Bear Stearns Execs Go Free

Late Tuesday afternoon a jury acquitted two former Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers, Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi.  The charges: conspiracy and fraud lying to investors about two troubled funds made up of subprime mortgage-back securities worth more than a billion dollars combined. (CNBC)

With the first major prosecution related to the U.S. financial meltdown a not guilty verdict, media sources are talking about what this means for future cases against Wall Street executives.

We’re looking at perspectives from CNBC, FOX News, Reuters, The BBC and The Wall Street Journal

Liz Macdonald of FOX Business explains on FOX's "American Morning" why the jury chose to acquit the executives even though the case appeared to be cut and dry.

“The government couldn’t prove their case because the defendant’s lawyers basically proved that the government was cherry-picking the emails and the emails were taken out of context, that they were basically mismanaging the crisis. When you read the chain of emails that basically they were saying that they were trying to win investor’s money back."

Matthew Goldstein, a Reuters columnist, says the inability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt signals prosecutors must change their evidence gathering in cases as technology evolves.
 
“I think they’re going to be very careful now, to make sure that you just can’t have cases built on emails. I think it’s one of the things you see with these insider trading cases, wiretaps are much more powerful evidence. With emails, I think juries, people have gotten used to emails. They don’t have the same fascination that they used to have. Everyone sends and gets them and text messages. People realize that they can be taken out of context and they don’t tell the full story.”

On CNBC  a former SEC enforcement attorney explains that the government must now change the way they charge white-collar criminals relating to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

“More importantly, because this was the first case, what it's going to do, it’s going to cause the government to rethink that if they have facts that they’re trying to a global, much larger picture, the idea of holding individuals accountable for the collapse of the financial markets or the sub-prime market, is that an appropriate strategy? Or, should they be much more focused on the individual facts of the case and try to resolve those ambiguities before they say they’re going to indict?" 

A reporter from Marketwatch tells The Wall Street Journals’ HUB team that criminalizing this behavior is difficult.  He says fund managers can now legally communicate their worries to their colleagues.

“Maybe they were worried and their worries were justified but is that a criminal action? I think that the jury, which was out less than a day on this, obviously agreed with defense that yes, there is obviously reason to believe they were just trying to keep their funds afloat and not cause a panic and have the investors run to the exits." 

A columnist on BBC says the lack of conviction changes the comforting pattern of the U.S. financial cycle. The boom – the bust – the villains get caught.

“If a ridiculous boom and painful bust are the result of criminal or unethical activity, then faith in the system itself can hold. Well, just as the scale of the recession which has followed the sub-prime collapse is largely without precedent, so it may be different in this respect too.”

So do you think the jury’s decision was a good one? And how do you think this will affect Wall Street practices?