Forgery. Perjury. Investor fraud. Bribery. Money laundering. The body of evidence against individuals at the nation’s biggest banks is overwhelming. Nothing speaks louder about the banks’ guilt than this evidence - nothing, that is, except the billions they’ve paid to settle the charges.

The Administration reacted indignantly this week to suggestions it’s still slow-walking its investigation. And then, despite all this evidence, the Treasury Secretary of the United States proclaimed that no laws had been broken. And the White House wonders why its word is no longer enough?

A source in the office of a key figure in the investigation has denied a new story that they’re ruled out criminal prosecutions. But the burden of proof has shifted. Nothing will convince the public now except action.

Straw Men

Whether it’s JPMorgan Chase settling bribery charges in Alabama, Wells Fargo settling charges of laundering drug-cartel money in Mexico, or the nation’s five largest banks buying their way out of widespread foreclosure fraud and tax evasion, never in history has so much evidence led to so little action. Investigators pinpointed the fraudulent activity of individual accountants in GE Capital’s settlement with the SEC, only to be dumbfounded to discover that no criminal indictments were handed down.

So it was nothing short of astonishing to hear the Secretary of the Treasury assert yesterday that no crimes were committed by America’s banks, saying that “most financial crises are caused by a mix of stupidity and greed and recklessness and risk-taking and hope” and adding “you can't legislate away stupidity and risk-taking and greed and recklessness.”

That’s a ...

More than 1,000 people took the Occupy Wall Street Movement message straight to the one percent Tuesday, most of them rallying outside the Wells Fargo stockholders meeting in the heart of San Francisco's financial district - and some 30 of them "mic-checking" inside the meeting.

Protesters, many of whom had come from out of state, targeted what they said was Wells Fargo's high rate of foreclosure, predatory lending practices, tax dodging and investing in private immigrant detention centres. Wells Fargo is the nation's largest mortgage lender.

Rev. Gloria Del Castillo, of the Buen Samaritano church in San Francisco's largely Latino Mission District, came to the protest as part of an interfaith organization working for economic and social justice. Her understanding of the mortgage crisis is not theoretical.

"I'm here today, not only as a faith leader in this city," Del Castillo said, before marching to the Merchants Exchange Building, where the shareholder meeting was to be held. "Myself, I'm going through foreclosure right now, thanks to Wells Fargo. I asked them three times for a loan modification so that I could stay in my home, and they refused."

Barbara Casey was among the limited number of protesters who were able to tell Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf to his face what they thought. Casey, secretary treasurer of SEIU 503 trade union in Portland, Oregon, was one of the 100 or so demonstrators who had bought single Wells Fargo shares or obtained proxies, allowing them, in principle, to go into the shareholder meeting. And she was one of about 30 who actually made it into the meeting.

Casey contends Wells Fargo management deliberately excluded most of the protesters with appropriate shareholder documents.

She described the scene inside: "Mr. Stumpf was about to go into the board proposals, but meanwhile ...

Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank have let foreclosed homes in black and Latino neighborhoods lapse into disrepair, while bank-owned homes in mainly white neighborhoods are better cared-for, according to housing advocates.

The National Fair Housing Alliance, a non-profit group, brought a formal complaint to the Department of Housing and Urban Development last week alleging that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to keep up homes in minority neighborhoods. Today, the group announced they are also filing a second complaint, against U.S. Bank.

Earlier this month, the group released a survey, which was funded in part by HUD, of more than 1,000 unoccupied, foreclosed homes across the country owned by unspecified banks. When a house is foreclosed upon, the bank that takes it over is responsible for maintaining it. The report cites evidence — photos and interviews with neighbors — showing houses becoming dilapidated under banks' watch.

The complaint against Wells Fargo claims that among more than 200 homes surveyed, those in black and Latino neighborhoods were much more likely to have yards filled with trash, broken doors, damaged windows, and other signs of neglect. Fewer homes in those neighborhoods had "for sale" signs visible. For example, 68 out of 149 homes in black and Latino neighborhoods had damaged roofs, compared to only nine out of 69 properties in white neighborhoods.

The study looked at homes owned by Wells Fargo in Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, ...

A federal judge ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.1 million in punitive damages over its mishandling of a homeowner's loan, according to a report in the Huffington Post.

The opinion was issued by Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Manger described Wells Fargo's behavior as "highly reprehensible" in its five-year fight with the homeowner.

The plight of the homeowner was raised in a  Jan. 27 story on iWatch News.

In an emailed statement published in the Huffiington Post, Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said "we believe that there are numerous factual and legal problems with the opinion and are reviewing our options regarding an appropriate legal response."

Meanwhile the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, is reportedly considering new rules to require lenders to provide borrowers with more information about the status of their loans.

Some homeowners are getting stuck with relatively high interest rates even after they participate in the government's program to help them refinance their mortgages. The biggest banks are not lowering rates as much as they could be — and homeowners have few options to go elsewhere.

Analysts say that the big banks are set to make off of the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, also known as HARP, which allows homeowners with loans backed by government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance if they owe more than their home is worth.

The program, launched in 2009, is designed to let struggling borrowers advantage of lower market interest rates. So far, about 1.1 million people have refinanced under the program, which was expanded last fall to make it more attractive for banks and to let more homeowners participate.

Since then, the government says there has been "tremendous borrower interest" and estimates that another 1 million could qualify over the next two years. But while the expansion may let more people refinance, it may not be at the lowest rate possible because the incentives don't favor competition, according to a new report by an investment group Amherst Securities.

The report says the big banks are able to make a considerable profit from refinancing their existing customers under HARP, and that there is little incentive ...

The federal government's desire to end the politically unpopular bank bailout program could change how a number of Charlotte-area community banks pay back their share.

As the nation heads into a presidential election year, the U.S. Treasury has begun communicating with community banks around the country as it plans an exit from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The government cannot force banks to repay TARP, under the terms of the capital investments brokered at the height of the financial crisis. To extricate itself, the Treasury is considering selling its stakes to third parties or restructuring their terms, said a Treasury official who asked not to be named because the process has not been made public.

Charlotte-area bank executives said they don't expect the initiative to bring dramatic changes. They've already weighed an exit as the investments are set to become more costly to the banks.

But depending on how aggressive the government decides to be, the Treasury's moves could mean local banks will be able to put the bailout behind them at a discount.

The Treasury could also auction off its TARP investments to private equity firms or push community banks to merge.

In fall 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the plan to inject $205 billion into more than 700 banks, largely as preferred stock, to help shore up their balance sheets as the financial crisis rocked capital levels and threatened liquidity.

Bank of America received $45 billion, which it repaid by the end of 2009. Wells Fargo got $25 billion, paid off about the same time.

But as of last month, about $16.8 billion in TARP capital purchase program principal remained to be repaid from about 370 banks, according to the U.S. Treasury. Most of them are community banks. Two dozen North Carolina-based banks had $409 million still on the books.

Despite the outstanding investment, the program has been profitable, according to ...

Commercial banks spent nearly $62 million last year on lobbying, another record total for an industry that has become one of the most active voices in the political arena.

While their return on that investment is difficult to quantify, this much is clear: The financial industry's spending helped slow down the pace of new regulation and gained it at least a few partial victories in a year filled with anti-bank rhetoric.

Last year's lobbying expenditures by the commercial banking industry were up 9 percent from the year before, marking the sixth straight year of increased spending, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The financial sector as a whole spent more than $472 million.

That made the sector the third-biggest lobbying spender, behind the health care industry and general business associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Among the six biggest banking spenders - including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. - the increase was 6 percent, to $36 million, according to data from the U.S. Senate-run disclosure ...

State and federal regulators announced on Thursday a settlement worth at least $25 billion with Bank of America and four other large banks, ending several years of litigation over alleged foreclosure abuses. The deal offers some help to struggling homeowners, but experts view it more as a moral victory with limited impact on the broader housing market.

The announcement capped months of intense negotiations that involved federal regulators, state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups and big players on Wall Street and in finance. It was the largest government-industry settlement involving states since the $200 billion-plus tobacco industry settlement in 1998.

The settlement effectively punishes the banks for alleged abuses in the foreclosure process, including robo-signing, which involves providing fraudulent documents in court proceedings when trying to take back properties from homeowners who are delinquent on their mortgages.

"Under the terms of this settlement, America's biggest banks, banks that were rescued by taxpayer dollars, will be required to right these wrongs. And that means more than just paying a fee," President Barack Obama said in a statement Thursday before the cameras.

The banks are required to dedicate $20 billion in relief to homeowners, including $10 billion toward reducing principal for struggling borrowers. The banks also must provide $5 billion in cash to federal and state governments to assist their foreclosure relief programs.

About 1 million households at risk of foreclosure should be able to reduce their loans. Another 750,000 Americans who lost their homes to foreclosures will receive about $2,000 each. The banks have three years to distribute the assistance, and the deal will be monitored for compliance.

The five banks that agreed to settle federal and state probes are Bank of America, which is on the hook for the biggest payout, as well as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells ...

Two summers ago, at the U.S. Social Forum, I attended a panel discussion about ways to expand the use of credit unions as alternatives to the “too big to fail” banks whose risky investments had helped tank the economy. Each of the speakers—people involved in credit union leadership or advocacy—expressed confusion and frustration that they hadn’t already seen a post-crisis shift away from corporate banks and toward credit unions (which have the advantages of being not-for-profit, owned and governed by their depositors, far more likely than big banks to lend to small businesses, and not responsible for any global economic meltdowns).

It seemed that even as Americans were angry with Big Finance, they didn’t make the connection to their personal accounts.

Fast forward to last fall—when Occupy Wall Street was in full swing and activists were mobilizing around