Mortgages - Maxed Out

I ran across this article about the mortgage boom, and bust, and they mentioned the movie Maxed Out.  I first heard about the movie Maxed Out from Sally Brzozowski of Americans for Fairness in Lending.

To change the future, we have to learn from our past mistakes, and Maxed Out can help to teach us that history lesson when it comes to the topic of credit and finances.

reBlog from givemebackmycredit.com: Bank of America charged with Fraud

I found this fascinating quote today:

The New York Attorney General's office announced today that they're charging Bank of America and its former CEO Ken Lewis with fraud. The charges stem from BofA's disastrous merger with Merrill Lynch and their alleged failure to disclose important information about the deal to shareholders or the federal government.givemebackmycredit.com, Bank of America charged with Fraud, Feb 2010

You should read the whole article.

Atricure to Pay U.S. $3.76 Million to Resolve Medicare Fraud Allegations

Preposted from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-civ-115.html

WASHINGTON – Atricure Inc., a medical device manufacturer, has agreed to pay the United States $3.76 million to resolve civil claims in connection with the alleged promotion of its surgical ablation devices, the Justice Department announced today. Surgical ablation devices use focused energy to create controlled lesions or scar tissue on a patient’s heart or other organs.

The settlement resolves allegations that the West Chester, Ohio-based company marketed its medical devices to treat atrial fibrillation (the most common cardiac arrhythmia or abnormal heart rhythm), a use that is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Atricure also allegedly promoted expensive heart surgery using the company’s devices when less invasive alternatives were appropriate, advised hospitals to up-code surgical procedures using the company’s devices to inflate Medicare reimbursement, and paid kickbacks to health care providers to use its devices. The United States asserted that by engaging in this conduct, Atricure knowingly violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims in violation of the False Claims Act.

"This settlement reflects our commitment to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and protect Medicare from the improper marketing practices of Atricure and other medical device manufacturers," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "We will continue to work with our partners at the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General’s Office and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel to preserve the integrity of our public health programs."

The allegations were made against Atricure in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private citizens, called "relators," to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment. The relator will receive a total of $625,000 as the statutory share of the current settlement.

"The misuse of medical devices has the potential of exposing patients to dangerous procedures and taxpayers to payment of unwarranted claims against Medicare," said Tim Johnson, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. "This settlement demonstrates the government’s commitment to maintaining safe and affordable health care for its citizens."

Assistant Attorney General West noted that the settlement with Atricure resulted from a coordinated effort by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel.

This settlement is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover approximately $2.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $3 billion.

From White House Advisor on Violence Against Women

This article can be found at http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/white-house-commits-to-ending-violence-against-women-22877.html

Lynn Rosenthal is the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and here is an article she recently wrote.

For six months now, I have held the first-ever White House position dedicated to combating violence and sexual assault against women and continuing the important work of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).


Every morning when I’ve walked into the White House, I’ve brought with me the stories of the many survivors I have worked with over the years.

I’ve focused on raising the profile of violence against women issues across Federal Agencies, states, tribal communities, and localities; coordinating interagency collaboration on these issues; implementing victim assistance programs; and integrating these issues into Administration-wide programs such as the White House Fatherhood Initiative [1], the White House Council on Women and Girls [2], HUD’s fight against homelessness [3], and the Justice Department’s recent effort to better combat disproportionate violence in tribal communities [4].

Yesterday, I met with a group of 16 leaders of organizations that combat violence against women, provide resources for women who face domestic violence and sexual assault, and advocate for victims. During this meeting, I shared with these leaders the same information I am sharing with you — information on how the White House, through the President’s FY 2011 budget, is making combating violence against women a real priority.

Violence Against Women Act as a Budget Priority

The FY 2011 budget will provide a record total of $730 million to combat violence against women — a $130.5 million increase in funding from the previous fiscal year. The VAWA, passed in 1994, already provides thousands of victims with life-saving services, improvements in the criminal justice system and increased public awareness. The President’s FY 2011 budget not only continues this strong response, but bolsters current funding and responds to the emerging needs of communities.

Crime Victims Fund

The budget provides a $100 million increase from the Crime Victims Fund, specifically for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and other local services for domestic violence and sexual assault victims. By focusing on both immediate safety and long-term housing assistance, we can help ensure that victims don’t have to choose between living with abuse or becoming homeless. Furthermore, the Crime Victims Fund does not consist of a single taxpayer dollar; it is self-sustaining and supported by criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, and penalties for Federal offenders. In addition to a fund increase from the Crime Victims Fund, the FY 2011 budget provides $140 million for battered women’s shelters and services, an increase of $10 million from the previous fiscal year.

Victim Resources and Legal Support

The $730 million also provides vital funding for victim resources. The National Domestic Violence Hotline and Teen Dating Violence Helpline are receiving increased funding of $4.5 million to ensure every call is answered. The budget also provides $30 million in VAWA funding for victims of sexual assault — a $15 million increase from the previous year — which will be utilized by the Sexual Assault Services Program to provide crisis intervention, advocacy within the criminal justice system, support during forensic exams, and other related assistance.

The FY 2011 budget bolsters legal support for domestic violence and sexual assault victims by providing $50 million in VAWA funding for legal assistance for victims, a $9 million increase from the previous year. The Civil Legal Assistance Program will use this funding to help victims more easily obtain protective orders and other assistance available through the court system.

To build upon the above improvements in the criminal justice system, the budget also provides $188 million in STOP grants that provide better training, improved data collection, specialized law enforcement and prosecution units, and courts specialized for domestic violence and sexual assault cases.

Support Across the Board

Ending domestic violence and sexual assault is a priority for President Obama and Vice President Biden. I’ve written about numerous fund increases and initiatives that are testaments to this fact. In my meeting yesterday, the White House’s commitment to violence against women issues was clear — we are increasing support for women across the board.

Read more about our efforts in the President’s FY 2011 budget. [5]

Lynn Rosenthal is the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women

Google and the hackers

Reposted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35231454/ns/technology_and_science-washington_post/

The world's largest Internet search company and the world's most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity.

Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack.

Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership. But sources with knowledge of the arrangement, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the alliance is being designed to allow the two organizations to share critical information without violating Google's policies or laws that protect the privacy of Americans' online communications. The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data.

The partnership strikes at the core of one of the most sensitive issues for the government and private industry in the evolving world of cybersecurity: how to balance privacy and national security interests. On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair called the Google attacks, which the company acknowledged in January, a "wake-up call." Cyberspace cannot be protected, he said, without a "collaborative effort that incorporates both the U.S. private sector and our international partners."

But achieving collaboration is not easy, in part because private companies do not trust the government to keep their secrets and in part because of concerns that collaboration can lead to continuous government monitoring of private communications. Privacy advocates, concerned about a repeat of the NSA's warrantless interception of Americans' phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, say information-sharing must be limited and closely overseen.

"The critical question is: At what level will the American public be comfortable with Google sharing information with NSA?" said Ellen McCarthy, president of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an organization of current and former intelligence and national security officials that seeks ways to foster greater sharing of information between government and industry.

On Jan. 12, Google took the rare step of announcing publicly that its systems had been hacked in a series of intrusions beginning in December.

The intrusions, industry experts said, targeted Google source code — the programming language underlying Google applications — and extended to more than 30 other large tech, defense, energy, financial and media companies. The Gmail accounts of human rights activists in Europe, China and the United States were also compromised.

So significant was the attack that Google threatened to shutter its business operation in China if the government did not agree to let the firm operate an uncensored search engine there. That issue is still unresolved.

Google approached the NSA shortly after the attacks, sources said, but the deal is taking weeks to hammer out, reflecting the sensitivity of the partnership. Any agreement would mark the first time that Google has entered a formal information-sharing relationship with the NSA, sources said. In 2008, the firm stated that it had not cooperated with the NSA in its Terrorist Surveillance Program.

'Deficiencies'

Sources familiar with the new initiative said the focus is not figuring out who was behind the recent cyberattacks — doing so is a nearly impossible task after the fact — but building a better defense of Google's networks, or what its technicians call "information assurance."

One senior defense official, while not confirming or denying any agreement the NSA might have with any firm, said: "If a company came to the table and asked for help, I would ask them . . . 'What do you know about what transpired in your system? What deficiencies do you think they took advantage of? Tell me a little bit about what it was they did.' " Sources said the NSA is reaching out to other government agencies that play key roles in the U.S. effort to defend cyberspace and might be able to help in the Google investigation.

Jan 13: Washington has demanded an explanation from Beijing over claims by Google that the internet accounts of human rights activists have come under concerted attack from hackers.

These agencies include the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Over the past decade, other Silicon Valley companies have quietly turned to the NSA for guidance in protecting their networks.

"As a general matter," NSA spokeswoman Judi Emmel said, "as part of its information-assurance mission, NSA works with a broad range of commercial partners and research associates to ensure the availability of secure tailored solutions for Department of Defense and national security systems customers."

Despite such precedent, Matthew Aid, an expert on the NSA, said Google's global reach makes it unique.

"When you rise to the level of Google . . . you're looking at a company that has taken great pride in its independence," said Aid, author of "The Secret Sentry," a history of the NSA. "I'm a little uncomfortable with Google cooperating this closely with the nation's largest intelligence agency, even if it's strictly for defensive purposes."

The pact would be aimed at allowing the NSA help Google understand whether it is putting in place the right defenses by evaluating vulnerabilities in hardware and software and to calibrate how sophisticated the adversary is. The agency's expertise is based in part on its analysis of cyber-"signatures" that have been documented in previous attacks and can be used to block future intrusions.

The NSA would also be able to help the firm understand what methods are being used to penetrate its system, the sources said. Google, for its part, may share information on the types of malicious code seen in the attacks — without disclosing proprietary data about what was taken, which would concern shareholders, sources said.

Greg Nojeim, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, a privacy advocacy group, said companies have statutory authority to share information with the government to protect their rights and property.

Seller Beware. Cashier's Checks Not Always As Good As Cash

I love it when I find another person that thinks the same way that I do.  This article might be a few years old, but it is right on point.

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/financial/cashiers.html

Seller Beware. Cashier's Checks Not Always As Good As Cash

January 2005

By Susan N. LeDuc, CRCM

Many of us grew up hearing "a cashier’s check is as good as cash," and it has been true for decades; a cashier’s check, which is drawn by a bank on its own funds, cannot "bounce" or be returned for insufficient funds. A cashier’s check has been and still is a trusted method to conveniently transfer sums of money that are often larger than you would want to carry or transfer in cash. A cashier’s check is also more acceptable to those on the receiving end that do not want a personal check. Unfortunately, fraudsters are very good at finding and exploiting our trust.

By betraying our trust of banks, fraudsters are passing counterfeit cashier’s checks to unsuspecting individuals and businesses and tricking people out of large sums of money. Unfortunately, the trickster is not often caught, and individuals and businesses suffer the loss. That means that all of us — individuals, business and financial institutions — must change our behavior or risk being duped by a fraudster.


Cashier's check fraud scenarios

So how does this fraud loss happen? Often, an individual or business has some asset to sell, such as a car or a piece of equipment. You advertise the item in either a newspaper or on-line, an offer is made, and a deal is struck. You agree to sell your item for $12,000 in the form of a cashier’s check. Either your buyer arrives in person or, more typically, a cashier’s check arrives via mail. You make the deal (you take the cashier’s check, the buyer takes the item), and you promptly head to the bank and deposit the check. The check is deposited and you are told it will available tomorrow. At this point, you might use the money toward some other purchase. A week later, the bank calls you to say that the cashier’s check has been returned unpaid because it is a counterfeit check. The deposit has been reversed from your account [and you may have a negative balance]. You also do not have your asset (the car or equipment). You have been defrauded — tricked out of your money.

Another variation on the scenario is that the check the buyer used to pay for the item is for more than the agreed upon price. Using the example above, say the buyer arrived with a cashier’s check for $15,000. He gives you the check and a believable story and asks for you to mail him a cashier’s check for the difference. You think the buyer must be on the up-and-up because he trusts you to return the excess! You deposit the $15,000 cashier’s check, go back the next day and buy a cashier’s check for $3,000 and mail it as instructed. A week later, the $15,000 cashier’s check is returned unpaid because it is a counterfeit, and you now have a $15,000 loss, not a $12,000 loss!

Reasons for increase in bank check fraud

The number of counterfeit cashier’s checks deposited into banks has steadily increased in recent times. Much of this increase is attributed to the increase in private sales between individuals as facilitated by the internet and online auctions.

There are also inexpensive software programs that allow someone with a computer, a scanner and a good quality printer to "create" a document which looks like a genuine check. Some counterfeits are doctored copies of genuine checks; other counterfeits are complete phonies. Even banks have trouble identifying genuine and counterfeit cashier’s checks.

The situation is further complicated by federal bank regulations. The Expedited Funds Availability Act, which is implemented by Regulation CC (12 CFR 229), provides the maximum number of days that a bank can hold a deposited check before making the funds from a deposit available (i.e., can be accessed by check or other withdrawal) to the depositing customer. This rule was developed to prevent overly long holds that banks and others placed on deposited funds.

Because of the misdeeds of a few, now all banks and financial institutions must adhere to Regulation CC. This regulation does provide for certain exceptions, but generally, a bank is required to make the funds deposited via cashier’s check, "available" on the next business day after the day of the deposit if certain conditions are met. Making the funds from a check "available" means that the funds can be conditionally accessed, but the checks are still subject to final clearing and charge-back if the item is not honored.

Regulation CC obviously reflects that historic trust that cashier’s checks are as good as cash! Unfortunately, the only way Regulation CC deals with the possibility of counterfeit cashier’s checks is in the exceptions to the availability schedules. This means that unless the bank places a longer exception hold on a deposited cashier’s check, all parties involved — the customer, the fraudster, and the Bank, all know that the funds from that deposit will be available for withdrawal by the customer long before the bank knows whether the item will be returned or not. It can take up to 7-10 days from the time a check is deposited for it to be returned to the bank as unpaid.

Don't be duped! Protect thyself

Banks that issue cashier's checks. Expect to receive calls from individuals and businesses who are payees on official checks so that the bank can confirm that such a check was issued. A bank should also be able to verify the check number, the payee, the issue date, the amount, and the authorized signer. Confirmation that a cashier’s check was issued is not a guarantee that it will be paid. However, it does eliminate many risks associated with counterfeit cashier’s checks.

Individuals and businesses accepting cashier's checks for payment. Verify that the check is genuine. Call the issuing bank (use the phone book, the bank’s website or directory assistance — do not use a telephone number printed on the check — it could be a hoax) and confirm that the item was issued. If you can’t confirm that the check was issued, consider canceling the transaction or not releasing the purchased item until the check has cleared and the funds are available and not subject to chargeback.

Banks accepting cashier's checks for deposit.

Consider offering a service to depositors to confirm (i.e., call the issuing bank) that an official check was issued. Confirmation that a cashier’s check was issued does not guarantee that the check will be paid. However, it does eliminate many risks associated with counterfeit cashier’s checks.

Publicize the existence of counterfeit cashier’s checks and how to protect against them. Consider adding a link on your website to your federal regulator’s list of counterfeit cashier’s check notices.

If the bank cannot confirm the check’s issuance, place a Reg. CC exception hold (doubting collectibility) on the deposit. Properly notify the depositor of the hold.

Consider sending the cashier’s check for collection rather than depositing it into the customer’s account directly.

Advise individuals and businesses that deposit official checks that availability is not the same as "cleared."

Train tellers and Customer Service Representatives to make a distinction between available and cleared. Do not confirm that an item is cleared unless the bank is certain that the item will not be returned.

If an official check is returned unpaid as counterfeit, the bank should submit a SAR and file it with FinCEN, police and the state banking commission.

Remember: Genuine cashier’s checks issued by a bank are as good as cash, but the counterfeit ones look like the real ones. Suspect that a cashier’s check could be counterfeit, and independently confirm its issuance before accepting it.

Robert Siciliano’s Conversation with a Hacker : Information Security Resources

Here is a great article by Robert Siciliano of IDTheftSecurity.com about a conversation that he had with a scammer.

Robert Siciliano’s Conversation with a Hacker : Information Security Resources