venerdì 30 ottobre 2015

Institutional money-laundering requires participation of sovereign governments

To Hide A Hyperinflation - Part 1 by Jeff Nielson

https://www.sprottmoney.com/blog/h-to-hide-a-hyperinflation-1.html

To Hide A Hyperinflation - Part 1 by Jeff Nielson
By Jeff Nielson
 
In previous commentaries; readers have read firm conclusions that the U.S. government (via the Federal Reserve) has already hyperinflated its currency – past tense. Yet what do we actually see as we look around us? We see this obviously/blatantly worthless currency with its exchange rate versus other currencies propped-up at a particularly absurd extreme. Where is the “hyperinflation”?
Regular readers can automatically answer that question. We see the hyperinflation in the chart below: the exponential increase in the U.S. monetary base (i.e. its supply of money). Both the shape of the curve and the quantum of the total increase shriek “hyperinflation”.

“Inflation” is an increase in the supply of money. This is the universally accepted economic definition for this term. What most people think of as “inflation”, the serial increase in the price of goods, is merely the inevitable consequence of inflation – inflating the money-supply.
If “inflation” is an increase in the supply of money, and the U.S. supply of money has increased literally at a hyperbolic rate, then by economic/mathematical definition, the chart above represents hyperinflation. Case closed.
Or is it? Where is the massive price-inflation, which readers have just been told is an “inevitable consequence” of this hyperinflation? Part of the answer is that this hyperinflation has been hidden, and thus the price-hyperinflation has been delayed. The other part of the answer is that, historically, actual “hyperinflation”, meaning a currency officially plunging-to-zero, is “a confidence event.”
What this means, is that history tells us there is always a lag between the time a currency has been hyperinflated (as we see above), and it actually loses all official value as a medium of exchange. The length of that lag represents the amount of time which the Chumps using this worthless currency can be deceived into believing that it is not worthless.
With respect to the U.S. dollar, which as shown above is now worthless-by-definition, this deceit is the culmination of a multi-decade program of fraud and manipulation, along with the saturation propaganda from the Corporate media that the U.S. dollar is a “strong” currency. Tell a Chump, every day of his life, that the U.S. dollar is “better” than the other (worthless) currencies, and it will take a long time for such a Chump to see/understand the Truth.
Now for specifics. What’s the first and most-obvious way to create the illusion that a worthless currency is a “strong currency”? Manipulate the exchange rate higher, through brute-force, criminal manipulation of foreign exchange markets. U.S. and European Big Banks have now been convicted of serially manipulating the USD (higher), going back to at least 2007.
The mystery here is not that the Big Banks (and primarily U.S. Big Banks) have been caught serially manipulating the dollar for at least the better part of a decade. The chart above proves that a crime of this nature must have been taking place. The “mystery” is that with these banksters engaging in this serial crime, in a market which trades in the trillions of dollars per day, how could it possibly have taken eight years for U.S. and European prosecutors to “notice” this ongoing misconduct?
The answer is that it couldn’t take that long. Rather, what this represents is that after these Big Banks had been serially manipulating this market for 8 years, it was no longer possible to cover up such massive, systemic crime. Indeed, currency manipulation has been one of the Big Bank’s favourite forms of economic terrorism while this “investigation/prosecution” of Big Bank currency-rigging was taking place.
First it was the Indian rupee which was attacked via market manipulation, and had its exchange rate taken to “record lows”. Then it was the Russian ruble. And these are only the major currencies which have borne the brunt of recent economic-terrorism-via-currency-manipulation. For another example; just have a look at Venezuela’s currency, another obvious target of U.S./Big Bank terrorism.
But currency manipulation is only one of the ways in which the Big Bank crime syndicate, Federal Reserve, and U.S. government hide U.S. hyperinflation, and thus the fundamental worthlessness of the U.S. dollar. The second plank in this campaign of crime is to fake “demand” for U.S. dollars.
The primary vehicle for this branch of crime is the massive, serial fraud which takes place in the U.S. Treasuries market. For readers not familiar with the fundamentals of the bond market, here is a brief overview.
The “price” of a bond is directly/inversely proportional to the interest rate on that bond. As the interest rate rises, the price declines, and vice versa. The interest rate on bonds which trade in global markets (such as U.S. Treasuries) is supposed to be a direct function of the “risk” associated with that debt.
Specifically, the greater the risk of default, the higher the rate of interest which is supposed to be demanded on that bond, by the lenders in the marketplace who finance that debt. Officially, the U.S. government is the most-indebted nation on the planet, with a “national debt” of roughly $18.5 trillion.
The U.S. pretends to have a total national GDP of $16.75 trillion, though several of those “trillions” are nothing but smoke-and-mirrors, economic fudging. Yet even officially, the U.S. is already well past the 100% debt-to-GDP level which signifies a “debt crisis” (and massive interest rates on its bonds). But the real story in this endemic fraud is the U.S.’s “unofficial” debts/liabilities.
As calculated by a former economic advisor in the Reagan administration (and now university professor); U.S. debts-and-liabilities exceed $200 trillion – not (a mere) $18.5 trillion. The greater than 1000% difference between these two numbers is based on massive accounting-fraud by the U.S. government, whereby it (officially) has converted $trillions of its debts into “liabilities”.
It is precisely to prevent accounting-fraud of this nature that all U.S. (and Western) corporations are required by law to report their debts-and-liabilities as a single number, via the “GAAP” accounting principles which are a universal standard in the world of accounting, except for our governments. By those universal standards, the U.S. is not merely insolvent, not merely bankrupt, but absurdly bankrupt.
It has only been able to ward-off a formal declaration of bankruptcy (already) via systemic accounting fraud, which would have resulted in criminal convictions if the same fraud had been perpetrated by a corporation. The accounting-fraud of the U.S. government makes “Enron” look squeaky-clean, by comparison.<
U.S. Treasuries are worthless, the massive debts of a completely/ridiculously bankrupt entity. This directly and necessarily implies that the interest rates on these fraud-bonds should be near infinity. Instead, we saw U.S. Treasuries recently trade at a “negative” rate of interest.
What we are supposed to believe is that some “lender” paid the U.S. government for the privilege of loaning money to the most-bankrupt entity in the history of nations, and this does not even account for the (supposed) lender’s future losses, as “inflation” further erodes the value of the bond. The only thing greater than this fraud, itself, is the insanity which the Corporate media, bankers, and U.S. government are attempting to peddle to us here.
How is this fraud perpetrated/financed? More fraud, of course. There are no “buyers” for U.S. debt, in such multi-trillion dollar quantities. Of all the potential buyers on the planet (primarily sovereign governments), most have no available funds to purchase these fraud-bonds, even if they weren’t worthless.
Of those few, remaining nations which have actual “surplus” funds to finance such purchases (like China), most have already voluntarily ceased any/all Treasuries buying. Indeed, at the same time we have seen the ultimate fraud of “negative” interest on U.S. Treasuries, the largest holder of these fraud-bonds, China, has been dumping Treasuries, in the hundreds of $billions.
Is there any way that the price for U.S. Treasuries could rise (and the interest rate fall) while the largest, foreign holder of those Treasuries, was dumping these fraud-bonds, in unprecedented quantities? Of course not. In any quasi-legitimate market; this would have caused Treasuries prices to plummet, and the interest rate to spike – even if these fraud-bonds were not already, obviously worthless.
How does the US government or the Federal Reserve prevent the US treasuries market from actually functioning like a "market"? It's actually mind-numbingly simple. The Federal Reserve counterfeits US dollars by the trillions and uses this illegal currency to buy up the entire supply of treasuries.
Then comes the money-laundering, where the U.S. government foists these worthless bonds onto the books of its lackey accomplices: governments like Belgium and Japan. Supposedly (i.e. officially), the government of Belgium was devoting its entire, national GDP over a span of several months buying these (worthless) U.S. bonds. For those readers who find this “reality” implausible, there is only one, other, possible explanation: institutional money-laundering, on such a massive, systemic scale that it requires the participation of sovereign governments.
Then comes the money-laundering, where the U.S. government foists these worthless bonds onto the “books” of its lackey accomplices: governments like Belgium and Japan. Supposedly (i.e. officially), the government of Belgium was devoting its entire, national GDP over a span of several months buying these (worthless) U.S. bonds. For those readers who find this “reality” implausible, there is only one, other, possible explanation: institutional money-laundering, on such a massive, systemic scale that it requires the participation of sovereign governments.

giovedì 29 ottobre 2015

The Latest (and Dumbest) Central Bank Fraud

The Latest (and Dumbest) Central Bank Fraud

By Bill Bonner, Chairman, Bonner & Partners on October 27, 2015
http://bonnerandpartners.com/the-latest-and-dumbest-central-bank-fraud/ 

WATERFORD, Ireland – You go for a nice picnic on the slopes of Vesuvius… You spread out your tablecloth. You open your picnic hamper. You prepare for a relaxing afternoon in the warm October sun.
And then someone comes running down the mountain, warning that the volcano is going to blow up. You pack up your sausages and put a cork in the wine bottle… and rush to the car and drive away. Better to be safe than sorry.
And then? Nothing happens.
Most of the time, you can safely ignore the nervous nellies and prophetic Cassandras. (According to legend, Apollo gave Cassandra the gift of prophecy. When she refused him, he spat into her mouth so she would never be believed.)
But sometimes the worrywarts are right…


A Financial Reckoning

For the last 16 years, we’ve been writing a daily e-letter – first theDaily Reckoning and now the Diary.
We saw the collapse of the dot-com bubble coming and warned readers. Most didn’t want to hear it; they were making good money in the stock market. It was a “new era.” And they didn’t want it to end.
But the Nasdaq collapsed in 2000… and didn’t recover until 15 years later.
We believed at the time that the U.S. economy would follow Japan into a long, slow slump. With Addison Wiggin, we wrote a book about it, Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century.
“Don’t fight the Fed,” is one of the old-timers’ rules on Wall Street. We understand the principle. You don’t fight the Fed because the Fed has more ammunition than you have.
But when we were writing Financial Reckoning Day, we never imagined that the Fed could create an entire fantasy economy based on completely unnatural signals and grotesque manipulations.
That is the economy of the 21st century. It is an economy in which the old rules of supply and demand… value and price… up and down… have to be viewed through the distorted light of central bank intervention.
When the price of new money – as set by the Fed to its best customers – is almost zero, who knows what other things are worth?

A Crooked Casino

We expected investors to be as appalled as we were.
We thought they would look through the Fed’s distortions… turn up their noses… and close their brokerage accounts.
After all, who would want to pay a high price for an asset whose value depends entirely on central bank manipulation?
Apparently everybody!
Instead of closing their accounts, people piled into the market like gamblers into a crooked casino. They all know the games are fixed. And they all expected to be winners.
In response to the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the mini-recession that followed in 2001, Alan Greenspan cut short-term rates and inflated another bubble – this time in housing and mortgage finance.
The financial industry amplified the Greenspan “put” and made hundreds of billions of dollars on the flimflam trade. And the housing bubble grew so large that all of Wall Street became over-stretched, undercapitalized, and out-of-control.
It was then that we warned readers again. Specifically, we suggested: Sell your expensive house in California; buy a cheap house in Arkansas.
The advice was a little fanciful, but the point was clear. As George W. Bush might have put it: “This sucker’s going to blow up!”

Central Banks’ Dumbest Fraud

As it happened, the Vesuvius of mortgage debt exploded in 2008.
Roughly half of America’s stock market wealth disappeared in about six months. Millions of homeowners sank “underwater.” And just about every major bank on Wall Street would have – and should have – been flattened had it not been for the feds’ bailouts.
Again, using another GWB turn of phrase, we “misunderestimated” the power of chicanery, treachery, and fraud.
Now, it was incoming Fed chief Ben Bernanke on the case – cutting rates to near zero and claiming that the world as we knew it would vanish unless Congress gave the cronies $700 billion.
He was right, of course. The screwy world that the feds had created – funded by ultra-cheap credit – was getting what it deserved, good and hard. Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall.
We believed that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men would not be able to get Humpty back together again.
We were wrong. The king’s men came out with ZIRP (zero-interest-rate policy) and QE. The Humpty Dumpty stock market floated higher than ever. And the announcement last week from Mario Draghi at the European Central Bank that more euro QE was in the cards pushed him up an inch more.
Investors are aware that the market is manipulated… and it doesn’t seem to worry them. They don’t fight the Fed; they sit down at the table with it.
They play the game. And so far, they have done well.
And now… here’s the headline from the Wall Street Journal: “Fed Strives for Clear Signal on Interest Rates”
This is the latest – and in some ways the dumbest – of central bank frauds. Now, the Fed is under the leadership of Janet Yellen. And she believes in “forward guidance.”
She believes she can decide in advance what interest-rate policy the Fed should follow in the future and let investors know in advance what that policy will be. That way, they can plan intelligently.
She will signal that, soon, the central bank will begin the long return to “normalcy.” Don’t believe it. The entire system depends on abnormalcy.
It depends on more mischief from the central banks: ZIRP; QE; and as already practiced in Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark, NIRP (negative-interest-rate policy).
Once again, we hear the grumbling of the volcano… and the smoke rising.

Regards,

Signature
Bill

UK national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing


Policy paper

UK national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-risk-assessment-of-money-laundering-and-terrorist-financing

The national risk assessment (NRA) is the first comprehensive assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risk in the UK.

Document

Detail

The NRA covers the domestic risks of money laundering and terrorist financing within the regulated sector, including financial institutions and other regulated professionals, and the risks associated with cash, new payment methods, and UK legal entities and arrangements. It also covers the international risks to the UK from money flowing into and out of the country.

21st Century Fascism (Bankism)

Central banks are secretly trading the markets

Chris Powell: Gold market manipulation update

Section: By Chris Powell, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
New Orleans Investment Conference
Hilton New Orleans Riverside Hotel
Wednesday, October 28, 2015

 http://www.gata.org/node/15896

Everything about the financial markets today must begin with two documents.
The first is the 2013 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by CME Group, operator of the major futures exchanges in the United States. In August 2014 Eric Scott Hunsader, founder of the market data firm Nanex in Winnetka, Illinois, called attention to a telling paragraph in the filing. The telling paragraph discloses that the customers of CME Group include "governments and central banks."
http://www.gata.org/node/14411

Also in August 2014 Hunsader called attention to another filing by CME Group, a letter sent in January 2014 to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission by CME Group's managing director and chief regulatory counsel, Christopher Bowen.
http://www.gata.org/node/14385

The letter disclosed that CME Group futures exchanges offer volume trading discounts to central banks for all futures contracts, not just financial futures contracts but also futures contracts for the monetary metals and commodities, including agricultural products.

The CME Group letter to the CFTC justified secret futures market trading by central banks as a matter of providing the markets with "liquidity" that would benefit all traders.

But if governments and central banks, creators of infinite money, are secretly trading the markets, there ARE no markets anymore, just interventions, as a high school graduate told GATA's conference in Washington in 2008 and as the British economist Peter Warburton suspected in his incisive 2001 essay, "The Debasement of World Currency -- It Is Inflation, But Not as We Know It":
http://gata.org/node/8303

If governments and central banks are secretly trading the markets, no fundamental or technical analysis of markets is worth much. If governments and central banks are secretly trading the markets, the only market information worth much is information about government and central bank trading.
GATA has continued to document that central bank trading and related maneuvers since we met here in New Orleans a year ago. Let's review some of the new documentation.

-- On September 21 this year gold researcher Koos Jansen reported that the rules of the International Monetary Fund exempt imports and exports of monetary gold from reporting by national customs agencies. That is, the purchase and sale of monetary gold by governments and central banks across international borders can be withheld from customs reporting, thereby facilitating secret intervention in the gold market:
http://www.gata.org/node/15759

-- On September 16 this year gold researcher Ronan Manly disclosed that while the new daily London gold auction was established in the name of reducing the possibility of market manipulation, the auction's operator, the Inter-Continental Exchange, has reported to the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority that spikes in Comex gold futures prices seem to have been undertaken to manipulate the afternoon gold auction in London:
http://www.gata.org/node/15743

-- On August 6 this year Manly disclosed a policy study by the Bank of England written in 1988 that concluded that gold is the best money because it has no counterparty risk but that buying it risks insulting the U.S. dollar and the U.S. government:
http://www.gata.org/node/15625

-- On June 9 this year Colorado securities lawyer Avery Goodman, who researches the gold market, called attention to the hugely disproportionate Comex futures contract gold deliveries being made by the investment bank JPMorganChase. The disproportion of the deliveries assigned to MorganChase, Goodman wrote, suggested strongly that the investment bank is administering the U.S. Federal Reserve's gold swapping and leasing operations and that at least for the time being the U.S. government and U.S. gold reserve are guaranteeing Comex gold futures contracts:
http://www.gata.org/node/15441

-- On May 3 this year gold researcher Manly called attention to the Internet site of the gold market consultancy started last year by the former Barclays Bank representative in the London Gold Market Fixing company, Jonathan Spall. Spall's new company is called G Cubed Metals:
http://www.gata.org/node/15310

The G. Cubed Metals Internet site says: "All connected with G Cubed Metals are well aware of the need for confidentiality in all financial markets as well as the additional sensitivity that comes from transacting in precious metals -- particularly when it involves the 'official sector' such as governments, central banks, and sovereign wealth funds."
Why do governments and central banks need such confidentiality in their gold market operations unless they mean to do something they don't want the market to know about?

-- On April 6 this year gold researcher Manly disclosed a letter written on January 30 by the chief executive of the London Bullion Market Association, Ruth Crowell, to the Bank of England's Fair and Effective Market Review Committee.
http://www.gata.org/node/15241

Crowell wrote: "The role of the central banks in the bullion market may preclude 'total' transparency, at least at public level."
While Crowell wrote that the LBMA welcomes more transparency in the London gold market, particularly through what she called "post-trade reporting," she also praised gold lending by central banks for providing "liquidity" to the market, asserting that "it is vital that the role of the liquidity provider is not diminished but in fact strengthened to make sure the markets remain fair and effective."

The Bank of England's review of the gold market, Crowell's letter said, "should prioritize liquidity, as greater liquidity results in markets which are less easily manipulated, and consequently regulators should afford market participants the tools with which to foster liquidity."

But if the foremost providers of "liquidity" in the gold market are central banks, their provision of "liquidity" is likely the primary mechanism of market manipulation, as central banks have not just access to effectively infinite financial resources but also the powerful motive to manipulate the markets in which their currencies and bonds trade.

Thus with its chief executive's letter to the Bank of England, the LBMA made the same bogus and self-serving claim that was made by futures exchange operator CME Group in support of the volume trading discounts it gives to central banks for secretly trading the U.S. futures markets CME Group operates -- the claim that secret trading by central banks deters market manipulation rather than constitutes it.

-- On March 1 this year a GATA supporter discovered a Ramparts magazine article from May 1968 written just after the collapse of the London Gold Pool. The article was written by Michael Hudson, who then was an analyst for Chase Manhattan Bank and lately has been professor of economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City:
http://www.gata.org/node/15147

Hudson wrote:
"America's desire to see gold eliminated from the world's monetary system is understandable. It had used gold as a lever with which to exercise world power, not only to purchase foreign businesses but also to finance its overseas Cold War operations. Gold, America perceived, was power; as long as gold was the basis of the world monetary system, power followed it. Therefore, when its gold stockpile was depleted, America naturally wanted to transform the monetary system in such a way as to phase gold out, thereby preventing any other nation from using the power it provides -- especially in view of the fact that the major potential gold-bloc nations are the Soviet Union, South Africa, and France."

-- On February 28 this year gold researcher Manly located comments made by a high official of the Bank of England in a 2007 issue of the magazine Central Banking indicating that the Bank of England secretly traded gold in the 1980s to control its price and even made a profit doing so:
http://www.gata.org/node/15146

-- In January this year the chief of market operations for the Banque de France, Alexandre Gautier, replied to an e-mail inquiry from GATA's friend Fabrice Drouin Ristori, chief executive of Goldbroker.com in Malta. Gautier had told the London Bullion Market Association meeting in Rome in September 2013 that the Banque de France secretly trades gold "nearly every day" for its own account and for the accounts of other central banks:
http://www.gata.org/node/13373

Ristori asked Gautier to explain the purposes of the Banque de France's gold trading. Gautier replied that the French central bank never explains its operations in the gold market.
http://www.gata.org/node/14954

But the only purpose of such daily trading by central banks is market manipulation.

-- A week ago the executive director of Austria's central bank, Peter Mooslechner, was interviewed by Daniela Cambone of Kitco News on the sidelines of the London Bullion Market Association conference in Vienna. Mooslechner volunteered to Cambone that Asian central banks are intervening surreptitiously in the gold market:
http://www.gata.org/node/15878

Cambone had asked Mooslechner to explain the role of central bank gold reserves.
Mooslechner replied: "I think for small countries it's more or less this buffer role in the end. It's quite different, I think, for central banks in Asia, for example, where they are increasing their reserves a lot and they are much more active in using also their reserves in trading in the market and intervening into the market."
But Cambone seemed to fail to understand what she had just been told. She asked no follow-up questions about secret central bank interventions in the gold market.
GATA's friend the German financial journalist Lars Schall noticed Cambone's gross omission and understood its importance. So Schall sent his own follow-up questions to the Austrian central bank in the hope that Mooslechner would reply:
http://www.gata.org/node/15892

Schall asked Mooslechner the following questions:
-- Can you elaborate on the trading of gold by central banks and their use of gold for market intervention?
-- Exactly which central banks are doing this trading and intervention, what are its purposes, objectives, and results, and what markets are involved?
-- Are this trading and intervention public and announced or are they secret and surreptitious?
-- Are this trading and intervention undertaken directly by central banks or through intermediaries?
-- If this trading and intervention are undertaken through intermediaries, who are they?
-- Should markets and citizens generally have the right to know about this trading and intervention?
-- And how do you know about it, Herr Mooslechner?

Today Schall reported that the Austrian central bank’s press office had just replied to him as follows: “Sorry, we are not going to answer your questions. We never comment on our investment strategy and trading":
http://www.larsschall.com/2015/10/27/again-and-again-no-answers-from-cen...

But Schall had not asked about the Austrian central bank’s investment strategy and trading. He had asked about the Austrian central banker’s comment on Asian central bank trading and secret market intervention.
Even so, Mooslechner's lapse into candor about secret central bank intervention in the gold market was notable enough. Maybe Mooslechner is not available to answer Schall's questions because he is floating face-down in the Danube.
-- Of course Cambone's job at Kitco News is not to commit journalism; it's just to look pretty.
But a few days after Cambone flubbed her interview with the Austrian central banker, the star columnist of the Financial Times, Martin Wolf, did no better with his interview with former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke over lunch at a restaurant in Chicago.
http://www.gata.org/node/15884

Amazingly, Wolf never asked Bernanke an inconvenient question. Wolf asked no questions about surreptitious interventions in the markets by the Fed, and no questions about the many documents involving market intervention that the Fed refuses to disclose.
For Wolf's job at the Financial Times is not to commit journalism either. It's just to shill for the government and ingratiate the newspaper with it.

* * *

The primary objective of these largely surreptitious interventions by central banks in the gold market has been to keep the gold price down and thereby destroy the natural inverse relationship of the gold price with interest rates and currency values -- to prevent gold from serving its traditional function as a hedge against government mismanagement of currencies and markets, to prevent people from escaping the central bank system.

By any traditional market standard it is absurd that gold should be priced below the cost of its production when, as now, real interest rates and even nominal interest rates are negative. Gold can be priced this way only because of massive intervention -- constant, daily, even hourly intervention by central banks using derivatives, high-frequency trading, and dishoarding from central bank gold reserves.

If you rig the risk-free rate of return, the price of money from the government, and rig the price of the traditional safe-haven money, gold, you rig all prices, rig the price of all capital, labor, goods, and services in the world, and thereby destroy the market economy. Even some central bankers have been calling this policy "financial repression."

In today's environment of "financial repression," any investment in gold and gold-mining companies is a bet on the restoration of a market economy -- or a bet that, eventually, yielding to market pressures, central banks will choose to devalue currencies and debt by resetting the gold price much higher and resuming their gold price suppression scheme at a more sustainable level, a level with less offtake from their gold reserves. This would be the sort of thing central banks have done before, as in 1933 and 1934, 1968, and 1971.

I have no insight into exactly what will happen or when. I think the best that advocates of free and transparent markets can hope for is to drag "financial repression" fully into the open so that even mainstream financial news organizations like the Financial Times are forced to acknowledge it. Then the world can plainly decide between totalitarianism and democracy.
Much more documentation of the rigging of the gold market by central banks is posted in the "Documentation" file at GATA's Internet site:
http://www.gata.org/taxonomy/term/21

If you think GATA's work is worth sustaining, please visit our Internet site at GATA.org and consider supporting us with a federally tax-deductible contribution. We're a nonprofit educational and civil rights organization and more than ever could use your help now.
Thanks for your kind attention.

* * *

Join GATA here:
The Silver Summit and Resource Expo 2015
Park Central Hotel, San Francisco, California
Monday-Tuesday, November 23-24, 2015
http://cambridgehouse.com/event/50/the-silver-summit-and-resource-expo-2...

Central bank subversion of markets, the producing class, and democracy

Central banks, LBMA are one and the same; and gold price suppression's Asian angle

Section: 3:29p CT Thursday, October 29, 2015
http://www.gata.org/node/15898

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
Freelance financial journalist Lars Schall today reports another brief exchange with the press officer of Austria's central bank, Christian Gutlederer, that is illuminating though it wasn't meant to be.
Schall originally asked Austria's central bank to have its executive director, Peter Mooslechner, answer some questions about his comment to Kitco News last week at the London Bullion Market Association conference in Vienna. Asked about the role of central bank gold reserves, Mooslechner volunteered that "central banks in Asia ... are increasing their reserves a lot and they are much more active in using also their reserves in trading in the market and intervening into the market":
http://www.gata.org/node/15878
Schall sought details from Mooslechner --
http://www.gata.org/node/15897
-- asking:
-- Can you elaborate on the trading of gold by central banks and their use of gold for market intervention?
-- Exactly which central banks are doing this trading and intervention, what are its purposes, objectives, and results, and what markets are involved?
-- Are this trading and intervention public and announced or are they secret and surreptitious?
-- Are this trading and intervention undertaken directly by central banks or through intermediaries?
-- If this trading and intervention are undertaken through intermediaries, who are they?
-- Should markets and citizens generally have the right to know about this trading and intervention?
-- And how do you know about it, Herr Mooslechner?
Gutlederer replied: "Sorry, we are not going to answer your questions. We never comment on our investment strategy and trading."
When Schall protested that he had not asked about the Austrian central bank's "investment strategy and trading" but about Mooslechner's assertion of surreptitious intervention in the gold market by Asian central banks, Gutlederer replied: "We are never commenting on the strategies of other central banks and to make it clear from the very beginning I added we are not commenting also on our strategies."
But of course Mooslechner had commented on "the strategies of other central banks." If this is something the Austrian central bank "never" does, how did Mooslechner get away with violating bank policy?
The explanation lies in the context of the central banker's seemingly prohibited comment.
Mooslechner was speaking on the sidelines of the LBMA meeting in Vienna to a simpleminded and compliant reporter for an Internet news organization that always shills for the financial establishment. Given the location, the central banker well could have thought that he was among colleagues and that his remarks would not escape a friendly circle.
Indeed, other recent interactions between central banks and representatives of the LBMA also demonstrate that for all practical purposes central banks and the LBMA are actually the same institution.
For example, telling disclosures about surreptitious trading in the gold market by central banks were made by the director of operations for the Banque de France, Alexandre Gautier, at LBMA meetings in Rome in September 2013 and in Lima in 2014.
At the meeting in Rome, Gautier said that the Banque de France is trading gold for its own account and for the accounts of other central banks "nearly on a daily basis":
http://www.gata.org/node/13373
At the meeting in Lima, Gautier said central banks are managing their gold reserves "more actively" using gold swaps:
http://www.gata.org/node/14716
And in a letter to the Bank of England's Fair and Effective Markets Review Committee in January this year --
http://www.gata.org/node/15241
-- LBMA Chief Executive Office Ruth Crowell argued that the bank should facilitate gold lending by central banks as a means of providing "liquidity" to the gold market. That is, that central banks should keep letting LBMA members handle central bank gold reserves to prevent any shortage of metal in the market that might drive the price up and make government currencies and bonds less attractive.
Crowell could not have expected that her letter to her pals at the Bank of England would become public, even if it was placed in the bank's public archive, because no mainstream financial news organizations will ever consider market rigging by central banks.
All this signifies that the London Bullion Market Association is a primary mechanism of central banks for surreptitiously managing the gold market, for preventing it from becoming a market at all. The central bankers and LBMA members get together regularly at LBMA meetings around the world to share information relevant to this market rigging and to nurture social relationships. What is supposed to be confidential government information in shared with friendly outsiders, like Mooslechner's observation about secret intervention in the gold market by Asian central banks.
And when this information accidentally leaks out through overconfidence in the central bank and bullion bank fraternity that nobody else is paying attention, central banks like Austria's pretend that the information is not supposed to leave central bank offices at all, though it is being shared with LBMA members all the time and is immensely tradable and facilitates insider trading.
* * *
Mooslechner's specifying Asian central banks as the ones lately using their gold reserves to intervene secretly in the gold market gives credence to the speculation three years ago by the U.S. economists and fund managers Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance that the central bank gold price suppression scheme is part of a plan to redistribute world gold reserves more fairly, particularly to holders of large surpluses of U.S. dollars and U.S. government debt, so they may be hedged against a devaluation of the dollar:
http://www.gata.org/node/11373
It would make no sense for Asian central banks to be, as the Austrian central bank's Mooslechner says, "increasing their reserves a lot" and then "using their reserves in trading in the market and intervening into the market," knocking the price down, unless the objective was to scare off private buyers of gold so central banks could obtain more for themselves.
There's a great story here, the financial news story of the modern age, about the subversion of markets, the producing class, and democracy by the unelected elite of the financial class, central banks. Too bad that the first rule of mainstream financial journalism is never to put a critical question to a central bank, and especially not a critical question about gold.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Austrian central bank won't answer questions

Austrian central bank won't answer questions about its exec's remark on gold intervention

Section: 5:37p CT Wednesday, October 28, 2015
http://www.gata.org/node/15897

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Freelance financial journalist Lars Schall reports today that the Austrian central bank has refused to answer his questions about the assertion last week by the bank's executive director, Peter Mooslechner, that Asian central banks are using their gold reserves to intervene secretly in the gold and currency markets, an assertion reported to you here:
http://www.gata.org/node/15878

Schall writes that he received today the following reply from the head of the Austrian central bank's press office, Christian Gutlederer: "Sorry, we are not going to answer your questions. We never comment on our investment strategy and trading."

Schall's updating on the issue is posted at his Internet site here:
http://www.larsschall.com/2015/10/27/again-and-again-no-answers-from-cen...

Schall had sent these questions to Mooslechner:
-- Can you elaborate on the trading of gold by central banks and their use of gold for market intervention?
-- Exactly which central banks are doing this trading and intervention, what are its purposes, objectives, and results, and what markets are involved?
-- Are this trading and intervention public and announced or are they secret and surreptitious?
-- Are this trading and intervention undertaken directly by central banks or through intermediaries?
-- If this trading and intervention are undertaken through intermediaries, who are they?
-- Should markets and citizens generally have the right to know about this trading and intervention?
-- And how do you know about it, Herr Mooslechner?

Schall did not ask the Austrian central bank to "comment on our investment strategy and trading."

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

mercoledì 28 ottobre 2015

US Default. How Obama Could Beat the Debt Ceiling

“Running Out of Money”. The US Government On the Brink of Default. How Obama Could Beat the Debt Ceiling

Region:
Sommet Obama
Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile  — Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1935

On November 3rd, the US government will again run out of money due to a debt ceiling artificially imposed by Congress. This is the third time in four years that a radical faction has taken the country to the brink of default to extort concessions that are at best only marginally related to the budget.
The debt ceiling is an unconstitutional gimmick that violates the 14th amendment, which says the validity of the government’s debt shall not be questioned. The debt was incurred by Congress when it passed the budget, and the money has been borrowed and spent. Congress cannot now refuse to pay.
One good gimmick deserves another. The debt ceiling could be eliminated for good, by restoring to the government its constitutional authority to create money. Article 1, Section 8, provides: “The Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof . . . .” The president could pay the government’s bills by issuing some large denomination coins by executive order.

When the Constitution was ratified, coins were the only officially recognized legal tender. By 1850, coins made up only about half the currency. Today, they make up less than one-half of one percent of the money supply – about 50 billion out of a $12 trillion circulating money supply (M2). These coins, along with about $25 billion in US Notes or Greenbacks originally issued during the Civil War, are all that is left of the Treasury’s money-creating power.
As the Bank of England recently acknowledged, the vast majority of the money supply is now created privately by banks as deposits when they make loans. The power to issue the national money supply needs to be returned to the people from whom it has been deceptively usurped. As Thomas Edison observed in the 1920s:
It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.
In Lincoln’s Footsteps 

In the early days of his presidency, Barack Obama claimed Abraham Lincoln as his role model. One of Lincoln’s less well known achievements was to avoid a massive debt to private banks at usurious interest rates by restoring an earlier form of government-issued money, the paper scrip of the American colonists. In the 1860s, these US Notes or Greenbacks constituted 40% of the national currency. Today, 40% of the circulating money supply would be $5 trillion.
This massive money-printing during the Civil War did not lead to hyperinflation. US Notes suffered a drop in value as against gold, but according to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwarz in A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960, this was not due to “just printing money” but was caused by trade imbalances with foreign trading partners on the gold standard.

The Greenbacks aided the Union not only in winning the war but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln’s government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched, a continental railroad system was created, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted, free higher education was established, government support was provided to all branches of science, the Bureau of Mines was organized, and labor productivity was increased by 50 to 75 percent.
President Obama could follow the lead of his mentor and beat the debt ceiling by calling for a new issue of debt-free US Notes. The problem with that alternative is that it would require legislation, an impossibility before the looming November 3rd debt ceiling deadline.

Another way to solve the crisis with government-issued money was proposed by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and endorsed by Democratic Representative Alan Grayson during the last debt ceiling crisis: the Federal Reserve could be ordered to transfer to the Treasury the federal securities it has purchased with accounting entries through “quantitative easing.” The Treasury could then just void out this part of the debt, which currently tallies in at $2.7 trillion. That alternative too would be legal, but it would require persuading the Federal Reserve to act.
A third alternative, which could be done very quickly by executive order, would be for the federal government to exercise its constitutional power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof” by minting one or more trillion dollar platinum coins.

A Treasury Issue of Special Coins 

The idea of minting large denomination coins to solve economic problems was first suggested in the early 1980s by a chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee of the House of Representatives. He observed that the Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, and that no limit is put on the value of the coins it creates. He said the government could pay off its entire debt with some billion dollar coins. I wrote about this in Web of Debt in 2007 and said it would have to be a trillion dollar coin today.
In 1982, however, Congress chose to choke off this remaining vestige of its money-creating power by imposing limits on the amounts and denominations of most coins. The one exception was the platinum coin, which a special provision allows to be minted in any amount for commemorative purposes. (31 U.S. Code § 5112.)

In 2013, Carlos Mucha, an attorney blogging under the pseudonym Beowulf, proposed issuing a platinum coin to capitalize on this loophole. With the endless gridlock in Congress over the debt ceiling, the proposal got picked up by Paul Krugman and some other economists as a way to move forward.
Philip Diehl, former head of the US Mint and co-author of the platinum coin law, confirmed that the coin would be legal tender. He said:
In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years . . . under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).
Prof. Randall Wray explained that the coin would not circulate but would be deposited in the government’s account at the Fed, so it would not inflate the circulating money supply. The budget would still need Congressional approval. To keep a lid on spending, Congress would just need to abide by some basic rules of economics. It could spend on goods and services up to full employment without creating price inflation (since supply and demand would rise together). After that, it would need to tax — not to fund the budget, but to shrink the circulating money supply and avoid driving up prices with excess demand.

Why Not Pay Off the Whole Federal Debt? 

As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one. The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in some other interest-generating securities.

The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles  testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound the national debt and make it unrepayable. Quoting Thomas Edison again:
If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. Listen to “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf

Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf
Written by Ben Dyson (Positive Money) on .
http://positivemoney.org/2015/10/a-history-of-sovereign-money-proposals-from-patrizio-laina/
Screenshot 2015-10-25 07.49.56Patrizio Laina, a PhD candidate at the University of Helsinki, has written a short but very comprehensive overview of the history of proposals to take the power to create money away from banks. Laina traces the ideas back right to the 1830s, and ends with the proposals of Positive Money and Martin Wolf in 2015. This is one of the best overviews that I’ve seen of the history of these ideas, and well worth a read. (It’s in plain English).
The full paper is well worth reading.
Introduction:
 
“[Full reserve banking, i.e. preventing banks from creating money] has been proposed and even implemented as a solution to financial instability a number of times in the past. Thus, the idea of monetary reform should be seen as a historical continuum. In the UK the Bank Charter Act of 1844 prohibited private money creation through fractional-reserve banking by requiring that bank notes (which were the prevailing means of payment) should be fully-backed by government money. The National Acts of 1863 and 1864 achieved the same goal in the US.
“The prohibitions, however, did not include bank deposits, which slowly became the dominant means of payment. In the 1930s, the Chicago Plan was almost adopted in the US, but the FRB idea was watered down in the Banking Acts of 1933 (better known as the Glass- Steagall Act) and 1935. Instead of preventing private money creation in the form of bank deposits, the Banking Acts separated commercial and investment banking, provided deposit insurance and improved government’s control over monetary policy and money supply. Currently there are no examples of economies where the majority of money does not come into existence as a consequence of bank lending.
“Now, in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), preventing private money creation in order to ensure financial stability has once again become a topical issue.”  
Download the full paper here

martedì 27 ottobre 2015

Impeachment of the Federal Reserve

Impeachment of the Federal Reserve
impeachordie.jpg
Throughout history, holding public officials accountable for wrongdoing has been elusive even under the most moral regimes. As an ordinary practice, crime pays, especially in public office. Personal gain is an obvious offense. However, misdemeanors against specific persons, entire classes of people or even crimes against humanity are routinely committed in the normal course of administrating governments. Woefully, a universal remedy to prevent such a chronicle of depravity has never been applied to the body politik.


When such violations of the public trust are perpetrated by non elected authoritarians, especially from a protected segment of the financial elite, the abuse of the people is supreme. How ludicrous that the endless struggle against establishing a central bank could have been so causally accepted just over a hundred years ago. 


As any and every student of American Revolution knows, allowing the coinage and administration of currency to a private bank was an important factor in freeing the New World from the strangle hold of old empires. With the creation and treachery of a Christmas vote, the Federal Reserve took full control of the financial sector and placed the country on the inevitable path of totalitarian rule. 

If a refresher course is needed, the Jackals of Jekyll Island - Federal Reserve Audit article illustrates the dire nature and consequences of the debt created money system that has impoverished our society. In the essay, Federal Reserve 100 Years of Failure the history of the banksters financial system is examined.

So what can be done to stop this monster of liberty destruction and monetary theft? First off the immediate remedy provided for the removal of reprehensible outlaws is impeachment. But before one assumes that impeachment is basically a legal procedure, it must be acknowledged  the function of removal from entrusted and limited authority, means that impeachment is fundamentally a political act.
The Constitutional Rights Foundation describes that High Crimes and Misdemeanors can lead to impeachment.

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:
·         The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
·         If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
·         If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
·         For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

Historically there are three examples of attempts to use the impeachment method to put forth a purging of governors of the Federal Reserve. The first was by Congressman Lindbergh: Articles of Impeachment Against Federal Reserve.
This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Act the invisible government by the Money Power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on depressions will be scientifically created.” – Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913, on the Federal Reserve Act Charles Lindbergh Sr. – Congressional record – Feb 12, 1917
3126 Congressional Record Mr. LINDBERGH. Mr. Speaker and the House of Representatives, I, Charles A. Lindbergh, the undersigned, upon my responsibility as a Member of the House of Representatives, do hereby impeach
W. P. G. Harding, governor
Paul M. Warburg, vice governor;
Frederick Delano
Adolf C. Miller
and Charles S. Hamlin

"Resolve, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and directed as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the official conduct of the Fed agents to determine whether, in the opinion of the said committee, they have been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which in the contemplation the Constitution requires the interposition of the Constitutional powers of the House. Such Committee shall report its finding to the House, together with such resolution or resolutions of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.

By this time the actual cause behind the Great Depression was disclosed at a heavy personal risk as described by Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist).

Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:
Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."

The most recent attempt was made by Rep. Gonzalez, Henry B. [D-TX-20] (Introduced 03/07/1985).
H.Res.101 - A resolution providing for the impeachment of Paul A. Volcker, Edward G. Boehne, Robert H. Boykin, E. Gerald Corrigan, Lyle E. Gramley, Karen N. Horn, Preston Martin, J. Charles Partee, Emmett J. Rice, Martha R. Seger, and Henry C. Wallich, as members of the Federal Open Market Committee.

By the time that this last impeachment resolution was introduced, most Americans were born well after the memory of the striking controversy that existed during the first half of this country’s history towards the threat of allowing a central bank to lend debt money into existence.

Author George F. Smith, who co-wrote the Varying Verity series, quoted the following in The Birth of Legal Counterfeiting, illustrates a point that most forget.
"Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." -- Fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto, 1848
It should be stipulated that for decades the Congress has not demonstrated the stomach to fulfill their Constitutional duties on the same level and scale as our Founding Father’s generation. A legislature that will not even authorize a full forensic audit of the Fed, much less pass an abolishment statute law, is not one brave enough to follow the lead of Iceland after the recapture of their financial institutions as seen in 26 bankers already sentenced to a combined 74 years in prison.

Make no mistake about it, the dubious circumstances and untimely demise of Congressman Louis T. McFadden is not lost on a political class of beggars who are dependent upon the financial contributions of the banking elite to be re-elected.
Nonetheless, the value of using the impeachment vehicle is not necessarily the removal of a Greenspan, a Bernanke or a Yellen. It is about developing the critical mass necessary to instill public awareness that the financial system of central banking is the quintessence and inevitable reason, for the cause of the coming economic collapse, which is unavoidable. 

Impeachment is a small step towards the replacement of the malefic hell that the central bankers inflict as they squeeze America to the “consequences of defaulting on a desperate bargain”. "A pound of flesh" is just as germane today as when penned by Shakespeare.

Face the facts that the courts and the legal barrister class are essentially gatekeepers to protect the establishment. Relief from a rare judicial hearing is reliably overturned by a higher court. And there is no greater superpower center of corruption and control than the crony capitalism perversion that hijacked a free enterprise economy.
Much of this depraved derivative financial racket depends upon the domination of the Federal Reserve fraud of the national economy. This is a reality that most historians are unwilling to accept because the punitive penalties from crossing the “PC” Wall Street guardians of the Fed temple are too high to pay. 

Unless a modern day Lindbergh emerges to carry on the fight, the next generation will be even more ignorant of the forbidden history that put into motion the demise of our country. Today impeachment is a threat that was fine to use against Richard Nixon but was wrong to try William Clinton. For once a true bi-partisan agreement can be forged to use impeachment against the true and real enemy, the Federal Reserve. 

SARTRE – October 27, 2015

Ex-Goldman Banker and Fed Employee Will Plead Guilty

Ex-Goldman Banker and Fed Employee Will Plead Guilty in Document Leak

Photo
The headquarters of Goldman Sachs, left and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of Goldman's regulators. Credit Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

A former Goldman Sachs banker suspected of taking confidential documents from a source inside the government has agreed to plead guilty, a rare criminal action on Wall Street, where Goldman itself is facing an array of regulatory penalties over the leak.

The banker and his source, who at the time of the leak was an employee at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of Goldman’s regulators, will accept a plea deal from federal prosecutors that could send them to prison for up to a year, according to lawyers briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The men, both fired after the leak, also may face lifetime bars from the banking industry.

In a statement, a Goldman spokesman emphasized that the banker worked for the firm for less than three months, and that the bank “immediately began an investigation and notified the appropriate regulators” once it detected the leak. Nonetheless, the bank is expected to pay a significant penalty.

Under a tentative deal with New York State’s financial regulator, the lawyers said, Goldman would pay a fine of $50 million and face new restrictions on how it handled delicate regulatory information. The settlement with the Department of Financial Services would also force Goldman to take the rare step of acknowledging that it failed to adequately supervise the former banker — thrusting the bank back into the spotlight just as it was beginning to overcome a popular image as a firm willing to cut corners to turn a profit.

For Goldman and the New York Fed, the case is likely to give new life to an embarrassing episode that illustrated the blurred lines between their institutions. Perhaps more than any other bank, Goldman swaps employees with the government, earning it the nickname “Government Sachs.”
While the so-called revolving door is common on Wall Street, the investigation into the Goldman banker and the New York Fed regulator exposes the perils of the job hopping, affirming the public’s concerns that regulators and bankers, when intermingled, occasionally form unholy alliances.

The leak, which was first reported by The New York Times last year, was arguably the product of the revolving door.
The Goldman banker, Rohit Bansal, previously spent seven years as a regulator at the New York Fed. After Mr. Bansal joined Goldman in July 2014, his boss assigned him to advise one of the banks he previously regulated, a midsize bank in New York, the lawyers said. Soon after, he received government information about that bank from Jason Gross, a former colleague who was still working at the New York Fed.

That leak, which violated a cardinal rule of the regulatory world, provided Goldman a window into the Fed’s private insights about the New York bank and other regulatory matters, the lawyers said. In essence, it gave Goldman a leg up when advising the client.

In the statement, the Goldman spokesman, Michael DuVally, said that the bank had “reviewed our policies regarding hiring from governmental institutions and have implemented changes to make them appropriately robust.”
Bruce Barket, a lawyer for Mr. Gross, said, “Although we would have liked to see him escape any criminal liability, we are thankful that the U.S. attorney’s office took what we think is a reasonable approach,” adding that “misdemeanor pleas in federal court are rare.”

Scott Morvillo, a lawyer for Mr. Bansal, declined to comment.
It is rare for a Wall Street banker to face criminal charges. After the financial crisis, not one Wall Street chief executive was charged, and prosecutors have charged bankers or traders in only a handful of investigations.
Mr. Bansal and Mr. Gross are facing misdemeanor charges, following the precedent of past Fed leak cases that were resolved without felony charges. The outcome partly reflects their low-level rank on Wall Street. Mr. Bansal, who was 29 at the time, was an associate at Goldman.

By contrast, a senior colleague who supervised some of his work was a seasoned Wall Street executive. Prosecutors are not expected to charge the senior colleague, Joseph Jiampietro, even though some New York Fed documents were found on his desk, the lawyers briefed on the matter said. Mr. Jiampietro — who at the time was a managing director at Goldman and previously was a senior adviser to Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — has told the authorities that he never read the documents and had no clue that they were illegally obtained.
Goldman fired Mr. Jiampietro, though it never concluded that he knew about the leak, instead remarking in a report to regulators that he “failed to properly escalate” the problem.

Peter Chavkin, a lawyer for Mr. Jiampietro, declined to comment.
A spokesman for Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Anthony J. Albanese, the acting head of the New York Department of Financial Services. The Fed declined to comment as well.

In response to the leak, the Federal Reserve is expected to permanently bar Mr. Bansal from the banking industry, according to a person briefed on the matter. The Fed has barred six people so far this year, a significant increase from the three preceding years.

The leak was not the first incident that raised doubts about the ties between the New York Fed and large banks, particularly Goldman.
In 2013, Carmen Segarra, a former employee of the New York Fed, sued the agency for wrongful dismissal, contending that she had been fired for not changing negative regulatory findings about Goldman. In a victory for the New York Fed, both a federal court and a federal appeals court dismissed her lawsuit.

In the leak case, the New York Fed said it had immediately notified law enforcement agencies after discovering that confidential regulatory information might have been shared at Goldman. And in a statement last year, the Fed said it was “resolute to learn from our experiences.”

William C. Dudley, a former Goldman economist who has been the president of the New York Fed since 2009, has also taken several steps to make the agency a more stringent regulator. And, perturbed by a string of scandals at global banks, Mr. Dudley in 2013 unnerved some Wall Street executives when he said he saw “evidence of deep-seated cultural and ethical failures at many large financial institutions.”


Goldman has largely steered clear of those scandals that have stung its rivals — like market rigging of currencies and interest rates. The leak case puts it back under the microscope.
While the $50 million fine contemplated in the tentative deal with the New York Department of Financial Services is a small fraction of what Goldman paid in financial crisis-era cases, it is far more than the bank expected to pay after making an opening offer of $3 million, the lawyers briefed on the matter said.
In addition to the fine and the admission that it failed to supervise Mr. Bansal, Goldman will accept a three-year suspension from conducting certain consulting deals with banks in New York State. The prohibition denies Goldman a special privilege — legally accessing confidential information about a banking client with permission from regulators. Goldman has rarely if ever done consulting deals that require such information, one of the lawyers briefed on the matter said, so that aspect of the deal is unlikely to dent the bank’s business.

Mr. Bansal joined Goldman in July 2014 from the New York Fed. At the time he left the Fed, Mr. Bansal was the “central point of contact” for certain banks. At Goldman, he joined a unit within the investment bank that advises other financial institutions on mergers and other deals.

That role presented him with a potential conflict of interest.
And although Goldman required him to attend compliance training — at which he was told not to use any material from his previous employer — it was unclear whether the New York Fed prohibited Mr. Bansal from working on behalf of any banks he had previously regulated. Because the New York Fed’s rules are somewhat ambiguous, Goldman sent Mr. Bansal to clarify his restrictions with the regulator.

After some discussion, when the restrictions were still unclear, Mr. Bansal filled out a recusal form himself and handed it to Goldman. He mentioned only one bank on the form — the midsize one in New York.
Despite Mr. Bansal’s recusing himself, his supervisors encouraged him to work behind the scenes for that New York bank, the lawyers said. Mr. Bansal agreed, though he later told authorities that he felt pressured to do so.
Much of what Mr. Bansal did, the lawyers said, was legal.

But eventually, information from Mr. Gross started to flow.
In one conference call with colleagues in early September 2014, Mr. Bansal shared insights about the midsize bank in New York, the lawyers said. At other points, he emailed Fed material to Mr. Jiampietro. Despite the warning signs, no one flagged the information for Goldman’s compliance department.

It was not until Sept. 26, the same day news reports emerged about Ms. Segarra’s taping conversations with her supervisors about Goldman, that Goldman executives objected to some of Mr. Bansal’s information, the lawyers briefed on the matter said. In a conference call with Scott Romanoff, a partner at Goldman and a well-known Wall Street executive, Mr. Bansal circulated a spreadsheet that contained some seemingly delicate details.

After the call, Mr. Romanoff contacted Mr. Bansal to clarify where he had obtained the information. Mr. Bansal, the lawyers said, acknowledged that it came from the New York Fed. In an email later that day, Mr. Bansal said “sorry” to Mr. Romanoff, who by then had alerted Goldman’s compliance department.
That night, a Friday, Goldman alerted the New York Fed.

Jessica Silver-Greenberg contributed reporting.

Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...