Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35667House OversightOther

Allegations of Selective Prosecution and Missed Criminal Charges by SDNY under Preet Bharara after the 2008 Financial Crisis

The passage suggests that senior DOJ officials, including former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Attorney General Eric Holder, deliberately limited criminal investigations into the 2008 financial coll Bharara and AG Eric Holder are accused of deprioritizing criminal probes of major banks after the cr Only one mid‑level banker, Kareem Serageldin, was criminally charged despite industry belief that

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #019847
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage suggests that senior DOJ officials, including former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Attorney General Eric Holder, deliberately limited criminal investigations into the 2008 financial coll Bharara and AG Eric Holder are accused of deprioritizing criminal probes of major banks after the cr Only one mid‑level banker, Kareem Serageldin, was criminally charged despite industry belief that

Tags

financial-crisisdojbank-fraudfinancial-misconductinstitutional-interferencecivil-penaltieslegal-exposuremoderate-importancejurisdictionhouse-oversightsdnyselective-prosecutionselective-enforcement

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Even there his record was more mixed than is popularly understood. As Sheelah Kolhatkar demonstrates in her propulsive and riveting “Black Edge,” when it came to bringing his biggest whale to justice, Steve Cohen of SAC Capital, the Southern District blinked. They did not charge him, only securing a guilty plea from his firm. Present and former prosecutors say Bharara did not give much emphasis to investigations arising from the financial meltdown, an approach shared by his boss, Attorney General Eric Holder. Justice Department insiders say many of those inquiries withered not because they were unpromising, but because they had little support. Bharara missed an opportunity by not bringing any significant criminal charges against individuals in the wake of the collapses of Lehman, investment bank Merrill Lynch, the insurer AIG, the mortgage securities and collateralized debt obligation businesses, or the myriad public misrepresentations from bank CEOs about their finances. Bharara and senior officials in Washington argue that there were no criminal cases to file after the 2008 crisis. But the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan did pursue significant civil cases against the banks for their mortgage activities, cases that had to proove misconduct by the “preponderance of the evidence.” And DOJ did win guilty pleas from the banks themselves, an indication that prosecutors might have been able to charge individuals for their part in crimes their institutions had acknowledged. Academics who studied those years, including Columbia’s Tomasz Piskorski and James Witkin and Chicago’s Amit Seru found widespread patterns of fraud in the mortgage business. The exception makes this failure all the more puzzling. As I detailed in 2014, Bharara’s office brought one case for misconduct during the financial crisis — against a mid-level banker. Prosecutors charged Kareem Serageldin of Credit Suisse with overseeing traders who knowingly misrepresented the value of mortgage securities. Serageldin pleaded guilty and went to prison. Serageldin’s colleagues in the industry and others familiar with Credit Suisse found it hard to believe that he was the only person involved in that particular fraud. Bharara’s reluctance to pursue senior executives was seen in other investigations of big banks. His office wrested a $1.7 billion fine from JPMorgan Chase over its complicity in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, but it brought no charges against individual bankers. One odd aspect of his tenure was the Southern District’s willingness to defer to other jurisdictions when it came to Wall Street cases. Historically, the SDNY has been the leading enforcers of securities laws, nicknamed the “sovereign district” for its propensity to grab corporate fraud cases from elsewhere on the flimsiest of jurisdictional pretexts. Under Bharara, the southern district let other U.S. attorneys claim investigations into residential mortgage-backed securities, the instruments at the heart of the financial crisis. Those other offices were not nearly as versed in complex

Related Documents (5)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler declines Obama’s offer to be Attorney General

The passage provides a routine political development with no new allegations, financial flows, or misconduct. It mentions high‑profile officials but offers no actionable leads beyond the fact that Rue Ruemmler told President Obama she does not want to be nominated for Attorney General. She cited concerns about a difficult confirmation process and potential political attacks on Obama. The email lis

2p
House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

Allegations of Politically Motivated FBI Crossfire‑Harris Investigation and Judicial Bias

The passage links the FBI’s Crossfire‑Harris counter‑intelligence probe to alleged political bias and cites a 2012 Holder memo on election‑year impartiality, suggesting a possible misuse of investigat Williams v. Pennsylvania case cited to illustrate concerns about judicial bias in politically sensit Assertion that Crossfire‑Harris was launched for political, not national‑security, reasons despite

1p
Court UnsealedTestimonyUnknown

Court Transcript: A-5699

The document is a transcript of a hearing on February 16, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge William H. Pauley III, in the case United States v. Daugerdas et al.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

j782epsC kjc

j782epsC kjc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Before: x New York, N.Y. 19 Cr. 490(RMB) Conference July 8, 2019 1:20 p.m. HON. HENRY B. PITMAN, APPEARANCES GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: Assistant United States Attorneys STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: REID H. WEINGARTEN MARTIN G. WEINBERG Attorney for Defendant MARC FERNICH Attorney for Defendant Also Present: Special Agent Detective FBI , NYPD Magistrate Judge SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00079704 j782epsC kjc 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Case called) THE DEPUTY CLERK: Counsel, please state your name for the record. MR. : Good afternoon, your Honor. For the government, , and With us are Special

24p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Gregory Brown

24p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.