Speaking of JP Morgan Chase, banks who did illegal foreclosures will not be prosecuted

by 50 states AGs group.

from Crooks & Liars

January 04, 2011 04:00 PM
State AGs To Sign Agreements With Largest Firms In Foreclosure Fraud

By Susie Madrak

Nope, despite what Iowa AG Tom Miller promised in this video, we're not seeing any criminal prosecutions of these thieves. But at least these state AGs are more likely to force some real reforms into the foreclosure process:

The 50 state attorneys general probing U.S. foreclosure practices will first settle with the five largest loan servicers, including Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said.

No settlements have been reached yet, Miller said in a telephone interview today. The other three are Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc., said Miller, the leader of the 50-state investigation. The five have 59 percent of the market, Miller said.

“What we’re looking at is five separate agreements with the five largest servicers,” Miller said. “We’re still a ways away” from reaching agreements, he said. “We’re working very hard to figure out what should be in the settlement.”

More, video at link

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/state-ags-sign-agreements-largest-fir

since prosecutions will not result in restitution. However reform is mandatory.

and putting them back in their homes? I don't think that's part of the plan.

It's a huge real estate grab, basically.

Civil should be much easier, as will be reform.

Consider this...if the state can get those injured fairly compensated, is that a greater public good that a crap shoot on criminal convictions and each bad case being fought in court?

to do that, either. Which is likely what these criminals bet on in the first place.

Plus, there is the little matter of the only nationwide non-profit group who helped working class people fight bad foreclosures, ACORN, was taken out of the action by dirty tricks.

Working people can't catch a break in this country.

as Progressive as the Professor. :crazy:

That would be "restitution," wouldn't it?

Or are you just remarking on the "civil" matter in these cases and not the "criminal," because if we don't prosecute these criminals, they'll just do it again...

in civil matters. Sometimes that is easier to discern than others. This one is a slam dunk.

However, prosecuting them may mean there will be no easy restitution (might be, but not guaranteed), or a court fight over each one. If they make full restitutions but are not prosecuted, is that the greater public good? It is an interesting trade to consider.

Regardless the system needs to be reformed so that such things cannot happen again with any possible use of the innocent error defense.

More corporatists in the "Democratic" party will not give anyone "Hope" of "Change".

There's an elephant in the living room, shhhhh

But they didn't just get in--they were invited in by those who won our trust then betrayed it. :(

I think it's also the ones who hold the gate open for the foxes to get in, as well. I mean the money elites and their media. People are easy to fool and distract.

is prosectuted to the fullest extent of the law. :banghead:

This country it so fucked up it ain't funny!

It's like the mafia X a gazillion!

If personhood applied, they'd be criminally punished.

Can criminal charges even be brought directly against a Corporation as an Entity?

Can a Company Be Charged With a Crime?
By Brandt Goldstein Posted Friday, April 12, 2002, at 3:47 PM ET

snip

But since a company—or a limited liability partnership such as Andersen—is simply a legal construct, it cannot commit a physical act such as obstruction of justice. So, how does Congress get past this problem when it wants to punish a company as a whole? By attributing the acts and intentions of the company's employees to the company itself, an approach the Supreme Court first endorsed in the 1909 case of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States. That case held that since corporations were already liable in civil cases for their employees' bad conduct (within the scope of their job), it was perfectly appropriate to extend that rule to the criminal law.

Why? Deterrence. If only an individual employee could be punished for bad acts, the firm could pressure other employees to carry on the same criminal conduct. (If the crime is outside the scope of the employee's job and isn't meant to help the company, the company can't be liable. Robbing a 7-Eleven after you've delivered soft drinks there won't get the soda distributor you work for in trouble.)

But why seek criminal sanctions against a company rather than civil ones? One reason is the power of a grand jury. In a civil proceeding, Andersen can bring its attorneys to any employee deposition, and the proceeding's scope is limited to the misdeeds alleged in the complaint. But in a criminal grand jury investigation, prosecutors can use subpoenas to force employees to testify—with no company lawyer at their side. The proceedings may go on for months, even years, and there's almost no limit to what the grand jury can investigate.

In addition to heavy fines meted out in a criminal conviction, the court can put a company on probation for several years. No corporation wants a judge as an overseer.

http://www.slate.com/id/2064322/