Stephen Foley: Bankers' actions a crime of passion
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.US Outlook: There ought to be a legal defence of crime passionnel for executives accused of fraud.
There's a vast difference between the casual lies of mortgage brokers – the wilful negligence of mortgage lending firm bosses and the double-speak of mortgage derivative salesmen – and the other types of fraud that characterise the credit crisis. This second category, crimes of passion, are the desperate actions of executives who bent or broke the rules in the hope of saving an impossible situation, in the hope of saving themselves, their firm, and sometimes even the whole financial system.
The alleged fraud committed by Ken Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America in 2008, was to mislead his shareholders over the state of Merrill Lynch's finances in the run-up to the closure of their merger. To the extent that a lawsuit by the New York attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, has any merit – and it is difficult to tell because it reads more like a political speech than a legal filing – I think Mr Lewis can invoke a crime passionnel defence in the court of public opinion.
In the febrile atmosphere of late 2008, giving a running commentary on losses at Merrill Lynch was tantamount to inviting a run. I can't blame Mr Lewis and his advisers for looking for every legal opportunity to keep Merrill's deteriorating condition private while they searched for a solution (in this case another unedifying government bailout).
The high-profile legal cases so far have gone after the desperate, supposed misdeeds of executives in the middle of a panic (at Bears Stearns hedge funds or the Reserve Primary money market fund, for example). In the interests of deterrence, let's hope the focus soon shifts to the inflators of bubbles, rather than their victims.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments