countries.

1. DAVE: Why do you call “Offshore Banking” a “Threat to America?”

LUCY: Because these offshore banking havens are the vehicle for terrorists and drug-traffickers to finance their operations, and they enable corporations to escape taxation, thereby damaging the economies of many countries. This takes place both in the industrialized and third world countries.

2. DAVE: Much of the article from Hound-Dogs focuses on Clearstream, an organization that is described as a “clearinghouse.” What is a clearinghouse, how does it work?

LUCY: “ . . . In these days of global markets, individuals and companies may be buying stocks, bonds or derivatives from a seller who is halfway across the world. Clearinghouses like Clearstream keep track of the ‘paperwork’ for the transactions. Banks with accounts in the clearinghouse use a debit and credit system and, at the end of the day, the accounts (minus handling fees, of course) are totaled up. The clearinghouse doesn’t actually send money anywhere, it just debits and credits its members’ accounts. The money involved is massive. Clearstream handles more than 100 million transactions a year, and claims to have securities on deposit valued at $10 trillion.”
(“Offshore Banking: The Secret Threat to America” by Lucy Komisar; Hound-Dogs; Vol. 1; p. 5.)

3. DAVE: What are eurodollars, and how did eurodollars lead to the genesis of Cedel/Clearstream?

LUCY: “ . . . Cedel and its main competitor, Brussels-based Euroclear, were started to manage transfers of ‘eurodollars,’ U.S. currency kept in banks outside the United States. The Chinese and the Soviets invented Eurodollars in the ‘50’s so they would not have to put their assets in banks where the U.S. government could seize them. But others saw value in eurodollars, and they began to be traded for other currencies. Some banks attracted eurodollars with higher interest than was being paid in America, and U.S. corporations and individuals began using the accounts to avoid laws on domestic banks. The euro money market was born. (By the ‘90’s, the Federal Reserve estimated that about two-thirds of U.S. currency was held abroad as eurodollars.)” (Idem.)

4. DAVE: Tell us about Clearstream’s published and unpublished accounts. What is the difference and what are the implications of an “unpublished account?”

LUCY: “ . . . A bank would send a transfer to the code of the headquarters bank, which would send it on to the non-published account of its subsidiary. The bank would regulate this operation internally. Soisson authorized each non-published account, which would be known only by some insiders, including the auditors and members of the council of administration. As Cedel’s literature to clients explained: ‘As a general rule, the principal account of each client is published: the existence of the account, as well as its name and number, are published. On demand, and at the discretion of Cedel, the client can open a non-published account. The non-published accounts don’t figure in any printed document and their name is not mentioned in any report.’ Requests for non-published accounts came from some banks that weren’t eligible, but Soisson turned them down. . .” (Idem.)

5. DAVE: Much of your article focuses on a genuinely heroic man named Ernest Backes. Tell us about Ernest Backes and his role in setting up Cedel.

LUCY: “ . . . Many of were first made in a controversial book called Revelation$, written by Denis Robert, a French journalist, and Ernest Backes, a former top official at the clearinghouse who helped design and install the computer system that facilitated the undisclosed accounts. The book’s impact was explosive. Six European judges called it ‘the black box’ of illicit international financial flows. Top Clearstream officials were fired. The scandal made headlines in big European newspapers; TV network specials; the French National Assembly’s financial crimes committee held a hearing. Luxembourg authorities ordered an investigation and in October 2003, the examining magistrate brought charges against Lussi for money-laundering, tax fraud, forgery, false balance-sheets and other infringements of the financial law. Yet Revelations remains unpublished and relatively unknown in the United States, and this issue is not yet on the agenda of America.” (Idem.)

6. DAVE: In 1975, some big German and Italian banks initiated steps to shield their transactions from scrutiny. Tell us how this led to the genesis of the unpublished accounts.

LUCY: “ . . . In 1975, several big Italian and German banks wanted to centralize their accounting and didn’t want other members of Cedel to send transfers through their numerous individual branches. The Cedel council of administration—its board of directors—authorized banks with multiple subsidiaries not to put all their accounts on the lists. Backes and Gerard Soisson, then Cedel’s general manager, set up a system of non-published accounts.” (Idem.)

7. DAVE: Ernest Backes rose to become the No. 3 man at Cedel and then experienced a sharp downturn in his professional fortunes, apparently as a result of the Banco Ambrosiano scandal. Describe the Ambrosiano scandal and how that affected the lives of Ernest Backes and Gerard Soisson.

