Should we be co-defendants in a class action law suit? Are we responsible for a Ponzi scheme? That’s right– you and me, Mr. and Mrs. taxpayer.

You see, one of the many beneficiaries of the bailout of financial institutions has been the Bank of America (NYSE BAC). Our government gave B of A an additional 20 billion dollars in TARP funds to keep them solvent. Now, on the heels of this give-a-way, a class action lawsuit has been filed against B of A. The suit claims that B of A effectively set up a branch in a Long Island office that apparently “knowingly assisted, facilitated and furthered” help Nicholas Cosmo carry out a $380 million Ponzi scheme.

Now who is this Cosmo fellow? (And no, he’s not related to the Seinfeld character.) He’s Nicholas Cosmo, and he is charged with running a $380 million Ponzi scheme from a B of A branch office in the headquarters of Mr. Cosmo’s firm, Agape Merchant Advance. As a result, the lawsuit contends that the bank knowingly “assisted” in defrauding the victims.

If these charge prove to be true, what does this tell us about oversight and transparency?  Even more importantly, what does it tell us about the ethics of legislation that bails out a bank like B of A? Claimants, who are seeking $400 million in damages from the bank and other defendants, say in this lawsuit that the…“Bank of America was at the epicenter of this scheme. ” They go on to claim that, “Without Bank of America’s participation, the scheme would not have succeeded and grown to such an enormous size.”

Bank of America provided on-site representatives at Agape, with bank equipment and computer systems that allowed direct access to the bank’s accounts and systems, the suit said. Apparently, B of A established a unique branch in Mr. Cosmo’s offices to be in a better position to “assist” him with his “banking” needs. (Sounds more like money laundering to me, but then again, what do I know? I’m not an attorney.)

The 1,500 or so victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme are middle class, blue color workers, who made the mistake of believing the high rate of returns promised by Mr. Cosmo. The plaintiff’s attorneys allege Bank of America employees worked directly out of Cosmo’s West Hempstead, New York office. Agape Merchant Advance and Cosmo held accounts at the main Bank of America branch about 30 miles away from the pseudo bank location. Civil trial litigators involved in the suit say this is contrary to normal banking practices.

Questions remain, but chief among them has got to be what in the hell was B of A doing running this pseudo branch directly out of the office of this “alleged” crook? And furthermore, how come we’re bailing out a company that has once again proven that it shouldn’t be trusted?

If these charges prove to be accurate, this stinks. Perhaps it’s time for the Bank of America to change its name to the Bank of the Rich and Infamous.