The European Union is investigating price-rigging in the global oil market, a widely-known yet unaddressed problem. That investigation hit a peak with last Tuesday’s raids of British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Statoil offices. By the end of the week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked the U.S. Justice Department to undertake its own investigation into the effects on U.S. consumers.

Day-to-day oil transaction prices are based on benchmarks set by private firms, and the EU investigation focuses on the firm Platts, whose oil price benchmarks are “the most influential,” according to CNN Money. By manipulating individual transations late in a given day, traders can tweak the next day’s benchmark to increase their profits on other deals.

This looks to be very similar to last year’s massive, under-covered LIBOR scandal, in which megabanks colluded to gear a supposedly market-driven interest rate toward their own interests. CNN Money explains the shared pitfalls of basing daily price-setting on voluntarily-provided, unaudited data from the biggest players in the two industries:

“[T]hey are both widely used benchmarks that are compiled by private organizations and that are subject to minimal regulation and oversight by regulatory authorities,” the review, led by former financial regulator Martin Wheatley, said in August . “To that extent they are also likely to be vulnerable to similar issues with regards to the motivation and opportunity for manipulation and distortion.” […]

There are also concerns about the fact that reporting to Platts is done by traders voluntarily. In a report issued in October, the International Organization of Securities Commissions — an association of regulators — said the ability “to selectively report data on a voluntary basis creates an opportunity for manipulating the commodity market data” submitted to Platts and its competitors.

LIBOR manipulation impacts $800 trillion in assets globally. Similarly, oil prices are a core driver of the price of nearly every consumer good, especially food. LIBOR manipulation helped force massive cuts to public services in American cities by blowing up the balance sheets of those cities, and the apparent manipulation of oil prices is likely to have a similarly long and destructive reach.

The shared features of the LIBOR scandal and the burgeoning price-rigging investigation in the oil industry suggest a policy lesson: Left to themselves, the biggest industries in the world tend to cheat in their own interests, at great cost to consumers.

The LIBOR scandal, regarded as the largest financial fraud scandal in history, led to over $2.5 billion in fines and forced changes in the U.K. Under a law passed earlier this year, the process by which LIBOR is set will receive tighter government oversight from a new agency. But that change is insufficient, according to the American head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and fraud remains a possibility.

These structural incentive problems crop up in myriad other markets. Finance expert Barry Ritholtz has a roundup of dozens of other types of market manipulation by insiders, far beyond oil and LIBOR. Privately and voluntarily generated core prices tend to discourage competition at the expense of consumers, as economist Costas Lapavistsas argued earlier this year in the Financial Times. “The answer,” according to Lapavistas, “is public intervention in the rate-setting process, whether through the central bank or otherwise.”

A week after a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly approved a rollback of certain financial reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, one of the Senate’s biggest consumer advocates is pushing back.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) came out swinging against the repeal of new rules meant to regulate derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at “the center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis. The rules shouldn’t be weakened or repealed just because big banks want to see them eliminated, Warren argued Thursday, The Hill reports:

“The big banks won some battles and lost some battles during the financial regulatory debate in 2009 and 2010, but their tune never changed and their lobbying never let up,” she said. “It is dangerous for Congress to amend the derivatives provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act without at the same time taking accompanying steps to strengthen reform and maintain the law’s equilibrium.”

One rule the package of legislation advanced by the House committee would eliminate is a “push out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks that receive federal backing. Similar to the Volcker Rule, another provision Wall Street largely opposes, it is aimed at making taxpayer-backed banks safer to avoid crises similar to the one that thrust the United States into a recession and led to a bailout of major banks in 2008.

Warren isn’t alone in her opposition to the rollback. The Obama administration has long opposed the repeal of the derivatives rules, and former Federal Deposit Insurance Commission chair Sheila Bair has said the swaps and derivatives rules need to be strengthened rather than weakened. Whether the rules will face a repeal vote in the Senate isn’t clear: the House passed similar legislation in 2012, only to see it die in the Senate without a vote.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) isn’t letting regulators off the hook for their lack of prosecutions of Wall Street banks in the wake of the financial crisis. After using her initial Senate Banking Committee hearing to press regulators about whether big banks are “too big to trial,” Warren is doing so again — this time in a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, and the Federal Reserve.

The letter questioned regulators’ willingness to pursue settlements instead of prosecutions, and asked them to provide any analysis to justify that practice, The Hill reports:

“I believe strongly that if a regulator reveals itself to be unwilling to take large financial institutions all the way to trial — either because it is too timid or because it lacks resources — the regulator has a lot less leverage in settlement negotiations,” Warren wrote in the letter.

“If large financial institutions can break the law and accumulate millions in profits and, if they get caught, settle by paying out of those profits, they do not have much incentive to follow the law.”

Warren isn’t alone in her criticism: Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) pushed the Justice Department over the notion that big banks have become “too big to jail” in January, and Grassley accused regulators of giving banks a “get out of jail free card” for their involvement in the crisis.

Prosecutions for financial fraud hit a 20-year low in 2011, and regulators largely turned to settlements to punish big banks after the crisis. But various settlements have allowed them to avoid admissions of wrongdoing, and the largest of the settlements — the mortgage and foreclosure fraud settlements — have been rife with problems that have allowed banks to game their requirements while homeowners have struggled to access required assistance.

The House Financial Services Committee advanced a package of bills Tuesday that would weaken major regulations included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, doing so over the objections of the Obama Administration with bipartisan support.

The legislative package, which has been criticized by both current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and his predecessor, consisted of six bills that would weaken the regulation of derivatives. Derivatives are the the financial instruments that were at the “center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Nevertheless, those regulations have emerged as a key target for opponents of reform and the financial industry.

One of the most significant rules the package would weaken is the so-called “push-out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks and financial institutions that are insured by the federal government. But rather than weaken the push-out rules, Congress should be making them even stronger, former Federal Deposit Insurance Commission chair Sheila Bair told Bloomberg:

“If Congress wants to re-open Dodd-Frank on this question, if anything, they should push all derivatives activities (other than the banks’ own hedges) into affiliates outside of the insured bank,” Bair said in an e-mail. “This would force market funding of derivatives thus providing substantially greater market discipline than permitting them to be funded with insured deposits.”

Like the Volcker Rule, which would limit forms of risky trading at federally-insured banks, the push-out rule is meant to make the large institutions that were at the center of the financial crisis safer. But the Financial Services Committee, chaired by noted Dodd-Frank opponent Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), has repeatedly passed legislation weakening derivatives reforms since the law passed. At one point in 2012, there were nine separate pieces of legislation aimed at the regulation of derivatives pending in Congress. “These proposals threaten to create large oversight-free zones that could allow risky behaviors to flourish,” advocacy group Public Citizen wrote of such legislation in 2012.

The package of legislation isn’t expected to move forward in the Senate, according to Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), one of the sponsors. But Congress isn’t just taking aim at the rules: in recent years, it has gutted the budget for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the agency tasked with enforcing the new derivatives rules.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) Wednesday introduced legislation aimed at reining in “too big to fail” megabanks by imposing strict capital requirements and preventing them from structuring themselves to elude existing regulations.

The largest Wall Street banks are even bigger today than they were before the crisis, Brown noted in a floor speech in February when he renewed calls to break up large banks. In a new video explaining why he and Vitter introduced the legislation, Brown said the industry hasn’t learned its lesson from the crisis and that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for banks’ risky practices again as they were when the financial system nearly collapsed in 2008:

BROWN: Did we learn our lesson after taxpayers had to bailout the megabanks in 2008? Well, since then, our banking industry has become even more — not less — consolidated. Ten large financial institutions merged into just four. These four behemoths are nearly $2 trillion dollars…larger than they were the last time we determined they were “too big to fail.” This growth didn’t come from innovative new products and services…it was built by the perception that these banks aren’t just backed by their investors, they’re also, unfortunately, backed by every American taxpayer.

Watch it:

The Brown-Vitter legislation would rein in banks by increasing capital standards — that is, the amount of money they have to keep on hand to manage the risk they take through investments and lending. The largest banks, those with more than $500 billion in assets, would be subject to a 15 percent capital requirement. That provision, which would apply to JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America, would force large banks to either hold more money to cover their risks or to reduce in size to avoid the capital requirements. Those standards are even stronger than the Basel III requirements sought by international regulators.

The legislation would also limit the taxpayer guarantee to traditional banking practices, leaving banks to rely on their own capital to insure the riskier practices in which they engage. That, Brown said, would prevent taxpayers from subsidizing the riskiest lending and trading practices that helped spark the financial crisis. “If megabanks want to be large and complex, that’s their choice,” Brown said. “But taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize their risk-taking.”

Financial firms that specialize in risky high-speed trading are boosting their lobbying efforts against proposals to rein in the practice, a Wall Street Journal analysis of lobbying records found. Three Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation that would institute a small tax, known as a financial transactions tax, on high-frequency trades, which reap major profits for firms but add volatility to financial markets.

In response, high-speed trading firms have more than doubled their lobbying efforts, the Journal found:

That follows a steep increase in registered lobbying by high-speed trading firms. Such spending averaged $2.3 million in 2011 and 2012, more than double the average from 2008 to 2010, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of data compiled by OpenSecrets.org, part of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Eleven European countries recently adopted a financial transactions tax; the United Kingdom already has a limited version of the tax that Labour Party lawmakers have looked into expanding. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) in February reintroduced their plan to levy a 0.03 percent tax, which they say will raise $352 billion over the next decade, on high-speed trades. Such taxes aim to curb the explosion in high-frequency trading that has only grown since the financial crisis, as this chart from market analyst Nanex shows:

The financial industry argues that such a tax would limit growth potential, but as DeFazio told ThinkProgress last year, the U.S. had a financial transactions tax after World War II when it experienced its greatest period of economic growth. Many business leaders support the tax, including high-speed trading’s pioneer, who said last year that the growth in that trading “has absolutely no social value.”

JP Morgan Chase accepted a “crisis management” award at an event Thursday night that rewarded the bank for the way it handled the London Whale trading crisis that cost the bank at least $6 billion. The trade set the financial world ablaze when the firm’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, announced it, considering JP Morgan had been the strongest megabank throughout the financial crisis and Dimon often bragged of its “fortress balance sheet.”

But the firm handled the crisis with flying colors, at least according to award presenters, the Wall Street Journal reports:

“J.P. Morgan Chase is winning for its handling of the $6.2 billion trading loss by the London Whale last year,” the event’s host, CNN anchor Ali Velshi, said. “I would say that’s what you call making lemonade out of lemons.”

Kathy Hu, an executive director in J.P. Morgan’s investor relations department, accepted the award and quipped: “Can I just say, ‘Crisis? What crisis?’”

The United States Senate took a slightly different view. In a bipartisan report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued last week, senators blasted the bank for misleading regulators and sidestepping regulations that should have banned the type of trades that kept the loss from occurring.

JP Morgan has been among the fiercest lobbyists against regulations like the Volcker Rule, which was meant to keep financial institutions that have the backing of taxpayers from engaging in risky forms of trading that result in large losses that could pose a risk to the overall economy. As U.S. News and World Report’s Pat Garofalo explained, this should have been a lesson in why the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the rules it contains should be strengthened. Instead, it won JP Morgan an award.

During his nearly three years in the U.S. Senate, Scott Brown (R-MA) frequently came to the aid of the financial sector — watering down the Dodd-Frank bill and working to weaken it after its passage — and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the industry. Now, the man Forbes Magazine called one of “Wall Street’s Favorite Congressmen” will use those connections as counsel for Nixon Peabody, an international law and lobbying firm.

The Boston Globe noted Monday that while Brown himself will not be a lobbyist — Senators may not lobby their former colleagues for the first two years after leaving office, under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 — “he will be leaning heavily on his Washington contacts to drum up business for the firm.” The position will also allow him “to begin cashing in on his contacts with the financial services industry, which he helped oversee in the Senate.”

Among the lobbying clients represented by Nixon Peabody is Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street behemoth that reportedly skirted the Dodd-Frank rules . Brown received $10,000 in PAC contributions from Goldman and more than $100,000 in contributions from its employees.

Brown was also the deciding vote against the DISCLOSE Act, which would have allowed voters to see which moneyed interests were funding secret political ads. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which reportedly received millions from Goldman Sachs, led the opposition to the bill.

Last month, Brown joined Fox News Channel as a contributor. In his first appearance in that capacity, he lamented that Congress is “dysfunctional and extremely partisan,” and promised to “stay involved” by being “part of the election process back home and other elections throughout the country.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have raised criticism of the Justice Department’s leniency when it comes to the prosecution of Wall Street banks for their roles in the housing crisis and financial collapse that sparked the Great Recession. But today, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the very size of those banks is what inhibits prosecution, Bloomberg reports:

Criminal charges against a bank — something that could threaten its existence — may also endanger the national or global economies in the case of the largest ones, because of their size and interconnectedness. That has “made it difficult for us to prosecute” some of those institutions, Holder said today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“That is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large,” Holder told lawmakers. “It has an inhibiting impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.”

The six largest Wall Street banks have grown exponentially in recent decades and now hold assets worth more than 60 percent of the American economy. But despite widespread fraud, discrimination, and other predatory acts during and after the recent crises, the banks have largely escaped prosecution, drawing the ire of both Democratic and Republican senators.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) renewed their calls to break up banks in Senate speeches last week, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) challenged regulators on the lack of prosecutions in a Banking Committee hearing in February. Brown and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) wrote a letter to the Justice Dept. alleging that banks have become “too big to jail,” and Grassley has criticized the banks for having a “get out of jail free” card.

Financial prosecutions reached a 20-year low in 2011, as regulators and the Justice Dept. chose instead to settle claims with large banks over mortgage and foreclosure fraud and other scandals. But those settlements have been rife with problems, as banks have found different ways to game the settlements to their advantage.