You're watching...
FBN's Charlie Gasparino argues investigators are having trouble proving a criminal case with the missing MF Global funds.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
It has been four months since MF global sudden implosion clients are still missing money no one's gonna -- yes.
There will they ever tried Africa has -- latest exclusive I hate to break this to you but as that was sources it's on the Fox Business Network.
And -- -- -- sources with direct knowledge of this investigation that the investigators are having a very difficult time -- criminal intent.
In the missing money in the debacle indeed taught in the disclosure of the details leading up to the implosion back.
A couple months ago than that global they if they see a lot of sloppy book work.
This is what sources close to the investigation tell me that that Jon -- firm was -- a firm that wasn't managed very well.
But in terms of proving a criminal case that -- that they stole that missing money.
Could be potentially misuse that missing money member that is the basis of any criminal case what sources close to the investigation in this investigation -- being conducted.
By the US attorney Chicago US attorney in New York the FBI.
There have been a very tough time proven a criminal case and they doubt a criminal case will be will will will will eventually result from this we should point out.
That investigators from the FBI from the US attorney in Chicago and from US attorney in of the -- district in New York Fuhrman and pre bras office.
Have to talk to dozens of people.
At MF global former employees.
What we understand they have not yet taken a deposition from Jon Corzine.
And why would they take when do they take that deposition we make this point.
That's when they think they have a case so they haven't gone to -- -- we should point out that.
A civil case is -- these highly likely that's by the SEC's -- -- commission CFTC.
The CME that the civil service that regulators to provide front -- -- regulation the bar for proving fraud.
In a civil case is lower so it's still on the table but I'll tell you the criminal case right now according to people close is -- -- Looks highly unlikely I was just.
Gonna say after all that money spent an already investigating not to mention is congressional hearings of course -- fronts -- -- yes and we should also point out.
Maybe they'll find something I mean you know -- I'm giving you a status report.
-- we we we're we're several months into this we should point out this is not an investigation that you know is a -- -- they've been interviewing everybody.
But -- this is a pretty good status report and barring some sort of -- someone turning evidence something they're having a hard time proving a criminal case against Corzine.
Against executives there.
And obviously gets the firm itself that the firm was miss -- miss using this money stealing it essentially what they're seeing is a lot of sloppy vocal but I I will point out this.
I've seen cases being broke later on that you find something I can tell you that I've seen it.
-- -- for many years covering these sort of things where you find that missing you remind us why as of right now as of right now.
That's not where they I'm sorry.
Not start Charlie why would ease your mind is quite easy to put together civil case vs accrual remember criminal cases you have to show something called C -- its intent.
You have to show that you went out.
And you -- -- bottom line you -- 448.
You were certain that what you were doing.
Was criminal activity that you were taking that money knowing the customer money member because from what he's gone -- ago when -- use it to pay off some creditors obviously that's probably where the coming.
And the probably in -- -- -- these customers it's one point six billion it will never get it back that you have to prove that they intentionally knew when they were taken that money.
That it was wrong and was criminally -- now and a civil case that degree of intent wealth not quite -- maybe you weren't sure.
You could still get hit on a civil case that you misused it that you are now following procedures.
But they criminal case you have to show real hard -- intent.
And that's not what they're finding now I should point out and -- -- I've said this from the beginning Jon Corzine's name at Goldman was called Fuzzy.
For reasons.
He was not to attend bald spot now -- that do what is -- he was not attentive to -- and I'll -- -- what we report first report here on the Fox Business Network.
Is that they did not have a very good compliant system in -- that they were deficient in some of their complaints of some of -- What's known as the pipes their operational there operation to keep this stuff separate that they did upgrade it when Jon Corzine took what was a sleeping brokerage firm.
As -- it turned it into like a risk taking hedge fund that they didn't have all the pipes and it now is that criminal not having those types.
That it no that's not that's not that's not an intent to defraud people that is sloppy stupid.
Probably a civil case Jon Corzine not off the hook yet them.
-- none of these guys off the -- I should say that the investigators are still looking at the criminal investigators look at our debate as of right now what they are telling us what we hear from sources close.
To the criminal side is investigation.
But they are having a hard time proving a criminal case and as of now they doubt they're gonna be able to -- -- and up with this while they may do it.
-- was and they might find that that email tomorrow I'll come back and say here's the criminal cases terrific reporting as oil.
