Bank Exec Gets 8 Years in Prison: How is this different from the big banks?

Posted on September 4, 2015 by Neil Garfield

The Neil Garfield Show will return next Thursday, 6pm EDT.

===========================================

The problem I have here is not that this guy went to jail, but rather that he was doing the same thing that the other banks were doing, in one form or another. It looks like he is thrown under the bus in place of several hundred people who deserve the same fate. Taking the money from investors under false pretenses and then keeping a substantial chunk of it as trading profits seems to be right in line with what this guy did. Making false claims about losses and taking bailout money to cover those losses sounds pretty much like this case as well. False entries and fabrications are the stock and trade of every bank that is trying to foreclose on loans that a e subject to claims of securitization. And THAT is why I am a proponent of rescission — it is the last and best chance of getting to the truth about the identity of the creditors.

see http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34968-exec-at-center-of-first-tarp-bank-failure-gets-8-years-in-prison

All in all, Shabudin was found guilty of seven crimes:

Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud, with a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 5-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Count Two: Securities Fraud, with a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 5-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Count Three: Falsifying Corporate Books and Records, with a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Count Four: False Statements to Accountants, with a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Count Five: Circumventing Internal Accounting Controls, with a maximum penalty of 20 years or imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Count Six: Conspiracy to Commit False Bank Entries, Reports, and Transactions, with a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Court Seven: False Bank Entries, Reports, and Transactions, with a maximum penalty of 30 years of imprisonment, a $1,000,000 fine, a 5-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Filed under: foreclosure |

« »

19 Responses

  1. Trespass Unwanted, on September 7, 2015 at 2:35 am said:

    An opinion, not legal advice I don’t know legal things; crack the code (of debt collection practices);

    http://mp3.logosradionetwork.com
    /ROL/16k/ROL_2015-08-21_16k_Hr1&2.mp3 <<— worthy of the time you have to give to hear, in my opinion
    /ROL/16k/ROL_2015-08-21_16k_Hr3&4.mp3

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  2. johngault, on September 6, 2015 at 11:36 pm said:

    Yes, even worse than the disparity in bargaining power about the loan terms and documents is the disparity between the bankster and the homeowner trying to save his home.

    mers has to go

  3. Deborah wynn, on September 6, 2015 at 7:09 pm said:

    Thing is those who lost the most are the least able to defend themselves

  4. johngault, on September 6, 2015 at 6:42 pm said:

    “Impossibility

    In some cases, a contract is deemed unenforceable because it would be impossible or impracticable to carry out its terms — too difficult or too expensive, for example. To claim impossibility, you would need to show that:

    you can’t complete performance under the contract because of some unexpected event that’s not your fault
    the contract didn’t make the risk of the unexpected event something you needed to shoulder, and
    performing the contract will be much more difficult or expensive now.”

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

  6. Shadowcat, on September 5, 2015 at 11:05 am said:

    Deb…. Many of the Notaries are innocent of wrong doing.
    LPS among others simply pprinted our acknowledgements as they did the other docs. They also attached original acknowledgements to documents we never witnessed. They insisted on having All Purpose Acknowledgments (blank) on file….you know…in case we made an error….? I busted them doing it with mine.

    The question … Why ?

  8. Deborah wynn, on September 5, 2015 at 9:09 am said:

    Re zerohedge link – talks about a sum 3.3 billion – what goddarn difference did it make.

  10. Deborah wynn, on September 5, 2015 at 8:18 am said:

    Here’s another ” fall guy” – what’s the difference between her and all the rest of the robosigners and the banks that paid them to do it
    And the notaries that stamped these documents

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/banks-put-linda-green-behind-them-10-billion-robosigning-settlement

  11. Stan Burman, on September 4, 2015 at 11:57 pm said:

    Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    A bank executive blamed for the first failure of a bank that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has just been sentenced to 8 years in prison. I agree with Neil Garfield that he is just the fall guy for several hundred other people that did the same thing. This guy got hammered because he was not politically connected enough or did not have enough money to hire the best lawyers.

  12. Deborah wynn, on September 4, 2015 at 11:46 pm said:

    saw that UKG
    and they call it ” business”
    Remember that Bill Black talked about that particular “outfit”

  13. usedkarguy, on September 4, 2015 at 10:02 pm said:

    Anyone remember the Yano-Horokis?
    Lost on appeal and then they get the deficiency judgment……
    The New York family that in 2009 became the national face of beating back “repugnant” and “repulsive” bank foreclosure practices after a judge ripped up the mortgage on their $525,000 ranch home, not only lost an appeal of the judge’s order — and eventually their home — but were also slapped with a $264,500 bill from the bank.
    The bill was to cover the difference between what was owed on the mortgage and what the bank got when it sold their 3,400 square-foot home, court records show.
    “That’s adding insult to injury,” Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner said of the quarter-million-dollar-plus deficiency judgment.
    Spinner, the judge who tossed Diana Yano-Horoski and Gregory Horoski’s $292,500 mortgage, with an interest rate of 12.375 percent, told The Post that in more than 17 years on the bench and thousands of cases, he has had only three requests for deficiency judgments.
    And all three, he said, were on commercial mortgages with deep-pocketed borrowers.
    “I think it was grossly unfair what ended up happening to the Horoskis,” Spinner said. “It’s bad enough that these folks had health problems, and even worse that a high-rate refinancing deal … was the result of uncovered medical bills they tried to pay because they are honest people. Then they lost their home. Now they have a deficiency judgment to follow them around. That’s frightening.”
    The Horoski’s problems started in June 2005 when bills from uninsured medical problems led them to default on their mortgage. After a judgment of foreclosure, the two hoped summer of 2009 meetings with their lender, IndyMac Bank (now OneWest Bank), which hadn’t received a dime in mortgage payments in five years, would lead to a mortgage modification.
    It was IndyMac’s tactics at these meetings — with Diana, a college professor, hobbling into court with a walker, and Gregory, who runs a home-based business, attending every single one — that drove Spinner to toss the foreclosure.
    The judge branded as “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” IndyMac’s tactics. On Dec. 1, Spinner thrust the Horoskis into the headlines by ordering the mortgage to be vacated.
    In the years since, more out of the spotlight than in it, the Horoskis continued to come out losers in court — eventually losing their house. The deficiency judgment, which carried an interest rate of 9 percent, only made the hurt worse.
    Since the Horoski case, New York has strengthened protections that, had they been in place, may have saved the family from foreclosure.
    Today, settlement conferences have to occur earlier in the foreclosure process, and a law forces both sides to negotiate in good faith.
    “Things have evolved … and homeowners get a much better shake,” said Westchester-based foreclosure defense lawyer Linda Tirelli.
    But the new safeguards came too late for the Horoskis.
    “They sold my house and got paid … and I’m the one living in a rental somewhere,” Gregory Horoski told The Post last week.
    “We’re just coming out of the trauma of it,” he said. “This is not the way America is supposed to be.”

  14. Shadowcat, on September 4, 2015 at 7:10 pm said:

    Small Fish!!!
    I want the Board of Directors ….. Big Fish!!!!

  16. johngault, on September 4, 2015 at 4:30 pm said:

    http://www.law360.com/cases/54e66e28adb7ae0be9000001

    googling “ebrahim shabudin” brings up a lot

  17. dandiener1, on September 4, 2015 at 2:47 pm said:

    Or “juice” to get a government procecutor to press a criminal investigation through to a conclusion.

  18. dandiener1, on September 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm said:

    It would be helpful to provide a URL where we can read the actual court ruling.

  19. dandiener1, on September 4, 2015 at 2:25 pm said:

    How is this different???

    To my way of thinking, the procecutors chose to pursue this case because it involved a handful of large, commercial loans.

    Spending time and resources on this one case was “more cost efficient” than drilling down to the facts associated with tens of millions of “small fry” residential cases of homeowners whose life savings were lost. After all, what’s the point of prosecution when individually each home homeowner was on the hook for “only a few hundred thousand dollars”?

    Besides, these “small potatoes” had too little money to pay for a litigation defense to save their homes.

    What’s more curious to me is that this instant case has evidently been litigated out of the public eye. How is that done… and why?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: