Franklin, Andrews, Kramer & Edelstein

[jbsliverer]

Well I guess crime might have a chance of paying better if the name of the Lord or other religious sanctity gets invoked.

On the other side of the coin (In God We Trust) we have this:


By David Henry

NEW YORK | Thu Jul 7, 2011 2:14pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co agreed to pay $211.2 million to settle federal and state charges that its employees rigged bids for derivatives sold to at least 48 cities and charities.

The deal, which includes 25 state attorneys general and five federal regulators, is the biggest yet in a continuing industry-wide investigation.

Since December, Bank of America Corp has agreed to pay $137 million to settle charges and UBS has paid $160 million, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been part of all three cases.

Former JPMorgan employees submitted sham bids when seeking to provide derivatives to municipalities and not-for-profit organizations, law enforcers said. The bank also communicated with competitors to fix prices as part of a scheme that began as early as 1997 and continued into 2006, law enforcers said.

Nine former employees have pleaded guilty to crimes and nine others have criminal charges pending, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The bank itself avoided prosecution for bid-rigging and manipulation by cooperating and admitting what happened as well as agreeing to pay fines and restitution and put in place new controls over employees, according to the Justice Department.

The department said it has agreed not to prosecute as long as the bank "satisfies its ongoing obligations" under its settlement agreement.

"This fraudulent conduct completely manipulated the playing field and left public entities like governments and nonprofits at a serious disadvantage," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.

JPMorgan said in its own statement that "the firm's policies -- both now and during the period in question -- expressly prohibit the conduct that gave rise to these proceedings."

The bank said it has tightened its supervision and set up new surveillance programs to ensure compliance with the law. It dissolved its municipal derivatives desk in 2008.

While the bank said it is paying $211.2, the SEC put the figure at $228 million. JPMorgan spokesman Joseph Evangelisti said the SEC's figure double-counts $17 million which is being distributed to various regulators, municipalities and not-for-profits.

(Reporting by David Henry, additional reporting by Karey Wutkowski and Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington and Joan Gralla in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis, Bernard Orr)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-jpmorgan-settlement-idUSTRE76641220110707




One might think that over $200 million is a pretty good number, but for JP Morgan and Chase, it's questionable. JPM up today with all the news.




By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK | Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:57pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) of violating U.S. racketeering law by conspiring with Bernard Madoff to further his Ponzi scheme.

Thursday's decision, in a case brought by a Florida partnership that invested with Madoff, came less than two weeks after the trustee seeking money for Madoff victims separately filed an amended $19.9 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan, accusing it of enabling Madoff's fraud and ignoring red flags.

The trustee, Irving Picard, is trying to use the same racketeering law to recover as much as $58.8 billion from dozens of European defendants in his largest Madoff lawsuit.

In Thursday's decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of New York rejected an allegation by MLSMK Investment Co that JPMorgan violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by conspiring with Madoff to "fleece" customers, and failing to freeze his accounts.

MLSMK, based in Palm Beach, Florida, said it lost its $12.8 million investment with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC when Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008. It sought to hold JPMorgan liable for conspiracy under RICO, which allows treble damages, by aiding and abetting Madoff's fraud.

But Judge Robert Sack, writing for a three-judge panel, said a federal ban on civil RICO claims based on securities fraud also covers aiding and abetting claims.

"As the plaintiff concedes," he wrote, "the purpose of the bar was to prevent litigants from using artful pleading to bootstrap securities fraud cases into RICO cases, with their threat of treble damages."

District Judge Barbara Jones had dismissed MLSMK's RICO claim on different grounds. The 2nd Circuit had on June 6 also upheld her dismissal of four New York state law claims.

APPEAL POSSIBLE

"The circuit essentially said aiders and abetters of securities fraud have a free pass, because plaintiffs cannot sue them for securities fraud or RICO," Howard Kleinhendler, a partner at Wachtel & Masyr representing MLSMK, said in an interview. "I don't think that's a correct result, or what Congress intended."

He said his client may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Patricia Hynes, a partner at Allen & Overy representing JPMorgan, called the decision "a very important ruling."

She said it resolved a split of opinion among judges in the 2nd Circuit, and makes clear that plaintiffs cannot do an "end run" around laws barring RICO claims based on securities fraud by presenting their claims differently.

Picard filed his $58.8 billion lawsuit against dozens of defendants including Austria's Bank Medici AG, its founder, Sonja Kohn, and Italy's UniCredit SpA (CRDI.MI). He alleged $19.6 billion of damages, which could be tripled under RICO.

Thursday's decision "could be problematic for the trustee" in that case, Kleinhendler said.

A spokeswoman for Picard had no immediate comment. A UniCredit lawyer declined to comment.

Picard has filed roughly 1,050 lawsuits on behalf of Madoff victims to recover more than $103 billion.

Madoff, 73, is serving a 150-year prison sentence.

The case is MLSMK Investment Co v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-3040.

(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/business-us-madoff-jpmorgan-dismissal-idUKTRE7666R820110707?type=companyNews