Showing posts with label Chase Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chase Bank. Show all posts

Saturday, October 7, 2017

The U.S. Justice System Must Focus On Elite Criminality

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,


Two very important articles published in recent days serve to once again highlight America’s metastasizing elite criminality problem. A problem which our justice system simply refuses to address.



This corrupt two-tier justice system is something I’ve been focused on from the very beginning of my writings, and I continue to see it as a civilization-level threat for this country if not aggressively addressed and confronted in the very near future.


The two articles in question focus on different aspects of untouchable elite culture in America.


The first relates to the continued fraud pervasive in America’s largest financial institution, while the second covers a thirty year history of predatory sexual behavior by one of Hollywood’s biggest moguls, Harvey Weinstein. In both cases, countless people have known and reported on repeated abuses perpetrated by both the institution and the man, yet the U.S. justice system and the vast majority of “elite” culture happily help shield them from justice. Predators are predators, and elite predators are far more dangerous to society that your average street crook, so why does our justice situation deal with it in the exact opposite way?


Let’s start with the blockbuster article published in The Nation by the always informative David Dayen. The article is titled, How America’s Biggest Bank Paid Its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis—With Phony Mortgages!


Here’s just brief excerpt:





JPMorgan’s share of the settlement was $5.3 billion, but only $1.1 billion had to be paid in cash; the other $4.2 billion was to come in the form of financial relief for homeowners in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. The settlement called for JPMorgan to reduce the amounts owed, modify the loan terms, and take other steps to help distressed Americans keep their homes. A separate 2013 settlement against the bank for deceiving mortgage investors included another $4 billion in consumer relief.



A Nation investigation can now reveal how JPMorgan met part of its $8.2 billion settlement burden: by using other people’s money.



Here’s how the alleged scam worked. JPMorgan moved to forgive the mortgages of tens of thousands of homeowners; the feds, in turn, credited these canceled loans against the penalties due under the 2012 and 2013 settlements. But here’s the rub: In many instances, JPMorgan was forgiving loans on properties it no longer owned.



The alleged fraud is described in internal JPMorgan documents, public records, testimony from homeowners and investors burned in the scam, and other evidence presented in a blockbuster lawsuit against JPMorgan, now being heard in US District Court in New York City.



Sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. Not only that, but as we’ve come to expect from the “rule of law” in America, it somehow never applies to that group of people with the greatest ability to financially destroy people and their lives. Bankers. For example, here’s some more from the same piece:





Federal appointees have been complicit in this as well. E-mails show that the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, charged by the government with ensuring the banks’ compliance with the two federal settlements, gave JPMorgan the green light to mass-forgive its loans. This served two purposes for the bank: It could take settlement credit for forgiving the loans, and it could also hide these loans—which JPMorgan had allegedly been handling improperly—from the settlements’ testing regimes.



“No one in Washington seems to understand why Americans think that different rules apply to Wall Street, and why they’re so mad about that,” said former congressman Miller. “This is why.”



Most of the loans that JPMorgan released—and received settlement credit for—were all but worthless. Homeowners had abandoned the homes years earlier, expecting JPMorgan to foreclose, only to have the bank forgive the loan after the fact. That forgiveness transferred responsibility for paying back taxes and making repairs back to the homeowner. It was like a recurring horror story in which “zombie foreclosures” were resurrected from the dead to wreak havoc on people’s financial lives.



Federal officials knew about the problems and did nothing. In July 2014, the City of Milwaukee wrote to Joseph Smith, the federal oversight monitor, alerting him that “thousands of homeowners” were engulfed in legal nightmares because of the confusion that banks had sown about who really owned their mortgages. In a deposition for the lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, Smith admitted that he did not recall responding to the City of Milwaukee’s letter.



Few would expect Jeff Sessions’s Justice Department to pursue such a case, but what this sorry episode most highlights is the pathetic disciplining of Wall Street during the Obama administration.



JPMorgan’s litany of acknowledged criminal abuses over the past decade reads like a rap sheet, extending well beyond mortgage fraud to encompass practically every part of the bank’s business. But instead of holding JPMorgan’s executives responsible for what looks like a criminal racket, Obama’s Justice Department negotiated weak settlement after weak settlement. Adding insult to injury, JPMorgan then wriggled out of paying its full penalties by using other people’s money.



The larger lessons here command special attention in the Trump era. Negotiating weak settlements that don’t force mega-banks to even pay their fines, much less put executives in prison, turns the concept of accountability into a mirthless farce. Telegraphing to executives that they will emerge unscathed after committing crimes not only invites further crimes; it makes another financial crisis more likely. The widespread belief that the United States has a two-tiered system of justice—that the game is rigged for the rich and the powerful—also enabled the rise of Trump. We cannot expect Americans to trust a system that lets Wall Street fraudsters roam free while millions of hard-working taxpayers get the shaft.



Of course, this is just the latest when it comes to JP Morgan. I highlighted the firm’s rap sheet in last month’s post, Which is Fraudulent – Bitcoin or JP Morgan?




How many JP Morgan executives have gone to jail?


Now onto Harvey Weinstein, a guy whose cretinous behavior has been the biggest non-secret in Hollywood for decades. Just like with banker crooks, he mere settles cases and continues to walk around, freely hunting the next defenseless victim.


The New York Times article published yesterday exposing some of this grotesque man’s history was extraordinary and I suggest everyone read it. Here’s just a little from the piece, Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Cases for Years:





Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview.


 


“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.


 


In 2014, Mr. Weinstein invited Emily Nestor, who had worked just one day as a temporary employee, to the same hotel and made another offer: If she accepted his sexual advances, he would boost her career, according to accounts she provided to colleagues who sent them to Weinstein Company executives. The following year, once again at the Peninsula, a female assistant said Mr. Weinstein badgered her into giving him a massage while he was naked, leaving her “crying and very distraught,” wrote a colleague, Lauren O’Connor, in a searing memo asserting sexual harassment and other misconduct by their boss.


 


There is a toxic environment for women at this company,” Ms. O’Connor said in the letter, addressed to several executives at the company run by Mr. Weinstein.


 


Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.


 


Mr. Weinstein enforced a code of silence; employees of the Weinstein Company have contracts saying they will not criticize it or its leaders in a way that could harm its “business reputation” or “any employee’s personal reputation,” a recent document shows. And most of the women accepting payouts agreed to confidentiality clauses prohibiting them from speaking about the deals or the events that led to them.


 


In interviews, some of the former employees who said they had troubling experiences with Mr. Weinstein asked a common question: How could allegations repeating the same pattern — young women, a powerful male producer, even some of the same hotels — have accumulated for almost three decades?


 


“It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,” said Kathy DeClesis, Bob Weinstein’s assistant in the early 1990s. She supervised a young woman who left the company abruptly after an encounter with Harvey Weinstein and who later received a settlement, according to several former employees.


 


In March 2015, Mr. Weinstein had invited Ambra Battilana, an Italian model and aspiring actress, to his TriBeCa office on a Friday evening to discuss her career. Within hours, she called the police. Ms. Battilana told them that Mr. Weinstein had grabbed her breasts after asking if they were real and put his hands up her skirt, the police report says.


 


The claims were taken up by the New York Police Department’s Special Victims Squad and splashed across the pages of tabloids, along with reports that the woman had worked with investigators to secretly record a confession from Mr. Weinstein. The Manhattan district attorney’s office later declined to bring charges.



As disturbing as all that is, it might be the tip of the iceberg. Here’s some additional info from an article published today by The Daily Beast, Hollywood’s Loud Silence on Harvey Weinstein:





The Times piece later identified the 1997 actress as Rose McGowan, who starred in the 1996 film Scream, which was distributed by Weinstein-owned Dimension Films. In October 2016, McGowan tweeted, “Because my ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution #WhyWomenDontReport.” It’s not known whom McGowan was referring to, though she dated filmmaker Robert Rodriguez from 2006 to 2009, and their film Planet Terror was distributed by Weinstein in 2007.



In the wake of the blockbuster Times exposé, The Daily Beast reached out to dozens of prominent actors, actresses, and filmmakers—who both have andhave not worked with Weinstein—only to receive many replies of “no comment” and plenty of radio silence.



Elite criminals are the most dangerous criminals on earth, but our justice system treats them like well-meaning philosopher kings who deserve endless breaks in the face of rampant unethical and often evil behavior. It should be completely obvious to everyone that the only reason elite crooks get treated with kid gloves is because they’re rich and powerful. The end result of this dereliction of justice is those entrusted with protecting the public have willingly created an entrenched, untouchable, distributed, criminal class which spans across and leads all major industries in America.


As I tweeted earlier today:



If we don’t get a grip on this now and begin to marshal our resources against the most dangerous criminals in America — those from the highest echelons of U.S. society — the country will continue to unravel and in an increasingly dangerous and chaotic fashion.



If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

JPMorgan Ordered To Pay Over $4 Billion To Widow And Family

A Dallas jury ordered JPMorgan Chase to pay more than $4 billion in damages for mishandling the estate of a former American Airlines executive.


Jo Hopper and two stepchildren won a probate court verdict over claims that JPMorgan mismanaged the administration of the estate of Max Hopper, who was described as an airline technology innovator by the family’s law firm. The bank, which was hired by the family in 2010 to independently administer the estate of Hopper, was found in breach of its fiduciary duties and contract. In total, JP Morgan Chase was ordered to pay at least $4 billion in punitive damages, approximately $4.7 million in actual damages, and $5 million in attorney fees.


The six-person jury, which deliberated a little more than four hours starting Monday night and returned its verdict at approximately 12:15 a.m. Tuesday, found that the bank committed fraud, breached its fiduciary duty and broke a fee agreement, according to court papers.


"The nation"s largest bank horribly mistreated me and this verdict provides protection to others from being mistreated by banks that think they"re too powerful to be held accountable," said Hopper in a statement. "The country"s largest bank, people we are supposed to trust with our livelihood, abused my family and me out of sheer ineptitude and greed. I"m blessed that I have the resources to hold JP Morgan accountable so other widows who don"t have the same resources will be better protected in the future."


"Surviving stage 4 lymphoma cancer was easier than dealing with this bank and its estate administration," Mrs. Hopper added.


Max Hopper, who pioneered the SABRE reservation system for the airline, died in 2010 with assets of more than $19 million but without a will and testament, according to the statement. JPMorgan was hired as an administrator to divvy up the assets among family members. “Instead of independently and impartially collecting and dividing the estate’s assets, the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine,” the family’s lawyers said in the statement. “Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.”





The bank"s incompetence caused more than just unacceptably long timelines; bank representatives failed to meet financial deadlines for the assets under their control. In at least one instance, stock options were allowed to expire. In others, Mrs. Hopper"s wishes to sell certain stock were ignored. The resulting losses, the jury found, resulted in actual damages and mental anguish suffered by Mrs. Hopper. With respect to Mr. Hopper"s adult children, the jury found that they lost potential inheritance in excess of $3 million when the Bank chose to pay its lawyers" legal fees out of the estate account to defend claims against the Bank for violating its fiduciary duty.



Confirming that much of America does not hold Wall Street in high regard, the court’s verdict form showed that  jurors awarded $8 billion in punitive damages against the bank. Alan Loewinsohn, attorney for Jo Hopper, said in an interview there may be duplication of some of the damage findings. He asked the jury to take into account the bank’s worth and asked them for $2 billion in punitive damages. “I believe they used that figure for the other parties in the case as well,” he said.


As a result, he said, the punitive damage award could end up being “somewhere between $4 billion and $8 billion.” The verdict form also shows jurors were advised to consider factors including “the net worth of JPMorgan.” JPM has a market cap of about $330 billion.


At the lower end of that range, the jury’s award would erase almost two-thirds of the $6.6 billion profit that JPMorgan generated globally during the second quarter. According to Bloomberg, it would rank high among the largest sanctions ever levied against the bank - somewhere between the $2.6 billion it agreed to pay in 2014 for allegedly failing to stop Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and a $13 billion settlement it reached with government authorities in 2013 for its handling of mortgage bonds that fueled the financial crisis.


"Mrs. Hopper asked the jury to send a message loud enough for JP Morgan to hear it all the way to Park Avenue in Manhattan," said Loewinsohn, "Hopefully, that message has been received."


