madoff

Huffington Post…

“What Makes Sammy Run” by Bud Schulberg, was the fictional story of Sammy Glick, an unscrupulous Hollywood hustler, that fascinated me as a young man. So, I was curious to see what today’s Sammy Glick, the Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff, had revealed to the Financial Times in a brilliant pursuit of his character and the truth (unrealized) in the weekend FT . Must reading. Like Sammy Glick Madoff was an outsider, born in Queens, not Manhattan, educated at Hofstra, not Harvard, and bitter at being an outsider, desperately hungry to be a part of the financial establishment — or if not, feared by it. All his life Madoff reveals a sad desire to be a BIG man, to impress men wealthier than he, members of the wealthy class, residents of Palm Beach, the Hamptons, the south of France. Yet, under the surface of his carefully crafted image, it appears that Madoff was harboring an intense loathing of the financial establishment, that he had outwitted for so long. “I started with $500 in capital. I watched my father go bankrupt. I was very driven… I was always outside the club, the club being the New York Stock Exchange and white shoe firms,” Madoff told the FT . Madoff claims he was legitimate until the 23% crash of the stock market in 1987. He makes up a complicated yarn for the FT which just doesn’t pan out in reality. He claims he was “at the mercy” of his 4 major clients like Jeffry Picower, Norman Levy, Stanley Chais and Carl Shapiro, whom he appears in thrall to and beleaguered by the need to please them. Madoff tells the FT these 4 wealthy men “were complicit, all of them.” He appears to mean that they brought in new clients, whose money was then used to give these 4 what apparently were greater returns than anybody else. Whatever the truth, and it is hard to absorb or believe his tortured yarn, it is evident that he means to bring them down to his level, to “out” them as the ruthless rich who forced little Bernie into a life of crime. By comparison, Sammy Glick was on the surface as well as underneath a ruthless slime ball, who would go to any length to rise to the peak of Hollywood. The movie made from the novel was a nasty terrible portrait of the culture in Tinseltown — just as Madoff’s career is a testament to the gullibility of the investment class who believed Bernie was a sure-thing moneymaker. I doubt that Madoff operated legitimately up until the 1987 break. A Madoff client from a 7th Avenue garment family was receiving a return of 20% every year from 1980 until 1992, which does not seem possible. No stock records, only a year-end statement; she made 20% come hell or high water. Madoff was hungry to be seen by rich clients on both sides of the Atlantic as some sort of investment genius. “I did it for all of them — so many important people from France and elsewhere… I even impressed myself. They came up to my office to meet me. They really wanted to deal with me.” Bernie was “impressed” with himself — so pedigreed were the investors in awe of him. Yet, all the while he was a fake, stealing from Aunt Sadie to buy the unctuous appeals of feeder funds for the sure thing. Pretending all the while to be of service to his co-religionists. The small man from Queens, from Hofstra, whose father had gone bankrupt, was legendary. Wealthy people, even “senior partners at Goldman Sachs” begged to be included in this steady goldmine. Today, Madoff seems to have scorn for all these people including the regulators and his bank, JP Morgan Chase. “I know that billions of dollars going in and out of a bank account is something that should alert you to something. They got all the financial statements… I was using them as custodian and they never raised alarm bells.”

Read the original:
Robert Lenzner: What Made Bernie Madoff Run?

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Dan Solin: Investing USA Style

by Dan Solin on March 30, 2011

Huffington Post…

Ninety percent of individual investors “invest” this way: Using the Internet, discount brokers or retail brokers, you try to guess the direction of the markets. You follow the financial news. You pick stocks or mutual funds you are told will outperform. You are filled with anxiety, confused, distressed and frustrated. The returns published by top performing mutual funds far exceed your returns. You wonder who is getting those returns. How did those investors know a particular fund was going to do so well? The predictions of the talking heads on the financial media are mesmerizing. They sound so knowledgeable and intelligent. But if they really have predictive powers, how did they miss the market crash in 2008 and the rapid recovery which continues to date? If you take the time to review the data, you are troubled to learn their track record is no better than the toss of the coin. Is this an intelligent way to plan for retirement? You don’t trust the securities industry. You can’t forget it was these “investment gurus” who brought us to the brink of a worldwide depression. If they can’t manage their own money, what qualifies them to manage yours? You read about the insider trading scandals and it confirms your suspicion that the playing field is not level. What chance do you have if these guys are on the other side of your trade? It’s not just the crooks like Madoff who make you nervous. You have the niggling feeling the entire system is one giant Ponzi scheme, which is simply a pretense for the transfer of your money to those who manage it. If you have a 401(k) plan, and your employer matches, you still get little comfort. The number of investment options is bewildering. You have no idea how to put together a globally diversified portfolio in an asset allocation appropriate for you. No one at your company can help you. The web site provided by the record keeper for the fund is helpful, but you don’t get any advice tailored for you. You keep reading about conflicts of interest and excessive fees in these plans. You know something is wrong, but you have no idea how to fix it. You have lost confidence in the SEC. It is under funded and under staffed. Most of its employees are just doing their time to build up their resume so they can jump to lucrative jobs with the same industry they are “regulating.” You can’t forget the sound byte provided by Harry Markopolos in his congressional testimony into the failure of the SEC to detect the Madoff fraud, even though he laid it out for them in agonizing detail: “If you flew the entire SEC staff to Boston, and sat them in Fenway Park, they wouldn’t be able to find first base.” Can you depend on these lost souls to protect you from Wall Street? Welcome to what passes for investing in the USA. Following these simple steps would increase your returns significantly (based on historical data), eliminate your anxiety and put you in control of your finances: 1. Formulate an investing goal. Most investors don’t have one. If you don’t know how much you will need to accumulate in retirement assets so you (and your surviving spouse or partner) can maintain your quality of life and not die destitute and dependent on others, this would be a worthy goal. You can generate a very helpful report here . Full disclosure: I am affiliated with Index Funds Advisors, which created and administers this report. 2. Fire your “market beating” retail broker or advisor. They have no predictive powers. They can’t pick stocks or time the market. Most of them can’t even calculate the risk of your portfolio. Their primary goal is to generate fees or commissions, while purporting to have an expertise that doesn’t exist. 3. Determine your asset allocation . Invest in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost stock and bond index funds. 4. If you are not familiar with the research of Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, take the time to learn what the largest and most sophisticated investors in the world know about investing. You won’t find this information in the financial media or at the office of your retail broker. This is what investing should be about. It should be investor centric. At present, it’s broker centric. The securities industry is fighting hard to keep it that way. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Follow this link:
Dan Solin: Investing USA Style

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Bernie Madoff: ‘I’m A Good Person’

February 28, 2011

Bernie Madoff’s personal PR campaign has begun. The convicted ponzi schemer made a series of calls from prison to writer Steve Fishman in hopes of setting the record straight — and to potentially “get a message” across to his estranged son, Andy Madoff, according to a new article in New York magazine. He apologized for calling collect. “I don’t have that much money in my commissary account,” he said. Madoff is serving a prison sentence of 150 years for running the largest recorded Ponzi scheme in history, one that had a direct effect on thousands of investors and a host of charities and hedge funds. The collective investment of $36 billion in Madoff’s scheme returned only $18 billion to investors before the financial collapse. And while there is still debate about where the other $18 billion exactly landed, much of it believed to have gone to Madoff. Madoff appears to have spent the better part of the interviews defending his actions, stopping short of excusing himself entirely. “I am a good person,” Madoff says. “I’m not the kind of person I’m portrayed as.” He also believes others are less innocent than they appear. “Everyone was greedy,” he explains, “I just went along.” He also notes that not everyone left empty-handed: “I’m sure it’s a traumatic experience to some, but I made a lot of money for people.” Madoff again had some choice words about Wall Street. In February, in his only other interview, Madoff said banks and hedge funds “had to know… But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.” JPMorgan Chase, Madoff’s bank, has come under scrutiny for its alleged role in the Ponzi scheme. Trustee Irving Picard is suing the bank for $6.4 billion on behalf of scammed investors. His lawyer, David Sheehan, says the bank was “willfully blind” to the scheme and played a direct role in abetting Madoff’s scheme by ignoring “red flags,” while collecting fees and profits. Picard has also sued Citigroup for $425 million, alleging the bank knowingly passed Madoff’s dirty money onto other banks. This time, he went farther, admitting the market exploits individual investors. “There’s no chance that investors have in this market,” he says. During the interview, he also expresses surprise that no one else on Wall Street has seen criminal convictions. Regulatory reform, he believes, didn’t go far enough. His stated reason for calling Fishman, though, had more to do with his estranged son, Adam, than with Wall Street. Madoff hasn’t spoken to Adam since his other son, Mark, committed suicide on the second anniversary of the Madoff’s arrest in downtown Manhattan. Through the interview, he hopes to reach his son, against his lawyer’s advice. Since the Mark’s suicide, Madoff has also lost contact with his wife, Ruth Madoff. Read the entire piece here.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Investing Charlie Sheen Style

February 16, 2011

Even die-hard Charlie Sheen fans must have been appalled at news reports that he asked a porn star to babysit his two young daughters. His ex-wife, Denise Richards, expressed the views of most of us when she twitted that “no adult film star will be babysitting our kids.” Don’t be too quick to criticize Mr. Sheen’s appalling judgment. Most of you are not doing any better when you pick an investment adviser. Jay Franklin brought home this point in a thoughtful recent blog. Mr. Franklin finds it odd that you would entrust your life savings to firms with a demonstrated history of ethical and moral (if not literal) bankruptcy. He supports this position with the following examples, which are a modest sampling of the indefensible conduct passing for another day at the office of significant players in the financial world: 1. Merrill Lynch paid $10 million to settle claims it used order flow from its customers to trade and profit for its own account ; 2. The Bank of New York allegedly overcharged a Virginia pension plan according to allegations in a complaint filed by the state. It is alleged to have done so by converting $12.5 million of pension money to Canadian dollars at the highest exchange rate and then passing on the proceeds to the pension plan at the lowest exchange rate, and (of course) pocketing the difference. A very slick move, if proven. 3. Similar allegations against Bank of New York are being investigated by the Florida state pension plan. California has commenced its own investigation into foreign currency practices of State Street. The defendants deny all charges. 4. J.P. Morgan must be one of the few winners who dealt with Bernie Madoff. It quietly withdrew $276 million in profits shortly below Madoff’s collapse. It is now the defendant in a $6.4 billion lawsuit, filed by the tenacious trustee for the Madoff mess. The lawsuit alleges that J.P. Morgan was “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud. J.P. Morgan denies the allegations. I join Mr. Franklin in wondering why investors deal with firms that have conducted business in this manner. It should be enough that they lack the ability to intelligently manage money (their own or others). You would think the total lack of a moral compass — standing alone — would cause you to flee from their offices. There is no evidence this is happening. Before you judge Mr. Sheen, take a hard look at the way you invest. You may find your judgment is no better than his. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Mets Ballpark Debt Outlook Hurt By Lawsuit: Moody’s

February 10, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The outlook for the New York Mets stadium debt has turned negative, Moody’s Investors Service said on Thursday, after the trustee recovering money for victims of Bernard Madoff sued the baseball team’s owners to recover as much as $1 billion. The legal fight could hurt the baseball team’s performance, which could cause fewer people to attend its games and cut the amount of money the team has to repay the stadium debt, Moody’s said. “While the ultimate outcome of the litigation and the timeframe for final resolution are unknown at the present time, the negative outlook acknowledges the close connection between the health and performance of the Mets baseball team and the long term credit quality of the stadium project,” Moody’s said. Team owners, including Chairman Fred Wilpon, have said they will try to sell a minority stake in the team after being accused by the court-appointed trustee of turning a blind eye to Madoff’s fraud. The stadium debt for the Queens ballpark, called Citi Field, was issued by the New York City Industrial Development Authority, which is not involved in the Madoff litigation. A Moody’s spokesman was not immediately available to say how much debt was affected by the revised outlook. The bonds carry a Ba1 rating, Moody’s highest junk grade. The Mets have had two straight losing seasons, although the team has one of the highest payrolls in Major League Baseball. Attendance fell 19 percent last year at Citi Field, in the ballpark’s second year of existence. (Reporting by Joan Gralla; Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Leslie Adler) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: JP Morgan May Be Complicit in Madoff Scam

February 4, 2011

JP Morgan could be “complicit”, i.e. aiding and abetting the Madoff Ponzi scheme, by omission — that is not fulfilling its duty as a fiduciary — as well as by commission, according to white collar lawyers I have consulted today. It did not have to be an active partner in the Ponzi Scheme to be found guilty of a civil liability, lawyers say. Rather, the bank’s omission would be ignoring several red flags — troublesome signs of potential fraud — and never investigating their accuracy or meaning. The bank did not fulfill its requirement to investigate Madoff fully and so could be found to be compliant in the scam. Nevertheless, JPM denies being a party to the fraud and tries to defend its role by insisting that Madoff was not a major client of the bank. It apparently received many signs of trouble, but generally ignored or neglected these signs, according to the complaint filed yesterday. The suit alleges that JP Morgan earned approximately $500 million from servicing Madoff. There were numerable red flags, starting in 2002, that the bank never sought to pin down. Once the bank believed that Madoff’s performance figures were not possible in 2002, when the stock market was down 30%, JP Morgan Chase had a duty to cease its banking services and report Madoff to the authorities, some lawyers believe. JP Morgan, which was Madoff’s main banker, never investigated the reasons for hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from Madoff’s account in New York to one in London — and then back to New York again. At the very least, JP Morgan was lax in not reporting these movements of cash to authorities under the requirements of regulations covering the issue of money laundering, say lawyers. In another instance, there were serious doubts about the due diligence done by a feeder fund to Madoff’s operation. In other words, the nation’s second largest bank, heretofore relatively unscathed, may be forced to settle the $6.4 billion suit brought against it by the bankruptcy trustee for Madoff’s firm, Irving Picard. In fact, it was not until 2008 — several months before Madoff came clean about the scam, that JP Morgan told Britain’s Organized Crime Agency that Madoff’s investment performance appeared to be “too good to be true.” This move came only after a bank employee in London had been threatened with physical injury by an officer of Swiss-based feeder fund Aurelia, who was trying to withdraw money from the Madoff fund in London. That is a shockingly long time for the bank to wait before informing the authorities. Mind you, JP Morgan did not then or any other time inform either the SEC, the Justice Department or the Treasury about its suspicions about Madoff. Not a particularly impressive performance by the House of Morgan. Better clean house of those patsies, Jamie.

Read the full article →

NY Mets Owners Hit With $300 Million Madoff Lawsuit

February 4, 2011

NEW YORK/DETROIT (By Jonathan Stempel and Ben Klayman) – The owners of the New York Mets turned a blind eye to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and should give up roughly $300 million of fictitious profits tied to the now imprisoned swindler, a lawsuit charges. Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee recovering money for Madoff’s victims, claims the partners at Sterling Equities, including the Mets’ Fred Wilpon, “were simply in too deep — having substantially supported their businesses with Madoff money — to do anything but ignore the gathering clouds. “Despite being on notice and having every resource at their disposal to investigate the litany of legitimate questions surrounding Madoff,” Picard said, “the Sterling partners chose to do nothing.” In his sweeping 365-page complaint unsealed on Friday, Picard also said the baseball team itself had 16 Madoff accounts from which it withdrew more than $90 million of bogus profits to fund day-to-day operations. The litigation has cast its own cloud over the immediate future of the Mets, which has had two straight losing seasons despite having one of the highest payrolls in Major League Baseball. Attendance at its two-year-old ballpark Citi Field fell 19 percent last year. Wilpon, a co-founder at Sterling, repeated that he may sell part of the Mets as a result of Picard’s litigation. The Mets also own a majority of SportsNet New York, better known as SNY, which broadcasts their games, with Time Warner Cable Inc and Comcast Corp also owning stakes. “OUTRAGEOUS STRONG-ARM EFFORT,” WILPON SAYS In a joint statement, he and Sterling co-founder Saul Katz, who is Wilpon’s brother-in-law, called Picard’s lawsuit “an outrageous strong-arm effort” to coerce a settlement and ruin their reputations and businesses. “Not one of the Sterling partners ever knew or suspected that Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme,” they said. “We thought that Madoff was a friend for 25 years. That is why his betrayal was so painful. We should not be made victims twice over — the first time by Madoff, and again by the trustee’s actions.” A Major League Baseball spokesman declined to comment. Madoff’s estimated $65 billion Ponzi scheme was uncovered on December 11, 2008. Now 72, Madoff later pleaded guilty and is now serving a 150-year prison sentence in North Carolina. Picard filed the lawsuit under seal in December. Wilpon had opposed making it public while settlement talks with the trustee were ongoing, but agreed to an unsealing after the talks broke down. OTHER MADOFF LITIGATION According to the complaint, Picard is seeking $295.5 million of fictitious profits from Sterling partners, family members and affiliates; $14.2 million of principal withdrawn in the 90 days prior to the collapse of Madoff’s firm; and $12 million of other “fraudulent” transfers. The lawsuit came one day after Picard unveiled embarrassing accusations in his $6.4 billion lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co, once Madoff’s main banker, of turning a blind eye to and being “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud so it could do more business with him and protect its investments. Picard has recovered roughly $10 billion from various parties to repay former Madoff clients. Wilpon has said he might sell 20 percent to 25 percent of the Mets, while retaining a majority stake [ID:nN28107090], but a big settlement could force a change in ownership. “Any time you have this kind of noise around a sale, you start at 25 percent, then you sell 50 percent with an option to buy the rest; it seems to be heading in that direction,” said a sports banker who asked not to be identified, citing a lack of authority to discuss specific teams. “At the end of the day, anyone coming in is going to want some kind of voice, is going to want a piece of the whole pie,” the banker added. The case is Picard v. Katz et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-ap-05287. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Ben Klayman in Detroit; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Phil Berlowitz) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

U.S. Marshals Sued For Selling Off Forfeited Assets Below Actual Value

December 27, 2010

An arm of the United States Marshals Service undervalued what could amount to untold millions of dollars in assets forfeited by white-collar criminals — including some from the family of Bernard L. Madoff — and sold them for far less than they were worth, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan. As a result, the lawsuit suggests, crime victims, including some who lost fortunes in the Madoff case, may have been deprived of millions of dollars in restitution.

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff Won’t Attend Son’s Funeral

December 13, 2010

NEW YORK — Imprisoned financier Bernard Madoff won’t seek to attend his son’s funeral out of consideration for the privacy of his son’s wife and four children, his lawyer said Monday. Attorney Ira Sorkin said Madoff instead will mourn privately at the North Carolina prison where he’s serving a 150-year sentence for his fraud conviction in what authorities have called history’s largest Ponzi scheme. Madoff’s older son, Mark Madoff, 46, hanged himself early Saturday in his Manhattan apartment two years after his father was arrested on charges that he cheated thousands of people out of tens of billions of dollars. Sorkin declined to say whether Madoff considered asking to attend his son’s funeral. The lawyer would say only: “Mr. Madoff will not be attending the funeral out of consideration for his daughter-in-law’s and grandchildren’s privacy. He will be conducting a private service on his own where he is presently incarcerated.” Sorkin commented a day after the city medical examiner’s office formally ruled Mark Madoff’s death a suicide. Madoff was found hanging from a dog leash in his apartment. His 2-year-old son was found asleep in an adjacent room. Madoff’s body hadn’t been picked up from the medical examiner’s office for burial as of Monday, office spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said. The death came while the Madoff family faced increased scrutiny in the days before the two-year anniversary of Bernard Madoff’s arrest as a court-appointed trustee trying to recover money for investors filed dozens of lawsuits to meet a filing deadline. The actions of Mark Madoff, along with those of his brother, Andrew Madoff, and his uncle Peter Madoff, have been studied by investigators trying to learn how Bernard Madoff was able to carry out such a large fraud without a wider circle of people knowing about it. Madoff’s brother and sons all held management positions at the family investment business. In November 2008, Madoff informed investors that their initial investment of roughly $20 billion had more than tripled in value. Just days later, Madoff confessed to his sons that the investment business was a sham and that he had only several hundred million dollars of investors’ money left. In court papers, a lawyer for the sons has portrayed his clients as whistle-blowers who alerted authorities as soon as their father revealed the fraud to them. Neither son, nor Madoff’s brother, was charged criminally, and authorities have said no charges are imminent. Mark Madoff was remembered fondly by former classmates Monday. Lev Seltzer, reached by telephone in Israel, where he now lives, recalled working with Madoff on a sixth-grade assignment at a Long Island school to create a fake television commercial. He said the ad mocked a long-running Life cereal commercial that featured a boy named Mikey who hated everything else but liked the cereal. “Instead of Mikey, we had Marky,” Seltzer said. Doreen Hebron said Madoff was “very popular,” dressed well and had a good attitude. ___ Associated Press writer Frank Eltman contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Mark Madoff Suicide: Bernie Madoff’s Son Found Hanged In NYC Apartment

December 11, 2010

NEW YORK — One of Bernard Madoff’s sons was found dead of an apparent suicide Saturday on the second anniversary of his father’s arrest, according to police and a lawyer for the family. Mark Madoff, 46, was found dead in his apartment in Manhattan’s fashionable SoHo section, according to police department spokesman Paul Browne. A relative notified police around 7:30 a.m. “Mark Madoff took his own life today. This is a terrible and unnecessary tragedy,” his lawyer, Martin Flumenbaum, said in a written statement. His body was found hanging from a dog leash that had been fashioned into a noose and strung over a pipe in the ceiling of his living room, according to a law enforcement official. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the case and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. “Mark was an innocent victim of his father’s monstrous crime who succumbed to two years of unrelenting pressure from false accusations and innuendo. We are all deeply saddened by this shocking turn of events,” Flumenbaum said. Mark Madoff and his brother, Andrew, were under investigation but hadn’t faced any criminal charges in the massive Ponzi scheme that led to their father’s jailing. Bernard Madoff swindled a long list of investors out of billions of dollars and is serving a 150-year prison term in North Carolina. He was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008, after confessing his crimes to his family. Madoff’s sons, according to the family’s attorneys, were the ones who turned him in. The scandal put a harsh light on members of the family. The financier’s brother, Peter, played a prominent role in the family’s company. Mark and Andrew Madoff both worked on a trading desk at the firm, on a side of the business that wasn’t directly involved in the Ponzi scheme. In February, Mark Madoff’s wife, Stephanie, petitioned a court to change her last name and the last names of their two children, saying her family had gotten threats and was humiliated by the scandal. Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that Mark Madoff’s wife, who is in Florida, became concerned about her husband after getting a communication from her husband either Friday night or early Saturday morning suggesting that someone should check on their two-year-old child. She asked her father to check on the home. When he arrived, he found the two-year-old sleeping safely in his bedroom, as well as the body. A dog in the apartment was also unharmed. A call to Bernard Madoff’s attorney was not immediately returned Saturday. Calls to the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office were also not immediately returned. Previously, spokespeople for the brothers had repeatedly denied that they had any knowledge of their father’s crimes. A year ago, the court-appointed trustee trying to unravel Madoff’s financial affairs sued several relatives, including Peter, Mark and Andrew, accusing them of failing to detect the fraud while living lavish lifestyles financed with the family’s ill-gotten fortune. The lawsuit accused Mark Madoff of using $66 million he received improperly to buy luxury homes in New York City, Nantucket and Connecticut. Police investigators were at Madoff’s apartment Saturday morning, along with officials from the medical examiner’s office, which will determine the cause of death. ___ Associated Press writers Tom Hays and Verena Dobnik contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: UBS Feeder Funds Knew Madoffr Fishy in 2006

November 28, 2010

In 2006 the UBS feeder funds to Madoff hired consultant Chris Cutler to do probably was the first due diligence on Madoff’s operation since first investing with him in 1985. It took Cutler only 4 days to discover the smoking gun; the options volume that Madoff reported to the feeder funds exceeded by far the total volume of puts and calls actually traded in those securities on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. But, the principals of the feeder funds, Luxalpha and Acess-responsible for pouring $2 billion into Madoff’s scam, waved away the finding and took no steps to confirm that the source of their $80 million in fees was a total scam. Incredible! What’s more; Lualpha and Groupement Financier, another feeder unit, withdrew $791 million in the 90 days before BLIM filed for bankruptcy. So states the complaint filed last week in US Bankruptcy Court by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation against Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. It concludes that “The Acess Defendants and thereby Luxalpha’s Board of Directors- which consisted of the principals of the Acess entities and of UBS(Luxembourg) SA executives knew that the volume of tradijng being reported by Madoff was impossible, but decided not to make that information public.” The suit seeks $2 billion from the deep pockets Swiss bank UBS on grounds it it sponsored the feeder funds, purportede to act as custodian of their assets and served as administrator for both of the large feeder funds. UBS, according to the complaiint, “calculated the “net asset value” of these funds based solely on the numbers and information provided by BLMIS, with no independent verification.” Curious, too, is the fact that UBS never put a cent of its own money into Madoff’s operation or recommended that any of its own wealthy European clients do so.

Read the full article →

Madoff Victims’ Trustee Files Dozens Of Lawsuits

November 28, 2010

NEW YORK — Relatives of both Bernard Madoff and his wife are among those being targeted in 40 lawsuits announced Friday by the trustee endeavoring to recover money for victims fleeced by the disgraced financier. Twenty-two of the lawsuits were filed against relatives of Madoff and his wife, trustee Irving H. Picard said in a news release. Eighteen lawsuits were filed against former employees of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, he said. An attorney for Ruth Madoff didn’t immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment Friday night. Picard said his firm is seeking about $69 million in funds deposited by the company’s customers and stolen in the 72-year-old’s vast Ponzi scheme. Picard said the lawsuits were filed as part of an effort to recover funds from relatives and employees “who were closest to the center of the fraud and who were, in many cases, among those who benefited most from the Ponzi scheme.” Among the complaints, Madoff’s sister, Sondra M. Weiner, is accused of having “profited for decades” from the scheme, Picard said. A woman who answered the phone at Boynton Beach, Fla., listing for Weiner hung up without commenting late Friday. Picard said the lawsuits were filed after discussions with the defendants and their attorneys collapsed. Other complaints were previously filed against relatives of Madoff and senior BLMIS employees. The fresh batch of lawsuits comes three days after Picard announced a lawsuit against Swiss bank UBS AG, alleging it funneled clients to Madoff and then “looked the other way.” The bank called the allegation “completely unfounded.” Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina after confessing to the nearly two-decade scheme that ensnared thousands of victims, including charities, celebrities and institutional investors. An estimated $20 billion was lost, making it the biggest investment fraud in U.S. history.

Read the full article →

AIG Not Required to Compensate For Alleged Madoff Loss, Judge Rules

October 1, 2010

Fake Madoff profits, it turns out, are not covered by AIG insurance policies. AIG does not need to compensate two former Bernard Madoff clients who say they lost millions to the convict’s Ponzi scheme, a U.S. district judge ruled. The money allegedly lost, the judge said, never existed in the first place. The lawsuit , filed more than a year ago, alleged that AIG had to pay Robert and Harlene Horowitz up to $30,000 under their AIG insurance policy, to compensate for $8.5 million they claimed they lost. But, as Reuters reports, U.S. district judge Paul Crotty has taken AIG’s side, deciding the $8.5 million existed only the Horowitz’s account statement and not in actuality. In fact, the Horowitzes withdrew more from their Madoff account than they put in, Reuters reports. Madoff, who is currently serving a 150-year sentence in Federal prison for a $65 billion scam (which Bloomberg says cost investors $20 billion), might not have been sentenced so harshly had he committed his crime in France. Bloomberg reports today that Jerome Kerviel, a trader who allegedly caused his former employer Societe Generale a $6.5 billion loss, would likely serve no more than two years in prison if convicted. Kerviel, who has admitted to lying about the extent of huge bets his was placing at the bank, would probably serve 10 or 20 years if he were tried in the U.S., Ira Sorkin, the lawyer who represented Madoff, said.

Read the full article →

Prosecutors Hunting Millions In Additional Assets In Madoff Case

August 3, 2010

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors in New York are seeking over $5 million in assets belonging to a former office supervisor for jailed financier Bernard Madoff. The government said Tuesday that it has traced houses in Manhasset, N.Y., and Boca Raton, Fla., and other assets to the long-time Madoff employee, Annette Bongiorno. Prosecutors previously had traced $3 million in assets to her. Bongiorno has not been criminally charged in the multi-billion-dollar fraud that resulted in a 150-year prison sentence for the 73-year-old Madoff. Her lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Authorities say Madoff cheated thousands of investors of billions of dollars. He said their $20 billion investment had more than tripled when it actually was nearly worthless.

Read the full article →

Ruth Madoff A Redhead?

July 19, 2010

Bernie Madoff may have been caught red-handed, but Ruth Madoff has been caught red-haired. The wife of the famous Ponzi-schemer was spotted at Midtown’s Le Pain Quotidian with a new red ‘do, and she didn’t have too much to say about it — or about anything else, for that matter. “Oh my god,” Madoff uttered, as ABC News advanced towards her. When asked if she had any words regarding her husband’s victims, she said nothing. Madoff may not have anything to say, but there is something to be said here. While her change in hair color might appear to be nothing more than an innocent style choice, last year’s reports of Ruth’s hair colorist dropping her suggest she’s not a ginger by her own volition. Ruth was famous for her “Soft Baby Blonde” locks. She visited the Pierre Michel salon for foils every six weeks. The recommended time between colorings is somewhere between three to four months. Needless to say, Ruth was committed to her hair color. But then the Pierre Michel Salon heard about her husband’s Ponzi scheme, and explicitly banned Ruth from ever entering again. The New York Times reported last June: As for her salon, Pierre Michel, Mrs. Madoff had dropped in every six weeks over the last 10 years. One morning in March, she was told that she could no longer enjoy her routine of sitting with a glass of Poland Spring water while Giselle, a colorist often cited in Vogue and Allure, wielded the foils. Pierre Ouaknine, an owner of the salon, broke the news, according to Kelly Brady, a spokeswoman for the salon. Can Ruth pull off being a ginger, or should she look elsewhere for her token “Soft Baby Blonde” color?

