Was Elliott Spitzer Set Up…?
Posted on November 25th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
…because of his vigorous oversight of Wall Street?
It’s not as crazy as you think…..
…because of his vigorous oversight of Wall Street?
It’s not as crazy as you think…..
Copyright © 2008 Shots in the Dark
ColdBlue v1.0 — A theme by WebRevolutionary
3 Responses
11/25/2008 4:16 pm
I understand the suspicion, but your tease suggests there is some evidence in that NYT story to lend credibility to the question. There isn’t — the news is simply that Barney Frank and Michael Capuano have asked the question.
I read up on this at the time and managed to mention it in Blown to Bits just before it went to press. As it happens, I had dinner around that time with a former bank employee, who used to draw pictures of the network of flows of relatively small amounts of money into and out of accounts, in order to disguise the transfer of sums greater than the $5K reporting threshold. She is now out of work, in part because computers can so tirelessly and exhaustively do the same work.
11/25/2008 9:22 pm
Harry,
I think The Bank Secrecy Act has a $10,000 threshold. To paraphrase Everett Dirkson (does anyone think of him anymore?), 5,000 here, 5,000 there, before you know it, it’s real money.
11/26/2008 8:47 am
Sam, this has nothing to do with Elliot or Larry.
Can you help with some basics here.
Why does Steve Forbes keep insisting that this whole mess is due to “marked to market” requirements?
Wondering if you could shed some light on his position, whether there is merit to it.
Moreover, if you could offer some thoughts as to the “way forward”. Policy is one thing but for people like you who have had to work in the real world it would be helpful to gain from your insights.
Thanks and hope you have a nice Thanksgiving.