SEC wins case against Back exsec

How many people working as brokers for the banks during that time lost their licesense?


You would think you could find someone losing their right to be a broker if there were broker rules huh
 
evince said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-sec-goldman-tourre-idUSBRE96G19720130801



A jury found former Goldman Sachs Group Inc vice president Fabrice Tourre liable for fraud for his role in a failed mortgage deal that cost investors $1 billion, in a big victory for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tourre was found liable on six of seven counts by a Manhattan federal jury in the SEC's highest-profile trial to spill out of its investigations into causes of the 2008 financial crisis.

"We are gratified by the jury's verdict," said Andrew Ceresney, co-director of the regulator's enforcement division. "We will continue to vigorously seek to hold accountable, and bring to trial when necessary, those who commit fraud on Wall Street."

After the jury was dismissed, Tourre raised his eyebrows to one of his lawyers. He and his lawyers left court without commenting on whether he plans to appeal, walking through drizzling rain followed by reporters and camera crews.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest will now determine whether to order Tourre to pay financial penalties or to disgorge any illegal profits as a result of his misconduct. Tourre testified he earned $1.7 million in 2007. He could also be banned from the securities industry for life
Click to expand...


he wasn't following the rules back then why did it take until AFTER the SEC implemented the rules to charge him?



Why was he not already charged if the broker rules were in place all along like you claim
 
evince said:
if as you claim there were already laws on brokers in the banks then produce them.
why have you NEVER produced the evidence of these laws existence?
Click to expand...

Dear moron... if the laws didn't exist regarding who is treated as a broker, why were there EXEMPTIONS? Why would anyone need an exemption to a law that didn't exist?

Do you ever try THINKING? Or is it as we feared, you simply are a fucking idiot?
 
evince said:
he wasn't following the rules back then why did it take until AFTER the SEC implemented the rules to charge him?
Why was he not already charged if the broker rules were in place all along like you claim
Click to expand...

LMAO... you continue spouting off nonsense as if you know what you are talking about. Tell us this Desh... what rule do you think applied to an individual?

Tourre was already under the SEC jurisdiction you moron. The broker rules were not going to affect Goldman. Goldman was already an INVESTMENT bank.
 
dude I have produced more than you.

if your interpitation is correct you should be able to get your proof.


Go get proof of the bank broker laws prior to the SEC under Bush finally implementing rules years later
 
evince said:
dude I have produced more than you.
if your interpitation is correct you should be able to get your proof.
Go get proof of the bank broker laws prior to the SEC under Bush finally implementing rules years later
Click to expand...

Dear moron, I have refuted your stupidity time and again. The broker laws as you call them were EXCEPTIONS. Thus you already have a link to them. The rules they are exceptions for are mentioned on the link you have posted. So quit pretending you have no idea... unless you are admitting you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top