In a ruling from the failure of a brokerage in 2007, a court has ruled that segregated client funds can be used by the firm for as collateral, and the bank gets priority for the clients’ money:
A ruling in the case of failed futures brokerage Sentinel Management Group could make it more difficult for customers to recoup money lost in the much larger collapse of MF Global, according to Sentinel’s bankruptcy trustee.
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling that puts Bank of New York Mellon ahead of former customers of Sentinel in the line of those seeking the return of money lost in the 2007 failure of the suburban Chicago-based futures broker.
The appeals court affirmed an earlier district court ruling that the bank had a “secured position” on a $312 million loan it gave to Sentinel, which turned out to have been secured by customer money.
Futures brokers are required to keep customers’ funds in dedicated accounts to protect them from being used for anything other than client business.
However, Thursday’s ruling suggests that brokerages can use customer funds to pay off other creditors, Sentinel trustee Fred Grede told Reuters.
“I don’t think that’s what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had in mind” with its requirement that brokers keep customer money separate from their own, he said.
“It does not bode well for the protection of customer funds.”
Worse, Grede said, is that the ruling suggests that a brokerage that allows customer money to be mixed with its own is not necessarily committing fraud.
That may raise the bar for proving that MF Global Holdings Ltd, under then-CEO Jon Corzine, misused customer funds as it scrambled to meet margin calls to back bets on European debt in the brokerage’s final days. A $1.6 billion customer shortfall remains.
………
Customer funds were allegedly moved from the protected accounts to other accounts so they could be used as collateral for loans to Sentinel’s own trading operations.
The appeals court said that “perhaps the bank should have known that Sentinel violated segregation requirements” but agreed with the district court’s earlier ruling that “such a lack of care does not rise to the level of the egregious misconduct” needed to reprioritize a claim.
“That Sentinel failed to keep client funds properly segregated is not, on its own, sufficient to rule as a matter of law that Sentinel acted ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ its customers,” U.S. Circuit Judge John D. Tinder wrote in the ruling.
If you have your money in an account, the firm can steal it and use it for loan collateral, and the bank gets it all.
For ordinary people who, for example, simply get a good deal on a used car that later turns out to have been stolen, they have to give the car back, even though they had no reason to know that he car was stolen.
But for the banks, if they are willfully blind, they get to keep the stolen property, because the law does not apply to them.
We need to end this sh%$. My next post discusses what would work, but ever won’t be done by either the current administration, or by a possible Romney administration.
Well, we now have reports that 
