Wells Fargo, Wachovia Involved in Numerous Mexican Drug Laundering Schemes
by ilene - July 4th, 2010 3:36 am
Wells Fargo, Wachovia Involved in Numerous Mexican Drug Laundering Schemes
Courtesy of Mish
If you or I was involved in drug laundering of as little as 2 dollars and fifty cents we would be in prison.
Wachovia bank, now part of Wells Fargo via a merger, has laundered countless sums of Mexican cartel drug money and will get off with a slap of the wrist. The reason …Wells Fargo is too big to fail.
Please consider Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal
Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.
They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.
The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.
This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers — including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.
Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history — a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product.
“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.
No bank has been more closely connected with Mexican money laundering than Wachovia. Founded in 1879, Wachovia became the largest bank by assets in the southeastern U.S. by 1900.
…
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn 
del.icio.us
DiggHow To Run Drug Money: Be A (Large) Bank
by ilene - June 30th, 2010 3:32 pm
How To Run Drug Money: Be A (Large) Bank
.png)
Courtesy of Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker
Oh, so the banks don’t just bilk investors and rip off municipalities, they also help Mexican Gangs run drugs?
This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers — including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.
The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years.
That’s nice. Guns and ammunition cost money – lots of it. Getting that money requires some means of transporting it and "laundering" it. For that, we turn to the largest financial institutions in the world, who, it turns out, have never been prosecuted for these felonious acts.
“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.
Blatant disregard? Sounds like something you’d say at a sentencing hearing, right? Well, no….
No big U.S. bank — Wells Fargo included — has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.
‘No Capacity to Regulate’
Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory.
Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets, says Jack Blum, a U.S. Senate investigator for 14 years and a consultant to international banks and brokerage firms on money laundering.
The theory is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for big banks, Blum says.
“There’s no capacity to regulate or punish them because they’re too big to be threatened with failure,” Blum says. “They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line,
…
Which Has a Better Ring – The Hexopoly or The Systemic Six?
by ilene - June 28th, 2010 5:17 pm
Which Has a Better Ring – The Hexopoly or The Systemic Six?
Courtesy of Joshua M Brown, The Reformed Broker
The Financial Reform Bill, which I’ve nicknamed The Let’s Not Allow Our Largest Donors To Embarrass Us Again Act of 2010, is not a total failure, but it fails miserably to address perhaps the worst part of the crisis - Too Big To Fail.
The bill doesn’t really address the Hexopoly of Too Big To Fail Banks. I’m also calling theseThe Systemic Six.
The big six banks (Goldie, Morgan, JP, B of A, Wells and Citi) will be limited in their hedge fund investments and trading activity, but not very limited. The interconnectedness, however, is unchanged, and this is the very crux of the matter.
Citi was saved to prevent it from dragging Wells down, Wachovia, Merrill, Morgan were all "assisted" to prevent Goldman and JPMorgan Chase from going down, and on and on. We were told that the dominoes were already falling after Lehman and so emergency measures (bailouts) were necessary.
And for arguments sake, let’s say this was true at the time or was the best option to prevent the Depression. OK, fine. But so why doesn’t the new legislation address that and seek a change for the fact that these six banks (and others) can cause such a massive chain reaction? It’s a shocking gap in the provisions of the bill.
And don’t even get me started on the Fannie and Freddie omission (consider those cans kicked down the road). If Finance Reform were a wedding, Fannie and Freddie would be placed at the farthest table from the action, over by the kitchen doors like the ugly cousins of the banks that they truly are.
Oh well, maybe we’ll get it right after the next economic evisceration. For now, The Hexopoly orThe Systemic Six are here to stay.
****
Picture credit MTTS (h/t Jr. Deputy Accountant)
So What Did We Do? We Made ‘Em Even Too Biggier To Fail
by ilene - June 5th, 2010 10:36 am
So What Did We Do? We Made ‘Em Even Too Biggier To Fail
Courtesy of Joshua M Brown, The Reformed Broker
So how did America solve the problem of the Too Big To Fail Banks? Simple, we doubled the size of them. Now they’re too gigantic to fail.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Here’s Stephen Grocer in the WSJ with this incredible story (emphasis Daddy’s):
Citi, BofA, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo now control $7.7 trillion in assets and $3.2 trillion in deposits as of March 30. To put that in perspective: The $7.7 trillion in assets is almost double the combined assets of the next 46 biggest banksand 37% more in deposits.
