undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbonemachine12y ago0 comments

JPM reported Madoff to the SEC in the 90's. They also reported him to the British banking authorities much more recently.

Also: the actions for which JPM was recently fined concern primarily the years 2007 and 2008. JPM may have acted differently in the 1990s, but that's practically irrelevant to what happened ten years later -- especially given the extent to which the size, and the number of unsophisticated investors lured into Madoff's scheme (with JPM's help) increased geometrically.

Similarly, whether they reported him to British banking authorities is also of little relevance. U.S. laws concern JPM's obligations to report suspicious activities to the SEC and other domestic agencies -- not the Brits.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ig112y ago· 1 in thread

It was a UK trading desk at JPM that identified it as suspicious and reported it in the UK. It's pretty blurry about what the reporting requirements should be in such cases.

Should firms be required to report any suspicious activity found by any team in any location to every regulator that covers them ?

(generally the rule at most banks is to report it to the legal team who then figures out who should be notified)

bonemachineOP12y ago

Should firms be required to report any suspicious activity found by any team in any location to every regulator that covers them ?

Don't know about "any activity, any location", but the SEC's position is that JPM failed to report specific activities to U.S. Treasury's enforcement unit (FinCEN), as per the requirements of its charter.

If you need more clarification as this finding, you might want to look into the court documents.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse