I don’t believe this woman is characterizing the result of this matter properly. What the court said is this - Mellon has a right to the collateral Sentinel put for the loan. Sentinel’s crime is all the greater because they put up collateral that wasn’t really theirs. It’s Sentinel’s problem not Mellon’s. And Corzine is as culpable as Sentinel.
Think of it this way. You steal an auto and the title to an auto that’s not really yours and there are no liens. You sell the car and give the title to a third party. Is the third party purchaser going to lose when all comes out? Not if it was a commercial sale, of course he loses if its a sham sale. You remain liable for your crime against the original owner. Mellon sits in the same seat as the person who bought the car. Commerce can figure this one out just as they once figured out how to keep land swindlers form selling the same property two and three times.
I had always thought that if I received stolen property unknowingly that it reverted to the rightful owner when and if the truth came out and that it was tough luck for me. I suppose I could sue the thief for my loss, but the original property owner had first claim.
That does not work. Whoever bought the hot car gets nothing. Money is gone and car goes back to original owner.
It was the bankers responsbility to due their due diligence and make sure the money is not stolen or improperly obtained. Otherwise money laungering would be simpler then it is.