The Center for Public Integrity’s Michael Hudson, who’s done as much as any journalist—both before and after the crash—to expose how fraud was endemic to the mortgage industry, has a big investigation out today reporting on how Countrywide attacked internal whistleblowers to keep its fraud machine humming.
Last week, Hudson got the scoop on the Department of Labor ruling saying that Bank of America (which bought Countrywide in 2008) had illegally fired its head of mortgage-fraud investigations, Eileen Foster, as retailation against her whistleblowing on BofA/Countrywide’s systematic mistreatment of whistleblowers.
The story’s top is damning, reporting how Foster’s team found bins full of documents in Boston headed for the shredder—papers that were fraudulent on their face, with Wite-Out and tape used to change critical details on loans, including appraisals. The fraud was so bad that Countrywide had to shut down six Boston offices. Here’s how Countrywide reacted, and note that this was the summer of 2007, a year after the housing bubble had burst:
She began to get pushback, she claims, from company officials who were unhappy with the investigation.
One executive, Foster says, sent an email to dozens of workers in the Boston region, warning them the fraud unit was on the case and not to put anything in their emails or instant messages that might be used against them. Another, she says, called her and growled into the phone: “I’m g—d—-ed sick and tired of these witch hunts.”
Her team was not allowed to interview a senior manager who oversaw the branches. Instead, she says, Countrywide’s Employee Relations Department did the interview and then let the manager’s boss vet the transcript before it was provided to Foster and the fraud unit…
By early 2008, she claims, she’d concluded that many in Countrywide’s chain of command were working to cover up massive fraud within the company — outing and then firing whistleblowers who tried to report forgery and other misconduct. People who spoke up, she says, were “taken out.”
This isn’t just some disgruntled ex-employee. Foster was head of Countrywide’s mortgage-fraud investigations unit, and the Labor Department awarded her nearly a million bucks for wrongful termination. Here’s what she says about the culture at Countrywide (it’s worth noting that she basically exhonerates Mozilo, saying that she always saw him want fraudsters fired):
Only later — after she took over the mortgage fraud investigation unit — did she realize, she says, that cover ups were part of the culture of Countrywide, and that efforts to paper over problems had less to do with bureaucratic infighting and more to do with hiding something darker within the company’s culture.
“What I came to find out,” she says, “was that it was all by design.”
But if you don’t believe Foster the former Countrywide executive, maybe you’ll believe some of the other thirty people Hudson finds who say that “Countrywide executives encouraged or condoned fraud.”
Eighteen of these ex-employees, including Foster, claim they were demoted or fired for questioning fraud. They say sales managers, personnel executives and other company officials used intimidation and firings to silence whistleblowers.
Here are some examples Hudson pulls from lawsuits:
Some ex-employees say they went high up Countrywide’s chain of command to raise red flags about fraud. Mark Bonjean, a former operations unit manager in Arizona, complained to a divisional vice president, according to a lawsuit in state court in Maricopa County. Within two hours of sending the VP an email about what he believed were violations of the state’s organized crime and fraud statutes, the suit said, he was placed on administrative leave. The next day, according to the lawsuit, he was fired.
Another ex-Countrywider, Shahima Shaheem, claimed she took her complaints to the very top. Like Enid Thompson before her, she said she wrote an email directly to Mozilo, the CEO, about fraud and retaliation. She never heard back from Mozilo, according to her lawsuit in Contra Costa Superior Court. Instead, the suit said, she was subjected to a campaign of harassment by company executives and human-resources representatives that forced her to leave her job.
Shaheem’s case was settled out of court, her attorney said.
- 1
- 2
Ryan wrote: "Saying that the lender is a victim, when the people who run it commit fraud, is essentially saying that the corporate entity can’t be blamed for anything. Corporations don’t defraud people; people defraud people—or something like that. It’s nonsense."
padikiller responds: No it isn't. It's plain sense.
How in the Hell can a corporation defraud anyone without a person being involved? HUH?
This is one of the sillier things Ryan has written.
A corporation is a legal fiction. It doesn't have a brain. And it can't act. A corporation can't be incarcerated, it can't write a check, it can't fill out a tax return or an SEC filing, it can't fire anyone or hire anyone, etc. etc. etc.
Only PEOPLE can think or act.
Ryan's fallacious statement to the contrary is offered to provide commie/liberal cover for the wasting criticism he knows to be coming from Realityville - namely that this story is yet another of his typical "vast Wall Street conspiracy" stories...
WHO committed fraud here? HUH?
WHO are the “Countrywide executives" who "encouraged or condoned fraud"?
WHO are the executives who illegally fired or harassed employees?
The only Countrywide executive mentioned by name in the entire story is Angelo Mozilo. So what do we learn about him? That Countrywide's fraud investigator "basically exhonerates [sic] Mozilo, saying that she always saw him want fraudsters fired".
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the extent of the factual basis for any allegation of any specific act by any actual named human being in this entire story.
The Countrywide CEO wanted fraudsters canned and some other unnamed Countrywide executives may have acted illegally in terminating a couple of employees, according to disgruntled former employees and a couple of regulatory decisions.
STOP THE PRESSES!
Now don't get me wrong... I am NOT condoning fraud or any other illegal conduct. Were there fraudsters at Countrywide? No question about it. You will find criminals in any huge organization. Corporations, governments, charities, churches, whatever. Should criminals be identified and punished? Without a doubt.
But doesn't this process require identifying them first? Don't you think this is a good idea?
And given that the evidence is that the CEO had a zero-tolerance policy for fraud and that the remaining vague allegations against unnamed Countrywide employees hail primarily from disgruntled former employees (many of whom are involved in litigation against the company), don't you think that it is a bit of stretch to impute a general fraudulent intent in the entire corporation?
Without specifics, what good does these speculative conspiratorial assertions do anyone? What practical affect do they have, aside from cheering on the commie/liberal anti-corporate crowd?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 07:39 AM
That's funny. I don't recall you identifying a person when you blamed Freddy mac, fanny mae, and the government for the crisis we "commies" showed was caused by rampant private sector fraud.
And, by the way, I agree with you, corporations are not people entitled to the rights of free speech and other constitutional guarantees. You have to deal with your own body of law which">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person">which claims different but to me, using a corporation as a shield against legal responsibility is wrong. The actions of an individual can be prosecuted and the individual can be incarcerated. The "actions" of a corporation? Well you can find accountable in civil court and the government has the rarely exercised right to revoke its charter and regulatory agencies can punish such actions, but a corporation cannot go to jail and not collect 200 dollars.
But as to the question on whether a corporation has character, whenever you have a collection of people working together, a culture develops. It's true of government agencies, it's true of corporate divisions, it's true of bushman tribes. The dynamics of that culture can be perverted which perverts the organization.
This is ALWAYS a failure of management. Whether it was through neglect, because the manager didn't want to know to deeply where the money was coming from, or from active encouragement, because the manager didn't care where the profits were coming from - he just wanted more, the manager is responsible for the culture he is supposed to manage. Mozilo failed at managing the culture of integrity necessary in financial services for building long term wealth and, considering the stories I've read where he pushed riskier and riskier products onto securitizers and forced lendees into refinance fee churn and bought off politicians to keep these operations clear and fought regulators like Eliot Spitzer who were busting Countrywide for fraud instead of fighting the fraudsters, I suspect the allegations of innocence are somewhat overstated.
But, once again, we have paddy taking evidence of fraud and spinning it as "conspiratorial". Plutocratic nonsense. It's hard to point at the people you play racketball with and call them frauds. Much easier to point at people eating "steak and ho ho's", the people in government who have tried to do their jobs while republican wall street approved appointees pushed their work into the shredder, and freddy and fannie mae. Never the banks fault. Never wall streets fault. Don't bother examining their cultures when you should blame THE GOVERNMENT. You're an apologist for the worst kinds of sociopaths.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 01:12 PM
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm a great admirer of Hudson's work having read The Monster and I do recall that he touched on this in that book.
It is too bad that journalists who do real work with real consequences, such as Hudson and David Cay Johnston are no longer working for the big papers. Perhaps it is for the best though. I cannot imagine any scenario where they would not be neutered by their employers.
#3 Posted by blah, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 03:15 PM
Find the people who committed fraud and open up a can of whoop ass on them.
But WHAT fraud? WHICH people?
Mozilo was cleared by DOJ investigators and according to even a hostile disgruntled witness, he had a zero tolerance policy for fraudsters. Big scandal there!
So what's left? A bunch of disgruntled former employees claim that some unspecified number of unnamed individuals retaliated against them.... But WHERE is the fraud? WHO lied to get money? WHEN did it happen?
From these unsubstantiated claims of a group of disgruntled employees the commie/liberals are keen to infer a nefarious "corporate culture" of fraud? For real?
I don't dispute that a corporate culture evolves, especially when spurred my management - but this is nothing but the collective behavior of individuals. A corporation can do no wrong - nor any good. It is a tool that can be used properly, or abused terribly - like a gun - and when it is abused the P E O P L E who do so should be punished. When used properly, corporations allow investors to foster commerce without incurring unlimited liability - a system that has done more to elevate the human condition than anything else in the history of humanity.
Once again, we're off on ride in whisper mode in one of Ryan's "vast Wall Street conspiracy" Black Helicopters. Nameless allegations of unspecified "fraud" behind every file cabinet at Countrywide. Just as easy to see as the Tooth Fairy.
As for the distinction between corporations and government - the simple truth is that government is inherently evil - a necessary one - but an evil, nonetheless. It exists only to force people to do things they don't want to do or to keep them from doing things they do want to do, to the extent that these things violate policies. Government exists to restrict liberty and limit freedom of individuals - ultimately at gunpoint.
Government should be limited in scope to protect property rights, to maintain order, to facilitate commerce and to ensure due process of law - concepts that a bunch of very smart people realized 220 years ago, having learned them the hard way through a quarter century of oppression, education, war, insurrection and instability.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 03:31 PM
"Mozilo was cleared by DOJ investigators"
Lie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39688498/ns/business-real_estate/t/former-countrywide-chief-settles-sec-charges/
"As for the distinction between corporations and government - the simple truth is that government is inherently evil"
No, the simple truth is that padkiller is inherently stupid. Institutions such as corporations and governments are not inherently anything, the people within those institutions shape their nature. It's your argument, why don't you use it honestly and property?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 03:35 AM
padikiller previously stated: Mozilo was cleared by DOJ investigators
Thimbles responded : Lie
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39688498/ns/business-real_estate/t/former-countrywide-chief-settles-sec-charges/
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell:
Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have dropped their criminal investigation into Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender, according to a person with direct knowledge of the investigation.
The closure of the case after two years of inquiry follows last October’s settlement by Mr. Mozilo of insider trading allegations made by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulators had contended that Mr. Mozilo sold $140 million in Countrywide stock between 2006 and 2007 even as he recognized that his company was faltering. Countrywide and Bank of America paid $45 million of Mr. Mozilo’s $67.5 million settlement, and he was responsible for the rest.
Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, Mr. Mozilo agreed to be banned from serving as an officer or a director of a public company.
The conclusion by prosecutors that Mr. Mozilo, 72, did not engage in criminal conduct while directing Countrywide will likely fuel broad concerns that few high-level executives of financial companies are being held accountable for the actions that led to the financial crisis of 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/business/20mozilo.html
You can lead the uninformed to the Lake of Reason, but you can't make them drink from it.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 09:00 AM
A corporation reflects an exercise of liberty - voluntary participation by free people.
A government reflects a restraint upon liberty - involuntary submission to authority, ultimately at gunpoint
Anyone who can't see this distinction needs therapy (as well as a remedial history education).
Any government - a despotic one or a democratic one - exists to keep people from doing things they would otherwise do and to force people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Democratic government are better because they
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 09:11 AM
CONTINUING
Democratic governments are generally better because they are (theoretically) more restrained, but they still exist to force people to do things,
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 09:42 AM
Mozilo took a deal from the sec and DOJ in which he paid a fine and promised never to be an officer in a corporation again in exchange for being allowed to admit no-wrong doing.
You claimed he was cleared of wrong doing. Is there not a difference between someone accepting a deal from Obama's weak prosecutorial authorities and someone being cleared of charges after a full throated prosecution which collapsed from lack of evidence? He wasn't cleared of charges, he took a deal to avoid charges. Your implication of innocence and lacking information is a lie.
And corporations allow certain people to exercise freedom at the cost of others. They are purposed with the task of maximizing profit while externalizing costs to their society, their labor, and their customers. This focus on profit, often short term, destroys wealth long term and rewards individuals who are sociopathic. There is no place in which this is more triue than wall street and the finance industry where there is a focus on bubble investments and rent extraction who's costs have been bourne by the society and the world surrounding them. I don't see how organizations populated by the scum of the earth compare favoriably with a democracy. But then again, I'm not a stupid plutocrat.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 11:01 AM
Thimbles further prevaricates: Mozilo took a deal from the sec and DOJ
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: Bullshit.
Mozilo never negotiated with DOJ, much less did he ever "take a deal" from them... PERIOD.
This is just a baldfaced lie, Thimbles.
If anyone can provide proof that Mozila took a deal from any at the Dept of Justice I will donate $100 to the charity of Thimbles' choice.
The FACT is that Mozila settled a CIVIL claim with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing, but the TRUTH is that while Mozila was investigated by DOJ prosecutors, he NEVER "took a deal" from the Dept of Justice, and he was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by federal prosecutors after the investigation.
Better luck next fabrication Thimbo...
It just burns your commie britches to accept the REALITY that the guy isn't guilty of any crime, doesn't it?
Well, the truth hurts sometimes... Cowboy up.
Thimbles spews more commie stupidity: And corporations allow certain people to exercise freedom at the cost of others. They are purposed with the task of maximizing profit while externalizing costs to their society, their labor, and their customers
padikiller scoffs: You're off your damned rocker. We're talking about V O L U N T A R Y decisions made by free people.. investors, customers, employees, etc... These "externalized costs" are actually VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS that are mutually beneficial. Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to force that person to work for a corporation (at least not yet, though you commies are putting us in that direction). Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to force them to buy products (at least not for a year or two until Obamacare's mandate takes effect).
What plain commie idiocy!
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 12:20 PM
"Mozilo never negotiated with DOJ, much less did he ever "take a deal" from them... PERIOD."
They've all taken deals that this "commie" run DOJ has been more than happy to make. That is why NO ONE of import has been prosecuted despite the evidence unearthed by journalistic, senate, and commission investigations. Holder, and the Bush appointees that were burrowed in during the Bush Justice scandals and never gotten rid of by Obama, are not interested in criminal prosecuting the individuals who's "confidence" the market rests upon and who may likely offer them work down the road in consideration of their extensive justice department experience.
Mozilo wasn't cleared of charges, charges weren't brought.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/23/countrywide-mozilo-fraud-no-prison-trial-sec-mortgage-meltdown-deal-crisis/
DOJ prosecutions often rely on SEC findings. That investigation was closed in a deal. Later the DOJ dropped the case when the Mozilo case was less high profile. These guys aren't Eliot Spitzer types, after all they saw what happened to Eliot Spitzer. These guys dropped the case, they didn't prosecute the charges. He was not cleared of the charges because no charges were made. There's plenty of evidence of criminal behavior. Innocent people, as you claim Mozilo is, don't need to buy off the SEC.
"You're off your damned rocker. We're talking about V O L U N T A R Y decisions made by free people.. investors, customers, employees, etc..."
Not one dollar of business. Remember that when you're talking about the corporate character responsible for supporting so many despots over so many democracy because these "free" institutions like centralized government power when it's bought. Not one dollar.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 01:43 AM
Thimbles lies: Mozilo took a deal from the sec and DOJ...
padikiller reiterates and ups the ante: I will pay $100 to the charity of Thimbles' choice and another $100 to the charity of choice of anyone who posts proof that Mozilo took any deal in which the Department of Justice was involved.
The TRUTH is that Thimbles is simply lying here, as he is wont to do (though he is backpedaling now with even more speculative fiction, now that he has been busted).
Mozilo was never involved in any negotiations with anyone at DOJ, his settlement with the SEC did not involve DOJ, he was investigated by DOJ, and DOJ prosecutors cleared him of criminal wrongdoing. No deal was offered by DOJ, and no deal he made with the SEC included any mention of DOJ nor any terms relating to settlement of criminal charges. PERIOD.
These are just some of those irrefutable fact-thingies that aren't going to go away simply because they refute the commie/liberal "every CEO is a criminal" meme.
Thimbles needs to man up and deal with the reality.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 08:18 AM
Was Mozilo charged? If he was not, then he could not have been "cleared of all charges". There wasno prosecution nor defense mounted to establish his innocence. Not a day in a DOJ court. There was a decision not to prosecute in spite of his pushing of risky products which he knew to be toxic and in spite of his deception of investors about his toxic portfolio as he was liquidating his own shares in countrywide. All of this is documented. The only difference between Madoff and Mozilo is that Mozilo has more "friends".
Once again, padkiller rises to the defense of frauds and thieves in his precious free market. Only the government does evil in paddyland. It's inherent afterall.
My god, what idiocy.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 11:08 AM
Thimbles lies: Mozilo took a deal from the sec and DOJ...
padikiller reiterates and ups the ante: I will pay $100 to the charity of Thimbles' choice and another $100 to the charity of choice of anyone who posts proof that Mozilo took any deal in which the Department of Justice was involved.
The TRUTH is that Thimbles is simply lying here, as he is wont to do (though he is backpedaling now with even more speculative fiction, now that he has been busted).
Mozilo was never involved in any negotiations with anyone at DOJ, his settlement with the SEC did not involve DOJ, he was investigated by DOJ, and DOJ prosecutors cleared him of criminal wrongdoing. No deal was offered by DOJ, and no deal he made with the SEC included any mention of DOJ nor any terms relating to settlement of criminal charges. PERIOD.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 06:25 PM
Time to toll the Reality Bell, once again...
Noblesse oblige...
"After paying a $22.5 million fine, and after Bank of America footed the bill for a $45 million settlement on his behalf, former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo has had his name cleared.
Criminally, at least...
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/doj-closes-investigation-of-former-countrywide-ceo-mozilo-2011-02-21
"The conclusion by prosecutors that Mr. Mozilo, 72, did not engage in criminal conduct while directing Countrywide will likely fuel broad concerns that few high-level executives of financial companies are being held accountable for the actions that led to the financial crisis of 2008."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/business/20mozilo.html
...The U.S. Justice Department closed the investigation of Mozilo that began in 2008, determining that those same actions made by Mozilo while he was CEO of the company were not criminal.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 08:24 PM
Yes, and how does that mesh with lying to securitizers, investors, and customers about the content of his toxic products?
Mozilo knew, lied, and liquidated his stock. His company was one of the primary actors responsible for the crisis and he acted, based on his own inside knowledge, to protect his interests.
Are you going to claim that is not a crime?
You said he was cleared of any charges and you said he was innocent. I say the DOJ refused to charge him based on the evidence available and that decision was likely made in the light of the SEC deal.
Do you assert he was innocent? Do you assert that his actions were not wrong and that he was blameless as a CEO for what his company did and for what he did based on that knowledge?
Do you enjoy defending frauds and thieves? It appears so.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 09:17 PM
Thimbles dances The Ole' Commie/Liberal Two Step: I say the DOJ refused to charge him based on the evidence available and that decision was likely made in the light of the SEC deal.
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: No, Thimbles... What you ACTUALLY said was "Mozilo took a deal from the sec and DOJ"
This thing you actually said is a L I E. A pure F A B R I C A T I O N.
Mozilo never took a deal from anyone at the DOJ, despite your prevarication to the contrary. PERIOD.
What you are now saying (spinning up the rotors on your Chittum Model 7 Anti-Corporate Black Helicopter to backpedal from your lie) is that in your (completely uneducated and utterly uniformed) opinion, DOJ "likely" based its decision on SEC information...
Which is not only unfounded kooky commie conspiratorial nonsense, but also clearly absurd on its face, since any reasonable person would presume that any evidence that could justify a huge civil fine and settlement at the SEC would do nothing but bolster criminal charges at DOJ.
Sorry dude, that those fact-thingies spoil your commie crack dreams...
But the reality is what it is.
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 09:37 PM
Are his actions innocent? It's a simple question Padi. You said he was innocent and cleared of all charges, are his actions innocent?
Or are you, once again, defending a bald-faced fraud and liar?
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 11:16 PM
I said Mozilo was cleared of CRIMINAL charges by DOJ investigators...
Because he was.
It's called R E A L I T Y.
Try it some time.
YOU said Mozilo took a deal from the SEC and DOJ.
THIS is a L I E.
See how it works? Things that ACTUALLY happened occur in REALITY, while things that didn't actually happen form the basis of LIES.
It isn't complicated. Most people don't need 15 smacks of the Reality Stick to absorb the concept.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 11:46 AM
IS HE INNOCENT? I know the DOJ didn't charge him, but that's been no measure of innocence since 2002 when Bush began underpolicing by understaffing white collar crime. You claimed he was "cleared of charges". You are wrong. Charges were not made, no prosecution was brought, there was no charge to clear. You cannot claim that someone went through the vigorous process of defending himself in public and clearing himself of his charges when he never touched a DOJ courtroom because the DOJ decided not to lay a charge, never mind prosecute.
And that is a questionable decision. Why? His actions were documented and criminal. Are you making the case that his actions, regardless of what the DOJ decided to do, are innocent? You've stated Mozilo is. Are you stating such because of a legal definition of guilt, which cannot be achieved unless there is admission or verdict, or because you judge his actions innocent?
Because, regardless of what the DOJ decided to do, he has the record of a guilty man.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 01:37 PM
Thimbles dodges from his false claim that Angelo Mozilo took a deal from the DOJ: "IS HE INNOCENT?"
padikiller schools: In America, yes he is! (Until you commies get rid of the presumption of innocence, that is). People aren't guilty until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after due process of law.
But my opinion doesn't matter - the PROSECUTORS think he's innocent, and that's what matters.
Thimbles just wont quit: His [Mozilo's] actions were documented and criminal.
padikiller responds: BULLSHIT.
WHAT specific crime did he commit? Give us a code section, Thimbo.
Are you like Commie Cracker Jacks? At least one lie in every post?
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 09:38 PM
Geez, get a room, you two.
#22 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 12:17 PM
"padikiller schools: In America, yes he is! (Until you commies get rid of the presumption of innocence, that is). People aren't guilty until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after due process of law."
I would have accepted this if that was what you were attempting to portray. "The guy is as innocent of fraud as Al Capone was of mob violence during his heyday. No matter how responsible he was for the violent circumstances, if you can't show his hands on the many smoking guns in court, you can't pin him with murder."
Mozilo is guilty of fraud:
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/2011/06/30/the-smartest-dealmaker-on-wall-street/
He paid 22 million to escape that charge.
While his company was plagued with rampant fraud, and the products they came out with he described as "toxic", he used regulatory arbitrage to get even weaker regulators than he had in 2006 (the Office of Thrift Supervision was the notoriously weak regulator overseeing AIG).
He was aware of the fraud being done by his corporate structure and he chose not to change it, but to sign off on his corrupt business while selling his shares quietly.
As for the DOJ, this explains a bit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all
"As nonprosecutions go, perhaps none is more puzzling to legal experts than the case of Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Last month, the office of the United States attorney for Los Angeles dropped its investigation of Mr. Mozilo after the S.E.C. extracted a settlement from him in a civil fraud case. Mr. Mozilo paid $22.5 million in penalties, without admitting or denying the accusations.
White-collar crime lawyers contend that Countrywide exemplifies the difficulties of mounting a criminal case without assistance and documentation from regulators — the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Fed, in Countrywide’s case...
The Justice Department can bring civil or criminal cases, while the S.E.C. can file only civil lawsuits.
All of these enforcement agencies traditionally depend heavily on referrals from bank regulators, who are more savvy on complex financial matters.
But data supplied by the Justice Department and compiled by a group at Syracuse University show that over the last decade, regulators have referred substantially fewer cases to criminal investigators than previously.
The university’s ’Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse indicates that in 1995, bank regulators referred 1,837 cases to the Justice Department. In 2006, that number had fallen to 75. In the four subsequent years, a period encompassing the worst of the crisis, an average of only 72 a year have been referred for criminal prosecution...
The thrift supervisor, however, has not referred a single case to the Justice Department since 2000, the Syracuse data show. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a unit of the Treasury Department, has referred only three in the last decade.
The comptroller’s office declined to comment on its referrals. But a spokesman, Kevin Mukri, noted that bank regulators can and do bring their own civil enforcement actions. But most are against small banks and do not involve the stiff penalties that accompany criminal charges.
Historically, Countrywide’s bank subsidiary was overseen by the comptroller, while the Federal Reserve supervised its home loans unit. But in March 2007, Countrywide switched oversight of both units to the thrift supervisor. That agency was overseen at the time by John M. Reich, a former banker and Senate staff member appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush...
Mr. Gnaizda sugg
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 02:49 PM
"Kevin Mukri, noted that bank regulators can and do bring their own civil enforcement actions. But mo-"st are against small banks and do not involve the stiff penalties that accompany criminal charges.
Historically, Countrywide’s bank subsidiary was overseen by the comptroller, while the Federal Reserve supervised its home loans unit. But in March 2007, Countrywide switched oversight of both units to the thrift supervisor. That agency was overseen at the time by John M. Reich, a former banker and Senate staff member appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush...
Mr. Gnaizda suggested many times that the thrift supervisor tighten its oversight of the company, he said. He said he advised Mr. Reich to set up a hot line for whistle-blowers inside Countrywide to communicate with regulators.
“I told John, ‘This is what any police chief does if he wants to solve a crime,’ ” Mr. Gnaizda said in an interview. “John was uninterested. He told me he was a good friend of Mozilo’s.”"
Is he not responsible for the circumstances within his company? Is he an innocent actor in all the crime and fraud that took place within Countrywide? Is he not accountable for the damage his company did to the economy?
Is he innocent Al Capone style or is he innocent as the sinless doves who lead the banks in mythical paddyworld?
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 02:53 PM
I know for a fact of a countrywide-mortgaged-backed-securities-fraud-expert that fled to Chile on a money laundry skim. He had privileged information and prepared his retirement exit at age 42, just when the financial bubble burst.
If anyone is interested in finding his whereabouts please contact me. I learned a lot from him.
#25 Posted by maria angelica lopez, CJR on Wed 19 Oct 2011 at 04:40 PM
I am interested in any information regarding fraud/bad practices employed by Countrywide if you would like to talk, please email me at countrywidefraud@gmail.com
#26 Posted by A Smith, CJR on Tue 19 Jun 2012 at 01:05 PM