不止拉贾：美国政府盯上华尔街

    自从拉贾•拉贾那纳姆案开审以来，很多人都感到疑惑为何在公众认为有更大的罪犯（即与2008年金融危机有涉公司的高管和雇员）要抓的时候，美国政府如此着力打击内幕交易。

    内幕交易自然是犯罪，但在房地产泡沫破裂后的一系列戏剧性演变中，这似乎只是一个小问题。批评人士认为，与信贷危机有涉的银行、保险公司对整体经济和投资者的伤害远远大于几个贪婪的投资经理。例如，拉贾那纳姆被指控牟利5,400万美元，避免了约900万美元损失。相比之下，美国国际集团(AIG)2009年亏损高达990亿美元，需要巨额救助，并在一定程度上导致了一场严重的经济衰退，将美国失业率推高到了两位数水平。

    纽约南区检察官普里特•巴拉拉以行动回应了这些质疑。本周二其办公室起诉了德意志银行(Deutsche Bank)，根据《反欺骗政府法》(False Claims Act)寻求三倍的损害赔偿和罚金。

    美国政府指控德意志银行及其子公司MortgageIT虚报部分按揭贷款质量，骗取政府担保，以便能以虚高的价格出售质量欠佳的按揭贷款。由于这部分按揭贷款质量欠佳，美国联邦住房管理局(FHA)已不得不为此支付保险赔偿金。

    “只要你不放弃，总能凭借现有的法律法规将嫌犯绳之以法，”Polsinelli Shughart的一位律师埃德•诺瓦克表示，“我可不认为这个国家的法律框架面对金融业已手软到如此地步，以至于我们不能再追究什么。”

    对德意志银行的指控细节可能具有个别性，但这项指控与金融危机后暴露出来的很多做法具有共性。银行发放质量欠佳的按揭贷款，想办法以虚高价格售予毫不知情的投资者，将风险转嫁给他人，从中牟利。

    系统行动总是迟于我们的设想，人们总是容易忘记这一点。即便是安然(Enron)案，诉讼审判也花了几年的时间。由于安然破产备受瞩目(并有揭发者)，各项诉讼很快提出，但诉讼过程仍花了数年。2001年安然申请破产时，问题就已显现。2002年美国国会进行调查， 一些小人物被起诉。但直到2004年，安然前首席执行官杰夫•斯基林和前董事长兼首席执行官肯•雷才被起诉。审判拖延到了2006年的春季。

    虽然之前巴拉拉一直被指忽视与金融危机相关的欺诈行为，现在看来其办公室一直在推进德意志银行的案子。“与那些拥有大律师和大笔金钱的人们打官司需要时间，他们会躲在一堆晦涩的小字体背后做很多事，用这些小字体为自己不顾后果的行为开脱责任，”诺瓦克称。

    关于美国政府是否会追究金融危机中坏家伙的责任，仍无定论。但显然，纽约南区检察官办公室的所作所为超出了眼见。

    Ever since the Raj Rajaratnam trial began, many have wondered why the government is cracking down on insider trading when the public thinks that there are bigger crooks to nail -- namely the executives and employees who worked at the firms involved in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

    While insider trading is certainly a crime, it seemed like a bit player in the drama that began when the housing bubble burst. Banks and insurance companies involved in the credit crisis seemingly wrought greater devastation on the economy and investors than a crew of greedy money managers, critics contend. For example, Rajaratnam allegedly made $54 million in profits and avoided about $9 million in losses. By comparison, AIG lost $99 billion in 2009, needed an astronomical bailout, and helped usher in a recession so severe that it drove unemployment to double-digit levels.

    But Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, just answered those critics. His office sued Deutsche Bank (DB) today, seeking triple damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.

    The government accused the bank and its subsidiary MortgageIT of lying about the quality of some mortgages that were to be insured by the government. With the government insurance, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT were allegedly able to sell weak mortgages for more than they were worth. Because the mortgages were weak, the FHA has been forced to honor insurance policies on the loans.

    "You can always get someone up on charges if you work hard enough given all the regulations we have," says Ed Novak, an attorney at Polsinelli Shughart. "I don't buy that the financial industry has so weakened the statutory framework of this country that we can't pursue something."

    The details of the allegation may be special to Deutsche Bank, but the story has the same general characteristics of so many schemes unearthed in the aftermath of the financial meltdown. A bank takes weak mortgages and finds a way to sell them for more money to unsuspecting investors, passing the risk onto others while making a profit.

    It is easy to forget that the system moves more slowly that we'd like. Even in the case of Enron, it took years for justice to be served. The indictments moved at a quick pace due to the company's high profile collapse (and having a whistleblower didn't hurt), but the process still took years. Cracks were visible at Enron in 2001, the year it filed for bankruptcy. Congress held an inquiry in 2002, and smaller players were indicted. But it not until 2004 were former CEO Jeff Skilling and ex-chairman and CEO Ken Lay indicted. The trials dragged on through the spring of 2006.

    While Bharara was being panned for ignoring financial crisis-related fraud, it seems his office was working on the Deutsche Bank case all along. "It takes time to fight against people with great lawyers and lots of money, who did many things behind a wall of fine print designed to absolve them of responsibility for reckless behavior," says Novak.

    When it comes to the question of whether the government will go after the bad guys of the financial crisis, the jury is still out. But it's clear that there's more going on at the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District than meets the eye.