More importantly, those four banks control more assets today than they did in December 2007, when Deal Journal first wrote about “too big to fail.” Back then J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, BofA and Wells held $4.95 trillion in assets.
In the brokerage business, we have a term called Concentrated Position, meaning an account with a greater-than-normal percentage of assets in one or two large holdings. Accounts with concentrated positions are seen to carry more risk (obviously) and are ineligible for margin privileges in some cases. Essentially, the entire banking system has become one big concentrated position account, in worse shape than it was in before the crash (thanks to mergers and attrition, no doubt, but still).
This is an interesting solution to the systemic risk problem we were all carrying on about over the last few years. Bravo.
Source:
Would Washington Let JPM, Citi, B of A or Wells Fail? (WSJ)
Hat Tip Daniel Hicks (NewsAudit)
What You Can Do To Bring Wall Street Under Control
by ilene - May 30th, 2010 1:13 pm
What You Can Do To Bring Wall Street Under Control
Courtesy of Robert Reich
The most important remaining battle to rein in Wall Street is over Senator Blanche Lincoln’s measure to stop the big banks from being subsidized by taxpayers for their risky derivative trades. Miraculously, it’s still in the bill but it’s on life support. The bill has now gone to the conference committee where differences between the House and Senate bills are to be ironed out.
But official Washington (read: dependent on Wall Street for money) is dead set against it. Even Barney Frank — who Massachusetts voters used to consider a reliable progressive until he became chair of the House Financial Services Committee — has vowed to kill Lincoln’s provision. And the White House says the measure is “not core,” which in Washington-lingo means “you’re free to dump it.”
Big, big money is at stake. Wall Street’s five largest banks have a corner on the trade, raking in about in about $30 billion in over-the-counter derivatives last year. It’s the single largest reason they’re too big to fail. So they’re spending like mad on Washington lobbyists and campaign donations in order to keep the subsidy in place. (Lincoln’s provision doesn’t force them to give up derivative trading, by the way; it only forces them to do it in a separate entity that doesn’t get subsidized by deposit insurance or the Fed’s discount window).
All the guns are aimed at this measure. But it’s still possible that the people can prevail, if we’re organized and active. Here’s a list of all the Dems on the Senate Banking and House Finance Committee, as well as Republican conferees. All conferees are indicated by ->.
Organize and mobilize your friends and acquaintances, especially those who live in these states or districts, to call their members and make their voices heard. Tell them you want Lincoln’s measure (Section 716 of the Senate bill) to remain in the final bill. Say you’ll hold them responsible if it goes.
Alabama -> Senator Richard C. Shelby (202) 224-5744
Arkansas -> Senator Blanche Lincoln (202) 224-4843
California -> Rep. Maxine Waters (202) 225-2201 (California-11)
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA (202) 225-5911
Rep. Jackie Speier, CA (202) 225-3531
Rep. Joe Baca, CA (202)225-6161
Colorado -> Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) (202) 224-5852
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO 202.225.2645
Connecticut -> Chairman Christopher J. Dodd…
Obama’s Regulatory Brain
by ilene - May 24th, 2010 3:17 pm
Introduction by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:
We have long claimed that any financial reform, determined by the Senator from Countrywide and the Rep from Fannie (thank you Cliff Asness), is worthless, and any debate over it is completely useless as it will achieve absolutely nothing. Sure, it fills blog pages and editorials but at the end of the day, the only thing that can save the financial system is, paradoxically, its destruction. There are just too many vested interests in the status quo, that absent a full blown implosion and subsequent reset of the system, it is all just smoke and mirrors. Luckily D-Day is approaching. We present an opinion by Robert Reich which validates our view that FinReg, and any debate thereof, is a joke. Robert Reich On Why The Finance Bill Won’t Do Anything.
Obama’s Regulatory Brain
Courtesy of Robert Reich
The most important thing to know about the 1,500 page financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week — now on he way to being reconciled with the House bill — is that it’s regulatory. If does nothing to change the structure of Wall Street.
The bill omits two critical ideas for changing the structure of Wall Street’s biggest banks so they won’t cause more trouble in the future, and leaves a third idea in limbo. The White House doesn’t support any of them.
First, although the Senate bill seeks to avoid the “too big to fail” problem by pushing failing banks into an “orderly” bankruptcy-type process, this regulatory approach isn’t enough. The Senate roundly rejected an amendment that would have broken up the biggest banks by imposing caps on the deposits they could hold and their capital assets.
You do not have to be an algorithm-wielding Wall Street whizz-kid to understand that the best way to prevent a bank from becoming too big to fail is preventing it from becoming too big in the first place. The size of Wall Street’s five giants already equals a large percentage of America’s gross domestic product.
That makes them too big to fail almost by definition, because if one or two get into trouble – as they did in 2008 – their demise would shake the foundations of the financial system, even if there were an “orderly” way to liquidate them. Because traders and investors know they are too big…
The White House Should Stop Pandering to the Street and Support Three Critical Banking Reforms
by ilene - May 8th, 2010 6:07 pm
The White House Should Stop Pandering to the Street and Support Three Critical Banking Reforms
Courtesy of Robert Reich
The White House opposes three important financial reforms that have drawn bi-partisan support in the Senate. It should reverse course.
1. Require the Fed to disclose the entities it lends to. There’s no reason the public should be kept in the dark about who benefits when the Fed departs from its traditional interest-setting role and chooses to provide credit (or in Fed parlance, “open its discount window”) to particular companies or entities. To the contrary, a well-functioning capital market and a well-functioning democracy depend on full disclosure about who the Fed picks for such special treatment and why.
Senator Bernard Sanders, Independent of Vermont, pushed an amendment requiring that the Fed be subject to a public audit that reveals which specific companies and entities the Fed is supporting with extra loans. The measure drew support on both sides of the aisle, including conservative Republicans like David Vitter of Louisiana. But Sanders’s amendment met stiff opposition from the White House and the Fed. Both argued that it would undermine the Fed’s independence. That’s a red herring. Fed’s independence is important when it comes to basic decisions about monetary policy and short-term interest rates, but not about which companies and entities get special treatment.
Bowing to the pressure, Sanders has agreed to alter his proposal. He says his new amendment would still force the Fed to disclose many of its steps to bail out banks. But what why shouldn’t all of the Fed’s special machinations be disclosed? And why limit disclosure only to the banks that the Fed supports and not other firms or entities? Sanders shouldn’t retreat on this.
2. Require big banks to spin off their derivative businesses. Derivatives got us into the mess and Wall Street’s biggest banks are still wielding them like giant poker games. That’s because they’re enormously lucrative for the banks. But they’re also dangerous to the economy because bad bets can lead to meltdowns, especially if they’re backed only by flimsy promises to pay up rather than real capital. The credit default swap business continues to be out of control. To this date, no one knows how big it is, where it is, and who has promised what.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, has pushed an…
Senate Votes For Wall Street; Megabanks To Remain Behemoths
by ilene - May 7th, 2010 1:40 pm
Senate Votes For Wall Street; Megabanks To Remain Behemoths
Courtesy of Ryan Grim and Shahien Nasiripour at The Huffington Post
A move to break up major Wall Street banks failed Thursday night by a vote of 61 to 33.
Three Republicans, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Ensign of Nevada, voted with 30 Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in support of the provision. The author of the pending overall financial reform bill in the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, voted against it. (See the fullroll call.)
The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), would have required megabanks to be broken down in size and capped so that their individual failure would not bring down the entire system.