LUCY: “ . . . By 1980, Backes had become Cedel’s No. 3 official, in charge of relations with clients. But he was fired in May 1983. Backes says the reason given for his sacking was an argument with an English banker, a friend of the CEO. ‘I think I was fired was because I knew too much about the Ambrosiano scandal,’ Backes says. Banco Ambrosiano was once the second most important private bank in Italy, with the Vatican as a principal shareholder and loan recipient. The bank laundered drug-and-arms-trafficking money for the Italian and American mafias and, in the ‘80’s, channeled Vatican money to the Contras in Nicaragua and Solidarity in Poland. The corrupt managers also siphoned off funds via fictitious banks to personal shell company accounts in Switzerland, the Bahamas, Panama and other offshore havens. Banco Ambrosiano collapsed in 1982 with a deficit of more than $1 billion. (Unknown to many moviegoers, Banco Ambrosiano inspired a subplot of “The Godfather Part III.) Several of those behind the swindle have met untimely ends. Bank chairman Roberto Calvi was found hanged under Blackfriars Bridge in London. Michele Sindona, convicted in 1980 on 65 counts of fraud in the United States, was extradited to Italy in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison; in 1986, he was found dead in his cell, poisoned by cyanide-laced coffee. (Another suspect, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, the head of the Vatican Bank, now lives in Sun City, Arizona with a Vatican passport; U.S. authorities have ignored a Milan arrest for him.”
(Ibid.; pp. 5-6.)

8. “Just two months after Backes’ dismissal in 1983, Soisson, 48 and healthy, was found dead in Corsica, where he’d gone on vacation. Top Cedel officials had the body returned immediately and buried, with no autopsy, announcing that he had died of a heart attack. His family now suspects he was murdered. ‘If Soisson was murdered, it was also related to what he knew about Ambrosiano,’ Backes says. ‘When Soisson died, the Ambrosiano affair wasn’t yet known as a scandal. I realized that Soisson and I had been at the crossroads, We moved all those transactions known later in the scandal to Lima and other branches. Nobody even knew there was a Banco Ambrosiano branch in Lima and other South American countries.’ An Italian judge recently reopened the Calvi case, and Backes was asked to collaborate in the inquiry. He said, ‘ I was told that the questions around Soisson’s death would be a part of the new investigation.’’’ (Ibid.; p. 6.)

9. DAVE: Tell us how, after Backes and Soisson were gone from the organization, Clearstream accelerated the opening of unpublished accounts.

LUCY: “ . . . With Soisson out of the way, there was nothing to stop abuse of the system. Whereas Soisson had refused numerous requests (from such institutions as Chase Manhattan in New York, Chemical Bank of London and numerous subsidiaries of Citibank), Cedel opened hundreds of non-published accounts in total irregularity—especially after the arrival of CEO Andre Lussi in 1990. No longer were they just sub-accounts of officially listed accounts, Backes charges. Some were for banks that weren’t subsidiaries or even official members of Cedel. At the start of 1995, Cedel had more than 2,200 published accounts. But in reality, according to documents obtained by Backes, Cedel that year managed more than 4,200 accounts.” (Idem.)

10. DAVE: What are some of the organizations that have unpublished accounts with Clearstream?

LUCY: “ . . . Among the major companies with secret accounts, Backes discovered the Shell Petroleum Group and the Dutch agricultural multinational Unilever, one of whose accounts was associated with Goldman Sachs. On the French TV broadcast ‘Les Dissimulateurs’ (‘The Deceivers’) in March 2000, Clearstream President Lussi simply denied the accounts existed. ‘Only banks and brokers are eligible for membership,’ he said, ‘as it has always been the case. No private company accounts, no commercial or industrial companies.’ But his own spokesman contradicts this claim. ‘Customers of Clearstream can be banks or, exceptionally, corporate clients who have their own treasury departments the size of banks,’ Cope wrote in an e-mail to me, ‘We cannot accept CEO’s of multinationals or terrorists and have strict account-opening procedures to prevent such problems.’ Clearstream was formed in 1999 out of the merger of Cedel and the compensation company of Deutsche Borse (the German stock exchange). By 2000, according to Backes, Clearstream managed about 15,000 accounts (of which half were non-published) for 2,500 clients in 105 countries; most of the investment companies, banks and their subsidiaries are from Western Europe and the United States. Most of the new non-published accounts were in offshore tax havens. The banks with the most non-published accounts are Banque Internationale de Luxembourg (309), Citibank (271) and Barclays (200).” (Idem.)

