U.S. Judge Weighs Penalties After BofA Fraud Verdict

Before you go, we thought you'd like these...
Bank of America Mortgage Buybacks
Paul Sakuma/AP
By Nate Raymond

NEW YORK -- A U.S. judge is considering an alternative that could result in Bank of America paying much less than the $863.6 million the government is seeking as a penalty for the sale of defective mortgages before the financial crisis.

At a hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan asked the bank and the Justice Department to brief him on the alternative, which is based on the grains rather than the losses resulting from the sales.

The hearing followed a jury verdict on Oct. 23 in which a federal jury found Bank of America (BAC) liable for fraud for selling substandard mortgage to government sponsored mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The verdict was a big win for the government in its efforts to hold Wall Street accountable for the financial crisis, and the Justice Department has requested a penalty based on the gross losses Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incurred.

But at Thursday's hearing Rakoff said he wanted a "more full presentation" on how to calculate the penalty based instead on how much Countrywide gained through the fraud, calling it a simpler approach.

The judge said that his comments shouldn't signal how he will ultimately rule. Rakoff said he would issue a decision sometime in February.

A penalty based on gains rather than losses would likely be significantly smaller than prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's office have requested. %VIRTUAL-article-sponsoredlinks%Evidence the government presented at trial indicated that Countrywide made $165.2 million selling the loans.

The case, launched in October 2012, focused on a mortgage lending process at Countrywide called the "High Speed Swim Lane," or alternatively "HSSL" or "Hustle," that the government said emphasized speed and quantity over quality.

The Department of Justice wants Bank of America to pay $863.6 million based on the gross loss incurred on the HSSL loans by Fannie and Freddie, which the government took into conservatorship in 2008. The Justice Department has also asked that Rakoff require that former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone, who was also found liable by the jury, pay $1.1 million.

"We're here to assess civil penalties, the purpose of which is to deter and punish," Jaimie Nawaday, a lawyer at the Justice Department, said in court Thursday. She urged the judge to award a penalty based on the losses through a "broad interpretation" of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, a law passed after the 1980s savings-and-loan scandals.

The law, which carries a lower burden of proof than criminal cases and a 10-year statute of limitations, has become central in a wave of Justice Department investigations focused on the financial crisis. But Rakoff prodded Nawaday on why assessing a penalty based on Countrywide's gain rather than loss isn't "a more natural way" to look at the case.

"The point of a fraud is to get money you're not entitled to," he said.

Kenneth Smurzynski, a lawyer for the bank at Williams & Connolly, urged the judge to find that the maximum penalty allowed under the statute was $1.1 million, and asked Rakoff to use his discretion to award nothing. He also criticized the government's calculation of Fannie and Freddie's loss, saying it ignored that they continued to receive value from the mortgages.

"What the government calls gross loss is simply preposterous," Smurzynski said.

But Rakoff questioned how Bank of America could be right that under the law the maximum penalty could just be $1.1 million, saying a finding like that would provide a "windfall" in a massive fraud case. "That wouldn't serve any deterrent value at all," Rakoff said.

Marc Mukasey, a lawyer for Mairone at Bracewell & Giuliani, urged the judge to be lenient with his client, saying she had been "punished enough already" through enduring publicity connected to the case. He urged that no penalty be awarded against Mairone, 46, saying he did not expect the bank to indemnify her for any award.

"Just because someone committed an act that in the eyes of the jury and maybe the court is a legal violation, it doesn't mean you're a bad person," he said.

The case is U.S. ex rel. O'Donnell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-01422.

7 PHOTOS
Bank Scandals
See Gallery
U.S. Judge Weighs Penalties After BofA Fraud Verdict

Swiss bank UBS blames a rogue trader at its London office for a $2.3 billion loss that is Britain's biggest-ever fraud at a bank. Kweku Adoboli, the 32 year old trader, is sentenced to seven years in prison. Britain's financial regulator fines UBS after finding its internal controls were inadequate and allowed Adoboli, a relatively inexperienced trader, to make vast and risky bets.

The case has echoes of Societe Generale trader Jerome Kerviel, who hid €5 billion in losses. Kerviel said SocGen turned a blind eye to his colossal positions in late 2007 and early 2008 as long as they made money for the bank.

Wells Fargo Bank agrees to pay at least $175 million to settle U.S. Department of Justice accusations that it discriminated against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers from 2004 through 2009. The department said the bank's discriminatory lending practices resulted in more than 34,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers in 36 states and the District of Columbia paying higher rates for loans solely because of the color of their skin.

JPMorgan Chase announces a loss of $2 billion from a trade that was meant to protect the bank if the global economy sharply deteriorated. Later, losses from the bad trade swell to nearly $6 billion and shave much more from the company's stock market value. The episode heightens concerns that the biggest banks still pose risks to the U.S. financial system, less than four years after the financial crisis.

Barclays agrees to pay more than $450 million to U.S. and British regulators to settle charges that it attempted to manipulate a global benchmark interest rate known as LIBOR. The rate indirectly affect the costs of hundreds of trillions of dollars in loans that people pay when they get loans to go to college, purchase a car or buy a house. Numerous other banks are under investigation for similar violations.

UBS pays $1.5 billion to settle LIBOR manipulation charges with regulators in the U.S., Britain and Switzerland. The bank says some of its employees tried to rig LIBOR in several currencies.

An independent review finds Kabul Bank spirited some $861 million out of war-torn Afghanistan in a massive fraud based on fake loans to 19 individuals and companies. A bailout of the bank costs the equivalent of 5 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, making it one of world's largest banking failures ever.

HSBC, Europe's largest bank, says it's paying $1.9 billion in penalties to settle a U.S. money laundering probe. The investigation into HSBC focused on the transfer of billions of dollars on behalf of nations such as Iran and the transfer of money from Mexican drug cartels. The bank said its anti-laundering measures were inadequate and said it was "profoundly sorry."

of
SEE ALL
BACK TO SLIDE
SHOW CAPTION +
HIDE CAPTION
Read Full Story

Find a Home

Buy
Rent
Value
Powered by Zillow

People are Reading