1989CRIME
Lincoln Bank Savings and Loan Scandal Congressional hearing. A congressional panel cross examines members of the federal government agency, Office of Thrift Supervision, about their part in the Lincoln Savings and Loan failure.
The ultimate collapse of the bank represents an example of state-corporate crime in which the pursuit of profit by a corporation along with the failure of state agency to effectively monitor Lincoln Savings & Loan Association, which resulted in a host of criminal activities.
The ultimate collapse of the bank represents an example of state-corporate crime in which the pursuit of profit by a corporation along with the failure of state agency to effectively monitor Lincoln Savings & Loan Association, which resulted in a host of criminal activities.
This reel is part of one of our Specialty Collections. Online viewing or downloads of low-res versions for offline viewing will be available for only more day, though. Online viewing or downloads of low-res versions for offline viewing has now expired, though, and cannot be viewed online. "Pro" account holders can download a low-res version for offline viewing.
Sign up for a "Pro" account to download this footage.
This reel is currently not available for online viewing.
Sorry, this video is temporarily unavailable for online viewing or download. Please try again later.
Restricted Material
Access to this reel with audio is restricted. It will be available for only more day.
Access to this reel with audio has expired.
| 01:00:03 3 |
Rosemary Stewart, Director - Office of Thrift Supervision (government agency), testifies into mics in court at the Lincoln Bank Savings and Loan hearing - she states the red flags were obvious (high risk loans in Arizona, high level of direct investments) in 1986 (prior to Mr. Wall) and talks about ethics.. Audience seen in bkgd.
|
| 01:02:59 179.51 |
M. Danny Wall, Director for the Office of Thrift Supervision - testifies in court at the hearing about the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal and collapse. An unseen panel member asks Mr. Wall questions and he responds. Wall claims he didn't see the pertinent information about the Bank on time.
|
| 01:03:41 222 |
Z'across to the panel and Rep. Margaret Roukema, reads from a report from the Wall Street Journal to the court. She then asks Mr. Wall a pertinent question regarding a timeline relative to his action or inaction about Lincoln being put into receivership.
|
| 01:04:38 278.01 |
Wall responds in his own defense and reads from page 10 of the memo regarding the timeline. He did not replace Mr. Robertson but brought in someone to be senior to Robertson. He responds that Robinson was not replaced
|
| 01:05:54 354.25 |
Z'across the court to the panel. Mrs. Roukema asks Wall if the question of Lincoln was being discussed dating back to his predecessor, Rosemary Stewart, regarding whether or not they would continue or be closed down. She asks whether it competency, incompetency or complicity relative to all the years that went by and how everyone had an excuse or found a rationalization for extending the investigation.
|
| 01:07:05 425.63 |
Roukema then agains refers to the Wall Street Journal report. She asks Mr. Wall why, when even after they brought in Levanthal & Company in 1988, and Levanthal's findings proved that Lincoln blatantly abused the Generally Accepted Acconting Principles...so she asks Wall why he hesitated to move in on it.
|
| 01:08:20 500.94 |
Z'across courtroom to Mr. Wall for his response to the allegation. He asks the date of the report, and disputes the time frame. He states there was another report in August, 1987 that he referenced in his testimony they had missed. The earliest warning with real substance was in 1987. He refers to the '89 report and that they took action in April 14, 1989 and that was the last step in preparations for the evidence to take conservatancy action.
|
| 01:10:10 610.92 |
Mrs. Roukema states unseen that it took approximately an accumulation of 2-4 years of evidence with respect to Lincoln.
|
| 01:11:33 693.3 |
z'over to panel. Congressman Mr. LaFalce addresses Mr. Wall and . He poses a question to Mr. Kaczinsky and/or Mr. O'Connell as to what they were told and by whom when their testimony was called off in October.
|
| 01:13:25 805.07 |
Response from Mr. Smaczinsky to LaFalce's question - he states the OTS Council called him and advised that they had been contacted by the staff and they would not be asked to testify.
|
| 01:13:41 821.7 |
Pan across the table to Mr. O'Connell and he states that they submitted their testimony on October 20th , it was reviewed by the Treasury. He then received a called by their counsel Tom Segal and were advised the testimony would not fit with the other witnesses and they would be dis-invited from that testimony and it was unclear whether they would be called in the future.
|
| 01:14:35 875.03 |
Congressman LaFalce directs questioning to Ms. Stewart and asks about the timeframe she worked as it relates to the strong regulatory actions the Bank Board was taking in Fall of 1986 and then the easing up of regulatory actions once Congress didn't act in the Fall of 1986. He asks Stewart if this coincide with the ethical differences she had with the then Chairman of the Federal Home Loan bank board.
|
| 01:16:22 982.92 |
Stewart responds to LaFalce that she did not have the same recollections as 1986 was the year they had the most enforcement orders in their entire history, trying to get control of troubled institutions.
|
| 01:17:17 1037.09 |
Z'over to WS of the Congressional panel. Pan in on Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez - he suggests a time to summon their one last witness, Mr. Charles H. Keating, Jr.,(Chairman of the American Continental Corp., Lincoln's parent) at 4:30 p.m. giving the majority of members time to question the current panel.
|
| 01:18:40 1120 |
Pan in on Congressman LaFalce who objects and suggests a change in the suggested time frame by Gonzalez.
|
| 01:19:59 1199.32 |
Rep. Mr. Dreier of the Congressional Committee speaks to the panel and reads from an April 12th, 1989 memorandum from Mr. Kaczinsky regarding the sensitive information about Lincoln Savings and Loan (deposit balances and liquid assets) and that the information was requested by Senator Cranston for use for in a Senate Banking Committee . The memo states the information is sensitive and not for public dissemination. Dreier asks the panel what information did get to Senator Cranston and how it was used.
|
| 01:22:43 1363.86 |
Pan across to the panel and Mr. Smaczinsky. Smaczinsky states he doesn't recall the memorandum. Dreier sends the memo down to him and after his review states the memo says it is from him, but the initials are not his.
|
| 01:25:24 1524.88 |
Kevin O'Connell states the memo was found in their correspondence chronology kept in their office and states the secretary who typed it recalled Mr. Smaczinsky quickly dictating it because he was out of the office at that time. He states that week was rather rushed.
|
| 01:26:16 1576.25 |
WS of the panel and the audience seated behind them in the room.
|
| 01:26:21 1581.75 |
z'across room from the table of witnesses to the Congressional Committee. Young Congressman, Chuck Schumer of the Committee states that he is unclear and confused on the procedure of the memo.
|
| 01:26:24 1584.31 |
Zoom back and forth from the panel to the Congressional Committee. Chairman Gonzalez speaks. Discussion of the controversial memo, its validity and its source ensues. Mr. Schumer asks more questions about the memo and if it was more of a leak. Where did it come from.
|
| 01:29:55 1795.21 |
End
|
| 01:32:40 1961 |
End Lincoln Bank Savings and Loan Scandal Hearings reel.
|
Jump to this point
