Relevant:
- Angry Over The Lack Of Banker Convictions? Blame OJ Simpson
- Home loses suit vs. Dems, faces federal fraud charges
- Report finds many prosecutors in California have committed misconduct
- Charges Could Still Be Coming for Some Close to Madoff
- Too-Big-To-Jail Dogs Obama's Justice Department As Government Documents Raise Questions
2013-09-14 — bloomberg.com
``Yet the SEC isn't going to trial against Shabudin, even though the standard of proof for its claims -- a preponderance of the evidence -- is lower than that for criminal charges, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Shabudin is entitled to a presumption of innocence, of course, especially now that the SEC has let him go without copping to anything.''
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments:
ronin at 15:45 2013-09-15 said:
Keep digging on this one, please. The SEC, in letting Shabudin get away after paying what amounts to a parking ticket, is, knowingly or ignorantly, perpetuating what looks more and more like an anti-Chinese agenda. United Commercial Bank was a San Francisco bank that catered mainly to the Chinese-American market. Its management, except for Shabudin, was mainly of Chinese ancestry. When the handwriting started showing up on UCB's walls, Minsheng Bank, a bank based in China and which, according to people who claim to know, is the least affiliated of any bank in China with the Chinese government, was ready, willing and quite able to buy UCB in order, at least, to get access to its customers in California and New York. At the time, the story was that the regulators didn't want to let a foreign bank take control of UCB. There has never been much worry about letting English, Canadian or Spanish banks take over US banks, but heavens forfend that a Chinese bank take over a US bank. So UCB got shut down and turned over to East West Bank, a Pasadena, CA based bank that also mainly serves the Chinese-American market. The $300 million in TARP funds given to UCB remains unpaid. If Minsheng had been required to pay the $300 million to take control of UCB, it could have done so. But we turned Minsheng away and now we are giving the white guy in UCB's management, who was directly responsible for credit quality, what amounts to a free ride. What news is there of the Chinese management also under indictment? Am I Chinese? No. Did I lose a lot of money as a shareholder of UCB? Yes. That's why I'm PO'ed, but I think that everybody whose money went to fund the $300 million in unpaid TARP funds ought to know why they are not getting their money back. Seems like we repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act as a law, but not as a practice. Permalinkadd a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.
