I think this is more likely: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262
So you think a few C-level execs went to 8,700 mail boxes and deleted 47 million messages to remove the EXACT evidence that was being subpoenaed?
I'm not saying that's what happened, I find the sequence of events described by JP Morgan believable. But the same process issues that allowed this to happen accidentally would allow it to happen maliciously.
I mean, I live this personally. When legal tells me to delete or retain something, I don't go get a law degree, and then insist that they let me have all the details to come to my own independent opinion about whether or not we need to delete or retain something. That is every bit as nonfunctional as when I tell them that the task they're asking for will take three weeks and they go get a programming degree and then come over and learn the exact environment we are working in so they can verify that we are telling them the correct estimate.
Part of the SEC’s process is peppering these people with pamphlets explaining how their testifying this happened is a $10+ million whistleblower payday.
Not a chance. NOTHING gets done at JPMorgan without a mountain-load of direction and a grip of meetings. This would have had to wipe out both the data and records of that direction. Because the layers of tape are so thick you can't travel floor to floor without an access card coding and used to log your time and that even these simple systems don't work all the time (which generates even more busy work, yay), it's a form of friction against any sort of "secret" dealings within the company. If your keycard/dev env/database access/wiki edits/etc are so chaotically managed, it's unlikely that you will leave 0 evidence behind. Note that there was enough information to reconstruct what happened, to some degree.
I would bet someone didn't communicate the arcane symbol column that meant "do not delete for legal reasons", in some SQL. It's that chaotic, which reinforces the paranoia about the legal consequences that are foisted on every employee, routinely. If you have a shoplifting conviction (a record that hasn't been purged), you aren't getting hired. Viewed from the inside, it's strangely dystopian, but far from subtle.
How did the bureaucracy let this happen if it's as big and bureaucratic as you claim? And there's other examples too.
Not to brag, but I skirted company policies at JPMC. I had been tasked with writing a solution for a specific process that integrated a freeform type of data. I didn't use customer data or even sensitive company information, but did cobble something together that worked as a prototype over 6 months, in addition to my application workload. Due to some unannounced hardware refresh, my laptop was to be wiped. I decided to mail a zipfile of the custom javascript code (all open source or hand-written), to myself. There was a proper application (OneDrive) to normally store this kind of data, but it wasn't on my machine...which was probably part of the reason some laptops were being nuked. So, against, company policy I "mishandled source code" and got a 2-week-long wrist-slap over it. Was this "letting employees use email to evade company policies", or is it simply something that happens because there's no practical way to prevent me from doing it and still maintain standard business operation? It's important to read between the lines sometimes.
Anything that requires participation of lower level employees, is different because they have to have explicit instructions and action plans to do anything...according to multiple policies and processes. If someone walked in and said "this is the SQL to use to delete this data for this JIRA ticket", it would be written down in a Confluence, JIRA, email, git, for starters. You would also have to have to account for the rollback as well, or it doesn't play.
All emails and code changes are up for discovery and I don’t work with individual contributors directly so I’m not even sure how I would be able to give an instruction like this without many people wondering what was up.
In the early days sure, I could go ask X person to access things directly but after a couple hundred people it doesn’t work that way. Think about an org of hundreds of thousands with the most strict compliance rules in existence.
And doing something willful here would be jail time so why would someone already wealthy risk this? Even in a corrupt system people balance risk reward. A fine for the bank, fine, but life ruined forever stretches credulity given the limited upside.
The implementers and auditors themselves get bogged down by red tape and/or the game of telephone between various departments, leading to information and Acceptance Criterias falling between the cracks.
If you read the link in my previous comment, you'll see this isn't the first time they got fined for bad record keeping practices. In that instance, $125m.
It's kinda either/or. It's either possible that someone can get full admin privileges and deletes it off-the-record or they've got enough safeguards in place that the accidental deletion isn't possible either.
I don't think your argument works unless the article is wrong.
the thing we're discussing is deleting A LOT of records which INCLUDE the ones being subpoenaed, which is obviously easily possible, intentionally or otherwise
so, no stretch of the imagination required
0 - https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/04/investigative-series/cr...
1 - https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-t...
2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35959865
3 - https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20
4 - https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/22/3-count-felon-jpmorg...
Now there's a reliable source!
If you can point out anything specific in there that's provably wrong, I'd genuinely love to hear it.
While there are many statements one can confirm, such as "took up boxing", they are surrounding nuggets like this: "After being selected by a mix of powerful businessmen, many of whom shared connections to intelligence and/or organized crime", a statement which is so vague as to be highly suspicious.
And don't even get me started on the author feeling the need to point out that all these organized crime and banking folks are Jewish - what's the relevance? Only to double down on stereotypes - the other people in the story aren't called out for their ancestry or religion...
Making things out to be anti-semitic when they're not, such as happened to Corbyn, is a popular smear tactic. It's pretty disgusting though, and many Jewish people have pointed out that it's a very harmful and anti-semitic thing to do.
That ship has long sailed in the US. I don't see this behavior stopping in earnest until the greater populace stops giving any credibility to the claims due to repetitional damage. In fact right now they have become emboldened after the 2020 elections. Meanwhile there is a real rise in anti-semitism that is likely occurring among the far-right.
Change is starting to happen online in that every single thread i've been seeing on Reddit/HN that calls out Israel also tends to completely swat away the anti-Semitic claims thrown out when any criticism of Israel typically occurs. Whether this translates into real world changes remains to be seen but we are starting to see it in the voting patterns of Millennials and Gen-Z(them supporting comments made by "the Squad" and electing more reps that don't shy away). It very will likely be a generational shift as Israel continues to damage its reputation in the US due to its tactics.
By only denouncing this Dangerous Anti-Semitism and ignoring the equally deplorable Anti-Italianism, you've outed yourself as an Anti-Italian Romanophobe whose opinions may be summarily dismissed. Checkmate.
If you read the article, you'll notice "Italian" occurring once, but not in relation to a specific person...
However, in the opening paragraphs of the "SuperMob" they're sure to mention which specific individuals are Jewish:
Crown Prince of the “Super Mob”
Henry Krinsky was born in 1896 in the city of Chicago. His father, a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, worked as a sweatshop foreman and changed the family name to Crown when Henry was a child. After dropping out of school in the 8th grade, Crown started a steel business with his older brother, Sol Crown, in 1915, creating S.R. Crown & Company. A few years later, in 1919, another brother, Irving Crown, joined the company, which became Material Service Corporation (MSC), a sand, gravel, lime and coal business that was prominent in Chicago’s construction industry.
Henry Crown developed an early relationship with Jake Arvey, a notorious political fixer for the Democrats in Chicago who, like Crown, was the son of poor Jewish immigrants. Arvey had deep ties to the Chicago mob, including the circles around notorious gangster Al Capone
Now, I know also that you're saying I'm being overly sensitive, but I'm trying to point out (when I was asked to disprove the article) that these are signals that I think the article is not to be trusted on face value.
The article seemed pretty clear about where evidence was lacking; and is more densely packed with links than >95% of mainstream news articles.
Even if one were to completely dismiss everything fta that was even slightly suspect, you'd still have more insight into why JP Morgan might intentionally delete tens of millions of emails.
Forty-seven million emails. 47,000,000.
"Accidentally". Even if you could believe this - wow - even if you could take that at face value, the fine worth ~45 minutes or so of profit is still preposterous.
How many emails do you think JPM receives a year?
The problem is that most "reliable sources" aren't very reliable on the important topics - war, money, culture, etc.