April 19, 2024

Fair Game: For Mary Jo White, Few Big-Bank Cases as a Prosecutor

Ms. White, who has been nominated to become the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, ran the Justice Department’s unit in the Southern District, which includes Manhattan, from 1993 until January 2002. She is expected to appear at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday.

Ms. White’s recent work as a partner at Debevoise Plimpton, where she represented JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other companies, has come under scrutiny. Her record as a federal prosecutor of financial crime has received less attention.

Given that regulating financial firms will become her purview if she heads the S.E.C., assessing her pursuit of financial fraud as a prosecutor may provide clues to how she would run the agency.

Let’s just say her prosecutorial stint did not include a lot of cases against large United States financial institutions.

Last week, I asked Ms. White which large financial institution cases she was most proud of prosecuting. She declined to be interviewed but, through a colleague, provided a list.

First on that list was a 1996 case against Daiwa Bank, a Japanese institution that lost its license to do business in the United States after Ms. White’s office indicted it for fraud. Daiwa pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $340 million, then a record for a financial institution.

Another case she cited was the 2001 fraud case against Republic Securities, a unit of Republic Bank, which generated $600 million in restitution for clients whose accounts had been valued improperly by bank employees. It, too, pleaded guilty.

A third highlight on Ms. White’s list was a 1999 prosecution of Bankers Trust for misappropriating $19 million from dormant customer accounts. The bank pleaded guilty and paid more than $60 million in fines.

Those are considerable victories. Four other cases she cited through her colleague involved Ponzi schemes and fraud by small investment advisory firms, not household-name Wall Street or financial firms.

A review of her years in the Southern District also turned up several intriguing cases that Ms. White and her colleagues did not pursue or turned away. All three of these matters involved large and prestigious financial companies headquartered in the United States.

A big question mark, federal investigators say, still hangs over the decision by Ms. White’s office not to prosecute Citibank in the mid- to late 1990s for a possible role in questionable money transfers that benefited Raúl Salinas de Gortari, the brother of the former president of Mexico. Between 1992 and 1994, Mr. Salinas, a consultant to a Mexican antipoverty agency whose annual salary never exceeded $190,000, somehow moved almost $100 million from Citibank accounts in Mexico and New York to Citibank accounts in London and Switzerland.

Banks have a legal obligation to prevent money-laundering, and in July 1996, Ms. White’s office opened an investigation into the Salinas transactions. But no prosecution against the bank or any of its officials involved in the Salinas accounts ever came.

A report by the Government Accountability Office in October 1998, as well as a subsequent inquiry by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, shed light on what can only be described as disturbing practices at Citibank. Its actions, the report said, helped Mr. Salinas transfer money in a way that “effectively disguised the funds’ source and destination, thus breaking the funds’ paper trail.” Citibank made $2 million in fees on the Salinas accounts, the Senate investigators found.

Mr. Salinas was arrested in February 1995 on suspicion of murdering his former brother-in-law, who had been a leading politician in Mexico. Senate investigators said the bank’s “initial reaction to the arrest was not to assist law enforcement but to determine whether the Salinas accounts should be moved to Switzerland to make discovery of the assets and bank records more difficult.” Mr. Salinas was convicted of the murder in 1999.

As it prepared its report in 1998, three years after Ms. White’s investigation into Citibank began, the G.A.O. requested information from federal prosecutors on the case. The G.A.O. was rebuffed. “Limited by the ongoing Justice Department investigation, we could not determine whether Citibank’s actions violated law or regulation,” the report said.

The case went nowhere. Ms. White declined to comment. But according to her colleague, who spoke to people who worked on the matter, money-laundering cases are tough to prove and must meet a higher standard than conclusions drawn in government reports.

ANOTHER matter that raised questions about Ms. White’s approach during that same period centered on insider trading by friends of Marisa Baridis, a Morgan Stanley compliance employee. In the fall of 1997, a New York State grand jury indicted Ms. Baridis on charges of grand larceny, securities fraud and accepting a bribe. According to the indictment, prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, then led by Robert M. Morgenthau, had a tape of Ms. Baridis admitting she leaked confidential information about companies to brokers at other firms who traded on it.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/business/for-mary-jo-white-few-big-bank-cases-as-a-prosecutor.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: UBS Fined $47.5 Million in Rogue Trading Scandal

The former UBS trader Kweku Adoboli arriving at court in London on Monday.Olivia Harris/ReutersThe former UBS trader Kweku M. Adoboli.

LONDON — The British financial services regulator fined UBS on Monday for failing to prevent a $2.3 billion loss caused by a former trader.

The fine of £29.7 million, or $47.5 million, was one of the largest ever penalties by the Financial Services Authority, the British regulator.

UBS was found to have had serious weaknesses in the internal controls of its investment banking unit. The failings led to Kweku M. Adoboli, a former trader at the Swiss firm, to rack up a multibillion-dollar trading loss last year after he carried out a series of unauthorized trades.

Mr. Adoboli, 32, received a seven-year jail sentence last week for two counts of fraud in connection with the loss for abusing his position at the Swiss bank from 2008 to 2011. Mr. Adoboli was found not guilty on another four counts of false accounting.

The Financial Services Authority had been working with its Swiss counterpart in a year-long investigation into UBS’s trading loss.

British and Swiss regulators said on Monday that the Swiss bank had failed to manage the risks of its London-based traders. The lack of supervision from top managers allowed the unauthorized trading to continue for an extended period of time, according to statements from authorities.

The failures led Mr. Aboboli to commit financial crimes, the regulators added.

“UBS’s systems and controls were seriously defective,” Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement and financial crime at the Financial Services Authority, said in a statement. “Failures of this type in firms of the size and standing of UBS not only damage the firms concerned but also wider confidence in the integrity of the markets and the financial system.”

The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority said on Monday that Mr. Adoboli’s activities would have been detected earlier if UBS had higher levels of risk management in place at its London operations.

The Swiss regulator, which does not have the power to levy fines, said that it was appointing an independent investigator to oversee improvements in UBS’s internal risk management systems.

Authorities also are considering whether UBS should have higher capital requirements to cover potential losses in the firm’s risky trading activities. The Swiss bank is also not allowed to make any acquisitions connected to its investment banking division.

The Swiss regulator already had imposed restrictions on the bank, including the need to receive approval from authorities for new areas of trading activity at UBS’s investment bank.

UBS said that it accepted the decisions from the British and Swiss regulators. The firm said it had taken disciplinary action against employees involved in the scandal, adding that the bank also had taken steps to reduce its exposure to complex trading.

“We are pleased that this chapter has been concluded,” UBS said in a statement.

Shares in the Swiss bank fell 0.7 percent in morning trading in Zurich.

UBS’ fine is the latest penalty by British authorities against some of the world’s largest financial institutions.

The Financial Services Authority fined the British bank Barclays £59.5 million this year in connection with the manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. JPMorgan Chase was also penalized £33.3 million in 2010 for failing to protect British clients’ money from 2002 to 2009.

As UBS agree to settle with the British authorities, the Swiss bank received a 30 percent reduction on its overall fine. Without the discount, the firm would have been fined £42.4 million.

UBS also paid an £8 million fine to British regulators in 2009 after an employee in the firm’s London-based wealth management unit carried out unauthorized trades with clients’ money.

The Swiss bank is planning a major overhaul of its banking operations. Last month, the firm announced 10,000 layoffs in its investment banking unit, with almost half of the job losses expected to be in London.

The move is an effort to refocus UBS’s operations on its profitable wealth management business instead of risky trading activity.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/ubs-fined-47-5-million-in-rogue-trading-scandal/?partner=rss&emc=rss