OCC Fines JPM Chase For Failing to Take Corrective Action, Using Fraudulent or Fabricated Documents

And, the fine gets paid out of thin air, no less; on the issuing of a negotiable instrument or some similar contrivance; in peace

Livinglies's Weblog

So here is my theory. Administrative findings have a presumption of validity. This fine is for continuing false, fraudulent and defective claims, like all the banks did. So it seems to me that the fine and the charges against JPM Chase constitute a finding of fact — the fact being that Chase is continuing to violate the law and is using fraudulent and defective claims against unsuspecting borrowers. Judges seem to be viewing this as a one-off — “You must owe the money to somebody so why not Chase?”

*

In my opinion this presumption by the Judges needs to be challenged aggressively. But it gets easier as the evidence piles up with administrative agency findings that what the borrowers are saying is true. It seems to me that it is better and more credible to give a presumption of truth to the administrative findings of fact than the presumption…

View original post 306 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s