????自從拉賈?拉賈那納姆案開審以來，很多人都感到疑惑為何在公眾認為有更大的罪犯（即與2008年金融危機有涉公司的高管和雇員）要抓的時候，美國政府如此著力打擊內幕交易。

????內幕交易自然是犯罪，但在房地產(chǎn)泡沫破裂后的一系列戲劇性演變中，這似乎只是一個小問題。批評人士認為，與信貸危機有涉的銀行、保險公司對整體經(jīng)濟和投資者的傷害遠遠大于幾個貪婪的投資經(jīng)理。例如，拉賈那納姆被指控牟利5,400萬美元，避免了約900萬美元損失。相比之下，美國國際集團(AIG)2009年虧損高達990億美元，需要巨額救助，并在一定程度上導致了一場嚴重的經(jīng)濟衰退，將美國失業(yè)率推高到了兩位數(shù)水平。

????紐約南區(qū)檢察官普里特?巴拉拉以行動回應了這些質疑。本周二其辦公室起訴了德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)，根據(jù)《反欺騙政府法》(False Claims Act)尋求三倍的損害賠償和罰金。

????美國政府指控德意志銀行及其子公司MortgageIT虛報部分按揭貸款質量，騙取政府擔保，以便能以虛高的價格出售質量欠佳的按揭貸款。由于這部分按揭貸款質量欠佳，美國聯(lián)邦住房管理局(FHA)已不得不為此支付保險賠償金。

????“只要你不放棄，總能憑借現(xiàn)有的法律法規(guī)將嫌犯繩之以法，”Polsinelli Shughart的一位律師埃德?諾瓦克表示，“我可不認為這個國家的法律框架面對金融業(yè)已手軟到如此地步，以至于我們不能再追究什么?！?/p>

????對德意志銀行的指控細節(jié)可能具有個別性，但這項指控與金融危機后暴露出來的很多做法具有共性。銀行發(fā)放質量欠佳的按揭貸款，想辦法以虛高價格售予毫不知情的投資者，將風險轉嫁給他人，從中牟利。

????系統(tǒng)行動總是遲于我們的設想，人們總是容易忘記這一點。即便是安然(Enron)案，訴訟審判也花了幾年的時間。由于安然破產(chǎn)備受矚目(并有揭發(fā)者)，各項訴訟很快提出，但訴訟過程仍花了數(shù)年。2001年安然申請破產(chǎn)時，問題就已顯現(xiàn)。2002年美國國會進行調查， 一些小人物被起訴。但直到2004年，安然前首席執(zhí)行官杰夫?斯基林和前董事長兼首席執(zhí)行官肯?雷才被起訴。審判拖延到了2006年的春季。

????雖然之前巴拉拉一直被指忽視與金融危機相關的欺詐行為，現(xiàn)在看來其辦公室一直在推進德意志銀行的案子。“與那些擁有大律師和大筆金錢的人們打官司需要時間，他們會躲在一堆晦澀的小字體背后做很多事，用這些小字體為自己不顧后果的行為開脫責任，”諾瓦克稱。

????關于美國政府是否會追究金融危機中壞家伙的責任，仍無定論。但顯然，紐約南區(qū)檢察官辦公室的所作所為超出了眼見。

????Ever since the Raj Rajaratnam trial began, many have wondered why the government is cracking down on insider trading when the public thinks that there are bigger crooks to nail -- namely the executives and employees who worked at the firms involved in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

????While insider trading is certainly a crime, it seemed like a bit player in the drama that began when the housing bubble burst. Banks and insurance companies involved in the credit crisis seemingly wrought greater devastation on the economy and investors than a crew of greedy money managers, critics contend. For example, Rajaratnam allegedly made $54 million in profits and avoided about $9 million in losses. By comparison, AIG lost $99 billion in 2009, needed an astronomical bailout, and helped usher in a recession so severe that it drove unemployment to double-digit levels.

????But Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, just answered those critics. His office sued Deutsche Bank (DB) today, seeking triple damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.

????The government accused the bank and its subsidiary MortgageIT of lying about the quality of some mortgages that were to be insured by the government. With the government insurance, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT were allegedly able to sell weak mortgages for more than they were worth. Because the mortgages were weak, the FHA has been forced to honor insurance policies on the loans.

????"You can always get someone up on charges if you work hard enough given all the regulations we have," says Ed Novak, an attorney at Polsinelli Shughart. "I don't buy that the financial industry has so weakened the statutory framework of this country that we can't pursue something."

????The details of the allegation may be special to Deutsche Bank, but the story has the same general characteristics of so many schemes unearthed in the aftermath of the financial meltdown. A bank takes weak mortgages and finds a way to sell them for more money to unsuspecting investors, passing the risk onto others while making a profit.

????It is easy to forget that the system moves more slowly that we'd like. Even in the case of Enron, it took years for justice to be served. The indictments moved at a quick pace due to the company's high profile collapse (and having a whistleblower didn't hurt), but the process still took years. Cracks were visible at Enron in 2001, the year it filed for bankruptcy. Congress held an inquiry in 2002, and smaller players were indicted. But it not until 2004 were former CEO Jeff Skilling and ex-chairman and CEO Ken Lay indicted. The trials dragged on through the spring of 2006.

????While Bharara was being panned for ignoring financial crisis-related fraud, it seems his office was working on the Deutsche Bank case all along. "It takes time to fight against people with great lawyers and lots of money, who did many things behind a wall of fine print designed to absolve them of responsibility for reckless behavior," says Novak.

????When it comes to the question of whether the government will go after the bad guys of the financial crisis, the jury is still out. But it's clear that there's more going on at the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District than meets the eye.