Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by vasilipupkin on Thursday April 21, 2016 @08:22PM
(#11546265)
Or, alternatively, in this case there was no good case as some SEC lawyers suggested. It seems strange to me to suggest that assembling a security of mortgage bonds so that one party could short it while another could go long it is a crime. That is what Goldman is supposed to do !
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by wwwdonohue on Friday April 22, 2016 @12:44AM
(#11547104)
There was no good case because, as the article explains in quite a lot of detail, the team was instructed not to interview anyone in any position of responsibility at Goldman/Paulson. It also explains, in quite a lot of detail again, how Goldman was not simply "assembling a security of mortgage bonds." There was quite likely intentional fraud involved.