Probably not: sadly for widow Hopper, she is unlikely to see the full award: large punitive damages verdicts like the one in the Hopper case are often scaled back because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they can’t be disproportionate to actual damages. In this case, the jury awarded less than $5 million in actual damages.


The bank said it acted in a professional manner and in good faith on Hopper’s estate and is “highly confident” the jury verdict won’t stand under Texas law.


“Clearly the award far exceeds any possible interpretation of Texas tort reform statutes,” Andrew Gray, a spokesman for the bank, said in an emailed statement. “There has been no judgment entered by the court based on this verdict.”

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Jamie Dimon Faces Market Abuse Claim Over "False, Misleading" Bitcoin Comments

A week after Jamie Dimon made headlines by proclaiming Bitcoin a "fraud" and anyone who owns it as "stupid," the JPMorgan CEO faces a market abuse claim for "spreading false and misleading information" about bitcoin.


Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you will be well aware of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon"s panicked outburst with regard the "fraud" that Bitcoin"s "tulip-like" bubble is. To paraphrase:





"It’s a fraud. It’s making stupid people, such as my daughter, feel like they’re geniuses. It’s going to get somebody killed. I’ll fire anyone who touches it."




One week later, an algorithmic liquidity provider called Blockswater has filed a market abuse report against Jamie Dimon for "spreading false and misleading information" about bitcoin.


The firm filed the report with the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority against JPMorgan Chase and Dimon, the company"s chief executive. Blockswater said Dimon violated Article 12 of the European Union"s Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by declaring that cryptocurrency bitcoin was "a fraud".





The complaint said Dimon"s statement negatively impacted "the cryptocurrency"s price and reputation".



It also said Dimon "knew, or ought to have known, that the information he disseminated was false and misleading".



"Jamie Dimon"s public assertions did not only affect the reputation of bitcoin, they harmed the interests of some of his own clients and many young businesses that are working hard to create a better financial system,” said Florian Schweitzer, managing partner at Blockswater.



Blockswater said JPMorgan traded bitcoin derivatives for their clients on Stockholm-based exchange Nasdaq Nordic before and after Dimon"s statements (as we detailed here), which Schweitzer said "smells like market manipulation".


Blockswater works with blockchain-based assets based in London and Austria. Its full complaint is below:





Blockswater Files Market Abuse Report Against Jamie Dimon in Stockholm
Blockswater LLP believes that Dimon violated EU’s Market Abuse Regulation by "spreading false and misleading information" about bitcoin



STOCKHOLM/NEW YORK/LONDON/VIENNA, September 21, 2017 - Algorithmic liquidity provider Blockswater LLP filed a market abuse report with the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) against JPMorgan Chase and Co. CEO Jamie Dimon. Blockswater believes that Dimon violated Article 12 of the European Union"s Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by declaring that cryptocurrency bitcoin was "a fraud.”



The complaint filed with the Swedish authorities demonstrates how Dimon"s statement negatively impacted "the cryptocurrency"s price and reputation.” The document also lists evidence that suggests Dimon "knew, or ought to have known, that the information he disseminated was false and misleading.”



"Jamie Dimon"s public assertions did not only affect the reputation of bitcoin, they harmed the interests of some of his own clients and many young businesses that are working hard to create a better financial system,” says Florian Schweitzer, managing partner at Blockswater. JPMorgan traded bitcoin derivatives for their clients on Stockholm-based exchange Nasdaq Nordic before and after Dimon"s statements fueled volatility in the market. “That’s a clear case of double standards and it smells like market manipulation.”



Article 12 of the European Union"s Market Abuse Regulation prohibits the manipulation of markets through practices such as spreading false or misleading information. Nasdaq Nordic, where exchange-traded notes on bitcoin are listed, defines the term “market manipulation” in accordance with the EU’s definition as “dissemination of information through the media, including the Internet, or by any other means that gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals as to Listed Products, including the dissemination of rumours and false or misleading news, where the person who made the dissemination knew, or ought to have known, that the information was false or misleading.”



FI confirmed receipt of the report but did not comment further except to state that the financial markets regulator "will handle it according to [FI"s] procedures."



Blockswater LLP is an algorithmic liquidity provider for blockchain-based assets based in London (UK) and Vienna (Austria).
 
 


Friday, September 15, 2017

Former Citi CEO Vikram Pandit: "AI Could Kill 30% Of Back-Office Banking Jobs By 2023"

Just as the development of electronic trading led to mass downsizing on sales desks across Wall Street, advances in artificial intelligence could decimate the ranks of banks’ back-office staff, according to former Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit. And given the rapid pace of technological advance, jobs in operations and retail banking could begin disappearing in as few as five years.


Pandit, who shared his thoughts about the future of the banking industry during an interview with Bloomberg, said that the industry’s focus on technology as a cost-saving measure - Bank of America Corp.’s Chief Operating Officer Tom Montag said in June that the bank is searching for more ways for technology to replace people – has inspired him to move up his timeline aggressively.  



As Bloomberg points out, Pandit’s forecast for job losses is in step with one made by Citigroup last year. In a March 2016 report, the lender estimated a 30% reduction between 2015 and 2025, as banks find more applications for automation in their retail businesses. That could lead to job losses numbering 770,000 in the US, and as much as 1 million in Europe, Citigroup said.





“Everything that happens with artificial intelligence, robotics and natural language - all of that is going to make processes easier,” said Pandit, who was Citigroup’s chief executive officer from 2007 to 2012. “It’s going to change the back office.”



This pressure on employees to prove that they’re more productive than the technology has transformed banking into an “enormously competitive” industry, Pandit said, adding that he expects the shift to produce yet another wave of consolidation in an industry that’s already dangerously concentrated, a flaw that was both exposed and exacerbated by the financial crisis.


Though he also believes advances in technology will lead to the development of “specialist providers,” making the financial system “a bit more decentralized.”


Pandit achieved lasting notoriety after becoming CEO of Citigroup in December 2007 just as the cascading subprime mortgage crisis was driving the US economy into a recession. He had previously led a hedge fund that was acquired by the bank, and, upon taking the top job, was widely criticized in the press for his inexperience in managing many of Citigroup’s core businesses like, for example, banking.


He’s now the CEO of Orogen Group, an investment firm that he co-founded last year, five years after being forced out as Citi’s CEO.



While Pandit’s prediction should be concerning to anyone who works in the financial industry, humanity as a whole would have much more to worry about if another CEO’s dire predictions about AI are eventually realized.
In one of several memorable tweetstorms on the topic, Tesla CEO Elon Musk urged governments to start considering regulation to govern the development and application of AI technology, arguing that the machines pose a greater danger to the US than North Korea.





However, other banking CEOs, including JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon, have played down the potential impact of technology in the financial industry, as Bloomberg reminds us. Conversely, automation could create “more opportunities” for employment as the firm hires a bevy of “technology workers.”





“JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon cautioned in June against overreacting to the impact of technology on jobs. While the bank is using technology to reduce costs, that helps create other opportunities, Dimon said in an interview published on LinkedIn. He predicted that employee numbers at his firm will continue to rise -- as it hires more technology workers.”



…Of course, Dimon has every reason to expect this: After all, that’s exactly what happened when the adoption of automation by manufacturers began to accelerate. Right?
 

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The True Legacy Of David Rockefeller

Via MintPressNews.com,


While often remembered for his philanthropy, the last surviving grandson of America’s first billionaire died today, leaving behind a dark legacy indicative of how American nobility often shape policy from behind the scenes.



No one person encapsulates the enduring legacy of the “robber barons” of the Industrial Age quite like David Rockefeller. Rockefeller, who died this week at the age of 101, was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the oil tycoon who became America’s first billionaire and the patriarch of what would become one of the most powerful and wealthiest families in American history. David Rockefeller, an undeniable product of American nobility, lived his entire life in the echelons of U.S. society, becoming symbolic of the elite who often direct public policy to a much greater extent than many realize, albeit often from the shadows.


Rockefeller made it clear that he preferred to operate out of public view despite his great influence in American – and international – politics. Due to his birthright, Rockefeller served as an advisor to every president since Eisenhower, but when offered powerful positions such as Federal Reserve chairman and Secretary of the Treasury – he declined, preferring “a private role.”


As evidenced by the numerous obituaries bemoaning the loss of the last of the Rockefeller’s grandsons, he was largely successful in hiding his most significant wrongdoings from public view, as evidenced by his characterization as a generous philanthropist and influential banker.


But as is often the case, Rockefeller’s true legacy is much more mired in controversy than major publications seem willing to admit. In addition to having the ear of every U.S. president for the better part of the last 70 or so years, Rockefeller – once again operating “behind the scenes” – was instrumental in shaping the more cringe-worthy aspects of U.S. policy during that time, as well as being a major force in establishing banking policies that led to debt crises in the developing world.


Rockefeller – as the head of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969 to 1981 – worked with government and multinational corporations throughout the world to create a “global order” unequivocally dominated by the 1 percent, of which his family was a part. As the New York Times noted back in the 1970s, Rockefeller became embroiled in controversy when his constant trips overseas caused the bank to become less profitable, as he prioritized the bank’s influence on foreign politics over its actual business dealings.


During his time as Chase CEO, Rockefeller helped lay the foundation for repressive, racist and fascist regimes around the world, as well as architecture for global inequality. In addition, Rockefeller helped to bring the debt crisis of the 1980s into existence, in part by direct action through Chase Bank and also indirectly through his former employee-turned-Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. Two years before the debt crisis erupted, Rockefeller, Volcker and other top bankers met at the International Monetary Conference in 1980s to argue for the establishment of a “safety net” for major banks – like Chase – that were embroiled in bad loans given largely to countries in the developing world.




David Rockefeller, center, then chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee, receives the 1983 International Leadership Award presented by Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, left, and Ralph A. Pfeiffer, Jr. on, Dec. 9, 1983. (AP/Ron Frehm)



After the crisis brought financial ruin to Latin America and other developing areas throughout the world, Rockefeller – along with other bankers – created austerity programs to “solve” the debt crisis during subsequent IMC meetings, provoking inequality that still persists to this day. However, thanks to the “safety net” conveniently established years prior, Chase avoided the economic consequences for its criminal actions.


In addition, Rockefeller supported the bloody and ruthless dictatorships of the Shah of Iran and Augusto Pinochet of Chile while also supporting Israeli apartheid. Rockefeller then went on to found the influential Trilateral Commission while also serving as a major force on the Council on Foreign Relations that he, along with his close friend Henry Kissinger, would come to dominate.


Both of these organizations have come under fire for using their powerful influence to bring about a “one-world government” ruled by a powerful, ultra-wealthy elite – an accusation to which David Rockefeller confirmed as true in his autobiography. Far from the generous philanthropist he is made to be, David Rockefeller deserves to be remembered for his true legacy – one of elitism, fascism and economic enslavement.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Billionaire Banker David Rockefeller, Former Head Of Chase Manhattan, Dies At 101

David Rockefeller, the famous banker and philanthropist with the family name that controlled Chase Manhattan bank for more than a decade and wielded vast influence around the world in the world of finance, has died on Monday morning at his home in Pocantico Hills, N.Y. He was 101.


A family spokesman, Fraser P. Seitel, confirmed the death.


Below is an exccerpt of his obituary from the NYT:


Chase Manhattan had long been known as the Rockefeller bank, though the family never owned more than 5 percent of its shares. But Mr. Rockefeller was more than a steward. As chairman and chief executive throughout the 1970s, he made it “David’s bank,” as many called it, expanding its operations internationally.


His stature was greater than any corporate title might convey, however. His influence was felt in Washington and foreign capitals, in the corridors of New York City government, art museums, great universities and public schools.


Mr. Rockefeller could well be the last of an increasingly less visible family to have cut so imposing a figure on the world stage. As a peripatetic advocate of the economic interests of the United States and of his own bank, he was a force in global financial affairs and in his country’s foreign policy. He was received in foreign capitals with the honors accorded a chief of state.


He was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the tycoon who founded the Standard Oil Company in the 19th century and built a fortune that made him America’s first billionaire and his family one of the richest and most powerful in the nation’s history.


As an heir to that legacy, Mr. Rockefeller lived all his life in baronial splendor and privilege, whether in Manhattan (as a boy he and his brothers would roller-skate along Fifth Avenue trailed by a limousine in case they grew tired) or at his magnificent country estates.


Imbued with the understated manners of the East Coast elite, he loomed large in the upper reaches of a New York social world of glittering black-tie galas. His philanthropy was monumental, and so was his art collection, a museumlike repository of some 15,000 pieces, many of them masterpieces, some lining the walls of his offices 56 floors above the streets at Rockefeller Center, to which he repaired, robust and active, well into his 90s.


In silent testimony to his power and reach was his Rolodex, a catalog of some 150,000 names of people he had met as a banker-statesman. It required a room of its own beside his office.


Spread out below that corporate aerie was a city he loved and influenced mightily. He was instrumental in rallying the private sector to help resolve New York City’s fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s. As chairman of the Museum of Modern Art for many years — his mother had helped found it in 1929 — he led an effort to encourage corporations to buy and display art in their office buildings and to subsidize local museums. And as chairman of the New York City Partnership, a coalition of business executives, he fostered innovation in public schools and the development of thousands of apartments for lower-income and middle-class families.
He was always aware of the mystique surrounding the Rockefeller name.


“I have never found it a hindrance,” he once said with typical reserve. “Obviously, there are times when I’m aware that I’m treated differently. There’s no question that having financial resources, which, thanks to my parents, I learned to use with some restraint and discretion, is a big advantage.”


Ambassador for Business


With his powerful name and his zeal for foreign travel — he was still traveling to Europe into his late 90s — Mr. Rockefeller was a formidable marketing force. In the 1970s his meetings with Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt, Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union and Zhou Enlai of China helped Chase Manhattan become the first American bank with operations in those countries.


“Few people in this country have met as many leaders as I have,” he said.


Some faulted him for spending so much time abroad. He was accused of neglecting his responsibilities at Chase and failing to promote aggressive, visionary managers. Under his leadership Chase fell far behind its rival Citibank, then the nation’s largest bank, in assets and earnings. There were years when Chase had the most troubled loan portfolio among major American banks.


“In my judgment, he will not go down in history as a great banker,” John J. McCloy, a Rockefeller friend and himself a former Chase chairman, told The Associated Press in 1981. “He will go down as a real personality, as a distinguished and loyal member of the community.”


His forays into international politics also drew criticism, notably in 1979, when he and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger persuaded President Jimmy Carter to admit the recently deposed shah of Iran into the United States for cancer treatment. The shah’s arrival in New York enraged revolutionary followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, provoking them to seize the United States Embassy in Iran and hold American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Mr. Rockefeller was assailed as well for befriending autocratic foreign leaders in an effort to establish and extend his bank’s presence in their countries.


“He spent his life in the club of the ruling class and was loyal to members of the club, no matter what they did,” The New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in 2002, citing the profitable deals Mr. Rockefeller had cut with “oil-rich dictators,” “Soviet party bosses” and “Chinese perpetrators of the Cultural Revolution.”


Still, presidents as ideologically different as Mr. Carter and Richard M. Nixon offered him the post of Treasury secretary. He turned them both down.


After the death in 1979 of his older brother Nelson A. Rockefeller, the former vice president and four-time governor of New York, David Rockefeller stood almost alone as the remaining family member with an outsize national profile. Only Jay Rockefeller, a great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, had earned prominence as a governor and United States senator from West Virginia. No one from the family’s younger generations has attained or perhaps aspired to David Rockefeller’s stature.


“No one can step into his shoes,” Warren T. Lindquist, a longtime friend, told The Times in 1995, “not because they aren’t good, smart, talented people, but because it’s just a different world.”


A Privileged Life


The youngest of six siblings, David Rockefeller was born in Manhattan on June 12, 1915. His father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., the only son of the oil titan, devoted his life to philanthropy. His mother, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, was the daughter of Nelson Aldrich, a wealthy senator from Rhode Island.


Besides Nelson, born in 1908, the other children were Abby, who was born in 1903 and died in 1976 after leading a private life; John D. Rockefeller III, who was born in 1906 and immersed himself in philanthropy until his death in an automobile accident in 1978; Laurance, born in 1910, who was an environmentalist and died in 2004; and Winthrop, born in 1912, who was governor of Arkansas and died in 1973.


David, the youngest, grew up in a mansion at 10 West 54th Street, the largest private residence in the city at the time. It bustled with valets, parlor maids, nurses and chambermaids. For dinner every night his father dressed in black tie and his mother in a formal gown.


Summers were spent at the 107-room Rockefeller “cottage” in Seal Harbor, Me., weekends at Kykuit, the family’s country compound north of the city in Tarrytown, N.Y. The estate was likened to a feudal fief. As Mr. Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography, “Memoirs” (2002), “Eventually the family accumulated about 3,400 acres that surrounded and included almost all of the little village of Pocantico Hills, where most of the residents worked for the family and lived in houses owned by Grandfather.”


In that bucolic setting he developed a fascination for insects that would lead to his building one of the largest beetle collections in the world.


David was 21 when John D. Rockefeller died. “He told amusing stories and sang little ditties,” Mr. Rockefeller recalled in 2002. “He gave us dimes.”


His sense of noblesse oblige was heightened by his early education at the experimental Lincoln School in Manhattan, founded by the American philosopher John Dewey and financed by the Rockefeller Foundation to bring together children from varied social backgrounds. He went on to study at Harvard, receiving his B.S. in 1936, and then spent a year at the London School of Economics, a hotbed of socialist intellectuals. Mr. Rockefeller was awarded a Ph.D in economics from the University of Chicago in 1940.


Moved by the Great Depression at home and abroad, he stated in his doctoral thesis that he was “inclined to agree with the New Deal that deficit financing during depressions, other things being equal, is a help to recovery.” The notion that a Rockefeller would take such a liberal economic view was major news; the family, rock-ribbed Republican, was known for its fierce opposition to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the New Deal’s author.


After receiving his doctorate, Mr. Rockefeller became a secretary to Fiorello H. La Guardia, New York’s pugnacious, liberal Republican mayor. In 1940, he married Margaret McGrath, known as Peggy, whom he had met at a dance seven years earlier, when he was a Harvard freshman and she was a student at the Chapin School in New York. His wife, a dedicated conservationist, died at 80 in 1996. They had six children: David Jr., Abby, Neva, Margaret, Richard and Eileen. A complete list of his survivors was not immediately available.


Mr. Rockefeller enlisted in the Army in 1942, attended officer training school and served in North Africa and France in World War II. He was discharged a captain in 1945.


He began his banking career in 1946 as an assistant manager with the Chase National Bank, which merged in 1955 with the Bank of Manhattan Company to become Chase Manhattan. Banking in the early postwar era was a gentleman’s profession. Top executives could attend to outside interests, using social contacts to cultivate clients, while leaving day-to-day management to junior officers. Mr. Rockefeller found plenty of time for such activities. In the late 1940s he replaced his mother on the Museum of Modern Art’s board and eventually became its chairman. He courted art collectors. In 1968, he put together a syndicate, including his brother Nelson and the CBS chairman, William S. Paley, to buy Gertrude Stein’s collection of modern art. David and Peggy Rockefeller’s own prized paintings — by Cézanne, Gauguin, Matisse, Picasso — were lent to the museum permanently.


Expanding a Bank Globally


Mr. Rockefeller’s rise in banking was swift. By 1961 he was president of Chase Manhattan and its co-chief executive with George Champion, the chairman. Promoting expansion overseas, Mr. Rockefeller clashed with Mr. Champion, who thought that the bank’s domestic business was more important. After Mr. Rockefeller replaced Mr. Champion as chairman and sole chief executive in 1969, he was able to enlarge the bank’s presence on almost every continent. He said his brand of personal diplomacy, meeting with heads of state, was crucial in furthering Chase’s interests.


“There were many who claimed these activities were inappropriate and interfered with my bank responsibilities,” Mr. Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography. “I couldn’t disagree more.” His “so-called outside activities,” he insisted, “were of considerable benefit to the bank both financially and in terms of its prestige around the world.”


By 1976, Chase Manhattan’s international arm was contributing 80 percent of the bank’s $105 million in operating profit. But instead of vindicating Mr. Rockefeller’s avidity for banking abroad, those figures underlined Chase’s lagging performance at home. From 1974 to 1976 its earnings fell 36 percent, while those of its biggest rivals — Bank of America, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover and J..P. Morgan — rose 12 to 31 percent.


The 1974 recession hammered Chase, which had an unusually large portfolio of loans in the depressed real estate industry. It also owned more New York-related securities than any other bank in the mid-1970s, when the city was edging toward bankruptcy. And among major banks, Chase had the largest portfolio of nonperforming loans.


Chase also got caught up in a scandal in 1974. An internal audit discovered that its bond trading account was overvalued by $34 million and that losses had been understated. A resulting $15 million drain in net income tarnished the bank’s image. In 1975, the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency branded Chase a “problem” bank.


Even as he struggled to reverse Chase Manhattan’s decline, Mr. Rockefeller found time to address New York City’s financial problems. His involvement in municipal affairs dated to the early 1960s, when, as founder and chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, he recommended that a World Trade Center be built.


In 1961, largely at his instigation, Chase opened its 64-story headquarters in the Wall Street area, a huge investment that helped revitalize the financial district and encouraged the World Trade Center project to proceed.


In the mid-1970s, with New York City facing a default on its debts because of sluggish economic growth and uncontrolled municipal spending, Mr. Rockefeller helped bring together federal, state and city officials with New York business leaders to work out an economic plan that eventually pulled New York out of its crisis.


Continued reading at the NYT

BREAKING: Billionaire Globalist David Rockefeller Dies at the Age of 101

Multibillionaire globalist David Rockefeller has died at the age of 101.


Rockefeller was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of the Standard Oil Company, which he built into an oil empire that made him America’s first billionaire and transformed his family into one of the most powerful in the world.


David Rockefeller was a renowned banker and philanthropist who controlled Chase Manhattan bank for more than a decade. Rockefeller worked diligently to spread globalist neoliberal capitalism to the world, and in the process, wielded uncanny global political influence.




According to a report in the New York Times:



Chase Manhattan had long been known as the Rockefeller bank, though the family never owned more than 5 percent of its shares. But Mr. Rockefeller was more than a steward. As chairman and chief executive throughout the 1970s, he made it “David’s bank,” as many called it, expanding its operations internationally.





His stature was greater than any corporate title might convey, however. His influence was felt in Washington and foreign capitals, in the corridors of New York City government, art museums, great universities and public schools.



Mr. Rockefeller could well be the last of an increasingly less visible family to have cut so imposing a figure on the world stage. As a peripatetic advocate of the economic interests of the United States and of his own bank, he was a force in global financial affairs and in his country’s foreign policy. He was received in foreign capitals with the honors accorded a chief of state.



The businessman, who had an estimated fortune of $3 billion, retired as head of Chase Manhattan in 1981 after a 35-year career.



READ MORE:  The Illuminati Were Amateurs -- The Facts Show These Five Families Rule the World



Rockefeller was known for his intimate embrace of international politics, as noted by the New York Times:





His forays into international politics also drew criticism, notably in 1979, when he and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger persuaded President Jimmy Carter to admit the recently deposed shah of Iran into the United States for cancer treatment. The shah’s arrival in New York enraged revolutionary followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, provoking them to seize the United States Embassy in Iran and hold American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Mr. Rockefeller was assailed as well for befriending autocratic foreign leaders in an effort to establish and extend his bank’s presence in their countries.



“He spent his life in the club of the ruling class and was loyal to members of the club, no matter what they did,” The New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in 2002, citing the profitable deals Mr. Rockefeller had cut with “oil-rich dictators,” “Soviet party bosses” and “Chinese perpetrators of the Cultural Revolution.”



The billionaire died in his sleep at home in Pocantico Hills, New York, on Monday morning as a result of congestive heart failure, according to a family spokesperson Fraser P. Seitel.


In the statement from The Rockefeller Foundation confirming his death, he was described as “one of the most influential figures in the history of American philanthropy and finance, considered by many to be ‘America’s last great international business statesman’.”


Rockefeller is a prime example of the dominance of ruling elite oligarchy. He stood at the pinnacle of private/government collusion and was often used as an intermediary in diplomatic negotiations — a back channel.



READ MORE:  Rothschild Bank Now Under Criminal Investigation Over Missing $4 Billion in Global Corruption Probe



Essentially, Rockefeller helped usher in an era of billionaire globalist domination over nation/state sovereignty. This influence is best summed up by David Rockefeller in a direct quote from his memoir:


“Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Rockefeller did more to shatter the sovereignty of nations and push the world toward a one world globalist government than anyone else in history. Rather than allowing individuals to decide the trajectory of their own societies, men like Rockefeller have worked tirelessly to shape the world to operate by their own designs.

Friday, February 3, 2017

JPM Silver Rigging Dismissal Overturned

Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal in JP Morgan Silver Rigging Case


  • US Appeals Court overturns Dismissal in Silver Rigging Case against JPMorgan.

  • The Appeals court rejected Judge Engelmeyer’s claim that the plaintiffs did not prove JPMorgan made “uneconomic bids” in the silver forward’s markets.

  • New discovery may win the case against JPMorgan

Summary


Via Soren K. and MarketSlant | The New York 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that District Court Judge Engelmayer was in error when he dismissed the Silver price rigging lawsuits against JP Morgan. The appellate court felt that Engelmayer’s dismissal reasons amounted to “impermissible fact finding” and placed too high of a bar in concluding that plaintiffs had not adequately plead their case.


This reversal of the June, 2016 dismissal means the case will go back to the district court for further litigation. This also means the plaintiffs will ask for and receive more discovery. This can win the case for them.


The Lawsuit  Was Dismissed in June,2016: JPMorgan Chase & Co had won the dismissal of three private antitrust lawsuits, including from hedge fund manager Daniel Shak, accusing the largest U.S. bank of rigging a market for silver futures contracts traded on COMEX.The lawsuits accused JPMorgan of having in late 2010 and early 2011 placed artificial bids onto the trading floor, harangued employees at metals market COMEX to obtain prices it wanted, and made misrepresentations to a committee that set settlement prices. Our report from June 30th, here.


Why it Was Dismissed in June: U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan, however, said the plaintiffs, who also included traders Mark Grumet and Thomas Wacker, did not show that JPMorgan made "uneconomic" bids, or intended to rig the market at counterparties" expense. He also questioned the plaintiffs" use of Silver Indicative Forward Mid Rates ("SIFO") as a benchmark for determining proper levels for the spreads in their lawsuits.


In fact on April 21st, 2016 JP Morgan urged the judge quash the litigation. JPMorgan insisted allegations that the bank monopolized the market were too vague to support antitrust claims. They urged the judge to raise the bar for the plaintiffs" burden of proof.


The Appeals Court Overturns the Dismissal Yesterday: The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did in fact submitted evidence that did in fact reach a level warranting further investigation. Therefore, the case should not have been dismissed.


In quoting the law, the 3 judges stated:





A plaintiff need only allege enough facts ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ and ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’


They stated that Judge Enlgemayer’s requirements for such specifics were too high to reach, describing the proof bar being raised to “a level of detail not required to withstand a motion to dismiss”




In essence what Judge Engelmeyer asked of the plaintiffs was impossible to ascertain in those proceedings.  





Specifically: “Fact-specific questions cannot be resolved on the pleadings.”




Can JP Morgan Monopolize Silver? Yes


The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs" allegation of JP Morgan’s ability to control silver futures prices with reference to a particular market was proven correct. Thus,


"The District Court did not err in concluding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a relevant market.”


This means that the plaintiffs showed plausibility that JP Morgan could control the far end of the Silver futures term structure via non-competitive bids.To traders, that means the JPM client who had to sell back month was faded way too low. [EDIT- And when one looks at the term structure from then, it is obvious that no true physical demand was in evidence based on the spot contango.- Vince Lanci]


Did JP Morgan Monopolize Silver?  To be Determined


The Appeals court did not say they believed JP Morgan exercised such ability to monopolize the Silver market. But the statement that they noted the power to do so was proven in the first hearing is significant in that it agrees with the District court’s findings.



Now What?


  1. The appellate court says the plaintiffs made a sufficient enough case for further investigation into a monopoly claim

  2. The findings of the appellate court will accompany the case file

  3. Judge Engelmeyer’s decision is removed and the case is remanded for further litigation and discovery

 


MarketSlant"s Analysis post the decision in June, 2016





 SIFO IS KEY


Given the (lawsuits") failure both to explain why SIFO should track silver futures spreads, and to concretely plead that it did so consistently, a mere general correlation between these two is not sufficient to make SIFO a reliable benchmark such that deviations from it support a claim of irrational pricing animated by anticompetitive aims," Engelmayer wrote.


Analysis:  a poor job was done explaining the role of SIFO in spread pricing.


SIFO represents the spread between expirations of FORWARD physical contracts in silver. The futures spread markets are derivative of the SIFO spreads. SIFO represents the cost-of-carry for physical silver and is used in determining lease/borrow rates over periods of time. These are in-turn extrapolated and the dominant factor in determining futures spreads on COMEX. Comex spreads are a direct function of SIFO. Without SIFO there are no spreads. And since SIFO was a much bigger market than the Comex spread market. The pricing mechanism was not fully transaparent. It was in the hands of a few dominant cartel-like players, as it had been for 30 years.



Analysis: The demand was fabricated


The market was only partially backwardated. Spot was below the next 6 expirations. Translation: there was no massive demand for immediate delivery. There was only demand in months where the last remaining floor traders who took risk trading their own money had positions. JPM"s own book was likely short and had to get liquidity to cover their own positions. We knew Shak from our floor days, and were trading spreads off floor when this happened. They should not have lost this case. Comex traders do not trade spot. Spot was under the backwardation. Smoking gun? No, but damning circumstantial evidence in the least. 



Bottom Line on the Trade


What most likely really happened then was a silver miner had to hedge forward and cover up front. JPM likely had this client cornered and faded their back month bids. The miner, having no where else he could go, hit them OTC, when they were much better bid on the floor. The floor locals were un over. Meanwhile no otehr Bullion dealer was involved on either end of the trade. ifthis is true, think about the lock down JPM had with that client. Once SIFO and COMEX spreads are proven to be linked, the case will be made.



Blythe Did a Mini Buffet to a Client


How come in 1997 when Warren Buffet, who actually stood for delivery, the market did not rally until AFTER the spreads backwardated all the way to spot? Yet in 2011, the market had rallied already, and all of a sudden spreads (literally overnight during asian and london hours) went into backwardation? In a real market, the spread activity predicts the physical demand before the flat price does. You see the spot price start to act squirrelly to the front month future in the EFP. There are exceptions to this. But it is rare.


This trader also remembers that in 1997, Buffet was asked by the Govt to defer his request for delivery a year. He happily complied by selling spot and rolling out to a 1 year future. Payout? He netted an ROR of 40% due to negative carry without selling. Effectively he lent the producers their silver back to them ($7.40) at a premium of approximately 40% higher than his cost ($4.50). So Blythe did a "mini" Buffet, that"s all.


Why wasn"t that opportunity afforded SHAK and other locals? Does that have to be answered beyond this: In Mr. Buffet"s case "the integrity of the market was at stake"( Hunt Brother"s anyone?). The whole Silver mining industry was in jeopardy. (TBTF). But  in Shak v.JPM only locals got burned. I"m sure each one of my arguments for manipulation can be taken apart by some lawyer or expert. But that is what they do. Facts against them? Argue the Law. Law against them? Argue the facts. Both against them? Use ad hominum attacks to shoot the messenger. 


Good Luck



Thursday, January 19, 2017

Jewish Trust Sues Deutsche Bank For $3 Billion

Just when it seemed that no more lawsuits are possible for Germany"s largest lender, which over the past two years has settled or otherwise paid billions to set aside a barrage of allegations of wrongdoing leading to the bank"s suspension of bonuses for most senior bankers, today we learn that Deutsche Bank was sued by a Jewish charitable trust in Florida, alleging that the bank wrongly withheld as much as $3 billion from the heirs to a wealthy German family.


According to Bloomberg, the lawsuit claims the bank refuses to return the funds initially deposited by the Wertheim family in accounts opened at what is now Credit Suisse Group AG before the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Those accounts were later transferred to Deutsche Bank, according to the complaint filed Wednesday in federal court by Wertheim Jewish Education Trust LLC.





Deutsche Bank has “refused to cooperate with the heirs of the Wertheim family fortune in the recovery and return of the monies that they are withholding from the rightful heirs,” and preventing the use of the funds for charitable and other purposes, according to the complaint filed in Fort Lauderdale. 



While on the surface, the case looks mindane, the details are interesting.





The charitable trust is an heir to the descendants of Joseph Wertheim, a family that amassed a fortune by building the KaDeWe department store in Berlin and a textile and manufacturing empire in Frankfurt, according to the complaint. One of those descendants, Karl Wertheim, feared the German rise of anti-Semitism in the 1920s, moved his businesses to Spain and opened an account at Credit Suisse in 1931.



The Swiss bank protected the family assets through the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s and during World War II, using secret numbered accounts, pseudonyms and trust accounts, according to the complaint.



When Karl Wertheim died in 1945, the estate passed to his wife, Maria, who managed the fortune until the early 1970s, according to the lawsuit. The fortune included the sewing machine and office-machine business of Hispano Olivetti SA, accounts and investment portfolios in Swiss banks, land in Europe and the U.S. and art collections, it said.  As the health of Maria Wertheim deteriorated, she turned to Ambrosius Wolfgang Bauml to help manage the assets. After she died in 1976, Bauml managed the Wertheim family fortune until his death in 1990, when control passed to the family of Rudolf Sutor.



This is where Deutsche bank comes in: "through a complex series of events, the assets were transferred in 1993 to Deutsche Bank, which misled the Wertheim heirs for many years about the accounts, according to the complaint." The lawsuit thus seeks return of $3 billion and an accounting of the assets in dispute.


Understandably, being quietly accused of antisemitism did not strike Deutsche Bank as proper and it responded that is “taking the matter very seriously,” according spokesman Tim-Oliver Ambrosius. “The accusations are completely unfounded, and Deutsche Bank denies them,” he said. “All proceedings initiated against Deutsche Bank in this matter have been decided in favor of Deutsche Bank.”


To be sure, Deutsche Bank has had "sensitive" exposure in the past. Back in 1998, Deutsche Bank acknowledged that it had dealt in Nazi gold during World War II and said it ""regrets most deeply injustices that occurred.""  The publication of a historian"s report commissioned by the bank, and the bank"s response to it expanded a class-action suit brought by lawyers in New York on behalf of Holocaust survivors against Deutsche Bank which had long been regarded by other historians as having played key roles in the financing of the Nazi war effort.





""Of course these transactions took place,"" said Ronald Weichert, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, referring to the report"s conclusion that the bank had bought more than 4.4 tons of gold from the Reichsbank, the onetime central bank. ""This gold business was normal business during the war."" At wartime values and exchange rates, the gold was worth some $5 million, about one ninth of its estimated worth today.



The bank commissioned historians from Israel, the United States, Britain and Germany to produce an independent report on its wartime gold dealings -- part of a wave of inquiries inspired by developments in Switzerland. The Swiss central bank was the biggest single purchaser of looted gold acquired by Nazi Germany from countries it occupied and from individual Jews robbed as they faced death in extermination camps.



The report said Deutsche Bank channeled gold transactions with the Reichsbank through branches in occupied Austria and Turkey, then a self-avowed neutral power. Of purchases totaling 4,446 kilograms of gold, the report concluded, 744 kilograms were dental gold taken from Jews" teeth, wedding bands and personal jewelry amassed in Berlin by an SS officer named Bruno Melmer.



It is unclear whether DB"s Nazi war effort" roots will be unearthed as part of this lawsuit. However, with Deutsche Bank rolling over on virtually every other lawsuit it has been handed in recent years, it would not be surprising if the plaintiff"s case emerged as strong. Ultimately, should a court find in favor of the Trust, Deutsche Bank may just need to get that refinancing that it avoided when the DOJ slashed its "ask" on the US RMBS settlement by more than half.