May 21, 2012

Bailout Watchdog Probes Suspected TARP Fraud at 64 Banks

The government watchdog charged with overseeing the $700 billion bank bailout fund is claiming broad success in cracking down on individual and institutions that tried to misuse the money.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general of the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told the Center for Public Integrity that his office is conducting 142 ongoing criminal and civil investigations, many in partnership with other law enforcement agencies.

In the past two years, the watchdog has recovered $152 million in stolen assets and saved another $555 million through fraud prevention. Barofsky said his office is investigating the potential fraudulent use of TARP money at 64 separate financial institutions, which he said ranged in size from small banks to big ones. 

But for the most part, Barofsky won’t say who he is investigating, for what crimes, or when charges might be filed. Nor would he comment on broader criticisms leveled at federal authorities for failing to bring the architects of the financial collapse to justice.

“I understand that criticism that people want to see more people put in jail and locked up for these crimes,” he said. “In the TARP world I think we are doing a good job… These cases take time.”

Barofsky discussed his TARP investigations and what he described as a “doomsday cycle of boom, bust, and bailout” spawned by assistance to mega-banks in a wide-ranging videotaped interview with the Center on Tuesday. On Wednesday, he testified about his latest quarterly report to Congress at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

Barofsky’s most prominent public investigation led to civil securities fraud charges last year by former New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo against Bank of America Corp. former chief executive officer Ken Lewis for failing to disclose to shareholders major losses at Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleges that the bank and its officers hid losses at Merrill in order to complete the 2008 merger of the two institutions, and that the defendants also lied to the government to obtain tens of millions of dollars in TARP funds.

That case is pending in New York state court. Barofsky declined to comment on the status of the case.

Critics of the bailout program failed to recognize that TARP likely prevented a major financial collapse, and that the cost to taxpayers, now an estimated $25 billion, is far less than originally projected, he said. The program was created in the final months of the Bush administration in late 2008, and has been largely carried out by the Obama administration.

Barofsky also claims success in investigating TARP recipients that fraudulently obtained or misused the money. For example, he said that he expects overall level of fraud in the program to be less than what some federal authorities initially projected.

“I expect this program to be far below what you usually expect in a government-run program,” he said. “I’ve seen FBI estimates that were anywhere from 8 to 12 percent. And I don’t think we are going to come close.”

The watchdog’s latest quarterly report says TARP investigations had led to civil or criminal actions against 45 individuals, including 22 senior bank officers. The examples cited in the report mostly involve fraud at smaller banks. 

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Benjamin Hallman covers business and finance for the Center. He joined in June 2010 after nearly five years as a legal affairs reporter at The American Lawyer, where he covered the business of law, white collar crime, and regulatory Washington. Hallman has reported on the accounting fraud prosecutions of HealthSouth’s Richard Scrushy and Qwest’s Joesph Nacchio; on the massive Google book search settlement; and, from Iraq, on American-led efforts to rebuild the Iraqi justice system. His story about the crash of Lehman Brothers was anthologized in The Best American Legal...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.