Citigroup and the people who brought the financial meltdown

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
October 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.

Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.

In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.

The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.

Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.

Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.

“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided” to investors in the security, said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, referring to Wednesday’s action. “Investors were not informed that Citigroup had decided to bet against them and had helped to choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”

The complex amalgamation of investments known as Class V Funding III produced $126 million in profits for Citigroup’s brokerage subsidiary, and another $34 million in fees for putting it together. All of that, including interest and the $95 million fine, will now be going back to the investors; the government will not receive anything.

In a statement, Citigroup noted that the S.E.C. did not charge it with “intentional or reckless misconduct.” Rather, it settled charges that its actions were negligent and misleading to investors. Despite its profits on the current deal, over all Citigroup lost tens of billions of dollars on its holdings of mortgage-related investments.

“We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly,” the company said in a statement. “Since the crisis, we have bolstered our financial strength, overhauled the risk management function, significantly reduced risk on the balance sheet and returned to the basics of banking.”

The S.E.C. on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company. But those individuals were midlevel employees in each company’s investment and trading departments; no senior executives at either company were charged...

At last, the SEC shows more respect to Markopolos (terrific name, right?) than to Bernie Madoff

Seven SEC employees disciplined on failure to stop Madoff fraud
By David S. Hilzenrath
November 11, 2011

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to stop Bernard Madoff’s long-running investment fraud despite repeated warnings, has disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the matter but did not fire anyone, a person familiar with the actions said.

An eighth employee resigned before disciplinary action was taken, the person said.

The SEC’s head of human resources had recommended that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro fire one individual, according to a second person, an official involved in the process. The human resources head took that position after a law firm hired by the SEC to advise it on the disciplinary actions also recommended that the employee be fired, the official said.

The law firm, Fortney & Scott, “recommended formal disciplinary action, including removal from service,” for an assistant regional director at the SEC, the agency’s inspector general said in an August report.

The punishments given the employees varied and included suspensions, pay cuts and demotions, according to the first person familiar with the matter. An employee who received one of the most severe sanctions got a 30-day suspension and a demotion. Another was given a pay cut of about 6 percent. At the low end, one employee was suspended for seven days, another for three days and yet another was issued a “counseling memo,” which is a step below a reprimand.

The SEC’s disciplinary process with respect to the Madoff matter was concluded months ago, SEC spokesman John Nester said Friday. He had no other immediate comment.

When the law firm advising the SEC recommended that an employee be fired, it included a qualifier, the second person familiar with the matter said. If the SEC thought it was important to avoid losing that individual’s services, it could consider a different punishment.

The people who spoke about the disciplinary process did so on condition of anonymity. One cited the sensitivity of the information and the other was not authorized to discuss it.

Madoff’s fraud cost investors billions of dollars, shattered lives, and became perhaps the biggest embarrassment in the SEC’s history. After Madoff’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, a financial sleuth named Harry Markopolos became famous for having tried in vain to get SEC employees to see through the scam...

Bernard Madoff tries to squirrel away some valuable assets

Bid to Revoke Madoff’s Bail Cites His Gifts
By ALEX BERENSON
January 5, 2009

Contending that Bernard L. Madoff sent at least a million dollars worth of jewelry as gifts to family members and friends last month, federal prosecutors asked a judge on Monday to revoke his bail and send him to jail.


Mr. Madoff, who has been free after posting bail of $10 million when he was charged last month with securities fraud, remained free after the hearing pending a ruling by the magistrate judge, Ronald L. Ellis of United States District Court in Manhattan...

United States Attorney Marc O. Litt asked for revocation of Mr. Madoff’s bail, arguing that the gifts violated conditions that barred him from disposing of any of his assets.

The newly aggressive stance by prosecutors appeared to represent a serious deterioration in relations between the government and Mr. Madoff, who is said to have confessed to a huge Ponzi scheme last month and had seemed to be cooperating with investigators trying to unravel the fraud. In an interview on Monday evening, a lawyer for Mr. Madoff backed away from earlier statements that Mr. Madoff was helping investigators.

While Mr. Madoff faced the potential loss of his freedom in New York, the Securities and Exchange Commission came under heavy criticism from lawmakers in Washington.

At a hearing Monday afternoon, members of a House committee questioned why the agency had not uncovered Mr. Madoff’s fraud long before early December, when he is said to have confessed it to F.B.I. agents. The S.E.C.’s inspector general, H. David Kotz, promised a full investigation.

At the court hearing in New York, Mr. Litt told Judge Ellis that Mr. Madoff and his wife, Ruth, had mailed packages of valuables in late December to his sons, his brother and friends. Since mid-December, Mr. Madoff has been under house arrest at his luxury apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, guarded by private security guards paid for by his wife.

By sending the packages, Mr. Madoff violated the terms of his bail agreement with the government, Mr. Litt said...