11. DAVE: Tell us about some of the Colombian customers of Clearstream.

LUCY: “Backes found numerous discrepancies in the lists he obtained of the secret accounts. For example, code No. 70287 on the published list belongs to Citibank NA-Colombia AC in Nassau, and code No. 70292 is that of the Banco Internacional de Colombia Nassau Ltd. But on the non-published list, the numbers both belong to Banco Internacional de Colombia in Bogota. There’s no mention of Citibank. Based on the published list, members may think they are dealing with two banks in the Bahamas, one of which is a subsidiary of Citibank. Based on the published list, members may think they are dealing with two banks in the Bahamas, one of which is a subsidiary of Citibank, but anything sent to these establishments goes directly to the country of cocaine cartels. On the April 2000 Clearstream list, there are 37 Colombian accounts, of which only three are published. The spokesman for Citigroup in New York, declined repeated requests for comment. Cope declined to talk about any individual customers or accounts, citing Luxembourg banking secrecy laws.)” (Idem.)

12. DAVE: One of Russia’s wealthiest individuals and most successful businessmen, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was recently arrested, generating many stories in the U.S. media about Russia’s returning to its old ways (i.e., repression). Khodorkovsky was one of Clearstream’s many customers. Detail the complex operations of Khodorkovsky.

LUCY: “ . . . Clearstream’s dealings with Russian banks are another area of concern. Menatep Bank, which had been bought in a rigged auction of Soviet assets and has been linked to numerous international scams, opened its Cedel account (No. 81738) on May 15, 1997, after Lussi visited the bank’s president in Moscow and invited him to use the system. It was a non-published account that didn’t correspond to any published account, a breach of Clearstream’s rules. Menatep further violated the rules because many transfers were of cash, not for settlement of securities. ‘For the three months in 1997 for which I hold microfiches,’ Backes says, ‘only cash transfers were channeled through the Menatep account.’” (Ibid.; p. 7.)

13. “ . . . Menatep bank was founded by Russian ‘oligarch’ Michail Khodorkovsky has been in a Russian jail since October on myriad charges of fraud and tax evasion. On Nov. 26,2003, Backes and another ex-banker, Swiss citizen Andre Stebel, filed a criminal complaint with the Swiss attorney general against Khodorkovsky and his colleagues Platon Lebedev, and Alexei Golubovich, accusing them of money laundering and supporting a criminal organization. . . The former bankers requested the Swiss officials to open an investigation into the charges and to search the records of the Swiss offices of Menatep SA, Menatep Finances SA and Valmet (which set up offshore companies and bank accounts) and of Bank Leu in Geneva related to investigate claims of fraud against the Russian company Avisma and money laundering by Menatep in Switzerland. . . .” (Idem.)

14. “ . . . The complaint alleges that Khodorkovsky, Lebedev, and Golubovich are or were owners in Switzerland of the Swiss companies Menatep SA, Freiburg, Menatep Finances SA, Geneva and Valmet SA, Geneva. It claims that since the creation, ‘the Bank Menatep SA has been mixed with the affairs of members of the Russian oligarchy and criminal organizations, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexander Konanykhine. (Konanykhine got asylum in the U.S. in 1999, was ordered deported last fall to face charges in Russia, then had the order stayed and will have a new asylum hearing. American and Russian law enforcement officials believe he was in charge of moving billions of dollars out of Russia for the KGB; Konanykhin denies it.) It is also related to another mafia figure, Semyon Mogilvich, called the godfather of organized crime in Russia.’” (Idem.)

15. “The complaint cites the Avisma case which it says involved fraud and money laundering whereby tens of millions of dollars were diverted from the Russian company, a manufacturer of titanium, a substance used in airplanes. In the mid-90’s, Menatep was the majority owner of Avisma. The document says that the scheme involved selling titanium at a low price to TMC, a shell company set up by Valmet, which resold the product at a higher price on the international market. This practice, called transfer pricing, is widely used internationally to cheat tax authorities and minority shareholders. . . .” (Idem.)

16. DAVE: Tell us about Robert Douglass, of Cedel International.

LUCY: “ . . . Backes explained that a company called Cedel International had been inscribed in the Swiss register of commerce but not included in the Books of the mother company, Cedel International in Luxembourg. He commented, ‘This non-consolidated ‘branch,’ whose president is Robert Douglass of New York, the former private secretary of Governor Nelson Rockefeller and now vice chairman of the Chase Manhattan Corporation , had apparently not raised too many questions for Swiss federal magistrates,’ Douglass is an attorney at the New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, with offices at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza. Milbank, Tweed is the law firm for Chase, the bank founded by the Rockefellers. Douglass declined to comment. (The same Milbank Tweed, for its client Citibank, worked with the Cayman Islands agent Maples and Calder to set up the ‘Delta Corp’ to do phony commodity swaps and disguise Citibank loans to Enron as trades. Maples and Calder also set up the Cayman Islands shell company that helped the owners of the Italian conglomerate Parmalat embezzle billions of dollars and swindle investors.)” (Ibid.; p. 8.)

17. DAVE: Another murder connected to Clearstream’s machinations involved a French/Taiwanese arms deal. Describe that if you would.

LUCY: “ . . . In the early ‘90’s, Bucher contends, Cedel was used to launder $350 million in illegal ‘commissions’ on a contract for the sale by Thomson-CSF, a French government arms company, of six French frigates to Taiwan. He said that the money, handled by an SG subsidiary, was paid as a registered securities transfer to a ‘nominee’—a stand-in for the real beneficiary—and that Thomson (now known as Thales) didn’t appear in the transaction except in the Cedel archives. He said SG used two non-published Cedel accounts. The kickbacks were exposed after the 1993 murder of a naval captain named Yin Ching-feng, who had written a critical report on the purchase and its inflated $2.8 billion price. Bucher told Taipei authorities that a third of the kickbacks went to Taiwanese generals and politicians, while the rest was pocketed by French officials. Taiwan courts sentenced 13 military officers and 15 arms dealers to between eight months and life in prison for bribery and leaking military secrets.” (Idem.)

18. DAVE: You write of the genesis of Swiss banking secrecy in the pre WWII period. Tell us about France’s discovery of financial treachery by members of the French elite and how that led to Switzerland’s legendary bank secrecy.

19. DAVE: Let’s talk about some of the mechanisms used in the offshore banking operations. Tell us about “transfer pricing” and the use of mailbox companies.

LUCY: “ . . . Shell companies—front companies, ‘mailbox’ companies, sometimes called International Business Corporations (IBCs) or Personal Investment Companies (PICs)—were set up to own bank accounts and effect phony transactions to hide or launder funds. They didn’t produce goods or services; they existed for book-keeping, to receive, hold, and transfer money so as to hide the real people involved. Banks and accounting firms marketed shell and even ready-made ‘off-the shelf companies,’ the latter already registered with local governments, picked up by clients like merchandise in a store. Offshore networks popularly come in series of three. It’s called layering, or laddering. ‘Throw in Cayman and Panama; sprinkle with Aruba or Curacao,’ said the Miami official of an international investigation firm that hunts fraudsters. Money launderers set up a British Virgin Islands corporation, open a bank account in Curacao, airfreight the money to Aruba, have it wire transferred. In days, it’s been through three jurisdictions, and there are no records, You can convert profits to losses, put money in phony loans, buy businesses without people knowing who you are, and evade all laws regulating money. If authorities looking into a loan to the company want to find out who owns it, lawyers say, ‘That’s protected by secrecy law.’ Sometimes, for greater obfuscation a shell company is owned by another shell from a second jurisdiction. At the end, there is ‘integration’: the individual buys a big hotel or invests in the stock market. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 10.)

20. DAVE: Well-publicized cases of American firms using some of these scams were the Enron case and the Stanley Works case. Tell us about those.

LUCY: “ . . . Take the case of Stanley Works, which announced a ‘move’ of its headquarters-on paper-from New Britain, Connecticut, to Bermuda and of its imaginary management to Barbados. Though its building and staff would actually stay put, manufacturing hammers and wrenches, Stanley Works would no longer pay taxes on profits from international trade. The Securities and Exchange Commission accepts the pretense as legal. ‘The whole business is a sham,’ fumed New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who more than any other U.S. law enforcer has attacked the off-shore system. ‘The headquarters will be in a country where that company is not permitted to do business. They’re saying a company is managed in Barbados when there’s one meeting there a year. In the prospectus, they say legally controlled and managed in Barbados. If they took out the word legally, it would be a fraud. But Barbadian law said it’s legal, so it’s legal.’ The conceit apparently also persuaded the SEC.” (Idem.)

21. DAVE: Of course the Bush administration is deeply involved with the Enron situation. Bush’s Democratic opponent John Kerry has been active in attempting to bring the offshore banking scams to heal. Tell us about Kerry’s efforts in that regard.

LUCY: “Some American political leaders have been pushing to reform the offshore system for years. Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who ran the Iran-Contra and BCCI hearings in the 1980’s and 1990’s, called for changes then: he even wrote a book about it. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 11.)

Posted by FTR Summary at 6/03/2004 12:00:00 AM
Labels: 9/11, al-Taqwa, BCCI, Bio Weapons, Bush, Iran, Money Laundering, P-2 Lodge, Rockefeller, USSR, Vatican

SOURCE:

http://ftrsummary.blogspot.com/2004/06/ftr-458-interview-with-lucy-komisar.html



You're my hero, too, Leopolds Ghost. Thank you for anexcellent post and analysis. We may yet see these gangsters and fraudsters and mass-murderers and traitors in the pen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-16-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. thanks for the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-16-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
30. Kick.
Edited on Thu Oct-16-08 10:52 AM by chill_wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC