| 
            
			 At a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in 
			Manhattan asked the bank and the Justice Department to brief him on 
			the alternative, which is based on the grains rather than the losses 
			resulting from the sales. 
 			The hearing followed a jury verdict on October 23 in which a federal 
			jury found Bank of America liable for fraud for selling substandard 
			mortgage to government sponsored mortgage finance companies Fannie 
			Mae and Freddie Mac.
 			The verdict was a big win for the government in its efforts to hold 
			Wall Street accountable for the financial crisis, and the Justice 
			Department has requested a penalty based on the gross losses Fannie 
			Mae and Freddie Mac incurred.
 			But at Thursday's hearing Rakoff said he wanted a "more full 
			presentation" on how to calculate the penalty based instead on how 
			much Countrywide gained through the fraud, calling it a simpler 
			approach. 			
 
 			The judge said that his comments should not signal how he will 
			ultimately rule. Rakoff said he would issue a decision sometime in 
			February.
 			A penalty based on gains rather than losses would likely be 
			significantly smaller than prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Preet 
			Bharara's office have requested.
 			Evidence the government presented at trial indicated that 
			Countrywide made $165.2 million selling the loans.
 			The case, launched in October 2012, focused on a mortgage lending 
			process at Countrywide called the "High Speed Swim Lane," or 
			alternatively "HSSL" or "Hustle," that the government said 
			emphasized speed and quantity over quality.
 			The Department of Justice wants Bank of America to pay $863.6 
			million based on the gross loss incurred on the HSSL loans by Fannie 
			and Freddie, which the government took into conservatorship in 2008.
 			The Justice Department has also asked that Rakoff require that 
			former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone, who was also found 
			liable by the jury, pay $1.1 million.
 			"We're here to assess civil penalties, the purpose of which is to 
			deter and punish," Jaimie Nawaday, a lawyer at the Justice 
			Department, said in court on Thursday.
 			She urged the judge to award a penalty based on the losses through a 
			"broad interpretation" of the Financial Institutions Reform, 
			Recovery, and Enforcement Act, a law passed after the 1980s 
			savings-and-loan scandals. 			
 			
 
 			
            [to top of second column] | 
 
			The law, which carries a lower burden of proof than criminal cases 
			and a 10-year statute of limitations, has become central in a wave 
			of Justice Department investigations focused on the financial 
			crisis.
 			But Rakoff prodded Nawaday on why assessing a penalty based on 
			Countrywide's gain rather than loss is not "a more natural way" to 
			look at the case.
 			"The point of a fraud is to get money you're not entitled to," he 
			said.
 			Kenneth Smurzynski, a lawyer for the bank at Williams & Connolly, 
			urged the judge to find that the maximum penalty allowed under the 
			statute was $1.1 million, and asked Rakoff to use his discretion to 
			award nothing.
 			He also criticized the government's calculation of Fannie and 
			Freddie's loss, saying it ignored that they continued to receive 
			value from the mortgages.
 			"What the government calls gross loss is simply preposterous," 
			Smurzynski said.
 			But Rakoff questioned how Bank of America could be right that under 
			the law the maximum penalty could just be $1.1 million, saying a 
			finding like that would provide a "windfall" in a massive fraud 
			case.
 			"That wouldn't serve any deterrent value at all," Rakoff said.
 			Michael Mukasey, a lawyer for Mairone at Bracewell & Giuliani, urged 
			the judge to be lenient with his client, saying she had been 
			"punished enough already" through enduring publicity connected to 
			the case. 			
			
			 
 			He urged that no penalty be awarded against Mairone, 46, saying he 
			did not expect the bank to indemnify her for any award.
 			"Just because someone committed an act that in the eyes of the jury 
			and maybe the court is a legal violation, it doesn't mean you're a 
			bad person," he said.
 			The case is U.S. ex rel O'Donnell v. Bank of America Corp et al, 
			U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-01422. [By Nate Raymond © 2013 Thomson Reuters. All 
				rights reserved.] 
			(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York. editing by Andre Grenon)				Copyright 2013 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |