Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2016) - full transcript

I owe
everything to George Bailey.

Help him, dear father.

Thomas sung, voice-over:
First time I saw

"it's wonderful life,"

I had tremendous respect
for George Bailey,

who is the main character.

He did so much good
for the community.

Mr. and Mrs. Martini,
welcome home.

Hooray!

George was lending
money to the community residents

to buy houses...



Me giuseppe Martini--
i own my own house!

And that's exactly
the same purpose

when we started a bank.

It was our motivation
to help a lot of people,

a lot of immigrants.

Here you are, George.
Merry Christmas!

Hwei lin sung, voice-over:
This movie touches me so much.

The family, the friends.

I always watch it.
Every year, I watch.

That makes me cry
because that's
the part...

Thomas, voice-over: I wish
this story could end

the same way
as "it's wonderful life"...

But in reality,
it is not that simple.

Today, we are
announcing the indictment



of 19
individuals

on charges
including

mortgage fraud,

securities
fraud,

and conspiracy,

as well as
the indictment

of abacus
federal
savings bank,

a federally chartered bank
that has been catering

to the Chinese immigrant
community since 1984.

If we have learned anything

from the recent
mortgage crisis,

it's that at some point
these schemes unravel

and taxpayers can be left
holding the bag.

The d.A. Made such
a big parade,

bringing people from Washington,

all these tough
law enforcement officers,

and making such
a big announcement

that we are part of the cause

of financial crisis of 2008.

Almost laughable.

Mr. sung is entitled
to his opinions,

but in abacus'
loan department,

mortgages were based
upon false documentation.

We have evidence
of conspiracy, larceny,

and systemic fraud.

If that prosecution
goes through,

that bank is gonna go
out of business.

There's no question about it.

They're gonna lose
their charter,

and it's gonna enormously
impact that community.

Too big to fail, you know,
turns into small enough to jail,

and abacus is
small enough to jail.

Thomas, voice-over: When I walk
around here, of course,

I feel very much at home.

Incidentally, this is
a very tasty noodle shop

if you go in there.

I was born in Shanghai
in the year 1935.

At the age of 16,
i emigrate to the United States

and went to law school,
and I moved to Chinatown.

There was not many
Chinese lawyers,

and I knew I wanted to be
a part of the community,

so I did a lot
of pro bono work.

This--this building
with the Chinese national flag,

this a Chinese community center.

And in there is...

I represented the association
for years and years and years.

This association sponsored
a school,

and I obtained
the permanent charter

from department
of education.

And people
in the community,

older people particular,
remembers me,

know what I've done.

Back when I was a lawyer,
there was no bank

that was owned by Chinese
and serving the Chinese.

This is
Chinatown, New York City,

warm, colorful, cheerful,

a wonderful place
for sightseeing.

This man is on his way
to the bank.

What is about the bank
that makes our man feel at home?

The very design--
beautifully bright

with the primary Chinese colors,

and he sees home
in the soft, sweet smile

of the teller.

At that time,
banks in this community

had several hundred millions
dollars of Chinese deposit,

and I went to a bank
to try to borrow money,

but they do not lend money

and deal with the community.

He always
told us stories

that they were willing
to take his deposits,

but they weren't
willing to give him
credit, loans,

so that's why he
started the bank

because he felt that
wasn't fair

to the community.

I remember
when we were children,

and my dad was excited
about this venture

that he was gonna start,

and he involved us
in the decisions

of what would be the symbol
for the bank,

and I remember we would all
try to design something.

Abacus, you know,
is the Chinese calculator.

China regard abacus
as a national treasure,

so we say we'll name
the bank abacus.

Hello. Can you open
for me?

We serve people
who've never even dealt

with the banking system
before,

and you try to bring them
into the banking system.

An example of that
is the safe deposit boxes.

Have you ever seen
so many Bo--
heh heh--boxes?

There are 8,000-plus
boxes in this vault.

8,000.

The Chinese people,
particularly the immigrants,

they rent houses
in very tight quarters.

There's no place for them
to place their valuables

except in a bank vault.

So it starts
with the safe deposit boxes.

Then they're willing to put
their money into the bank

and then let the money grow,
and then later on,

they will take that money
and use it to buy a home.

You get a clear sense
of what your mission is

at the actual closing.

Many of the borrowers bring
their whole family with them,

and they bring
their children,

their grandmother,

and by the time they walk out,
they're all superhappy,

and you feel good to be a part
of that process.

We talked
to Heather, right?

I remember her.

Where is she
right now anyway?

Do you have
the chicken feet
in there?

Oh, ok. That's
always special.

That's
the chicken butt.

That's the butt.
The chicken butt.

You don't want
to eat that.

I like it.
Oh.

She doesn't need
the butt.
She can eat it.

I never thought
my girls would work in Chinatown

because we lived
in greenwich, Connecticut.

Tom would be commuting
every day, you know,

like, an hour and a half
each way,

so he didn't see them
that much in those days.

They had no idea, anything,
not a faintest idea

about the Chinese community.

In fact, Heather still doesn't.

She hates the city, you know?

She's like me.
We both have headaches,

and at home when we don't
want them to understand,

we speak Chinese.

You always
said to me,

"if you come work
for the bank,

"the benefit will be
you have

a 9-4 job."

9-4? He said that?

Because long time
ago, people could

leave at 3:00
for the bank.

He said you could
have children,

you could have
a family.

You know what
he said to me?

He said, "if you wish
to work with me,

"remember, this is
your own choice,

and don't think
it's gonna be easy."

You gave it
two different stories.

You know,
people ask me

"so why in the world
you wanted to get

into banking?"

It's not because
i needed a job.

I was practicing law,
i was busy,

but I said to myself,
"it's time for me
to do something

for the society."

That started
from ye-ye's time.

Grandfather.
My grandfather.
My grandfather.

He always thought that was
the honorable thing to do.

That's not
unusual.

A lot of people
in Chinatown,
your generation,

they believed
that was honorable

to be entrusted--
to be trusted.

Entrusted
with the public funds.

Yeah, that's right.

Do you have a copy
of the payoff letter for me?

Yes, I do.

Vera, voice-over: This whole
5-year ordeal began

in December of 2009.

I had a closing that day
involving one

of our loan officers
Ken yu.

Ken yu worked with us
around 4 years.

The staff really liked him.

He was very popular,
he had some charisma,

and he was doing
a good job.

It was
a normal closing

there was the sellers'
attorney,

and there was the buyers',

but there was a lot
of tension in the closing.

They weren't getting along.

They were arguing
over things.

Vera, voice-over: The attorney
asked me a question

about additional monies
that the borrower said

that she was paying.

It didn't make sense to me,
so I called Ken yu,

and I asked him
"what are these checks?"

He just goes,
"oh, blah, blah, blah,"

hedging and not answering.

Vera was very upset.

This girl gave thousands
of dollars, I'm told,

to this loan officer,
and she thought

they would be applied
towards her closing costs,

and they weren't.

It was very shocking.

I said, "this loan
cannot close."

That was Friday.
Then on Monday,

Ken came in,
and I fired him that day

because he was lying
all over the place.

Ken yu stole money,

and he was running
a money laundering operation

on his own unbeknownst
to everybody here.

Obviously
committed fraud.

I referred the case
to our compliance officer,

and then we hired
an outside consultant,

a former federal prosecutor

who was highly experienced
in fraud

and anti-money laundering
investigations.

During our investigation,
we found two other loan officers

who were engaged
in wrongdoing,

nothing at the level
of Ken yu,

but we fired them
nonetheless,

and some other staff
also resigned.

Shortly after, we notified
fannie Mae.

They actually
not only fired the loan officer

and canceled the closing.

They went straight to the office
of thrift management,

which was their regulator,

and they told them about it.

So it was perfect evidence
of a bank finding out something

that shouldn't be happening
and taking steps

to make sure
this didn't happen again.

The couple
unfortunately lost

down payment on this house,

which was, you know,
quite a chunk of money.

It was 10% of the house's price,
and they were very upset.

And at that point,
the borrower, she calls me.

She's like, "you know,
there's this money

"that he's taken
from me,

so what are you
gonna do?"

And I said to her--
i remember I was furious.

I'm like, "what am i
gonna do?"

Because I'm thinking
to myself,

"maybe she's in cahoots
with Ken yu

to defraud the bank."

I said, "if you
have a problem,

"you should go file
a complaint

at the police precinct."

A complaint was filed

with the local precinct.

The initial d.A.'S office
investigation

was focused solely
on the employee

who had been accused
of a theft.

Vera, voice-over: The d.A.'S
office started asking

us questions.

Everybody who asked us
for something we gave them.

We thought we actually
went beyond what

we were supposed to do.

My compliance officer
actually put together binders

for her staff,
and so basically,

the beginning of the case
was handed to her team

in binder form.

You know, at first,
you think that they're here

to figure out
what's going on for us

because they're law enforcement.

I don't know where
and at what point

we transitioned to--

in their mind, yeah,
to what--

in their mind
and then us realizing

"wait a minute.

You know, maybe
we're the target."

We spent a lot of time
investigating

and ended up
absolutely convinced

that the loan department
was corrupt

pretty much through and through.

Mr. wong ran
the loan department,

and widespread fraud was
occurring in front

of him every day.

The office was
convinced that the knowledge

of that corruption went up to
high enough people in the bank

that the bank was
legally responsible for it.

Let me assure you
that we do not take lightly

the charges
that we announce today.

In fact, the last time
this office filed

an indictment against a bank
was bcci in 1991.

Now these defendants,
the bank and former employees

and managers
from its loan department,

are charged with engaging
in a systematic scheme

to falsify and fabricate
loan applications

to the federal national
mortgage association,

commonly known as fannie Mae.

When the actual
indictment occurred,

I think the greatest fear
was that it would

directly involve Jill,

and that was something
that was incomprehensible to us,

just knowing how we were raised,

that she could ever be guilty
of something like that.

Jill, voice-over: I mean,
i think they definitely were

looking at trying
to get us, to get me, yeah,

because I'm the ceo
and president,

but they did not charge me
individually

because they did not have
any evidence

to support that I was involved
in the wrongdoing.

We felt that
the provable evidence stopped

at a certain level,

but that the individuals
who were charged

were high enough
in the corporation

to charge the corporation.

I was at
the district attorney's office

as a prosecutor for 7 years,

the very division that was
bringing this prosecution

against the family bank,

and when I found out
what they were doing,

I had to go to my bureau chief

to let him know that,

you know, this was going on,

there's a potential
conflict here,

and it made me so angry
that that very same office

where I had served
and been trained could do that.

To know that they were doing
this against my family,

who is me.

That's where I come from,

and then to know that
my reputation in the office

was one of utmost integrity.

It just...

Made no sense.

What was
especially interesting

was the way the d.A. Pursued
the public relations aspect

of this prosecution.

Reporters in this town
were treated

to this extraordinary
photo opportunity,

this almost stalinist-looking
chain gang.

I'm a former prosecutor.

I'm not soft on crime.

I've never seen a spectacle
like this.

These people were humiliated
intentionally

for no good reason.

It is not
the district attorney's office's

decision whether or not to put
people in handcuffs,

but people who are brought
into court

who have been charged
with crimes

are put into handcuffs.

That's a decision that's made
by the court officers.

I won't go into it
more than that

because, you know, it's not
something I'm involved with.

Court officers
don't come outside

of the courtroom.

They were led down the hallway

by the district attorney
investigators.

I got off the elevator,
and I saw what was happening.

I had never seen that
in my entire time

at the d.A.'S office.

I mean, this was like
the case of the century.

He never would have done that
with--with a black group

of employees, you know.

I mean, everyone would see
that for what it was,

and they actually
staged it so much so

that 3 of the people that
were in that chain

had already been arraigned,

had already posted bond

and were out
awaiting trial.

The d.A.
Had added charges

to Mr. wong's
indictment.

Usually, you don't even
have to go

through the process
again.

They just add
the charges,

you get arraigned again,
the bail is transferred,

and that's that.

Instead, they had me
turn him in,

and the next thing
you know,

I see him chained
to 15 other people,

being herded like cattle
down the hallways
of 100 centre street.

I've been doing this
for 25 years,

and I'd never seen
that happen before.

I'm sure there are
security issues

behind the decision,
but those decisions

can also have implications
and--and create feelings

that are--that don't reflect

the view of the office
or my view,

and--and to the degree
that happened here,

I think it was--it was
very unfortunate,

but it--it happened.

It's a humiliation
for me. It's a...

Chanterelle, voice-over:
And that's where I saw

incompetence combined
with arrogance.

My deputy bureau chief,
he's always so inspirational,

and he would always refer
to the inscriptions

outside 100 centre street

about having faith in justice,

but I don't--i don't
believe that anymore.

I decided to leave
the d.A.'S office.

It really angered
the Chinese community,

but so what?

They're not gonna decide
an election for Vance.

That's it. Ha ha ha!

You've done that
many times?

My whole life.

The is the association

where my great-grandfather was,

my grandfather, my dad.

Back in the days
with the exclusion act,

people do not have rights.

This is where they would
all come.

Family associations
like this one

are the only place
where they felt welcome.

Like Mr. sung, what drives me

is the sense of community.

Lee, voice-over: This case is
about an attack

on our community.

We're easy prey.

I think that's what's going on.

People have reason
to be fearful of authority

or what can happen to them,

you know, the retribution,
the years of oppression

that happen
from the street vendors,

from
the small businesses,

from people just writing
tickets because they can.

It's more than just
abacus savings bank

being cleared.

It's about exonerating
our entire community,

no matter what we do,

be it the little guy
selling vegetables

or a bank that's doing business.

I told Mr. sung, "I'm glad
they pick on you

because you're a fighter."

Cyrus Vance just felt
this is easier to attack,

especially it's a family bank,

but he doesn't realize
tom is not easy

to be pushed around.

And my girls,
they are tough,

smart, capable women,
so courageous.

Although this
is David versus goliath,

David, being abacus
federal savings bank,

has a slingshot,
and that is, you know,

they're a whole family
of lawyers.

I was gonna be able
to fight this.

They're almost gleeful.
They're like,

"we're gonna have
our day in court now.

"We're actually gonna
be able to show

that they were wrong."

They made a decision

that they were not
going to plead guilty

to something that they
didn't feel

the bank was guilty of.

That is a courageous choice,
and it's an expensive choice.

The d.A.'S office has
hundreds of lawyers

and took 5 years to do
their grand jury investigations,

and it is a daunting task
to fight the government.

Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen
of the jury.

This is a simple case
about a bank

that was converted
into a criminal conspiracy

fueled by greed.

Defendant
abacus federal savings bank

engaged in an ongoing
mortgage fraud conspiracy.

They routinely falsified
and faked mortgage documents

and then deceived the federal
national mortgage association,

commonly known as fannie Mae.

They took fannie Mae's
money for loans,

riddled with lies,
all the while promising

that the loans contained

truthful and verified
information.

The defendants did this
over and over and over again,

and between 2005 and 2010,

the bank earned millions
of dollars servicing

and selling fraudulent loans
to fannie Mae.

The defendants conspired
to steal money from fannie Mae

and did, in fact,
steal money from fannie Mae.

Historians tell us
that Abraham Lincoln

loved riddles,
and one of his favorites

went like this.

If you call a tail a leg,

how many legs
does a dog have?

And the answer is 4

because calling a tail a leg
doesn't make it a leg.

Calling fannie Mae a victim
of grand larceny and fraud

is like calling
a dog's tail a leg.

We have no loss,
we have no harm,

we have no larceny,

we have no fraud.

Hello?

Heather?
You're on speaker.

Ok.

So how did everything
go today?

It was a very
long day.

We're exhausted.
Long day.

I'm so tired.

Don't get me wrong.

I think the lawyer all
did a very, very good job,

but the feeling,
the emotion

was a little bit lacking.

A good, strong...
He did not touch
the emotion.

Presentation
of your case
requires emotion.

Of course,
there were so many
other things

that could have been said
or should have been said.

You got to let your
attorney at this point,

who's been living
with this case

and feels very strongly
about it,

you got to let him--
let him--

I think
he was--

leave him be,
let him do it.

He spent the most
time talking

about how we stopped
that closing,

and he showed you
what steps we took
after that.

If you--the jury
has to be convinced

by document
evidence.
Extremely thorough.

I agree
with you.

The facts are
brought out,

the laws are
brought out.

He said...
He actually said--

this 30-year
business.

He's not finished.
That's not his point.

Let him finish it.

You keep on
interrupting.

Let him express
his feelings.
He has to.

The jurors
are not allowed to
consider--

we're allowed to
express our
feeling, too.

Yeah, but you don't
have to be jumping
around.

I haven't been
jumping around.

I haven't been
talking actually
is--is--

you're talking back
to me again.

I got to do work.
I have to sign off
on loans.

That loan's been
sitting on my desk
for 3 days now.

I want to give
a loan out
to people.

You know what?
Don't get so excited.

I'm not. I'm just
saying I got to
get things done.

Let it go, let it go.

Heather, I'm hanging
up on you now, ok?

Rocket. Let's go.

Ok, Jill.
We'll leave you be.

Get out, get out,
get out, get out.
Come on.

We have to
work now.
Let's go!

So there were
180 or so counts

in this trial.

And let's also remember

that there were, I think,
10 guilty pleas here.

The d.A., his case was built
basically on the fact

that he arrested all these very
low-level loan officers.

They started going
to people's houses,

many people
at 6:00 in the morning,

knocking on their door
and demanding--

not forcing
but demanding that

people come down
to the district
attorney's office

and speak to them,
and they got a lot
of statements

from a lot of people
using that tactic.

We're talking
about Chinese people,

many of whom are--have come
from a police state,

and in China, people are
terrified of that,

the knock on the door.

Good morning, Mr. yu.

Good morning.

When the court officer
swore you in,

he asked you your name.

You said qui bin yu.

Is there another name
that you go by?

Ken yu.

Here's
this gentleman, Ken yu,

who was how the bank found out

about this misconduct
in the first place,

the guy that the bank fired.

Not only was he
falsifying documents

in order to put through loans,

he was stealing money
from customers.

That guy ends up being
the d.A.'S office star witness.

Mr. yu,
I'd like to direct

your attention
to the Ariel chi case.

Ms. chi was the borrower
that you stole money
from, right?

Yes, sir.

Isn't it true that
you asked Ms. chi

for a cash tip,
as well?

No. I never asked
her for a cash tip.

I don't remember
that part.

Mr. yu, you had
a telephone conversation
with Ariel chi.

Is that correct?

Correct, sir.

And at the time,
you didn't know

that Ms. chi was
actually tape recording
that conversation

with the assistance
of the district attorney's
office, correct?

Yes, sir.

The d.A.'S office was
trying to get him

to implicate the bank.

This recording was brought
into trial

through our attorneys
on cross examination of Ken yu.

Let's just get
right into it.

You told
me after closing

that I'm
supposed to go

and give you
cash, right?

To make things--

I mean--legally,
you're not supposed
to do that,

but, hey, it's
after the closing.

I mean, everything
else is legally not right,

so, you know, I think
another one...

It's just unwritten
rule that, uh--

it happens in every
case that I see.

You know, at the end,
you, like, you show
some appreciation.

Does this
refresh your recollection

that you did
ask her for a tip?

Yeah.

I noticed that
he couldn't look at me.

That's very telling.
Yeah.

He couldn't look at me,
but I was, like,

"I'm gonna look
at you."

I was like, "I'm gonna
burn you with my eyes."

I was looking
at him intently,
as well, too.

"I dare you to say
what you want to say."

He got on the stand
and perjured himself

over and over and over again

in ways that a defense lawyer
just doesn't get

in a career more
than once or twice.

The jury laughed at him
multiple times.

Abacus--you
told me that abacus
knew, right?

We don't say it
to the bank.

It's just individuals,
the people

who work for the bank.

I'm an employee
of the bank,

and so is the other
underwriter.

So then--ok,
but, like, abacus,

like, the bank they know
that everybody's

thing is made up,
right?

I--i will say that.

Now you had
a long pause there,

didn't you, Mr. yu?

I was driving.

So that long pause is
because you were driving,

you were distracted?

That's your testimony?

I cannot recall,
but I was definitely
driving.

You'll say that
if you get in trouble.

Is that what you
meant there?

I say that because--
that's a very--

Mr. yu, I'm asking you--

it's a strange way
to answer that question,

and I'm asking you
what you meant by...

I--i will say that.

I will say that.
I believe that.

Well, the jury can
decide what your
tone suggests.

It became quite clear

that he had no trouble lying.

If that's how he's
comfortable acting,

I would have thought that
he would be comfortable

saying much more to try
to directly link

Mr. tam and Mr. wong
and Jill sung

with what had happened,
but even he didn't do that.

But you also had to
not let go of the fact

that he didn't get
this way overnight.

He had years of this type
of behavior

that was just overlooked
on numerous occasions.

What role did
the bank's management play

in what had happened?

How much they actually were not
aware of what was happening

versus turning a blind eye
because things were going well

and the results were good?

Ken yu was clearly
a bad egg.

By using Ken yu, which is
the worst of the worst,

the d.A.'S office is saying,

"this is the face
of the institution,"

and the jurors would believe
that and find that credible.

If the bank was in such cahoots
with this person,

then why would we fire him?

We would want to save him.

What the d.A. Accused
abacus bank of was ridiculous

and really nothing considering
what the big banks were doing.

All the too big to fail banks,

Morgan Stanley, Goldman sachs,

j.P. Morgan chase,
and citicorp

have admitted to massive crimes,

and they've been accused
of even worse.

Virtually every major
financial company

and big bank in this country

and many
of the foreign banks, as well,

were engaged
in a far-ranging fraud scheme

whereby they were issuing
huge numbers of home loans,

particularly to middle-
and low-income borrowers,

and then they were repackaging
those loans and selling them

to investors

but disguising them
as high-rated securities.

Those were extremely
dangerous toxic loans

that were likely to blow up
and did blow up

in huge numbers after 2008.

But there was
this notion that

we couldn't bring
criminal action against them

because the collateral
consequences

of an institution
that was so large,

so internationally connected

that indicting them
or bringing criminal charges

against them could wreck
the entire financial system.

So you have

these enormous offenders,

and they commit crimes.

"We'll just take money."

They'll cut a check

and make it all go away.

I think
every American was upset

at the crisis that
we went through.

There was behavior that was
less than ethical,

and I think Americans were upset
that the security

against which loans were made
were often fictitious,

and in abacus, there was
some truth to that, too.

It's clearly
not a big,
big bank.

And clearly
it was not

representative
of the entire

financial community,

but I think the principle
was the same.

It shows, I think,
very graphically

this difference in how we deal
with a certain kind of offender

versus everybody else.

Mr. sung was not
offered the same deal.

He wasn't offered a chance
to just pay a fine.

He wasn't offered a chance
to plead guilty

to some minor thing.

He wasn't offered the chance
even of deferred prosecution.

He didn't get any of that
offered to him.

Thomas, voice-over:
The d.A. Told us

"you have to accept
a plea of guilty

for felony plus a fine."

Now what is our choice?

They wanted a conviction,

and Vance was gonna
go after it.

I think if you were gonna pick
a bank to pick on,

a family-owned company wedged
between a couple of noodle shops

in Chinatown is about
as easy a target

as you could possibly pick.

I think
the characterizations

that this was somehow
a cultural bias

on the office's part,
eh, entirely misplaced

and entirely wrong.

We devoted enormous amount
of effort

into protecting
immigrant communities,

and I felt that our handling
of the bank was consistent

with how we would have
handled the bank

if we were investigating a bank
that serviced

the south American community
or the Indian community.

There was nothing different
that we did

or purposefully designed
to treat this bank differently.

It was important
for prosecution to show

how exactly loan managers
knew what was happening.

I think the most compelling
piece of evidence they had

was the seating chart
of the abacus loan department.

The loan officers
who had been
indicted

were scattered
around the floor,

and somewhere
in the middle

was the loan
office manager.

This was
all happening

around Mr. tam's desk.

How would he not be aware
of this type of behavior

when this was going on
on a routine daily basis?

It's not
so simplistic

as they would like
you to believe

as a simple drawing
as to where someone sat.

But on top of that,
they brought Ken yu,

who was
a consummate liar,

and he speaks
a different language
than Mr. tam.

He conducts business
outside of the bank.

Actually, at one point,
they cross-examined Ken

because Ken said,
"oh, the guy gave
me cash.

I was counting
from my table."

When the borrower
came in to testify,

the borrower said, "no.

I met him in the lobby
of the bank."

We were able to show

that the loan officers
were taking steps

to hide their misconduct
from the underwriters

and the more senior levels
of the bank.

They would stop talking
when an underwriter

would come to the floor.

They would forge signatures
to make sure

the signatures would match up.

When the underwriter
looked at the file,

everything would look normal.

If the borrower
tells me that he works
at a local deli

and the income
on his tax return
is $300 a week,

that's not enough
to get a mortgage
loan from us,

but instead
of turning him down,

what I would do is ask
"is there an employer

that can verify
a higher income?"

And when
you would record
that information,

did you believe it
to be truthful?

Of course not.

And who were you
trained by?

That would be Mr. tam
and Mr. wong.

It was absurd.

You had loan originators
that were gonna make

commissions by getting
these loans through,

and then you had people
like Mr. wong,

who had no incentive
whatsoever financially
to do this.

So they did everything
they could to hide

their crimes
from Mr. wong

because they knew
he wasn't involved

and that he would
deny loans,

which he did many times.

He would deny people
where the income

couldn't be verified

or where it seemed like

the income was out
of line.

There was one denial
he did

where there were
fraudulent documents
that he uncovered,

and his denial of loans

cost the originator
his commission.

I think the people
who went to the bank

and got the loan didn't
fully understand perhaps

that what they were doing
was lying,

but I think that ultimately
the unintended losers here

were the borrowers
in the community.

We were actually contributing
to the revival of the community.

It is absolutely mind-boggling
for him to say that.

When the indictment
came down,

sung saw it
as a existential threat

to his bank
and rightly so

because so many
institutions fail

just--just from having
that indictment.

Thomas, voice-over: We already
went through a crisis in 2003

that almost closed
down the bank.

Still no sign

of a former
Chinatown
bank manager

charged with
embezzling

more than a
million dollars.

The FBI is
looking for
Carol lin,

who ran
the canal street branch

of abacus federal savings.

Word of the alleged scam
sent off panic waves

among bank customers.

So in 2003,
i happen to be doing

a story in Chinatown.

My photographer at the time
said to me,

something going on
up the block.

Back it up,
back it up!
Back it up!

Chaos in Chinatown
as thousands of investors

make a run on abacus
federal savings bank,

demanding their money
after hearing

that a former bank manager
was being investigated

for embezzling
a million dollars.

When the rumors spread
in the Asian community,

the run for the dough
was on.

Take a walk.
Go elsewhere.

Do something else today.

Cops struggled
to control the crowd,

one even bitten
by an elderly woman

demanding her money.

Many struggled to avoid
being crushed in the crowd.

In that short
period of time,

people withdraw something
like $44 million,

putting us
in a liquidity crisis.

Associated press report
that we have not seen

this type of run
since the thirties,

since the depression.

Don't look now,
but there's something
funny going on

over there
at the bank, George.

Hmm?

I've never really seen one,

but that's got all the earmarks
of being a run.

You have to understand
something about Thomas sung.

To me, he's like Jimmy Stewart
out of "it's a wonderful life."

I'll be back
in a minute, Mary.

He's the small-town banker,
but the town is Chinatown.

I went to
the police department,

asked them
give me a bullhorn.

I went on the line,
and I said to them...

"I'm here."

You're--you're thinking of
this place all wrong,

as if I had the money
back in a safe.

Well, your money's
in Joe's house--

that's right next to yours--

and in the Kennedy house
and Mrs. maitland's house

and a hundred others!

And I actually went out
and shake hand with them,

"feel my warm hand. I'm here.
I'm the real person."

After I did that,
the run subsided.

Relative calm
in Chinatown,

in sharp contrast
to Tuesday's mad rush

on the abacus
federal savings bank--

the ceo of the bank
assuring investors.

They knew that
everything was ok.

The people came back.
They came in, deposit money.

They thank us.

If I did not have that rapport
with the people,

then I would have been
much more worried

that the d.A. Indicted the bank.

But if verdict is guilty,
there is the possibility

that abacus would not survive.

I never supported him
with the bank.

I have to be honest.

I told my husband. I said,
"banking is not good."

I felt it's
a troubled business.

There are too many banks.

You know, not every one
is successful.

And not every one will really
appreciate what happens,

you know, if something
wrong with the bank.

When you have
a false document,

you enhances the
ability of fannie Mae

to ask you to
take back the loan.

I really felt my girls
should go to do something else

that they'd like to do.

I didn't want them
to work at the bank,

but they went in,
you know,

because they want to
help their father.

They are fiercely loyal to tom.

You agree
that income and assets

is a material fact
that has to be accurately
represented.

Chanterelle, voice-over:
So I had never, until now,
found a motivation really

to come work for the bank.

And this year,
when the trial started,

I just--i was having
nightmares myself.

I mean, Vera and i
were sharing a room

back at my parents' house
in Connecticut,

and we were both
waking each other up.

And i--and I realized,
i was, like, "i can't go on

in my own career
right now anymore."

It's, like, I have to
help my family now.

- 'Cause I think the law--
- no, I'm saying--

the document represents
a material fact.

I--I'm saying if it
is truly material--
listen to me.

If it is truly
material, the loan
will go in default.

Differentiation
may not make...

Chanterelle, voice-over: I get
really frustrated sometimes.

This is probably a factor
of being the youngest.

But sometimes I just, like,
whatever I say,

it's just not heard.

Papa, if that's the--
you are not
convincing.

If that's the form--
if that's the form

that you choose to use--
I'll tell you what is
tongue in cheek.

Papa, if that's--
she said, "no harm,
no foul."

If that's the form--
i never
said that.

Hold on. I have
a question, papa.
She said that.

I didn't say that.
If that's the form
that you choose to use--

she used that word.
To represent--

- if that is the form--
- she uses that word.

That's not--
that's not true.

I--i just told you--
I'm not using those--

there is harm.
It's very difficult.

Ok, nothing more
for me to say.

Girls...

This is my office. Sorry.

As you can see, my desk
is now piled extremely high,

but I think it's
always been a mess.

That's just my personality.

My father has always said,
"as an attorney,

you should be neat
and organized."

Maybe I'm just not cut out
to be an attorney.

Uh, is there anything,
Tracy, on your desk,

anything urgent I need to get
done before the weekend?

We haven't been having
many closings

because of the effect
of the trial.

I've been waking
about 5:00 in the morning,

getting work done
early in the morning,

banging out all these e-mails
and answering e-mails

and then go to court and then
just come back to the office.

I actually try to get
more work done during lunch,

and then we would
run back to court.

Did you
ever tell the person

that you spoke to
at abacus bank

that you were a manager
at Becky's nail spa?

I was not a manager.

The person told me
that my income was very low,

so it's better
i have to be a manager.

Otherwise,
i can't get the loan.

The prosecution,
over and over,

tried to suggest that
the borrowers were innocent,

that it was the loan officers
who were inducing the borrowers

to falsify documents
to qualify their loans.

On this loan
file, why does it say
you're a manager?

I don't know.

Did you tell anyone
that you were a manager?

Nope.

What we were able to show
with witness after witness,

that it was not just
the loan officers.

Borrowers were trying
to fool the bank

in order to
put through loans.

Mr. lin, you had
your employer sign

the verification
of employment form

for the loan file,
is that correct?

Yes.

And he signed
as the co-owner
of the China sun.

Did anybody co-own the
restaurant with Mr. pen?

I don't really know.

You don't know if
shu qin lin was also
a co-owner

of the China sun restaurant?

I only meet this
person a few times.

I don't know if this
person's a co-owner of
the restaurant or not.

Shu qin lin you only
met a few times,

and you don't know
if she's a co-owner?

They didn't tell me.
I didn't ask.

Ok, shu qin lin, spelled
s-h-u q-i-n l-i-n.

You don't know
who that is?

I know who that is.

You do know
who that is.
So, who is that?

You can say,
she's like a sister.

Is she like a sister,
or is she your sister?

She's my sister.

There was
a string of witnesses

who were just abject liars,

to the point where
it became a concern of ours

that the jury's
going to think that

that everyone that
the bank deals with--

former employees and customers--
are just full of shit.

So, the trial's
been going on for the
9th weeks now, right?

Is it 9?
Day 52.

You've been counting?
It's around day 52.

I've been keeping track
of the number of days

since--since
the jury was--yes.

That happened--
since January 12th.

I just
cannot believe

how this thing could be
dragged out so long.

The weeks in trial and
the expenses involved...
The expenses.

The millions of
dollars that's spent
to defend yourself.

And witness after witness--
of course they would know
they are lying.

So you bring
these people out,
day after day,

for 9 weeks,

and what is the effect
on the community?

People get
the wrong impression,

that Chinese
are not law-abiding.

That--that's
just too bad.

Well, we can
hopefully win this case
and make a statement.

Or even if you
win the case...

The damage...

Well, to us--

the shame on the
community is done.

Chinese immigrants
come from a culture

in which so much financial
transactions are based on trust

and trust that's not
underwritten by
a piece of paper,

on trust that's an intimate
understanding, you know,
between members of a community

or between family members.

I don't think any of the
borrowers think that they are
really committing a crime,

even if some of these loan
documents are falsified.

One particular
individual had been approved

for an $800,000 mortgage loan,

but on their tax return, they
were earning only $24,000 a year

and I think this was
as a couple.

There were a lot of gasps
across the jury panel.

How does this even happen?

I know I would have a very
difficult time going into a bank

and getting approval, you know,
for even a couple hundred
thousand dollars for a loan.

Tax evasion, I think lurks
in the background of this case.

Because they work primarily
in a cash economy,

a lot of the borrowers
had money that they
did not report to the IRS.

Only when they're
purchasing a house

did it become necessary
for them to prove how
much money they had,

but then they were trapped
in this position of not
having the paper trail.

Maybe folks in that community
don't--don't pay, you know,

100% of their taxes.

These are all issues that
if they have a problem
with a, you know,

with any immigrant community
that operates in cash, ok,

they have the wherewithal
to do something about that.

Um, the IRS does, too.

Abacus isn't the FBI.

There's no bank regulations
that require the bank
to basically serve

as a police force
against its own customers.

There'd be chaos if your bank
basically was the IRS.

No one will want
to bank with any bank.

You can say
that our responsibility

was to provide credit
to the community,
not to be a policeman.

And I remember Mr. sung
said this to me, with regard to
a restaurant, you know.

He said, a guy comes to him to
modernize his restaurant.

And he said, "i don't even need
to ask him his--his income

"because I eat at that
restaurant, and I see
how full it is.

"So, you know, when he comes in
and asks me for a loan,

I'm ready to
give him the money".

That's the kind of thing
a community bank can do,

and in the Chinese community,
that's what they were doing.

They knew their community.
They were making these loans.

The prosecution
had insisted since
the beginning of the trial

that many of the documents
that were part of
the mortgage package

were fraudulent, and that
included, in many cases,
gift letters--

gift letters written by
relatives or friends.

There was knowledge
throughout the loan department

that what was being put forward
as unencumbered gifts

were, in fact, loans.

And the source of those loans?

Money that came from...
Who knows where.

In Chinese culture,

the line between a gift
and a loan is very blurry,

to the extent where there
isn't even really a distinction

when it's coming from your
parents or your relatives.

This is what immigrants
have always done.

Jewish families did it.
Irish families did it.

Italian families did it.
Chinese families do it.

If I receive, you know,
$50,000 from my mother,

there isn't a paper
document that says
i must return that sum.

But, you know, if I end up
caring for her in her old age,

that's a form of payment,

and I remember sitting
in the courtroom hearing
how perplexed they were

when they were answering
this question, when, you know,

repeatedly they were
being badgered.

You know, "is this a gift, or is
this a loan? Can you clarify?"

They said, "well, you know,
if I can pay it back, I will.

But, you know, if i--if I can't,
we're a family."

So, gift letters
actually had to be

from a relative or spouse.

But it came to surface that
these loan officers sometimes
were listed as the gift donors.

Mr. yu,
at the top of this

gift letter certification,

it reads that you are
making a gift of $9,000

to your cousin qi zen chen.

Is qi zen chen your cousin?

No.

Did you make
a gift of $9,000
to qi zen chen?

He gave me $9,000 in cash,
and we went downstairs

and got the certified
bank check in his name.

Tell us how
it came to be that
qi zen chen gave you $9,000

and then you gave him
a check.

This particular customer
did not have any
credit scores.

Can you tell us from
this document who
approved this loan?

That would be
Ms. Vera sung.

If Ken yu is signing
a gift letter, "Ken yu,"

that would be disturbing.

That's not what happened.

The Chinese name of Ken
is not known, but people
just called him Ken.

Ken yu clearly knew that

and purposely put his
Chinese name on that check
for that reason,

to obfuscate that it was him
who had given a "gift"
to the borrower.

Mr. yu, what is
the commitment letter?

That the bank agrees
to give this borrower a loan

if all the conditions
were met.

Right. And gift letters,
for example,

have to be in the file
before you close,

but not before the
commitment letter goes out,
isn't that right?

You are right, sir.

So the verification of
employment that you
helped fake,

the gift letters
that you helped fake,

were done after Vera sung
approved this loan on behalf
of the board of directors,

isn't that right?

In this case, yes.

It's trying for us because
it's our father's legacy.

Exactly.
And he's passed that
legacy on to us.

And Vera always--when she
wants to be very mean to me,

she'll point out, "it happened
under your watch, right?"

So she can be
very mean to me.

She's like, "you! You know,
it happened under you--"

I'm such
a mean older sister.

So, you know, so, then
i could sit there
and be like,

"wow, you know,
i really failed."

So much time has gone by.

Our father was 75,
and now he's 80.

People don't understand--
there are some long-term effects

from going through such
a traumatic experience.

"This bank
will surely continue
to seek vindication

"not simply for the ultimate
acquittal of the bank itself,

"but for the larger
Chinese immigrant community

"that it has served
for 31 years.

"The raw display
of power by the d.A.

"Will always remind us
and other minority communities

that our human rights
can easily be trampled upon."

It's a little bit
counterintuitive
the way you write it.

You want to tell people
that you cannot allow
something bad to go on--

exactly.
That's what I told him--

and so you're
saying, "human rights
can easily be trampled upon,"

and I don't read it--
i don't want people to think

you're saying that it can be.

In other words, it should be
a normative sentence not--

no, no, no.
"Should not be trampled upon."

The cost has been
great, but it's very different

per each member of the family

because we all handle stress
in a very different way.

See, chanterelle, this
is all in here, but he
changed my words again,

and then he didn't put
it in properly in here.

A little bit dry.

Because that's
just chicken.

No Mayo,
that's why, right?

Mm-hmm.

But there's cheese.
Mm-hmm.

My father, especially,
is able to handle stress
in an incredible way.

If you--if you don't
like your sandwich--
are you ok?

Fine.
But you said it's dry.

Mm-hmm.

As he's gotten older,

I think he feels that he's
done what he's wanted to do.

Um, he's a little more
philosophical,

and to know that he's done
the best that he can do

is good for him.

If it's
too much chicken,

you don't have to
eat all of it.
No, i--

he said--
he says it's--
did it come with avocado?

He complained.
He said it's dry.

Did they put--oh, they
didn't put mayonnaise.

They didn't put--yeah,
but they put avocado,

did they put the avocado?

They put avocado,
but he says it's dry.

I asked him if you
wanted avocado.

Now go on and eat.

He says, "it's dry,
but I'm easy."

This is how he is.
He's very calm, and I'm very--

I'm like jumping beans. I'm
always running around, you know.

That's how I am.
And it drives me nuts.

My mother,
i think, probably feels
things the strongest.

She's a very emotional person,
and I think defines herself,

to a large degree, by the
perceptions that others have,

so...It hurts her.

I felt I lost my face.

You know, Chinese always
want to save their face.

I was embarrassed to even see
my friends because nobody know--

I really don't know too much
about the banking,

and how I'm going to
explain everything.

All I can say is,
we did not do it.

Yesterday was horrible,
so torturous, you know.

I just couldn't stand people
thinking of my children
that bad, you know.

The prosecutor is saying
that Jill lied, so that
really bothered me.

I felt like screaming.

Of course, Vera always tell me,
"don't talk, don't move,"

so I had to sit there with
just--suppress myself, you know.

That's why I couldn't
even eat lunch yesterday.
I had a stomachache.

Ms. roma, is the federal
national mortgage association,

otherwise known as fannie Mae,
in the business to make money?

Fannie Mae is in
the business of providing
home ownership

and, as a result of that,
fannie Mae does make money, yes.

This whole case ultimately
came down to fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae was the alleged
victim in the case.

The prosecution's premise

was that the 30 loans
that were in the indictment

that we had sold to fannie Mae
were not good,

because the documentation
themselves were not what
they were supposed to be.

The bank can do
whatever it wants.

The bank could keep those loans,
it could service those loans

and care not a wit
about the documentation.

That was the bank's choice--
keep them or sell them.

It chose to sell them.

In selling the loans
to fannie Mae,

they simply passed the risk off
to unknowing purchasers.

Ms. roma, fannie
Mae doesn't want to
lose money, does it?

Absolutely not.
And it doesn't want our
lenders to lose money either.

And you are familiar
with the default rate
of abacus loans

during the indictment
period, correct?

Yes, I am.

During the 5-year period
of the alleged fraud,

abacus sold a little over
3,000 mortgages to fannie Mae.

The number of defaults of
those 3,000 totaled 9.

9!

Would you say that
that is a low default rate?

The default rate is low.

Would you say it's
microscopically low?

Objection to
the characterization!

Sustained as to
the word "microscopic."

Abacus
federal savings bank

had one of the nation's
lowest default rates,

not the highest,
one of the lowest.

But that's
not what we're looking at.

We're looking at, you know,
was there falsified information,

and was it sold,
and it was.

These loans had not lost any
money. They're performing.

It was clear financially
who was benefiting

was fannie Mae
from that transaction.

People got their loans.
They got their houses.

It was--it was almost
ridiculous! It was almost
literally ridiculous!

Larceny
is about stealing.

To bring larceny charges
against the bank

when the supposed victim
actually made hundreds of
millions of dollars,

it just--it's outrageous.

My view is, if I take $5.00
out of your wallet,

uh, I've taken your money.

If I...Ultimately,
if I give that back to you,

or if you don't,
in the very end,

actually have any loss because
the money gets back to you,

that's still,
in our view, a larceny.

If I sold fannie Mae
a loan for $5.00,

not only did they get
their $5.00 back on time,

as what they thought
they were going to get it,

they also got $3.00 to $4.00,
$5.00 back in interest,

which makes it $10, so tell me
how that is considered larceny.

There are two types
of mortgage fraud

that generally occur.

We call them fraud-for-profit
and fraud-for-home.

There are a certain number of
people who commit the crime

of mortgage fraud because
they lie on their application

to get a loan for the home
that they want to live in.

Is it technically a crime?
Absolutely.

Is it a crime that is worth the
resources of a state or federal
government? Absolutely not.

These have low default rates
on these types of loans.

The losses
are relatively minor.

The other types of fraud, fraud
where there really was never

any intention
to pay the mortgage,

it was just about reaping profit
as quickly as possible,

or fraud that went into
these complex securities
that were built,

when the knowledge that there
was little to no chance that

these loans are
gonna get repaid,

that's where the
resources need to go.

And throwing your
hands up in the air

and suggesting that, well, gee,
any time a crime is committed,

we put all of our resources in
to prove it, is just not true.

I mean, today, walking
over to my office,

the light was red.
And I confess,

I walked across the street
against a red light.

I am absolutely guilty of
jaywalking, and I could
have gotten a ticket.

Did I get one? No.

It would have been a complete
waste of the NYPD's resources

to issue me a ticket and
divert them of the real crime

that's going on in the city,

and that's where it all
comes back into these--

this--this idea of discretion.

And regulators and
prosecutors have to act with
the necessary discretion

of when to bring charges
and when not to bring charges.

Neil is certainly
entitled to his opinion.

Uh, I...

Disagree
with the characterization

that this was jaywalking

because I think it was
systemic and over a long term,

and ultimately the risk was
passed without notice to...

You know, to third parties.

There should probably be
regulatory punishment for
that type of behavior,

without a question, but
who got hurt? Who lost money?

Who are the--the--the taxpayers
that got hurt?

Who are the investors
that got hurt?

Who are the individuals
that lost their homes?

Who are the people that got
tricked into mortgages
they couldn't afford

and got thrown out
on the street?

Who lost their life savings?

What financial system collapsed?

What gdp took a hit because of
the actions that abacus did?

And as far as I can tell, none.

Frankly, if every bank
had--had underwritten
as well as abacus

during the indictment period,
we wouldn't have had
a financial crisis.

We really need to talk
about one issue right now,

which is whether or not
we should have Jill testify.

It's really difficult,
like we keep switching
back and forth.

As of yesterday, rusty
believed that she should
testify.

Kevin, took
a different position.

He was a little bit
more hesitant.
Right.

And papa feels so far
that Jill should testify.

Actually, rusty and papa
have the same opinion.

And i-

right. And he thinks that
a jury might not feel much

towards a corporate
institution,

whereas if you put
a personal face to it,
such as Jill,

they'll begin to see and
feel and realize that the

consequences of a conviction
are--are serious.

However, other people believe
that if they haven't
made their case

then you leave it at that.

Also, nothing has been
truly said of Jill--
right.

To implicate her
in anything.

Right. I feel like
i have yet to hear a reason
to put Jill on.

In fact, if you
don't put her on,

it's not because you're trying
to hide anything, but because

there's no--no--
there's nothing to defend.

Nothing to defend.

Excuse me! Excuse me!
Am I in the voice or what?

Yes. Yes.
The mother is speaking.

That's a very good question.
She's not here right now.

She didn't even
want to have this
conversation yesterday.

The feeling that we got
from her was that if she
needs to testify she will,

but she would feel terrible
if somehow she didn't
testify well

and that would result
in a negative, um, outcome.

Yeah, she would--
she would blame herself.

I just wanted to--papa,
i know you feel strongly
about Jill testifying,

and I had felt the
same way, but one--

you're not anymore? Ok.

Ok.
Have changed your mind.

Yes, changed my mind.
Yeah.

So, how would we feel if Jill
didn't take the stand

and we did not win
the case?

Would we have regrets?

I can answer that,
i can answer that.

I have given the matter a
careful and thorough analysis.

If the outcome is not for me,

I do not and should not
feel regretful.

They have said,
it's their theory,

that these kinds of documents
are so obviously false,

that Mr. tam and Mr. wong and
the bank's other underwriters
should have caught that,

and the fact that they didn't
catch them suggested that they
were involved in the fraud.

That's what they're telling you,
ladies and gentlemen.

But here's the problem.
Fannie Mae,

the best underwriters
in the country, all they do,
all day, every day,

is look at loan files from
all over the country.

They are the gold standard,
and they didn't see anything
wrong with these documents.

So, if the best there is
doesn't see anything wrong,
how can that be criminal?

It's not.

And here, I'm gonna
show you again,

fannie Mae's e-mail from 2012,

because it sheds some light

on this very issue.

"We recognize that you have
very unique needs

"that are closely linked
to the borrowers you serve.

"While doing anything customized
in this environment

"is very difficult,

"the team is committed to
doing whatever we can

to develop solutions that meet
the needs of your culturally
unique clientele."

Ladies and gentlemen,
fannie Mae itself

is conceding here that
this is Chinatown.

It's a thousand small
businesses, first generation,

special needs--and the bank
serves that community.

Does that pose challenges
to the bank? Absolutely.

It would be a lot easier
to deal with a bunch of
investment bankers

who have w2s and
tax returns all the time.

That would be easier,
but the bank has chosen to serve

this community,
challenges and all.

Abacus' own
narrative that they are
trying to give you

is that they are trying to
assist hard-working,

first generation immigrants
live the American dream
as a community service.

That's admirable,
and it's great, and abacus
federal savings bank

is free to do that and then hold
the risk on their own books.

What they are not free to do is
take risks with other people's
money and not tell them.

They cannot take those risks
and pass it off to somebody else
without telling the truth.

Thank you.
5--6 bowls. 6 bowls.

And then she tried
to say that these loans

seemed to be representative
of our entire
loan portfolio,

which is not true.

She literally
rolled her eyes at--
at your mission

and building this bank
for this community,
to serve the community

and to help these people
search for the American dream.

She just cast it aside.

Isn't it fortunate,
at my age,

I can hardly hear everything
that's said in the court?

- That's because you--
- that's a blessing.

Selective hearing.

Did you observe
in the beginning

that the honorable
cy Vance himself

attended the beginning part?

I did not see it.

I have
seen him on TV,

and he is much
smaller in person.

Ha ha! Yeah!

As a family
we've always been very close,

but we've unified even more
during this time which is great.

Why are you
laughing at me?

She was just in tears,

and now she's
bursting out laughing.

The judge
sounds like "the godfather."

No, he said
he has to save his voice
for the jury charge

'cause that's gonna be
in a few hours.

Are you not eating
any rice? Are you on a diet?

No, I'm not.

The defendants are each
charged with 20 counts of grand
larceny in the second degree,

one count of grand larceny
in the first degree,

48 counts of falsifying
business records in
the first degree,

9 counts of residential mortgage
fraud in the second degree,

1 count of residential mortgage
fraud in the first degree,

and one count of conspiracy
in the fourth degree.

Jurors, your responsibility
in this case

is extremely important;

however, it is limited
to this case.

You have not been asked to
make some general assessment

of corporate governance in
America or whether banks
are good or not.

You're not here to send
a message to anyone.

You're here to determine whether
the people have proven,
beyond a reasonable doubt,

that the defendants
here on trial

are guilty of one or more of
the crimes charged in this case.

If they were going
to vindicate all of us,

we would hope that it
happen quickly,
you know what I mean?

And like, "oh, we heard this
evidence. It's not worth it."

Just vindicate everybody.

This is a really
nerve-wracking time,

not knowing what
the jury's going to decide

and wondering how come they
didn't come back already.

At this point,
now, I think it's really
bothering me.

It's like, why can't
they see what seemed so
apparent in the trial?

Hate waiting in court.
It's boring and annoying.

I'd rather be doing work,
but our lawyers want us
to be here in court.

In case the jury have questions,
they want the jury to see

we're still here and we can help
pick out the documents.

So, I'll have to bring a lot of
work- a picnic basket of work.

Day after day,
the jury did not come back.

And, in fact, the jury was
asking for various documents-

some, you know, unfavorable
for the prosecution, some
unfavorable for the defense.

The first note came back,
and they said

they wanted the list of the
loans that the d.A.'S office
was claiming were bad.

And then they wanted all
the loan files for those loans.

And then they wanted
all the denial files.

It got to the point
when we were actually
trying to analyze

the handwriting on the notes.

We all know
we didn't do anything.
It's--that's--that's--

I mean, it's
impossible that we're found
guilty on all counts.

It's just impossible.

We're driving ourselves
mad trying to speculate,

"oh, this person
must be thinking this,"

and maybe they're thinking
quite the opposite.

There was 3 different occasions
where we were a hung jury.

Everyone felt very strongly
in their view on it

and had good, substantial
enough evidence to why.

The fact that there had
been wrongdoing at the bank,

was not really in dispute.

The real crux of this case

was whether you could link
what had happened

to Mr. wong, Mr. tam,
and Jill sung.

Where we had the toughest
time, was the falsified
business records

and because there was
too many hands that were

that was touched throughout
the bank for the loan
approval process

for things to go unnoticed.

So, for me, that called
into a major question was,

was there a conspiracy
behind this.

There was one specific
juror, not Jessica,

who felt that we as a jury had
a sort of broader responsibility

given the context of
the financial crisis in 2008,

to make an example
out of this bank,

that we were somehow doing
a disservice to--to the public,

to maybe the criminal
justice system, by
allowing them to walk free.

We sent a note
on June 3rd to the judge

that we were hopelessly
deadlocked.

8 were on the not guilty side.

4 was on the guilty,

and I was one of the 4
on the guilty.

Hello? Hi. Ok.

So they were
dismissed today,

and they came back
with a note again

saying that they are
deadlocked

and that both sides
are adamant.

And one of the jurors
actually came out,

and she already told us
yesterday

she was planning to go
and see her brother in Florida,

who has this really bad illness,

and so the judge promised
that by tomorrow night

she would be gone,
out of here.

So the judge gave them
what they call an Allen charge,

which basically said,
"go back and try to do this."

So that means that
by the end of tomorrow

either there will be a verdict,

or there'll be a mistrial.

Tomorrow. That's it.

Tomorrow will be
the last day,

whether or not there's
a unanimous verdict,

the judge will
discharge the jury.

By the end of tomorrow,
it will either be
a mistrial or a verdict.

It's over by the end
of tomorrow

unless cy Vance,
in his infinite wisdom,

decides to retry
the case.

Jill, why are you
calling mom?

Mommy's
concerned about
papa's well-being.

He's 80 years old,
and he's been up

since 5:30 A.M.,
and he has nothing
to eat for dinner.

We need to get
you home,

so let's get you
some food.

Papa, you do.

Can you hear mom?

So we're gonna put
him on a trai--

he will go home
now, mommy.

You got to go home,
papa.

Mommy's worried.

Ok. We'll eat.

You got to eat now.

It's killing you.

After such
a long trial

and so many charges
against them,

there's gonna be
very little possibility

that, you know, the bank will be
completely exonerated.

The jury's gonna find them
guilty of something.

If we go down
on one, it's a defeat.

You know, it's
got to be 80 to nothing.

You're either a felon,
or you're not.

If you're convicted
on one felony,

it would be very serious
ramifications for the bank.

"New York times" article
on Friday, June, 5, 2015.

"After a 4-month trial,
a jury found

"abacus federal savings bank
and two of its senior officers

"not guilty of grand larceny
and other charges on Thursday,

"rejecting the Manhattan
district attorney's attempt

"to prove that the bank
systematically lied for years

"to the federal national
mortgage association.

"After the court clerk read
the 240 counts

"and repeated words
'not guilty'

"after each one,
members of the sung family wept

and embraced one another."

How do
we feel?

How do you feel?

I feel relieved.
Relieved.

So many emotions.

Very, very happy,

but I was told not
to express any feelings.

No, no.
During the trial.

Now you can
express your feelings.

I feel very happy.

I'm really looking forward
to all of us

being able to move on.

My father--we had
to text him,

and actually you got up
and called him.

He didn't respond
do the text,

so then
i called him.

He answered
the phone

and just sort of
took a step back

and started
microwaving
his vegetables

and said, "um, what?
There's a verdict?

Oh. Should I come?"

Like, you know,
processing.

I didn't
feel great about it,

but I wouldn't have felt great

if the verdict
had been guilty.

The way that the law
was read to us

is that under each charge
all of the different elements

had to be met.

In my mind, there were
quite a significant few

that 3 of the 4 requirements
were met but not all of them,

and even though that
you felt strongly

that there was guilt
in some aspect,

you could not vote
a guilty verdict,

and that's where the change came
for the 4 of us

to move over
to the not guilty side.

It was doing the right thing.

By the end of it,
it was difficult to believe

that the prosecution had spent
however many years it took

to actually build the case
to then--

after they saw what all
of their work had yielded--

that they would have thought
that they had enough evidence

to take this case
to trial and win.

Abacus was not exonerated.

It was not exonerated.

Exoneration is when a person
is proven innocent.

I don't think there's
anything here that says

that abacus was proven innocent.

Poor loser comes
to mind.

There's a right thing
to say

when a prosecution
office loses a case.

"We respect--
although we disagree
with the verdict,

we respect
the jury's verdict
period."

Exactly.

Of course I'm
very happy at the time.

I'm very happy
at the time.

I feel relief

because it has been
long time,

and I just want--
want--want to resume
my normal life.

"The bank's founder
Thomas sung...

"79...

"Said,

"'this wrongful prosecution has
exhausted a small community bank

"'such as ours.

"'This is a gross injustice,

"'not only to a small bank,

"'but it's casting a shadow
on our community.

This is totally
prejudicial and incorrect.'"

ok.

Not guilty.

Not guilty. Not guilty.
Not guilty.

The d.A. Has totally
and unequivocally lost.

Now this part is
critically important.

We Chinese have to learn
from other minorities

when it comes
to the community's interest,

you must let those who are
in power know

that this shall
never happen again.

Everybody's fair game,

and the question is
what are we gonna do about it?

I think we need to vote,
and we need to challenge people

to keep them accountable.

Yes.
Superimposed.

Ok. I'm so glad
you are all here

in a very happy occasion,

and I want to thank everybody's
support and dedication

this last 5 years
that we went

through this
unusual experience,

and let's look for happier
days to come.

Ok.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.

Let us eat cake!
Let's eat cake!

Let them eat cake.

This is really
good, though.

It's green tea.
Black bean, green tea.

There's many
different flavors.

Jill, voice-over: It's not
really a celebra--

I mean, we were vindicated,
and that's great,

but our goal was never
to go through a criminal trial

and be vindicated.

Our goal was to serve
our community, right,

so this is such a waste.

It's a tragedy.

We have a lot of cake.
We may have too much cake.

The fact that
they find innocent

give all of us hope that
the America that we believe in

still--you still have a chance,

but it will cost you
$10 million.

Thomas, voice-over:
The Chinese has a saying.

If you want a really hard,
sharp steel make a sword,

you had to go
through fire.

This experience should make
my daughters stronger,

make them better person.

Vera, voice-over:
I got a text from a friend,

who is part of the Chinese
immigrant community,

and she said that she looked
at the news this morning

and felt proud
of being Chinese American,

so that actually makes
all of this worthwhile.

Ok. Take care. Bye!