º£½Ç´óÉñ

Bank of America liable for mortgage fraud

The U.S. Justice Department plans to seek nearly $850 million in penalties from the Bank of America for poorly conceived home loans originated by Countrywide and then sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In this file photo, buildings and palm trees are reflected on the entrance of the Countrywide Financial Corp. office in Beverly Hills, Calif. Bank of America is liable for defective mortgages sold by Countrywide during the years around the financial crisis.

AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian, file

October 23, 2013

Bank of AmericaÌýCorp was found liable for fraud on Wednesday over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one ofÌýthe few trials stemming from the financial crisis.

After a four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bankÌýliable on one civil fraud charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called "Hustle" and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said.

The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.

Why humiliating Iran is unlikely to bring surrender

The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of AmericaÌýhas spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.

"The jury's decision concerned a single Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America's acquisition ofÌýthe company," Bank of AmericaÌýspokesman Lawrence Grayson said. "We will evaluate our options for appeal."

Marc Mukasey, a lawyer for Mairone, called his client a "woman ofÌýintegrity, ethics and honesty," adding they would fight on. "She never engaged in fraud, because there was no fraud," he said.

Wednesday's verdict was a major victory for the Justice Department, which has been criticized for failing to hold banks and executives accountable for their roles in the events leading up to the financial crisis.

Civilians flee in Ukraine’s Sumy region, but Russia faces huge losses

The government continues to investigate banks for conduct related to the financial crisis. The verdict comes as the government is negotiating a $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co to resolve a number ofÌýprobes and claims arising from its mortgage business, including the sale ofÌýmortgage bonds.

Risky loansÌý

The lawsuit stemmed from a whistleblower case originally brought by Edward O'Donnell, a former Countrywide executive who stands to earn up to $1.6 million for his role.

The case centered on a program called the "High Speed Swim Lane" - also called "HSSL" or "Hustle" - that government lawyers said Countrywide started in 2007.

The Justice Department contended that fraud and other defects were rampant in HSSL loans because Countrywide eliminated loan-quality checkpoints and paid employees based on loan volume and speed.

The Justice Department said the process was overseen by Mairone, a former chief operating officer ofÌýCountrywide's Full Spectrum Lending division. Mairone is now a managing director at JPMorgan.

Amy Bonitatibus, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, said, "We are reviewing the decision."

About 43 percent ofÌýthe loans sold to the mortgage giants were materially defective, the government said.

Bank of America bought Countrywide in July 2008. Two months later, the government took over Fannie and Freddie.

Bank of America and Mairone denied wrongdoing. Lawyers for the bankÌýsought to show the jury that Countrywide had tried to ensure it was issuing quality loans and that no fraud occurred.

The lawsuit was the first financial crisis-related case against a bankÌýby the Justice Department to go to trial under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

The law, passed in the wake ofÌýthe 1980s savings-and-loan scandals, covers fraud affecting federally insured financial institutions.

The Justice Department, and particularly lawyers in the office ofÌýU.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in the Southern District ofÌýNew York, have sought to dust off the rarely used law and bring cases against banks accused ofÌýfraud.

Among its attractions, FIRREA provides a statute ofÌýlimitations ofÌý10 years and allows the government to bring civil cases for alleged criminal wrongdoing.

Virginia Gibson, a lawyer at the law firm Hogan Lovells, said the Bank of AmericaÌýverdict was a "big deal because it shows the scope ofÌýa tool the government has not used frequently since its inception."

Gibson and other lawyers say any appeal by Bank of AmericaÌýwould likely focus on a ruling made by the judge before the trial that endorsed a government position that it can bring a FIRREA case against a bankÌýwhen the bankÌýitself was the financial institution affected by the fraud.

The case was one ofÌýthree lawsuits in New York where judges had endorsed that interpretation. Banks have generally argued that the interpretation is contrary to the intent ofÌýCongress, which they said is more focused on others committing fraud on banks.

Bank of America's case was the first to go to trial, a rarity given that banks more typically choose to settle government claims instead ofÌýface a jury. But Bank of AmericaÌýhad said that it "can't be expected to compensate every entity that claims losses that actually were caused by the economic downturn."

In a statement, Bharara said Bank of AmericaÌý"chose to defend Countrywide's conduct with all its might and money, claiming there was no case here."

"This office will never hesitate to go to trial to expose fraudulent corporate conduct and to hold companies accountable, particularly when it has caused such harm to the public," Bharara said.

In late afternoon trading, Bank of AmericaÌýshares were down 27 cents at $14.25 on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is U.S. ex rel. O'Donnell v. Bank of AmericaÌýCorp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District ofÌýNew York, No. 12-01422.