Banking Cartel, Fraud, and Antitrust - Where is the Enforcement Action?

At some point, certainly, the concept cannot be lost on law enforcement officials that the banking cartel selling massive paper futures, naked or not, are perhaps violating the law.  I say this somewhat in jest, because also at this point, there is clear evidence of the banking cartel taking massive, concentrated, short positions on the Comex, something the CFTC could, but won’t, do anything about.  

Is the banking cartel engaged in fraud by selling naked shorts?  The simple answer is not likely.  

One way to look at the shenanigans on the Comex are through the prism of lawyers’ eyes, using state common law, such as fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.  On the surface, it seems that the cartel banks engage in fraud on a daily basis, as they naked short the metals, causing massive price declines, which they then close out for huge profits at the bottom, only to do it again and again at opportune times like when the FOMC minutes are front run and the cartel banks make guaranteed profits.  This is unfair, particularly to the longs that unwittingly buy the cartel’s paper, only to watch waterfall declines and stop runs, wiping out the pitiful longs, time and time again.

In the law there are several types of fraud.  

In California, “fraud” and “deceit” are defined in California Civil Code sections 1572, 1709, and 1710.  Civil Code section 1709 defines “deceit” generally as, “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.” Civil Code section 1710 specifies four kinds of deceit:

“A deceit, within the meaning of [section 1709], is either:

The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true [intentional misrepresentation of fact];

The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true [negligent misrepresentation of fact];

The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact [concealment or suppression of fact]; or,

A promise, made without any intention of performing it [promissory fraud].”

Subsection 2 of section 1710 covers negligent misrepresentations, whereas subsections 1, 3 and 4 cover intentional misrepresentations.

The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108.  Sometimes the tort of fraud or deceit is stated with four elements instead of five: (1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages. See Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co., (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816.

A representation must ordinarily be an affirmation of fact, as opposed to an opinion. Under the Restatement Second of Torts section 538A, a representation is an opinion “if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact; or (b) his judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or other matters of judgment.” Mere “puffing,” or sales talk, is generally considered opinion, unless it involves a representation of product safety. Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 112.

“A misrepresentation need not be oral; it may be implied by conduct.” Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567. Moreover, false representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered. Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55.

“A ‘complete causal relationship’ between the fraud or deceit and the plaintiff’s damages is required. ... Causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a “‘substantial factor’” in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff.” Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 132.

However, taking a careful look at the required elements to prove fraud, at least here in California, leads to a reasoned conclusion that the cartel banks are not engaging in fraud, because there is no misrepresentation taking place.  They are simply selling what someone else is buying.  That they are doing it in a managed pattern with superior knowledge to those hapless victims taking the opposite side of their transactions, is not fraud.  There can be no fraud without justifiable reliance on the misrepresentations.  Even if one wanted to make out a case of concealment fraud, none of the cartel banks are in a relationship that would give rise to a claim for concealment, because absent a suitable relationship, there is no actionable claim of concealment fraud that can be made. 

Hence, the only way to make a case for fraud, would be if the cartel banks sold a short, that they could not deliver, thus knowingly making a promise with no intention of performing.  Then, the Comex would step in and let their remedies work per the Comex rules.  The buyer of the short would demand a remedy for the cartel bank failure to deliver.  The remedy is not in kind, that is, delivery of metal; rather, the remedy is payment in fiat.  After that, if the Comex wanted to punish the bank for selling a naked short, well, they could, and how would that matter to the buyer of the metal that did not get delivery?  Further, the buyer could initiate a state court action and sue the cartel bank for fraud, that is, misrepresenting that they had a quantity of metal that they were selling when instead they had no such metal, thus engaging in common law fraud.  But again, the remedy to the defrauded buyer would not be getting metal in exchange for being defrauded.  The only remedy would be payment of fiat, after a judgment (or settlement, if the parties to the lawsuit wanted to resolve the case short of trial).  

Hence, even if the banks were knowingly selling unbacked paper metal, there is no likely result that is going to end up in metal changing hands.

So, in this context, since the primary governing agency is unwilling or unable to stem the apparent manipulation of paper metal, through the primary and obvious means intended, some of us wondered if other laws or concepts might apply to show the illegality of what the cartel banks are doing.

Indeed, there are other laws, right on the books, that have been used before, to stop these illegal practices dead in their tracks, in areas of commerce other than on the Comex.  One such concept are the laws known as antitrust laws, under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.  It is illegal for anyone to enter into a “contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade.”  

How hard would it be for someone, anyone, in the justice department, or in any of the 50 states Attorney Generals’ offices, to initiate a Sherman Act or Clayton Act antitrust action against any one of the cartel banks? Why are the banks off-limits on the very type of conduct that the Sherman Act was designed to curtail?

Mr. TF analyzes the COT report regularly, and in so doing, the positions of the cartel banks are without question, proof of massive, concentrated shorts.  This “combination” is by definition, part of the conduct that the Sherman Act is designed to make illegal.  It does not have to be a purposeful conspiracy, it only need be a combination.  

The concept is crystal clear.  Take for example, two gas stations on opposite corners.  If each station owner sat down at breakfast, and made an oral promise that both would raise prices by ten cents, and if they then did both raise prices, then they both would be in violation of the Sherman Act, for entering into a combination in restraint of trade, that is, to artificially increase the price paid by consumers for their products.  

It is a no-brainer. 

But why no action by any law enforcement?

Answer that question and one is enlightened, and understands why we stackers stack.  


CPE's picture



Also, this seems the appropriate forum for a call to arms in support of freeing the Honorable Jon Corzine from prison.  Who's with me?  I mean the poor guy is old and doesn't deserve to rot away in a small cell...


Barfly's picture


Ha! On a California Lawyer post no less. Good article.

indiana rod's picture

Where Is The Enforcement Action?

Answer. There is none.

The CFTC had a four year "investigation" of the silver market. Chairman Gary Gensler and Commissioner Bart Chilton both said things weren't quite right in the silver market.

Now Gensler, Chilton and the chief enforcement officers are all gone. The bankers have a green light to do whatever they want.

canary's picture

Next Happy Tuesday....

December 22nd....After the FOMC.

4 oz's picture

lol, it comes.....

Retirement savers will get the option to participate in a new type of retirement account next year, the myRA.........Introducing the myRA. The myRA is........guaranteed by the government never to lose value. There is only one investment option, a Treasury savings bond....

Turd Ferguson's picture

Thank you CaL


This is ABSOLUTELY TREMENDOUS. Great stuff. Thank you for taking the time to write it up.

lakedweller2's picture


Fraud and/ or theft can also be a criminal action.  What does the "California Criminal  Code" have to say about fraud, theft by deception, and similar actions.  I would think those statutes would read similar to the civil code.  The goal is jail.  Law enforcement will only investigate criminal offenses.  That is the way to go as the SEC and possibly the CFTC have no criminal authority.  Going back to read again and see if you are citing criminal authority or cases . Sorry in advance if I misread.

California Lawyer's picture

@ Lakedweller

The concepts are the same for both criminal fraud or civil fraud.  The difference is in the burden of proof.  Even if the dunces at the CFTC felt they could not prove their enforcement case to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, civil law is equally available which only requires proof by a preponderance.  This means that there need only be some evidence that tips the scales, as contrasted with criminal law which takes much more proof to remove all reasonable doubt.  

lawyer35's picture

frustrating as hell

To know that we are dependent on the action (or inaction) of the SEC/CFTC.  Great article.

Peter S's picture

California lawyer

California Lawyer,

I'm also an attorney in California.  My personal opinion is that Wall Street, and all of the so-called regulators and complicit legislators are liable for crimes against humanity here, with no immunities (government or otherwise), and no statutes of limitations.  And will be so held, once the American people finally decide to put a stop to all of this.

It's simply a question of whether we have any survival instinct left at all.  I believe that we do  . . .

lakedweller2's picture


Tried to update and respond but my iphone wiped out my answer.  Try again,

Yes, Civil and Criminal statutes are similar but the burden of proof in a criminal case is more stringent.  The real concern with the usurped legal system in Washington is that the perpetrators and the leaders and law makers are the same people.  Thus, the reluctance to do criminal cases.

The SEC, CFTC would rather (by direction) pursue Civil actions and minimal fines against banks and Wall Street because it gives the appearance of taking action  against "criminals".  But these minimal fines do nothing about stopping the thefts.

If a Civil investigation by any Regulator appears on its face to be a criminal action,  then it is incumbent upon the "Regulator" to forward the case/investigation to an agency like The Justice Department or FBI who does have Criminal Authority.  These investigations would then go before "citizens" of the US by way of a Federal Grand Jury.
  But rather than proceed according to the Constitution and the Laws of the US, they have been "directed" to stand down criminally, thereby protecting bankers, Treasury, PPT, and elected officials to name a few.  There is "NO" credibility to the argument that putting high management or CEOs in jail would disrupt the banking system.  It may stop the criminal acts and that would be disruptive.  It also might pierce the veil or open Pandora's Box as to the corruption and criminality of the system itself. THAT IS WHY CRIMINAL ACTION OR IMPEACHMENT ACTION IS CRITICAL.

Also the powers that be, believe that taking a civil action will somehow convince the people that the action is over and that double jeopardy somehow attaches.  IT DOESN'T.  These criminal actions can be pursued in addition to civil actions  And, the fact there is a Criminal conviction doesn't preclude a Civil Action.

Also, there is nothing precluding a State Attorney General taking criminal action either by themselves, in concert with other State AGs...even if the US fails to take action, takes Civil Action or Criminal Action.  The States are simultaneously "offended" by criminal acts where the party or corporation does business with that State.  Do you think JPM, Goldman,  CITI, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, etc doesn't do business with just about every State.

What we have here is a Co-opted Federal Government that has issued orders to their Regulators to Stand Down and Congress sitting on their hands hoping the whole thing wll go away.  We also have State Regulators and Law Enforcement afraid to go against the lawyers of Wall Street.  Then we have a Federal Appeals Court System ready to slam any criminal action in favor of the "Criminals"

That is my point:   A Civil Action is great to squeeze some coins out of the perps, but a Criminal Action is the only way to make it stop.

Issue:  Where is there a Criminal Agency that will do their job?

Hope this shows up on the site as....

Added: @PeterS:  no Statute of Limitations as it is an ongoing criminal act of market manipulation, fraudulent derivatives and instruments, etc.  Ongoing acts become one act and can be joined and can be treated as current from the date of the last similar act.

Turd Ferguson's picture

After you fine gentlemen adjudicate the crimes...


Here's my favored sentencing option:

lakedweller2's picture


We have not gone there today, but there is a strong argument that those involved in these crimes have committed Treason.  That could be why they are reluctant to go the criminal route.  Then again, that justifies Criminal Action even more and opening up the Death Penalty to consideration.

I guess if you are going to do a Crime, make it a big one.

CPE's picture

Not enforced?!

Come on, the laws are being enforced, check this out:

Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed The Value Of All Burglaries In 2014

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via,

Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually.

In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989.

Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year.

Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

The police have been violating the laws to confiscate assets all over the country. A scathing report on California warns of pervasive abuse by police to rob the people without proving that any crime occurred. Even Eric Holder came out in January suggesting reform because of the widespread abuse of the civil asset forfeiture laws by police.

Bloomberg News has reported now that Stop-and-Seize authority is turning the Police Into Self-Funding Gangs. They are simply confiscating money all under the abuse of this civil asset forfeiture where they do not have to prove you did anything. the U.S., I see some troubling signs of a shift toward low-end institutions. Bounty hunting was a recent example (now happily going out of style). Another example is the use of private individuals or businesses to collect taxes, a practice known as tax farming. A third has been the extensive use of mercenaries in lieu of U.S. military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. Practices such as these can save money for the government, but they encourage abuses by reducing oversight.

I’ve recently been reading about an even more worrying example of low-end statecraft: Stop-and-seize. This term refers to a practice, increasingly common since the turn of the century, of police confiscating people’s property without making an arrest or obtaining a warrant. That may not sound legal, but it is! The police simply pull you over and take your money.

A Washington Post investigative report from a year ago explains:

"[A]n aggressive brand of policing [is spreading] that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes...Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms…

A thriving subculture of road officers…now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

“All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym…Hain’s book calls for “turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods.”

With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace.

The threat to individual liberty from stop-and-seize is painfully clear. Without requirements for an arrest or for a warrant, the power to confiscate cash is a clear diminution of property rights. Effectively, the police have been given official sanction to commit literal highway robbery without the threat of punishment. People whose property was seized must pay a lot of money and spend a long time in court for even the chance of getting it back, and police who seize money with no good reason don't, apparently, suffer any threat of discipline.

But stop-and-seize also presents a danger to public trust.

Prosecutors are now instructing police on how to confiscate money within the grey area of the law.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Washington DC where police were robbing people for as little as having $100 in their pocket.

This is getting really out of hand and it has indeed converted police into legal criminals or “gangs” as Bloomberg News calls them.

lakedweller2's picture


I can only speak for myself and my jurisdiction.  I have done my share of civil forfeitures and taken property.  The filing of the forfeiture was always in conjunction with criminal cases.  No forfeiture order was issued until a conviction was concluded.  No returned.  Different ownership, property returned unless a codefendant.  At the local level, most of the forfeitures were associated with drug trafficking or sales.  No forfeiture for a college student having a joint in his car or some drugs determined to be a personal possession case. 

However, if we could condemn  $50000 in drug money during a take down of a dealer...we would.  If we could take a vehicle of a mule coming out of Texas with $100000 of cocaine in a secret compartment of a 700 Series BMW owned by the person that was the designated recipient of the cocaine...and served with notice of his court date and failed to appear...then we took the drugs and car.

Not saying things that you say didn't happen.  They just didn't happen in our jurisdiction.

goldcom's picture

The Comex creation explains a lot

Thanks Cal, great article. There is a reason Comex started business the day before American's could purchase investment gold. It should be criminal that a physical commodity can be represented by paper bets 300 to 1 but that isn't going to change until the Comex market itself is challenged by other options like the SGE and Bullion Capitals soon to be opened physical exchange. 

Don't forget what Xi said,"pure gold fears no fire". He sure as Hell isn't talking about the Comex paper BS inserting the word PURE. The more I think about that statement, the more I like it.

Peter S's picture



I understand the sentiment. After all, the Rothschilds alone are arguably directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the wars they orchestrated (controlling both sides, from the US Civil War on, and likely before--pray tell, who made the money from the US Revolutionary War extending as long as it did, of course, the Rothschilds who sold the Hessian troops to the British), the genocides (Rothschilds, Schiffs, and Warburgs financed the Bolsheviks--see for example Rabbi Marvin Antleman's To Eliminate the Opiate Vol. I and numerous other sources--and hence assuredly directed the Bolsheviks in the slaughter of 60M innocents that followed). Let alone the manufactured collapses after manufactured booms (someone is culpable for the estimated 7M Americans who died during the Great Depression in the 1930s, due to the depression conditions).

But violence, vengeance, brutality, cruelty--those are their game. In fact, for whatever occult and sick reasons, they appear to feed off of these emotions, and orchestrate our public reality to invoke these. They appear to be empowered by these kinds of emotions, whether we are fighting one another, or whether we are directing rage and anger at them.

What disempowers us, empowers them. Conversely, what empowers us, disempowers them.

The only right to kill, and there is an inalienable right to kill, is in self-defense (of self or others). But that's a last resort. Let's act in humane and human-centered ways, which in its own way is a form of telling them to f _ _ _ off. In a kind and humane way, of course . . . : )

If the Rothschilds and all of their syndicate partners and all of their toadies and operatives and stooges are either criminally prosecuted where appropriate, all of their institutions and organizations shut down, forever, and at the very least, every penny they've looted, stolen, and defrauded from the American people and the peoples of the world have been clawed back (yes, I know it's all hidden decades or centuries ago in international trusts and other devices their operatives and agents created and crafted into "the law" and hence their stolen wealth is all off grid from any jurisdiction), I think we will have repose, and don't need and won't want vengeance, which will just degrade us when we need to do the opposite.

It is time we put this all to right . . .

lakedweller2's picture


Death penalty should be repealed.

CPE's picture


Glad to hear it, also glad to hear about honest bankers.

But the numbers don't lie.  Somebody, in some jurisdiction, is taking more from the populace than the populace is taking from each other.

The Rule of Law is a powerful thing, and it's a LOT like Confidence. 

Lose confidence in a currency due to wanton debasement and it's Zimbabwe time.

Lose respect for the rule of law due to abuse by the lawmakers or law enforcers and it's chaos time.

The powers over money creation and lawmaking/enforcing are tempting a beast that is uncontrollable and will eat everything in its path.  Hope the price they took for their souls was worth it if this keeps up.

I do find it very interesting that civil assets that are stolen (i.e. the courts agree to return the fraudulently taken items) don't result in ANY penalties for the Police.  This means that taking assets is a free call option for the Police force.  That's called moral hazard.  The banks know that one well...

legerde's picture


If you confiscate someones vehicle and money prior to them being convicted, have you not hampered their ability to mount a defense?

Following the law means (If you believe in the constitution): innocent until proven guilty.  Not steal first and then if they are eventually found innocent return their stuff.

Peter S's picture

legerde - civil asset forfeiture abuse


Agreed on the vile abuses of civil asset forfeiture "law" and practices, even when used against people who have likely or assuredly done bad things.

However, there is a meta-issue here.  That is, corruptly procured laws, legal entitlements, judicial decisions, administrative regulations or proceedings, or "enforcement" actions.  If there is a foundational principle of the law, it is that corruptly procured legal claims are void ab initio.  I fully expect that the American people will regard much of our existing "law" in the coming years as void ab initio due to this principle.  Any just and moral society must do so, if it wants to set things to right.

lakedweller2's picture


Reread what I wrote.  No criminal conviction, property returned.  If proves not to be returned..unless a codefendant, then re-file.  

Added: in all cases , there has to be a civil trial, or a forfeiture agreement of the defendant or a dismissal by one of parties, ordered by the Court. If a trial, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a nexis to the crime or that the property is criminal proceeds of  a criminal act The decision is by the Court.  If the defendant elects a Civil Trial with a Jury , the admissible portions of the entire criminal case are also admissible in the Civil Forfeiture trial.  Never had a convicted person request  a civil trial with a "Jury" but they often wanted the Judge to make the decision.

added:  some of the thinking on it is that the property concerned is the "fruits" of criminal acts.  Say a bank robber gets $50000 from an armed robbery and gets caught shortly thereafter.  We give the money back to the bank. What about a burglar that takes your wife's wedding ring.  You want it back from the burglar or the pawn shop. With the drug dealer, no telling who or what was the basis of getting $50000 to buy contraband.  But you know it is being used for an illegal purpose.  Do you let the dealer keep the money or do you have him prove the source of the funds and some other "legal purpose" ( other than the one he was caught doing with the money). 

further added:  most drug dealers get State appointed attorneys as they never have any property in their name and therefore qualify.  If they wish to hire an attorney based on their contraband funds, then their attorney can easily read the file and make a determination as to whether he thinks the Court, under forfeiture laws, would return the funds after civil trial. Rare defense attorney that would rely on Court making a favorable decision if it was obvious in the case file of his potential clients guilt.  Or as so many Defense Attorneys admit when they file their Motion To Withdraw in hired cases, "My client and I can"t communicate".  (Client won't pay up front)

CPE's picture


Re: added - interesting line of reasoning.  I think if that shoe fits then it should fit both feet.  What are the "fruits" of civil asset forfeiture for law enforcement?  I've read that it's a nice padding for the budget for things that the taxpayers haven't found important enough to fund through property taxes.  Perhaps this whole matter would evaporate if the "fruits" of civil asset forfeiture went directly toward a reduction in the millage rate on property taxes - i.e. the more lawfully seized the lower the property taxes collected.  Then law enforcement has zero perverse incentive to go shopping amongst the sheep.  And the voter/taxpayer can rightfully size the police force budget each year.  You know, the budget that doesn't include MRAP's and grenade launchers for Mayberry.

lnardozi's picture


preponderance of evidence means the police said it's so. They said you did it, you said you didn't, who does the judge believe? And if you dare to argue, you will be held in contempt and not let out until the judge thinks you're sorry. That being said, we're just a few years away from autonomous drones whose manufacture are not readily apparent. At that juncture, I expect all this asset forfeiture stuff to end when people 'deploy the drone' on the pirates and afterward call 911. No idea what happened, Officer. Are we safe here?

lakedweller2's picture


I can't help you with tax forfeitures. Different apple or orange.  I guess those are duties of the Sheriff when the government needs force to enforce Civil matters.  Don't think the Sheriff is doing anything but responding to direction from civil authorities.  Really not a criminal action but resulting from state enforcement of an independent from police civil action.  Different laws ...civil property arguments unless the winner of the action committed a criminal act the banks completing fraudulent foreclosure real estate documents and forgeries for personal gain. Massive criminal action... Never pursued by Fed or States

lakedweller2's picture


If you didn't do it, you go to a criminal trial before a jury of your peers, represented by counsel, with the  standard of proof, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  If you think all of those things are rigged including the DAs office, the witnesses, GJ selection, Jury Selection and Defense Attorney. ..then I would strongly get on board of impeaching everyone...that's all that is left but revolution.

CPE's picture


You misread what I wrote.  You brought up the "fruits" of criminal activity being the civil assets being forfeited.

I took your reasoning regarding the fruits of criminal activity and applied it to criminal activity by law enforcement.  What I mean is that when the there is zero repercussion to law enforcement officers that abuse their position and take civil assets for personal or departmental gain then it's moral hazard.

A way to remove this moral hazard is to decrease property taxes (the millage rate) by the amount of civil assets seized.  This removes the incentive for the police to seize assets for gain.

It also has the added benefit that the police have a budget entirely controlled by the citizens instead of a budget controlled by the citizens in part the padded via forfeited assets.

You shall know a tree by its fruit

lakedweller2's picture


Apologize for typos and other screwy words.  Typing from iphone and keeping foot elevated due to broken toe. Swells when at computer .

lakedweller2's picture


I totally misread your post.  Yes, you have a good point.  The forfeiture funds can be used to go different ways within government.  As an office, our DA was a former police officer who wanted the funds to go back to the agency that made the case.  Of course, our city managers were aware of this and cut police budgets accordingly.  Not much funding or forfeitures involved as relatively small towns.  Could pay for some computers or weapons etc, but nothing world changing.  Most agencies under funded and undermanned.  Big year maybe $100000.  Since we were in a small area, a big case would be interdiction of a bunch of drugs but the money was in some other state. I haven't read the statute for years as retired 6 years ago but there probably has to be some law enforcement tie to use of the forfeiture.  .  Can't just put a pool in the Mayor's back yard. 

Sorry for not reading your response closer.

CPE's picture


No apology necessary, enjoying the dialogue.

Syndicate contentComments for "Banking Cartel, Fraud, and Antitrust - Where is the Enforcement Action?"