JPMorgan to pay $100M to settle charges on ‘London Whale’ trades

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $100 million and admit that its traders acted recklessly, in order to settle one more set of charges in the U.S. over its so-called London Whale trade, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced Wednesday.

Last month, the bank paid $920 million to four other U.S. and British regulators to resolve civil probes of a $6.2 billion trading loss involving its chief investment office in London. 

The new CFTC case charges the bank with violating a prohibition on manipulative conduct when it traded in the credit default swaps — a type of financial contract originally created to insure against a company defaulting on its bonds — at issue. By selling a huge volume of swaps in a concentrated period, the bank’s traders “recklessly disregarded” the precept that legitimate market forces should set prices, the CFTC said.

Read more

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Obama’s Friends in Low Places

Posted on Sep 24, 2013

By Robert Scheer

That Barack Obama is such a kidder. No matter how awkward the moment, he’s got just the right quip to purchase some wiggle room. Remember when his old Chicago banking buddy Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, first ran into that bit of trouble over his bank’s “London Whale” derivative scam? That scheme has already lost $6 billion with close to $1 billion more piled on by the SEC in fines last week after JPMorgan admitted it broke the law.

Well of course, being Obama, when the scandal first broke last year, the president picked a women’s daytime talk show, ABC’s “The View,” to deal with the scams of his leading Wall Street backer. “JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is,” he told the “View” audience. “Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got, and they still lost $2 billion and counting.” 

Yes, counting; that $2 billion is now likely to end up around $16 billion given the future legal fees and possible payouts allotted to countering the myriad lawsuits connected with this admission of illegal activity. That’s aside from the mortgage fraud, Libor rate rigging and energy manipulation cases still confronting the beleaguered bank. Thursday, on the same day that Dimon’s bank got slapped with the SEC fine, federal regulators revealed that JPMorgan had agreed to pay $389 million in penalties and refunds to compensate for a credit card identity theft protection scam after $309 million already paid out in that case.

It should be remembered that this same Dimon, who appeared before a Senate committee wearing presidential cufflinks, once worked with Sanford Weill in engineering the reversal of the Glass-Steagall law to make Citigroup, a previously illegal merger of investment and commercial banks, possible. But despite his record as a leader in the radical deregulation of banking that caused all of the trouble, Obama turned to Dimon for direction on fixing the economy.

If you still require to be disabused of Obama’s pretend populism, consider his decision to select William M. Daley, JPMorgan’s representative in Washington, to be his White House chief of staff. It gave Dimon the key White House connection to accompany the passkey he already had at Treasury with his pal Timothy Geithner as secretary.

It was a real cozy arrangement; Dimon was still a governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, where he had served during Geithner’s presidency overseeing the banking meltdown. Geithner had been instrumental in arranging Fed financing for JPMorgan’s acquisition of troubled Bear Stearns through a $55 billion loan and later an additional $25 billion in TARP funds. 

Once appointed Treasury secretary, Geithner made himself very accessible to Dimon. As an Associated Press investigation reported, Dimon had numerous personal meetings and phone calls with Geithner while the White House was calibrating its response to the Wall Street crisis. 

Why are we not surprised that Obama has done nothing to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, the biggest now being Dimon’s? Don’t be fooled by the occasional fines; the banks have used the interest-free money to grow ever larger and more unaccountable in their behavior. 

Even the recent SEC settlement, while mentioning the despicable behavior of JPMorgan’s chief executive, fails to utter Dimon’s name, and as Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who did much to unravel this scam, noted, “the whole issue of misinforming investors and the public is conspicuously absent from the SEC findings and settlement.”

After the SEC condemnation of JPMorgan’s “egregious breakdowns in controls” and conclusion that “senior management broke a cardinal rule of corporate management” to honestly inform the board of directors, top senior manager Dimon made all the right noises. JPMorgan announced that $4 billion and a staff of 5,000 employees would be devoted to compliance with the law.

This was just the sort of commitment Dimon made in 2006 when he hired Stephen M. Cutler, who had been head of the SEC Division of Enforcement, to be JPMorgan’s general counsel. Once a committed regulator who urged corporations “to create a culture of compliance,” Cutler clearly drank the Kool-Aid at JPMorgan, for he was in charge of legal and compliance activities worldwide at the time of the London Whale fiasco. So much for trusting corporate compliance.

As Donald Langevoort, an expert on compliance issues at Georgetown University School of Law, told The New York Times on Friday, “JPMorgan is by no means unique. None of these big banks really want compliance people causing traders and investment bankers to second-guess themselves too much because that gets in the way of making money. No one will say this, but it’s more effective to run the risk of noncompliance and pay a few fines, which is just a cost of doing business.”

Exactly the reason that too-big-to-fail banks can’t be trusted to do the right thing and why Obama shouldn’t have been guided by Dimon in the first place.

AP/Evan Vucci

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, left, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein leave the White House in 2009 after a meeting between chief executives and President Obama.

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
JPMorgan Investor's Bid Axed For 'London Whale,' RMBS Docs

Law360, Wilmington (April 23, 2015, 10:57 PM ET) — A Delaware Chancery judge on Thursday rejected a JPMorgan Chase & Co. shareholder’s request for books and records relating to the bank’s residential mortgage-backed securities operations and “London Whale” trading fiasco, finding the action was barred by the failure of suits brought by other investors.

At a hearing in Wilmington, Vice Chancellor…

View On WordPress

We’re Getting the Feeling That Wall Street Isn’t Sorry

The so-called “London Whale” trade—which cost mega-bank JP Morgan Chase upwards of $6 billion—was, by all accounts, a disaster for the firm. It invigorated interest in financial reform ideas that had been set on the backburner. It dented the reputation of the bank and it’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, as the savviest on the Street. And, of course, it put a notch in JP Morgan’s bottom line.

But last May now feels like a long time ago.

In fact, the Whale trade is so far in the past that JP Morgan and Jamie Dimon are now receiving accolades for it. In what the Wall Street Journal called “the Oscars, sort of, for the U.S. investor-relations industry,” IR Magazine gave JP Morgan and Dimon awards for their management of the crisis surrounding the Whale Trade. The executive who accepted the award quipped, “Can I just say, ‘Crisis? What crisis?’”

It may be good times again at JP Morgan, but the episode is emblematic of the sad state of affairs when it comes to Wall Street reform.

This crowning of JP Morgan comes just one week after a new report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that  those involved in the Whale Trade willfully misinformed regulators as to what they were doing. But any momentum that the Whale trade gave to the reform effort has withered away.

 More than half of the provisions in Dodd-Frank, the financial reform law approved in 2010, have yet to be implemented. President Obama seems to have lost interest in pressing reform any further.

JPMorgan Gambled with Customer Money, and Lied About it to the Senate (The Rachel Maddow Show, Mar 2013)

I had the pleasure of going on The Rachel Maddow Show on Friday, March 15th to talk with guest-host Chris Hayes about the London Whale trade, the report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the Senate hearing on this massive loss, and JPMorgan’s deception.

Chris gives an excellent intro to set the stage by highlighting how so much of this fight happens in the shadows, with the rich and powerful calling the shots in Congress. Next, we talked specifics, covering the lies told by Jamie Dimon, the importance of a loophole-free Volcker Rule to prevent these abuses in the future, and the criminal implications of the distortions made by JPMorganChase. I stressed that the great abuse of the London Whale trade is that it was done with “excess deposits,” which is depositor money (your checking account, my savings account) that is not loaned out. JPMorgan gambled customer money, and then lied about it.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What’s Wrong With Jamie Dimon Is What’s Wrong With America

Monday, 27 May 2013 12:58By Richard EskowCampaign for America’s Future | Op-Ed

A lot of people have attacked JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon over the years, including this author. After today’s shareholder votes at JPM, Mark Gongloff is right to describe Dimon as a “cult leader.” Gongloff quotes critics, like Public Citizen’s Bart Naylor who offer pointed and very valid criticism of Dimon and his board.

But that’s not the end of the story. It’s too easy to externalize responsibility by pinning the blame on villains. Every people has used the symbolism of demons in an attempt to extirpate something within themselves. The Jamie Dimon story shows that something more fundamental needs repair – in our economy, in our society, in us.

Don’t get me wrong. That isn’t meant to suggest that we’re guilty of fraud, or greed or fiscal mismanagement. But we definitely have some work to do.

Men at Work

Chuck Prince. Robert Rubin. Lloyd Blankfein. Jeff Immelt. Brian Moynihan. Jamie Dimon. The bank CEO names roll off the tongue almost as rapidly as the billions pass algorithmically through cyberspace. What happens if one falls, as Prince did? Another takes his place before his predecessor’s shadow has left the ground he was standing on.

And we use the male pronoun advisedly, since so far they’ve all been male. Male, and ambitious, and aggressive. To a man, in fact, they’ve embodied the aggression we profess to idolize as a society, in our leaders and in our athletes, until it gets us where we live.

If Jamie Dimon and his peers have any legitimate complaint about the condemnation that’s heaped upon them today, it’s this: A few years ago you praised us for doing exactly what you condemn us for today. You’re the ones who made Gordon Gekko a culture hero, these bankers might say, not us.

Can’t you people at least be consistent?


There are still those who come to praise Jamie Dimon, however, not to bury him. They’re all over the media, as in the story entitled “Dimon Is Forever” (which we found via Reuters columnist Felix Salmon.) A self-described friend of Dimon’s, Michael Burns of Lionsgate, even wrote a piece about him called – without irony – “Too Great to Fail.”

Before you condemn them both too harshly, remember: People in great fear sometimes overcompensate. And, as economist Robert Johnson notes in this compelling video discussion with Cornel West, our most powerful financial executives live in fear today. They feel, not without reason, that their way of life is being threatened.

A change in their way of life might be good for the rest of us, but those kinds of insecurities don’t bring out the best in people. Given the power bankers possess, that should worry us.

Also See: Is Jamie Dimon Really Out of the Woods With Shareholder Thumbs Down on Splitting CEO/Chairman Roles?

Fears notwithstanding, by any objective measure it was a good day for Dimon. A certain kind of person might consider that, plus a glass of brandy and a good cigar, a perfect day. But we have the feeling that Dimon’s looking over his shoulder a lot these days. The public and its leaders may be turning against him. There are real allegations of criminality in the works again, and he may be worried that he won’t be as lucky this time. 

And Dimon’s an intelligent person. Somewhere he has to realize that what he’s doing isn’t right. That has to nag at a person, too. “We can be heroes,” says the Bowie song, “if just for one night …”

Jamie Dimon may be wondering if his lone night of heroism is coming to an end. And everybody faces another night at one point or another in their lives – a long dark night of the soul.

We Are Jamie Dimon

Those critical pieces about Dimon haven’t lacked for material: the epidemic of recurrent fraud and criminality during his tenure in the “buck stops here” chair. The trail of potentially lawbreaking mismanagement over the multibillion-dollar “London Whale” fiasco which seems to lead directly to Dimon’s door. The arrogance which led Dimon, as head of a bailed-out bank (yes, Chase was bailed out, denials withstanding), to demand sacrifice from America’s elderly and disabled in order to foot the bill for the financial crisis he and his peers created.

But Dimon isn’t the cause of our economic problems. He’s merely a symptom. He’s no more responsible for the wreckage he leaves behind than a surfer is responsible for the undertow of the wave he’s riding. Dimon may lack moral sensitivity, but then, that’s the character that got him where he is today.

Jamie Dimon’s publicity-seeking and arrogance has made him a target for people like me. But those among his peers who prefer to move under the radar are no different. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Why do we continue to tolerate this, or at the very least to tolerate it?

Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the Show That Never Ends

Dimon isn’t a CEO or financier in the usual sense – or, to put it more accurately, in the traditional sense. He’s a salesman, a showman, a master manipulator of political power. He’s a surfer on the waves of economic illusion. And he’s very good at his job.

He’s certainly displayed no more mastery over finance than any of his peers, despite his highly publicized claims otherwise. Nor has he distinguished himself as an ethical leader, a competent manager, or a high-minded public citizen, despite his equally arduous attempts to publicize himself as all of those things as well.

What Jamie Dimon seems to be, to all appearances, is a creature of our financial system. Nothing more, nothing less.

Human beings react to incentives, especially in the absence of a higher moral order. Dimon seems extremely sensitive to incentives – both in responding to them, and in creating them for other people such as his board, his shareholders, politicians, and the press. And those incentives aren’t always financial. They can manifest themselves as power, or glory, or ego gratification.

If you want a full list, here’s a very ancient cheat sheet.

JPMorgan Chase is a perfect example of modern corporate leadership in its native habitat: at the center of a complicated matrix of human desires which it manipulates to suit its own ends. And you and I are allowing it to continue.

Board Stiffs

At today’s annual shareholders’ meeting, JPM’s Board at did none of the things that a responsible and competent board would do in a sane society or a rational economy.

It did not rebuke Mr. Dimon for seemingly deceiving shareholders – whom the board purportedly represents – when he told participants on an investor call that the “Whale” case was “a tempest in a teapot,” despite knowing that billions of dollars have been lost.

It did not suggest that the bank’s as-yet unbroken string of repeated fraudulent behavior has brought dishonor on the institution, and therefore upon Mr. Dimon and themselves.

Free Rein

It did not demand that Mr. Dimon step down from his dual role as CEO and board chair, an unusual relationship which has contributed to the London Whale and other spectacular bank failures. That measure was defeated by more than three to one in shareholder voting.

It did not direct Mr. Dimon to refrain from investments that profit from human rights violations. That measure was defeated by more than twelve to one.

It did not direct the bank to disclose its lobbying efforts, which measures it was lobbying for or against, or the recipients of its lobbying largesse – even though those efforts are very likely hardly some of the bank’s largest institutional investors (and many of its smaller private investors as well). That measure was also defeated by more than twelve to one.

Beautiful Dreamers

Not did the board require Dimon and other senior executives to retain a significant portion of their stock until they reach retirement age, a measure which would have given them an incentive to behave in a responsible manner that protects the corporation’s long-term interests (along with the stability of the overall economy, the safety of its customers’ money, and the job security of its employees).

That measure was defeated by an equally overwhelming margin.

But then, why wouldn’t it be? Most of the bank’s investors don’t want Dimon and the rest of senior management to be thinking responsibly or for the long term. They want exactly what Dimon and the other senior executives want: numbers, and a story that looks good enough to pump up the stock price artificially and make them all money in the short term.

Use Your Illusion

That’s the dark secret at the heart of our broken economy: Companies don’t need strong fundamentals anymore. That’s especially true of too-big-to-fail banks, but it applies to most publicly traded corporations. They don’t have to be stable, or genuinely profitable. They can be rickety contraptions propped up by government indulgence. They can be subject to a myriad of risks – financial, political, structural – and still make a fortune for their managers and their shareholders.

You don’t have to believe in a company to make money from it in the stock market. You just have to make some other poor bastard believe in it enough to buy the stock.

That’s why Jamie Dimon got everything he wanted today. Many of the people supporting him may now his deficiencies and those of his institution inside and out. As long as the stock does well, it doesn’t matter. Bank stocks may not do particularly well compared to other stocks, but the entire market is an illusion propped up by mass delusion and mutual deception.

That’s why they love Jamie Dimon. His bank may be a mirage, a hallucination, an institutional sting meant to deceive sucker investors and delude the public into thinking they live in a sound economy. But those illusions are making them all a lot of money. Why on Earth would they want to face reality at a time like that?

Reality’s a drag. Reality’s for suckers, for losers, for regulators. Reality’s where banks go when they need taxpayers to pick up the tab. Then they return to the world of illusion, where they can make money at other people’s expense.

Free Jamie Dimon!

We come, not to bury Jamie Dimon, but to praise him. We assume, at least for the moment, that underneath his defects he is as human as the rest of us. We all want to believe we’re doing great things with our lives. Dimon may even have believed it when he spoke these words today:
“(As) an insight of our financial performance, to the better part of this decade, our company has been doing great things. And during this period of economic volatility and social and political change around world, our work matters more than ever. As much as any other company, JPMorgan Chase is positioned to help individuals, businesses of all sizes, governments, not-for-profits and other partners see the opportunities and respond to the challenges of our times.”
The past decade which Mr. Dimon alludes to also saw repeated fraud against homeowners, a nearly one-billion-dollar bribery scandal in Jefferson County, Alabama, the LIBOR scandal, and the “Whale.”

But the human capacity for self-deception is powerful, especially when we seek to give our own lives meaning. Dimon is probably like most of us: a little bit of altruism alongside a lot of self-interest.

Isn’t it partially our fault that Dimon manages to satiate his altruistic impulse – or at least to inoculate himself against guilt – with half-measures like these? If society gave him different incentives – not just financially, but for his ego and his moral sense – would he use his abilities a little differently?

Sympathy for the Devil

I was in high school when the Rolling Stones released Beggars’ Banquet, the album with Sympathy for the Devil on it. We were listening to the record for the first time at a party when it came to this line: “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys,’ when after all it was you and me.”

I didn’t buy the Stones’ version of collective guilt then, and I haven’t changed that much since. Unethical or lawbreaking bankers are morally responsible for their actions. We didn’t break the law or throw people out of their homes. They did.

But even if we don’t share in the guilt, we share the responsibility. Did we do everything we could to stop them? They’re too powerful, people will say, and that’s true. But we have a responsibility to try, and to keep on trying, no matter what. We have a responsibility to engage in the great effort, which is a struggle for better regulation and a more humane economy. It’s also a struggle for hearts and minds – Dimon’s, the media’s, and our own. We should be demanding more – of the banks that serve us, of the media that entertain (if not inform) us, of the government agencies that work for us.

And we should be demanding more of us. These union pension funds, institutional investors at JPMorgan Chase, took action today to change the way business is done there. So did Father Seamus Finn of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, who introduced one of the resolutions on behalf of a family trust with JPM shares.

More of us need to join them in concerted, constructive economic activism. We can also work to reduce our dependence on the kinds of loans that lead to financial servitude, to the extent that’s possible in this harsh economic climate.

Felix Salmon says Dimon “needs a boss.” But he has one, in our culture’s simple-minded, pseudo-populist greed. That greed is made manifest in the form of Jim Cramer, the fast-talking TV huckster who serves as the clownish and loutish Id of the American economy. Gongloff quotes Cramer as saying, “If you voted for Dimon to lose the chairmanship, you voted for a lower stock. Who in heck would every [sic] do that?”

Who in heck, indeed – except people who are determined to build a better society and a better future? Jamie Dimon had a very good day today. But we can have the future, if we want it.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

“I simply do not know where the money is,


…” a statement by Jon Corzine in testimony before a congressional committee after his firm made some high risk best against the Greek government - betting that they will not meet their bond obligations. Lots has been written on this. This time Jamie Dimon reluctantly says “even though we were "sloppy” the Fed needs to still trust us that we can handle credit default swaps and the risk that goes along with that.

No Idea is based on one of the queens as part of the Lewis Chess Pieces recently on view at the Cloisters, a part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. I borrowed the proportions; body only two times as high as the head, as opposed to our normal anatomy of  a seven and a half head body. Of course I used contemporary business attire and a combover which I try to incorporate at every opportunity. I love comb-overs, especially Donald Trump’s.

No Idea is an edition of 99, available for $99 on my store on my website:

When Did The Imperial CEO Become a Birthright?

The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the  JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Board of Directors are contemplating reducing the bonus of Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and other executives.


The conversation is in response to JP Morgan’s disastrous derivatives bet losing the bank over $7 billion. The “London Whale” trader accumulated a monster position in illiquid derivatives that cratered in value. Interestingly, the bet was conducted not out of the proprietary trading area as you would expect. Rather, the trades were made in a relatively boring part of the bank set-up to manage the firms cash.


In addition to the huge trading losses, the bank saw its share price and market value plummet by over $20 billion in response to the anticipated law suits, regulatory investigations, bad press and potential regulatory actions.


Jamie Dimon, the once exalted paragon of corporate stewardship, is now seen as all too human. Risk management, compliance, supervision, controls, the size of the firm are all now suspect whereas it would have been heresy to question Jamie Dimon’s management prior to the trading mess.


Mr. Dimon received $23 million in compensation for 2011 and would have most likely been in line to earn as much or more for 2012.


“The board, as an independent group, is still guiding this task force and will come to its own conclusions,”  Mr. Dimon diplomatically responded to this matter.


The real unspoken issue is why is this even open to discussion? Have we lost sight of our moral compass and reasonable judgments? 

In any other industry with any other employee it would be very simple; on your watch a huge mistake was made with serious repercussions and questions raised related to proper management.

Do you think if the average Wall Street person was in a similar role the Board would have this conversation or would you be part of the 8.1% of people unemployed looking for work?

New Post has been published on The Rakyat Post

New Post has been published on

JPMorgan fails to end lawsuit over London Whale losses

NEW YORK, April 1

JPMorgan Chase & Co must face a lawsuit from shareholders accusing it of securities fraud by misleading them about its ability to manage risk, which surfaced when it lost US$6.2 billion in the “London Whale” scandal.

US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said shareholders could pursue claims that JPMorgan, Chief Executive Jamie Dimon and former Chief Financial Officer Douglas Braunstein knowingly hid the increased risks that the bank’s Chief Investment Office had been taking in early 2012.

In separate decisions also issued on Monday, the judge also dismissed a lawsuit brought against JPMorgan directors, and a lawsuit by employees over their losses from investing in the bank’s stock in their retirement accounts.

The US$6.2 billion loss was linked to trades by Bruno Iksil, a French national who had worked in a bank office in London.

Daniels said shareholders may pursue claims that the bank, Dimon and Braunstein committed fraud by materially understating the bank’s “value at risk,” and misleading them on an April 13, 2012 earnings call when Dimon labeled as a “tempest in a teapot” reports about a synthetic credit portfolio that Iksil managed.

“The statements were material as they were made immediately after the financial news media revealed that (the) CIO had amassed a huge position in exotic derivative instruments, and defendants were attempting to reassure investors that those trades were under control,” Daniels wrote.

“Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that defendants Dimon and Braunstein knew fact or had access to information suggesting that their public statements were not accurate,” he added.

Daniels also dismissed claims against three other JPMorgan officials: Ina Drew, who led the CIO; Mike Cavanagh, who preceded Braunstein as CFO; and Barry Zubrow, who had been the bank’s chief risk officer.

JPMorgan spokesman Brian Marchiony declined to comment.

Two other lawsuits are dismissed  

The securities lawsuit was led by pension funds in Arkansas, Ohio, Oregon and Sweden, and seeks class-action status on behalf of the bank’s stockholders from Feb. 24, 2010 to May 21, 2012.

Jay Eisenhofer and Gerald Silk, lawyers for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Dan
Tierney, a spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, said his office is reviewing the decision.

In the directors case, Daniels rejected claims by the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System in Detroit that JPMorgan’s board improperly condoned the CIO’s risk-taking, citing a lack of evidence that it “consciously disregarded red flags.”

He also dismissed claims brought on behalf of employees that including the bank’s stock as an investment option in retirement plans was imprudent, finding “no allegations of when, or even that, JPMorgan was in dire circumstances.”

David Rosenfeld, a lawyer for the Wayne County pension plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jacob Zamansky, a lawyer for the employees, said: “We respectfully disagree with Judge Daniels’ opinion, and are
considering our options on appeal.”

The US Supreme Court will on Wednesday hear arguments in a similar case involving Fifth Third Bancorp.

Last year, JPMorgan agreed to pay more than US$1 billion to settle US and British regulatory probes into the London Whale losses, and admitted wrongdoing. {ID:nL2N0HG0L5]

Two traders at the bank, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, were indicted in September for allegedly hiding losses linked to Iksil. Both have been fighting those charges.

The cases in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York are In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co Securities Litigation,
No. 12-03852; In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co Derivative Litigation, No. 12-03878; and In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co ERISA Litigation, No. 12-04027.

New York Fed attacked watchdog's JPMorgan 'Whale' probe

The New York Federal Reserve Bank sharply criticized an internal probe carried out by the Fed’s inspector general on the handling of J.P. Morgan’s “London Whale” case, according to a full version of the probe released on Thursday.

The New York Fed said the inspector general was wrong to criticise examiners for failing to prioritise exams of J.P. Morgan’s chief investment office, according to the…

View On WordPress


Jamie Dimon: London Whale Was a `Kick in the Teeth’ - Bloomberg

Fortune Magazine’s gag “interview” with the rogue JP Morgan trader known as the London Whale.

The so-called London Whale, aka JP Morgan (JPM) trader Bruno Iksil – the man who caused that bank to incur a $6.2 billion loss and $920 million in fines – has remained silent and declined all press interviews … until now!

Fortune was able to locate the Whale in his natural environment even, and tape him. It’s an interview of sorts, but really more of a soliloquy, which is to say we never got a chance to ask any questions. He just sort of, er, spouted off.

So, it’s 3 minutes of whale sounds.

Get it?

JPMorgan to Pay Tuppence

Rest here a moment, worker bee. You’re overworked and underpaid. So are millions of faceless drones that surround you. You are the backbone of our economy, the winners of bread. Perhaps one day it will not be this way, but this is the position you were born to. This is the path you have chosen. Silently, you toil away, having learned long ago that your situation is not bettered by complaining.

While you lay your weary head, a yarn to pass the time. Something to break the quietude brought on by the ennui of your day-to-day existence.

Here you sit reading articles during your lunch hour, afraid to leave your desk.

Remember five years ago when the banks stole all of your hard-earned money, lied to regulators and got off scot-free? Did we not all learn our lesson from that experience?

No, no we did not.

Last year it was revealed that JP Morgan employees at the firm’s London headquarters went to great lengths to cover up the losses stemming from transactions of Bruno Iksil, The London Whale.

“Justice for the proletariat,” you shout!

Justice you shall have.

JPMorgan has been ordered to pay more than $920 million for its failure to provide proper oversight on traders to make sure they were properly valuing portfolios. Since the company messed with investors in the United States and in UK, the two countries will split the fine pretty much down the middle.

Gawker did the math and came up with the following, “The bank will have to pay just $920 million, or 0.03 percent of its current holdings. With total assets of $2.35 trillion, JPMorgan could pay the same fine every hour for three months, or every day for seven years, before their coffers would run dry.”

You should be well satisfied at this news.

Run along now, noble bee. You have been granted nourishment for the body and soul enough for now on this lunchbreak.

Back to your Kia, your cubicle and your town home.

No, you may not leave early on Friday. You had a three-day weekend three weekends ago.

Back to work with you.

This article originally appeared on TheBlot.

Told ya so!: Regulatory ignorance of JP Morgan London Whale risks

And as a reminder again: Jamie Dimon served on the NY Fed board while he was still CEO and Chairman of JP Morgan Chase. He resigned from the  NY Fed board in 2013. 


Bear in mind, as @ctorresreporter notes, the Fed’s OIG report is a 4-page summary and The Senate released a 300-page report last year… Choose Your Watchdog!!

The Board Should Enhance Its Supervisory Processes as a Result of…

View On WordPress

Former JPMorgan executive involved with the London Whale Scandal was Caught and Released 

 Former JPMorgan (JPM) employee Javier Martin-Artajo, who was arrested by Spanish police earlier on Monday in connection to a trading scandal at the bank, has been released from custody, according to a Spanish court source.

Martin-Artajo, who will not be allowed to leave Spain under the terms of his release and who will have to appear in court every 15 days, has told a Spanish court he is not willing to be extradited to the United States, the source said.

U.S. prosecutors brought criminal charges against him last month in relation to a trading scandal that cost JPMorgan $6.2 billion last year.

Spain’s High Court, which normally decides on extradition cases, has taken on his case, police said earlier.