While investigating the suspect activities of JPMC, Emily Glazer, journalist for the “Wall Street Journal” uncovered another layer of deceptive fraud implicating the monitor, Joseph A Smith.
Smith was incharge of overseeing consumer relief in the $13B settlement with JPMC. He was also the monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement. With the obligation to make sure that JPMC was doing its due diligence in the settlement, there was a lot of suspicious activity between Smith, his lawyers and the bank. It seems as though Smith was trying to help the bank rather than the consumers that were harmed by JPMC.
Here are some of the actions in question by Emily Glazer:
- Why did your office allow Chase to not include the Recovery One data set and help them figure out which loopholes would be allowed per a July 31, 2014, email sent to Joy Palazzo and Romeo Quinto?
- Why did Joseph Smith’s law office (Poyner Spruill) give J.P. Morgan Chase executives advice on what the monitor would want? “Joe will want JPMC to provide a general, written assertion that the loans related to this population have been released; it is fine for it to be signed by Joy, rather than Stephanie or another line-of -businessperson.”
- The monitor said in one of its reports that he “did not have any information that caused me to question the qualifications and performance of any of the Servers’ respective IRGs or the reliability of their work, or to conclude problems may exist within any of the IRGs relative to their respective work.” How is that possible if there were serious accuracy issues in this other data set that he/his office knew about?
For all the details and communications, here is the link to the document: https://fraudinvestigationbureau.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Email-Exchange-OMSO-PR-Firm-to-Emily-Glazer-WSJ-re.-WSJ-Consumer-Relief-Article-May-2-2016-Jan.18-2017.pdf