Corzine Off the Hook

Eddie - Not Shocked. Corrupt Former Jersey Politicians with friends in very high places and massive ties across Wall Street will do that!

oiqhfoiwfjpiwojefpoijweqpfiojwpqoifjp woijefoiwejfoiwjfoiqjfoiqwjfoiwqejfoiwjfoiwejfoiwqjfoijwqfoijwqo

Pardon, I just vomited all over my keyboard.

oijoijoijdoiwjoijweofijwoijfoiwqejfoiqw jfoiqwjfoiw joiwjf oiwqjefoweijfoiwqjfoiwejfoifjwoiw

I wouldn't be upset if someone just waxed this guy, Sopranos-style with extra garlic.

Kid from the hood caught shoplifting chips will get sent off to jail. This asshole 'loses' a billion of his clients' $ and can walk away.

Honestly, I don't know what ticks me off more - (1) the sheer apathy towards white collar crime of this magnitude or (2) the fact that Corzine is getting off free-and-clear.

F****ing America is going down the drain.

No one should complain about fearing to invest in China because there's apperently "no rule of law" over there. Albeit, if a business exec or politician did something like this in mainland China then their head would be chopped off by now.

Frieds

I know I'll get flack for this, but I'm going to point out what should be fairly obvious - Corzine's innocence hinges on what could be one of three issues. The first is that Corzine broke no laws for which there is a remedy that can be pursued in criminal court. I doubt anyone here is a full scholar of the criminal code and can tell me which laws he broke and hwo they accurately apply to this particular set of facts? Is there precedent concerning the charges being levied against Corzine? Are there enough cases to back that up? Does this have appropriate standing to be heard in criminal court? Do the laws in place actively cover what Corzine did or can be extended to cover it? Unless you have a JD, it's all conjecture on the matter which still doesn't rule out the fact that there may not have been any laws broken.

The second is that the case was built around circumstantial evidence (or not enough evidence that would be able to get a conviction) that wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The burden of proof in a criminal matter is significantly higher - it requires that the evidence prove Corzine's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - and therefore without a strong evidence to back up the case, it does nothing for the state to try and pursue the case if they will get thrown out before it even makes it to trial. Of course, if it were to go to trial and Corzine were to lose the case, Corzine can still appeal the ruling multiple times over, which he would do.

The final issue is that there may not be any evidence of criminal wrongdoing at all. For all we know, everything Corzine did was didn't meet any of the necessary criteria for a criminal act, or everything he did was governed by the bylaws of MF Global. There's even a possibility that, if we all remember the events that happened and the conjecture of a certain firm's involvement in delaying moneys being transferred, because of their involvement and how the supposed wire transfers went that may serve as enough of a proof that there was no basis for a criminal charge to be filed. Without any evidence, the charge will get dismissed even before it's filed. At least with circumstantial evidence, it can get filed.

The guy's a shmuck, but he didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the Criminal justice system. Civil courts are a whole different matter. That's part of the reason why the American legal system works the way it does. There is supposed to be appropriate redress for both criminal and civil injustice. If you can't find it in the criminal courts, there are always the civil courts. So he doesn't end up in jail, but he may still be forced to pay out the wazoo.

Here comes the flack, motherfucker - your reaction to the MF Global/Corzine cluster-fuck is indicative of the general population's attitude towards this issue (and is also part of the reason why behavior like this is so hard to prosecute as a criminal offense - because sheeple like you are so fucking apathetic and willing to make up excuses for this kind of behavior), and I think your reasoning is total bullshit.

MF Global management is collectively saying "I dunno what happened durrrrrr....", and somehow ignorance is enough of a defense against what is plainly a criminal level of incompetence.

I find it impossible that Corzine, as CEO of MF Global, was not aware in some way that MF Global funds were being commingled with client funds - if true, he has got to be the poster child for negligent management. And according to that article that Edmundo linked, the CFTC is moving ahead with a civil suit because they have recorded phone conversations proving that he was aware of the comingling of MF Global and client funds. That's plain fraud and he was aware (easy to prove, the CFTC did), so I don't how you come to the conclusion that Corzine broke no laws.