Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/09/a...

Filing documents containing claims that are false is perjury. Filing 10,000 documents containing false claims is 10,000 instances of perjury. Other corporations have taken similar actions, filing tens of thousands of documents in court, withdrawing the documents, and admitting that they were factually incorrect.

Additionally, knowingly originating securities that do not meet the representations made in their prospectuses is securities fraud. We know because of FCIC-related testimony that this was done at BofA at the very least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20gret.html?_r=1&... (article is related but not about BofA)

I would normally recommend that you read something at market-ticker.org, but for the most part KD's been light on the evidence lately so I'd be hard pressed to sift through his recent angry rambling to find something substantial.




It's not perjury if it's not willful; the issue with what you're describing is proving that the factual errors were willful misrepresentations and not, as I'm sure the banks claim, honest mistakes that they made a good-faith effort to correct once discovered.

I can imagine that filing documents with errors in them would really annoy the hell out of a judge, but it doesn't seem on its face like it necessarily crosses into perjury.

The securities fraud seems much stronger, maybe via some sort of breach of duty claim by the bondholders who got stuck holding the bag? They pretty much got sold a bill of goods, so they would seem to have the clearest path to getting their pound of flesh out of the originators.


Regarding the perjury, you're right. I find it somewhat upsetting that after a few years of courts responding to these organizations "accidentally" filing factually incorrect documents by allowing them to foreclose anyway the most we can do is prevent them from gaining anything through further "accidents," but what I think is immaterial to the law.

On the securities fraud side, some action is being taken along those lines. My impression from what I've read is that a group of bondholders whose combined share is a large portion of the offering has to be assembled before they can take any action, so it's moving fairly slowly.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: