I'm a law-school student and I wrote a paper this semester on whether recklessness constitutes scienter under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act [securities fraud]. The short answer is that recklessness constitutes scienter because - while it is at best evidence of negligence - it is a strong indication of intent without the evidence to show it. In other words, we can't prove you subjectively intended to do it; instead, we're going to look at the facts and make an objective determination that there's no other explanation other than you intended to do it (or in plain English: Bull. Shit.).
The implications for the banksters during the last credit bubble and the fraud that accompanied it shows plainly that, while there is a bounty of wrongdoing, evidence and culpable characters, the only explanation for no one being held accountable is that...goddamn it, I sound like a Zerohedge conspiracy-theorist-article-commentor...Wall Street owns Washington, at least to the point that it more resembles Tombstone, Arizona (circa late 19th century) than it does ...I can't think of a good counter-example. In short, lawlessness is running amok on Wall Street. Please read Matt Taibbi's most recent article!
The implications for the banksters during the last credit bubble and the fraud that accompanied it shows plainly that, while there is a bounty of wrongdoing, evidence and culpable characters, the only explanation for no one being held accountable is that...goddamn it, I sound like a Zerohedge conspiracy-theorist-article-commentor...Wall Street owns Washington, at least to the point that it more resembles Tombstone, Arizona (circa late 19th century) than it does ...I can't think of a good counter-example. In short, lawlessness is running amok on Wall Street. Please read Matt Taibbi's most recent article!
No comments:
Post a Comment