General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn observation about the resignations of Trump's Deutsche Bankers
Here's a statement from the bank:
The bank is under investigation by several authorities for possible financial crimes related to Trump and his businesses. These two individuals were instrumental in securing huge loans for Trump.
Here's the thing: On Wall Street and in big banks (maybe smaller ones, too), when you get fired you're told to resign. This is for several reasons. First, these individuals usually have fiduciary and legal responsibilities; these need to be surrendered. Second, there's a sort of "professional courtesy" that one can resign, thereby avoiding to have a termination on their employment record.
The third reason is more serious. If a bank or brokerage wants to get rid of an employee and they fire the worker, it almost always has to be "for cause" meaning there has to be a breach of law or company policy to terminate the employee. This can become an enormous legal problem for the employer with the potential to cost tons of money and lots of negative publicity. Brokers and bankers don't want controversy because it undermines faith in their markets.
Make no mistake: Vrabic and Scalzi were canned. They were probably able to negotiate some financial benefits for themselves, as is the practice in many financial (and other) businesses. But they face serious legal troubles and they'll be on their own. It's most likely that their careers in finance are finished.
Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank will "cooperate" with investigators and eventually cut their own deal.
So, here are two more Trump collaborators tossed overboard.
Everything Trump touches dies.
gab13by13
(21,337 posts)they would give up their 5th Amendment rights if called to testify.
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)Vrablic and Scalzi haven't been charged with any crimes (yet). They simply lost their jobs.
Trump doesn't have any influence in the internal practices of Deutsche Bank so he can't "pardon" them to reinstate their jobs. In fact, I bet Trump's reaction has been along the lines of, "Who?"
Trump has used them and, as usual, has cast them aside now that he's finished with them. It's his typical M.O.
wnylib
(21,450 posts)aimed at Trump, his family, and his business? Aren't they the ones likely to be charged by the US system if crimes are found and not the employees of a foreign bank?
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)For example, consider the Mueller investigation. Paul Manafort ended up in jail for crimes that really weren't related to Trump. Likewise, President Clinton ended up impeached because Starr originally began looking into a failed real estate deal.
The bank, the two former employees, the Trumps and who-knows-how-many others could get swept up if the investigators get aggressive enough.
wnylib
(21,450 posts)charge employees of a foreign bank for things they did as employees of that bank? If they broke US laws, it seems like they could be charged, but what if they only did things that allowed US citizens to break US law, e.g. giving a loan to someone who misrepresented his income? If they knew he misrepresented it, they would be accountable to their employer and perhaps to German law, but would US law apply to them?
Also, If Trump then misrepresented the value of his income or properties, loans, interest, etc. on his tax returns, the German bank employees would not be liable, would they?
I'm no expert on American law, and I know even less about international laws.
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)wnylib
(21,450 posts)Lochloosa
(16,064 posts)Most likely any crimes committed would fall under German laws. Even if they are charged under US laws, I doubt they will be charged before January 20th.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)DFW
(54,378 posts)A german bank still has to register as an American entity if it wishes to do business in the USA. If officials of an American branch committed crimes in the USA, they are prosecutable where they occurred, not where the home office of the bank is.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)The US operation is under US law.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trumps-banker-at-deutsche-bank-resigns-amid-scandals-escalating-investigations-into-presidents-finances/
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)I was unaware of this important detail. Thanks, Klaralven.
Of course, with this crowd, the apartment will probably turn out to be a crack through which a great many other bad acts will be seen.
The web of questionable behavior, to be polite, surrounding Trump, DB, the Kennedys and a few others is a nice fat conspiracy just crying out to be revealed.
Response to Klaralven (Reply #2)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)Are you sure? It doesn't sound right with "were" because of the clause... I don't know the correct grammatical vernacular to explain what I mean, other than that the "was" refers to the condition (end of year). Read it with "were" -- does it sound right?
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)"Rosemary Vrablic and Dominic Scalzi have tendered their resignations... which were accepted by the bank."
It was the resignations that were accepted, not the end of the year. The year will be over whether or not DB accepts it!
However, I could be wrong. Like you, I've forgotten the grammatical terms.
wnylib
(21,450 posts)subject-verb agreement. The subject of the dependent clause is "resignations," a plural noun. It calls for a plural verb - "were" instead of "was."
It's a common mistake for people to use the wrong verb if the subject and verb are separated by clauses and phrases that make people forget which word is the subject.
EDIT to add:
In the end, most people understand what is meant even if there is a grammatical error, when speaking or in informal writing. But sometimes the meaning can be confusing if the grammar is wrong. Also, if you submit a formal paper, grammatical mistakes look bad.
In junior high school, we had what we called concentration camp. It was a six-week intensive course in grammar. I've forgotten the reasons for the rules but I usually remember how to use them!
wnylib
(21,450 posts)how to use them but not always remembering the terms. This one was easier to remember. I didn't have a 6 week intensive grammar course, but for a couple years in junior high, we had to diagram sentences for at least 2 six week units per year.
However, I confess that I slip sometimes on correct word usage - which, that, as, since, etc. I just use the one that sounds right to me at the moment, but I know that a good grammarian could slice my language to ribbons.
Thank you!
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)from high school English class that I guess I didn't pay enough attention to!
Backseat Driver
(4,392 posts)Better grammar to write: Oh, ...from high school English class, to which, I guess, I did not pay enough attention!
wnylib
(21,450 posts)ending a word with a preposition is nonsense. Also, that it's OK to split infintives. Some grammar rules are ridiculous BS set up by people who need to just get a life.
Response to wnylib (Reply #8)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)by the bank, was of the clause that the resignations would be effective at year end, versus immediately.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)dlk
(11,566 posts)He said the same thing; Vrablic was asked to resign, and the resignation wasnt optional. Thats how its done.
NNadir
(33,517 posts)Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,053 posts)Did they fire him too?
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,053 posts)Botany
(70,504 posts).... missing very soon. Putin doesn't like loose ends.
And wasn't Justice Kennedy's son involved in getting Trump a loan from Deutsche Bank?
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-son-of-former-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-helped-trump-secure-loans-at-deutsche-bank/
The Son of Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Helped Trump Secure Loans at Deutsche Bank
Backseat Driver
(4,392 posts)of the bank - perhaps, investment banking (securities) instead of RE mortgage finance (collateral)? Can't quite remember...
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)make no mistake about that,
However, now the questions become,
Are they going to take the fall for Deutsche in connection to the Trump loans?
Is Deutsche cutting ties with Trump and will call their loans when due?
Will they cooperate with the investigations? With or without immunity?
Irish_Dem
(47,053 posts)Pluvious
(4,310 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,053 posts)malaise
(268,994 posts)Shit is getting real
Happy Holidays PJMck
BSdetect
(8,998 posts)Probably a year's salary and all share options vested plus pension retained or converted.
If canned they would lose all that. Or most of it.