Can’t figure out why the Spitz is not pursuing a criminal complaint. With the major players pleading the 5th, the picking looks pretty good to prove fraud or criminal intent to buff up the financial condition of AIG, to improve the stock value and then allow these big wigs to grossly improve their lot in life.
Civil cases can be settled without admition of guilt. AIG looks bad some people quit some get fired pay a bunch of money and life goes on.
Criminal charges take a guilty plea to settle or go to trial. Which is also tough for Spitz as he must then prove his alegations. Seems in this case he has a lot on his side.
With Marsh aside from the obvious fake quotes there is a lot that is not so clear as to point of law. While many will agree the condust was wrong it may not have been illegal.
Bottom line its easier for Spitzer to do this as civil then to prove his facts in court.
And from a practical matter, companies that get hit with criminal complaints end up going down the tubes and wind up in bankruptcy. This would punish AIG’s shareholders more than the executives who committed the misdeeds (except shareholder Greenberg, who deserves it). What will be more revealing is any cases Spitzer files directly against the executives. I’ve heard he made the statement hew’s not going to allow Greenberg to settle, that he would pursue criminal actions against him. I certainly hope so.
This is why it is so difficult to nail the bad guys. Take down AIG and how many employees are out of work? The exec move on. As for Greenberg, Spitzer will find it tough going. For the USA Greenberg is to Asia what Armand Hammer was to the Soviet Union. Greenbreg is an asset to the US Governemnt. There may be a lot of noise but I seriously doubt anything criminal will be stuck on Greenberg.
VFC says some actions of AIG execs may be wrong but not illegal?? VFC needs to check with a bunch of people who use to work for ENRON about the legalities of false numbers to increase stock value. Some of those people are in jail. Spitzer needs to get the bad guys and leave AIG, its shareholders and its honest employees alone but I guess being the gov. of N.Y. is more important than doing what’s right.
Wrong vs illegal is not about AIG. It remains to be seen what AIG has done. The wrong vs illegal point is about why Spitzer chooses civil vs criminal. In the alegations against Marsh the bid rigging and fake quotes were obviously illegal. The whole contingent commission issue is another story it may in some circumstances be wrong but it may not be illegal. Spitzer pointedly said it is illegal, but by filing in civil versus criminal it never goes to trial for a ruling.
Even if a broker receives commission and fees it may not be “allways” illegal. Most states require disclosure of fees not commssion. If this went to trial, it may have been considered by many to be bad practice but doubtful that it broke existing laws. Thtat is why the big push to pass and clear up the regs.
Again, missed the point. Rich enough and you can buy your way out of anything. Everyone else is to blame for their problems. No personal responsibility.
By not going after criminal indictments for alledged abuse, Spitzer is going to hurt the insurance industry more than one can imagine. Basically the insurance industry is the backbone of our economy. They already hurt the life insurance agent, now its time to go after the P& C agent!
Can’t figure out why the Spitz is not pursuing a criminal complaint. With the major players pleading the 5th, the picking looks pretty good to prove fraud or criminal intent to buff up the financial condition of AIG, to improve the stock value and then allow these big wigs to grossly improve their lot in life.
Civil cases can be settled without admition of guilt. AIG looks bad some people quit some get fired pay a bunch of money and life goes on.
Criminal charges take a guilty plea to settle or go to trial. Which is also tough for Spitz as he must then prove his alegations. Seems in this case he has a lot on his side.
With Marsh aside from the obvious fake quotes there is a lot that is not so clear as to point of law. While many will agree the condust was wrong it may not have been illegal.
Bottom line its easier for Spitzer to do this as civil then to prove his facts in court.
And from a practical matter, companies that get hit with criminal complaints end up going down the tubes and wind up in bankruptcy. This would punish AIG’s shareholders more than the executives who committed the misdeeds (except shareholder Greenberg, who deserves it). What will be more revealing is any cases Spitzer files directly against the executives. I’ve heard he made the statement hew’s not going to allow Greenberg to settle, that he would pursue criminal actions against him. I certainly hope so.
This is why it is so difficult to nail the bad guys. Take down AIG and how many employees are out of work? The exec move on. As for Greenberg, Spitzer will find it tough going. For the USA Greenberg is to Asia what Armand Hammer was to the Soviet Union. Greenbreg is an asset to the US Governemnt. There may be a lot of noise but I seriously doubt anything criminal will be stuck on Greenberg.
VFC says some actions of AIG execs may be wrong but not illegal?? VFC needs to check with a bunch of people who use to work for ENRON about the legalities of false numbers to increase stock value. Some of those people are in jail. Spitzer needs to get the bad guys and leave AIG, its shareholders and its honest employees alone but I guess being the gov. of N.Y. is more important than doing what’s right.
Wrong vs illegal is not about AIG. It remains to be seen what AIG has done. The wrong vs illegal point is about why Spitzer chooses civil vs criminal. In the alegations against Marsh the bid rigging and fake quotes were obviously illegal. The whole contingent commission issue is another story it may in some circumstances be wrong but it may not be illegal. Spitzer pointedly said it is illegal, but by filing in civil versus criminal it never goes to trial for a ruling.
Even if a broker receives commission and fees it may not be “allways” illegal. Most states require disclosure of fees not commssion. If this went to trial, it may have been considered by many to be bad practice but doubtful that it broke existing laws. Thtat is why the big push to pass and clear up the regs.
Again, missed the point. Rich enough and you can buy your way out of anything. Everyone else is to blame for their problems. No personal responsibility.
By not going after criminal indictments for alledged abuse, Spitzer is going to hurt the insurance industry more than one can imagine. Basically the insurance industry is the backbone of our economy. They already hurt the life insurance agent, now its time to go after the P& C agent!