July 30 - Richard Beales and Breakingviews columnists explain why regardless of the outcome, the SEC’s case against “Fab” Tourre can only end with the Wall Street watchdog looking foolish.
-- Fabrice tourism trial. The ex Goldman bankers and sold CD is that John Paulson bet against. You liberal stuff Goldman settled for the 550. Million dollars back in 2010. Tour is the only individual. Now on trial for this -- coming to a close friend. To a write letters seem to think Nancy say it has pretty confident. Love that they didn't even put on any witnesses and rest is not even a criminal case of these standard of proof is actually lower than in a criminal case and still listen you know what. We think the prosecution that the SEC is just not proven. That tour misled investors about John Paulson involvement is picking the securities underlying the CBO. And then betting against them that's a pretty vocal by the defense and as I mean sure you make some kind of an argument. With some witnesses -- it's not unusual as this and a criminal cases a little more more unusual civil case but you know look I mean it just -- Highlights the fact that the SEC has the burden of proof yet. -- for the jury -- the -- this is confusing stuff to begin with the jury is you know was seen nodding off etc. And just they love it here if the SEC. Didn't explain this well enough to convince you you can't find tour -- so what's not you know it's not a bad strategy and again that they did it's a very tough case. So if -- SEC failed. Correct and the jury says not guilty whatever their -- -- and commit fraud than is easy weren't very clever as an individual with a statement that he had over -- -- -- -- -- enacted under a minute news and it's it's performed treated terribly trials in the past resident and so let's have -- his reputation for being in that one of the few crisis. -- and -- -- financial crisis is the -- than to PWW water or and especially since gonna try but even if they win it right. So I mean look this is a guy this is fabulous and tour. You know he's sort of -- -- it was a mid level guy Goldman and let me not be Rebecca fuels calls he told us that sentiment so -- -- He's -- want to -- to be -- the higher on exactly as she got so if they even if they went people -- who should get you know I didn't get any that he didn't get any big bosses that Goldman. He didn't get the -- and this -- -- defense is what happens that a group went through a similar case where they went after a similar mid level guy. And that was a defensive you know this congress is just a scapegoat for this -- but you know what. Maybe agreed -- -- -- -- some -- them if you think of all the things that have gone wrong and now -- people who can by the crisis directly or indirectly. This is a case where you go to you -- from mid level guy. Who worked on a deal where consenting adults in other words of those and should know what -- -- who could train for years they knew they would do. Who lost money -- didn't -- anything in this case -- that. Think the people desperately lost money should remember they were doing to it was a night. It was a different times as many days and eight capital labeling the German and also a German bank guy they'd be sophisticated institutions. So they don't even if they what do they care what Paulson was doing -- responsible for making their own vets say analyze these investments. That they thought they were were worth taking. That's their choice they can't sort of turn around saying oh my god you know we've only you know this other stuff well. Hey they should've known it be if they didn't they were responsible for making their own analysis season. It kind of trial we should have a nice spot in his -- locals say. -- all right we'll leave it that. We'll be following the last couple of days this fabulous trial and we'll have more breaking views for you tomorrow.