Just a short note on this. Think about it. Why would he have taken the money and used it for a condo when he had to cover bank losses on mortgage loans that were in default?
Answer: the bank had no losses, so there was nothing to account for.
This money wasn’t income. It couldn’t be booked as capital contribution, but his use of it to buy a condo didn’t harm the bank one bit. Their balance sheet is unchanged.
My guess is that if he asked an attorney familiar with accounting for banks, he would have suggested that the bank use the money to buy something that can be capitalized on the balance sheet.
Otherwise the financial statements look cooked by the receipt of “bailout” money when there were no losses to bailout. There were no losses to bailout because his bank never assumed the risk of loss on the subject securitized loans.
His bank never advanced any funds for the loans. His bank never used its credit to fund the loans. His bank was most probably an originator who was paid for services rendered. What services? The service of acting as though they were the lender when they were not. My guess is that unless they get him on some technicality his prosecution and sentence, if any, will be light.
Banker Used Bailout Money To Buy Luxury Condo