Sounds exactly like FBI Director Comey when he let H. Clinton off, you have to be able to prove criminal intent.
The securities laws are very complex, but what they amount to is that you have to disclose risks in the prospectus. I actually downloaded and read parts of the prospectus for the famous Abacus SIV that was at the center of The Big Short. The prospectus clearly states all the risks - this is a Cayman Islands corporation no assets other than very risky mortgages, you will probably not be paid all the interest, you may not get your principal back, etc, etc. Nobody read it.
Preet is a Democratic operative - failed on the Clinton Foundation investigation, failed on investigating DeBlasio and Cuomo, and he’s a very close friend of Schumer’s (was his counsel).
Good riddance.
Pretty sure one would be hard pressed to find an accounting firm that would say writing a bunch of no-doc mortgages to unqualified borrowers is financially sound.
Unfortunately, this guy is correct.
Intent is everything in these proceedings. Hiring the lawyers to get legal advice shows there was “no intent” violate the law.
What have is two problems. First, the laws are so complicated that they tie themselves up in contradictory knots. Second, the Federal Government is far too intertwined with these companies - led their investors take the risk, and let them succeed or fail on their own merits. Anything “too big to fail” needs to be broken up under anti-trust laws.
Funny how that criminal intent didn’t apply to Dinesh. According to his previous rationale, Dinesh only needed to say, “I lost track of how much money I donated.”
You do NOT have to have intent, “ignorance of law excuses no one”