Posted on 03/27/2015 11:44:06 AM PDT by Nachum
NEW YORK – President Obama’s attorney-general nominee, Loretta Lynch, admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that her investigators in the money-laundering probe of HSBC were aware of evidence compiled by whistleblower John Cruz but she chose, nevertheless, not to bring criminal charges.
Lynch provided written answers to questions submitted by committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in a document posted on the panel’s website dated Feb. 18.
As WND reported, Lynch’s confirmation vote in the Senate initially was postponed after Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened the investigation of Lynch’s role in the HSBC deferred prosecution after his staff quizzed Cruz, a former HSBC employee-turned-whistleblower whose trove of original evidence of money laundering was reported first by WND.
Cruz charged HSBC was engaged in a willful, criminal scheme to launder money for Mexican drug cartels and Middle East terrorists.
In response to Grassley, Lynch, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, acknowledged Department of Justice “investigators did speak with and receive documents and information from Mr. Cruz.”
“Based on the in formation he provided, we took appropriate additional investigative steps, including requiring additional information from HSBC,” she replied to the senator.
“Investigators carefully considered the information he provided as we considered whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to prosecute violations at HSBC and whether any such prosecution otherwise would have been consistent with the principles of federal prosecution contained in the United States Attorney’s Manual,” said Lynch.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
How much has HSCB donated to various DemocRats?
Millions.
Same with Citibank, and Wells Fargo, and many others.
“In the deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion in fines and make structural changes as a condition of not pressing criminal charges.”
We need to see what ‘structural changes’ have been made. Like favorable loans to Politicians? Donations to Progressive political groups? Cushy executive jobs for ex-politicians?
Then there is the allocation of the $1.9B fine. Is it already considered appropriated and therefore can be spent on anything the Administration wants?
Selective prosecution? I'm shocked I tell you, Shocked.
Every day, new evidence arrives indicating we are not actually governed by the people who hold political offices.
That 1.9 billion dollar fine would’ve been much better used giving some interest on savings accounts. Thus money going back in forth in shady deals between the gov and banks doesn’t help us little folk at all.
Bork her now!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.