Memo to DOJ: Iceland had no problem jailing banksters. Take note.

Neither jail nor fines will curtail the corruption. The courts must confiscate and invalidate the patents if we are to see any improvement.

Justice League

Memo to DOJ: Iceland had no problem jailing banksters. Take note.

12 December 2013 Last updated at 13:32 ET

Four former bosses from the Icelandic bank Kaupthing have been sentenced to between three and five years in prison.

They are the former chief executive, the chairman of the board, one of the majority owners and the chief executive of the Luxembourg branch.

They were accused of hiding the fact that a Qatari investor bought a stake in the firm with money lent – illegally – by the bank itself.

Kaupthing collapsed in 2008 under the weight of huge debts.

For years, Kaupthing and other Icelandic banks had aggressively pursued overseas expansion plans, but when they went into administration, they brought the country’s economy to its knees.

Just a few weeks before the collapse, Kaupthing announced that Sheikh Mohammed Bin Khalifa Bin Hamad al-Thani had bought a 5.1% stake during…

View original post 57 more words

One thought on “Memo to DOJ: Iceland had no problem jailing banksters. Take note.

  1. Meanwhile here in Washington State… this Depo with NWTS… I am running video of the whole Depo with Attorney Ha Dao.

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2014/06/kingcast-mortgage-movies-and-attorney.html

    Friday, June 6, 2014

    KingCast, Mortgage Movies and Attorney Ha Dao Present: Deposition of NWTS’ Jeff Stenman in Lucero v. Bayview Loan Servicing, et al, 2:13-cv-006020-RSL.

    The whole Deposition will be available at some point. Knowing Steve Morberg personally, however, I found this segment interesting, at approx. 11:55 a.m. (I think it’s video segment 4 at 16-17 minutes in). Unofficial from my notes:

    Attorney Ha Dao to NWTS VP Jeff Stenman:

    Q: Who is the Owner:
    A: Freddie Mac

    Q: Servicer?
    A: BoA

    Q: Creditor to whom Debt owed?
    A: BoA

    Q: At para C it reads the “Beneficiary declares you in default. So when I look at this — who is the beneficiary according to this exhibit Mr. Stenman?
    A: I am not stating in this form who it is.

    Q: Wouldn’t that be important for a homeowner to know
    A: I don’t know.

    Q: Wouldn’t it be important for homeowner to know who declares him to be in default?
    A: I don’t know.

    And so it goes…. another line of questioning with similar results at Ex 16

    Q: Again Mr. Stenman, who is the beneficiary identified here?
    A: I think I already stated that we don’t identify the beneficiary by name in this notice. I don’t know that the Statute tells me I have to do that.

    Q: But again based on NoDs you have seen there is an inconsistency.
    A: If the statute keeps changing it will change the form. I don’t know why the Statute doesn’t tell us to put it in, it doesn’t. We are trying to be as transparent as possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s