Today's New York Times was a virtual treasure trove of white collar crime stories.  Among them were the following:

"South Carolina House Panel to Hear Ethics Complaints Against Governor" (see here) – South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is facing a legislative hearing on whether she acted unethically during her term in the legislature when she was paid $110,000 annually as a fundraiser for a hospital whose legislative goals she advocated.  Knowing nothing about South Carolina legislative ethics rules or criminal law, I do not venture to opine whether the Governor did anything improper.  However, the broad facts here are strikingly close to a series of cases in New York in which a hospital CEO, a state senator and a state assemblyman all were convicted and went to prison.  See here.  It seems to me there should be a restriction against a legislator working for an entity, at least in a loosely-defined job such as consultant or fundraiser, and advocating or supporting favorable legislation for that entity.

                                 *                    *                    * 

"Madoff's Brother Sets Plea Deal in Ponzi Case" (see here) – Peter B. Madoff, the brother of Bernard Madoff and the No. 2 man at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, will reportedly plead guilty tomorrow to falsifying documents, lying to regulators and filing false tax returns.  Peter Madoff reportedly served as the nominal compliance officer of his brother's wholly-owned securities firm and apparently exercised little or no oversight of the firm's operations, thereby providing his brother the freedom to steal billions.

Placing an investment firm's proprietor's brother as compliance officer is akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.  It seems there should be, if there is not, a law, rule or regulation prohibiting a close relative, like a spouse, parent, child or sibling, from being the responsible compliance officer in a substantial investment firm owned entirely (as here) or largely by one's relative.

                               *                    *                    * 

"JP Morgan Trading Loss May Reach $9 Billion" (see here) – The amount of JP Morgan's trading losses from its London office could be as much as $9 billion — four and one-half times as much as the company announced originally.  While JP Morgan has in view of its considerable profits downplayed the magnitude of the loss, which its chief executive officer Jamie Dimon estimated in May could possibly be as much as $4 billion, obviously a $9 billion loss takes a much greater bite out of the firm's profitability, and conceivably may even raise some questions as to the firm's viability.

We now know, in the wake of bailouts and government support, that the federal government is both the de facto and de jure insurer of major banking institutions.  One might ask whether a government insurer, like a private insurance company, should not be able to set specific rules to curb risky activities which might trigger the insurer's support.  To update Congressman Barney Frank, there are now nine billion more reasons for increased governmental regulation.

                                 *                    *                    * 

Like many other white collar defense lawyers, I am strongly against overcriminalization.  On the other hand, I am equally strongly against underregulation.  One of the principal reasons I favor greater and clearer rules and regulations is to give potential white-collar offenders reasonable notice of what is criminal and what is not, and not leave that decision, as frequently happens now, to a federal prosecutor's interpretation of the amorphous fraud laws.

A significant portion of the white-collar defendants I have represented in the last forty years, including many of those who were convicted, have actually believed that their actions were not criminal.  In some cases, this was simply because they lacked a moral compass.  In the financial world, where the primary, and often sole, goal is to take other people's money away from them, many people do not consider whether what they do is morally right or wrong, or are so amoral that they are incapable of making that distinction.  Tighter regulation will at least tell them what is prohibited and what is not.

(goldman)