Citing a lengthy list of concerns, the advocacy group Better Markets is challenging the U.S. Justice Department's recent $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase, calling the agreement “unlawful and unprecedented.”

In November, the Justice Department announced the settlement with banking giant JPMorgan to resolve claims related to its packaging, marketing, sale, and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities. The largest settlement with a single entity in American history, it also covers securities sold by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual prior to Jan. 1, 2009.

As part of the agreement, JPMorgan acknowledged that it represented to investors that the mortgage loans in various securities complied with underwriting guidelines. However, employees knew that the loans in question did not comply and were not appropriate for securitization. The settlement resolves only civil claims and does not release the individuals involved from civil charges, nor does it release JPMorgan or any individuals from potential criminal prosecution.

The Better Markets lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the agreement was done with no judicial review or approval and offered “blanket civil immunity for years of alleged pervasive, egregious and knowing fraudulent and illegal conduct.” It is asking the court to declare the agreement unlawful and issue an injunction that would prevent the DOJ from enforcing the agreement until the it has been reviewed and approved by a court.

As part of a judicial review, a court would have had the opportunity to ask all parties for more details, which would become publicly available, about JP Morgan's violations and the extent of the damages they caused, Better Markets says. In its demand for greater transparency about the agreement, it produced a list of what it says are yet unanswered questions:

How much did JP Morgan Chase's clients, customers, counterparties, investors, and others lose as a result of its fraudulent conduct? 

How much revenue, profits, and other benefits did JP Morgan Chase receive as a result of its fraudulent conduct, and was it all disgorged? 

Who received what amount of bonuses for the illegal conduct?

What was the scope and thoroughness of the investigation that provided the basis for the agreement?

What are the material facts of the illegal conduct by JP Morgan Chase and the specific violations of law that were committed?

What exactly did the individual executives, officers, managers, and employees involved in the illegal conduct actually do to carry out the fraud, and do any of them still work for the bank?

Why did the contract fail to impose on JP Morgan any obligation to change any of its business or compliance practices, standard conduct remedies that regulators routinely require

Why are there no admissions of fact or law by JP Morgan Chase, and what, if any, are the concrete legal implications of their acknowledgment?

In a statement, Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, described the settlement as “taxpayers being forced to accept a secretive backroom deal that may well have been another sweetheart deal.”

“The Justice Department cannot act as prosecutor, jury and judge and extract $13 billion in exchange for blanket civil immunity to the largest, richest, most politically-connected bank on Wall Street,” he said. “The executive branch does not have this unilateral power because it violates the constitutional requirement of checks and balances.”

Topics