Under Brown-Kaufman, no bank could hold more than 10 percent of the total amount of insured deposits, and a limit would have been placed on liabilities of a single bank to two percent of GDP.…
Taibbi On Goldman: Part Deux
by ilene - May 2nd, 2010 2:06 pm
Taibbi On Goldman: Part Deux
Courtesy of Tyler Durden
The man who started it all, by boldly going where nobody else dared go before (with a few exceptions) and to singlehandedly rewrite the financial dictionary by introducing the concept of the bloodthirsty mollusc, by throwing out Goldman where it belongs, i.e, front and center, writes his follow-up narrative. What can we say: the man was right, to the chagrin of his numerous critics, and what’s worse (or better), may have started an avalanche, which with the prodding of Senators like Ted Kaufman, could well destroy the Too Big To Fail concept once and for all. Now if only someone in the political blogosphere would do to Congress what Taibbi did to mainstream Wall Street, there actually may be hope for America yet.
Just under a year ago, when we published "The Great American Bubble Machine" [RS 1082/1083], accusing Goldman of betting against its clients at the end of the housing boom, virtually the entire smugtocracy of sneering Wall Street cognoscenti scoffed at the notion that the Street’s leading investment bank could be guilty of such a thing. Attracting particular derision were the comments of one of my sources, a prominent hedge-fund chief, who said that when Goldman shorted the subprime-mortgage market at the same time it was selling subprime-backed products to its customers, the bait-and-switch maneuver constituted "the heart of securities fraud."
CNBC’s house blowhard, Charlie Gasparino, laughed at the "securities fraud" line, saying, "Try proving that one." The Atlantic’s online Randian cyber-shill, Megan McArdle, said Rolling Stone had "absurdly" accused Goldman of committing a crime, arguing that "Goldman’s customers for CDOs are not little grannies who think a bond coupon is what you use to buy denture glue." Former Wall Street Journal reporter Heidi Moore hilariously pointed out that Goldman wasn’t the only one betting against the housing market, citing the short-selling success of – you guessed it – John Paulson as evidence that Goldman shouldn’t be singled out.
The truth is that what Goldman is alleged to have done in this SEC case is even worse than what all these assholes laughed at us for talking about last year.
Did we mention Matt has a way with words? And he goes on:
Prior to the "Bubble Machine" piece, I had heard rumors that Goldman had gone out and
…
The Only Way to Prevent Another Bailout of Wall Street is to Cap the Size of Wall Street Banks
by ilene - April 19th, 2010 1:07 pm
The Only Way to Prevent Another Bailout of Wall Street is to Cap the Size of Wall Street Banks
Courtesy of Robert Reich
The best way for Senate Dems and the White House to respond to the Republican charge that the Dem plan for financial reform doesn’t go far enough to prevent another bailout is to call their bluff — and simultaneously do what’s necessary to avoid another bailout: Cap the size of big banks, as the UK is close to doing for its big banks.
The so-called “resolution” mechanism the Dems are pushing to wind down any big bank that gets into trouble is a step in the right direction. But it won’t work if two or more giant banks are endangered at the same time — which is likely to be the case when the next crisis occurs because every big bank uses whatever profitable financial ploys every other bank uses (as they did in the runup to the crash of 2008).
Furthermore, as I’ve noted before, as long as the big banks are allowed to be huge and become even bigger, their political clout in Washington will remain huge and become even bigger. And as long as they have this kind of clout, they’ll wangle a bailout from Washington the next time their bets get them into trouble regardless of any “resolution” authority.
So the Dem bill must cut the big banks down to size. The limit should be $100 billion in assets.
Banks complain that their global competitiveness will suffer if they’re held to this size. Baloney. No one has been able to show any competitive efficiencies above $100 billion in assets. And for Wall Street to suggest its global competitiveness is somehow tied to the competitiveness of the rest of the American economy is the height of hubris anyway. Wall Street is making deals all over the world (i.e. Goldman Sachs and Greece), it’s parking its money all over the world, its star employees reside all over the globe, and it invests wherever it can get the best deals all over the world.
The only competitive advantage to being a giant bank headquartered on Wall Street is to have the economic and political clout to get bailed out by American taxpayers when the next crisis hits. We have learned this once. We do not need to learn it again.
Repeat: The only sure…
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the Favorites backup site
(