Read the full article →

David Fiderer: David Brooks’ Big Wet Kiss To Hedge Fund Managers

July 13, 2010

After he read a book that he didn’t understand, David Brooks came up with another crackpot distortion of capitalism. This time, he finds a sharp contrast between bankers and hedge fund managers, whom he lumps together all other business entrepreneurs. In his latest column he writes: The smooth operators at the big banks were playing with other people’s money, so they borrowed up to 30 times their investors’ capital. The hedge fund guys usually had their own money in their fund, so they typically borrowed only one or two times their capital. The social butterflies at the banks got swept up in the popular enthusiasms. The contrarians at the hedge funds made money betting against them. The well-connected bankers knew they’d get bailed out if anything went wrong. The solitary hedge fund guys knew they were on their own and regarded their trades with paranoid anxiety. Because they weren’t playing with other people’s money, hedge fund managers were more careful than the big banks? How fatuous is Brooks’ analysis? Let’s count the ways: 1. Hedge fund managers are insulated from investment losses and from taxes, whereas bankers are not. As anyone who reads The Wall Street Journal knows, hedge fund managers get rich because of the “Heads-I-win-tails-I-don’t-lose” fee structure paid by their investors. Typically, they charge a 2% management fee, plus they take 20% of all profits . The fund manager only shares in the profits, not the losses. So his primary incentive is to seek a big short-term upside, rather than to limit downside risk. When a hedge fund manager puts his own money into a fund, he benefits primarily from the leverage of other investor contributions, rather than from external debt. And when a fund manager collects his no-risk fees, he doesn’t pay taxes the way ordinary Americans do. Those fees, which take out 20% of the fund’s profits, are considered capital gains rather than ordinary income, which is quite a trick, since the theory behind lower rates on capital gains is that money was put at risk. A hedge fund manager who takes spectacular losses can start over by launching a new fund right away, whereas a bank executive who screws up usually gets fired. At best, Brooks’ claim that, “well-connected bankers knew they’d get bailed out if anything went wrong,” is grossly misleading. Banks that got bailed out also got dismantled. Bear Stearns, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual no longer exist. AIG is being broken up and Merrill is a shadow of its former self. The one possible exception is Citibank, which was forced to sell Salomon Smith Barney. Moral hazard remains a huge issue, and the senior executives who failed to properly manage their banks walked away rich. But these guys were also fiercely driven and committed staying on top, which is why they never thought, “I’m well-connected so I’ll get bailed out.” Instead, their common failure in judgment was to accept bogus triple-A ratings on mortgage securities at face value 2. Hedge funds made money by exploiting secrecy, whereas banks were regulated. The largest hedge fund in the world was run by Bernie Madoff . Many other hedge funds invested almost exclusively in the Madoff Fund. Clearly, these feeder fund managers, and other sophisticated investors, were clueless. The Madoff scam thrived because the entire hedge fund industry, which dominated many credit markets , had operated in secrecy. The funds that offered the skimpiest financial disclosures were able to snare investors who treated due diligence as a joke. This complete lack of transparency gave hedge funds large incentives and opportunities to manipulate markets and to trade on inside information. Amarenth and Centaurus exploited that secrecy to manipulate natural gas markets. In a prequel to the financial crisis of September 2008, a single hedge fund, LTCM, brought Wall Street to its knees. Commercial banks are subject to a lot of regulatory oversight. Again, the banks failed, and the regulators failed to provide effective oversight, primarily for one simple reason: They all relied on bogus triple-A ratings for toxic mortgage securities. They saw the rating and disregarded the need for substantive due diligence or analysis on those investments. John Paulson, and other “contrarian” hedge fund managers whom Brooks’ exalts, had figured out the triple-A scam and got rich by creating, and then shorting, new toxic assets designed to fail. 3. Because they are black boxes, hedge funds borrow in the repo market, whereas bank leverage is a consequence of Bush-era cronyism. Brooks insinuates that hedge funds had two times leverage because their managers were cautious. Not true. Banks would only lend to them on an overnight basis, while they held marketable securities as collateral, because a hedge fund’s financial position can change instantaneously. Investment grew their leverage, to 30 times equity, because a Bush-era crony, S.E.C. Chairman Chris Cox, gutted regulatory oversight of investment banks . Over the objections of a unanimous commission investigating the subject, Cox decided that investment banks could opt in or out for “voluntary oversight” whenever they felt like it. All of this segues into Brooks’ real agenda, which is to pervert history. He wants us to equate the Bush Administration’s refusal to enforce the law, and its wholesale emasculation of regulatory institutions, with a creeping socialism. He wants to us to believe that the bank profits are caused by government regulation, which stifles those engines for growth in the real economy, hedge funds. He calls bankers “princes” and hedge fund managers “grinders”: The princes can thrive while the government intervenes in the private sector. They’ve got the lobbyists and the connections. The grinds, needless to say, don’t. Over the past decade, professionals — lawyers, regulators and legislators — have inserted themselves into more and more economic realms. The princes are perfectly at home amid these tax breaks, low-interest loans and public-private partnerships. They went to the same schools as the professionals and speak the same language. The grinds try to stay far away and regard the interlocking network of corporate-government schmoozing with undisguised contempt. For the record, banks are making lots of money because of low-interest rates and reduced competition, two offshoots of the Bush financial crisis, and because financial reform has yet to pass. As for those hedge fund managers who show disdain for Washington lobbyists, check out this . There’s a reason the book touted by Brooks is titled, More Money Than God.

Read the full article →

Mark Madoff, Bernie’s Son, Puts Nantucket Home Up For Sale (PHOTOS)

June 26, 2010

Want to own a tiny piece of Madoff family history? One of Bernie’s two sons, Mark Madoff, has put his Nantucket home on the market, the New York Times reports. Mark Madoff “bought the house for $6.5 million in 2008, the same year they sold a smaller one on Nantucket for $2.3 million,” the paper notes. The price? $7.5 million for the 6-bedroom, 6-bathroom beach bungalow that includes a pool, patio and guest quarters. Check out photos of the home — and check out the full listing at Killen Real Estate : Killen Real Estate Killen Real Estate Killen Real Estate

Read the full article →

Frank DiPascali, Madoff’s Ex-Finance Chief, Released On Bail

June 22, 2010

NEW YORK — The former finance chief for jailed financier Bernard Madoff was released on $10 million bail Tuesday, months after he admitted his role in an epic fraud that cost thousands of investors billions of dollars and agreed to cooperate with investigators. Just a few hours after Frank DiPascali left U.S. District Court in Manhattan without speaking to reporters, prosecutors revealed they had filed civil papers to recoup $5 million from two longtime former back office Madoff employees who have never been charged criminally. DiPascali, 53, was freed according to the terms of a bail package that a judge had set in February. He pleaded guilty in August to helping with Madoff’s multi-decade Ponzi scheme until it collapsed in late 2008, when Madoff revealed to his sons that his private investment business was a fraud and they notified the FBI. DiPascali walked quickly in front of his lawyer Marc Mukasey as he left the courthouse. Mukasey and prosecutors have said DiPascali provided substantial information that contributed to the arrests of two computer programmers for the firm and Madoff’s longtime auditor. The FBI’s work to identify those who can be held accountable for the fraud and to help civil investigators identify assets continued soon afterward when prosecutors announced they were seeking to recover $5 million in assets controlled by two women who worked for Madoff for more than 25 years. The civil complaints seeking proceeds of Madoff’s fraud were filed against Annette Bongiorno and Joann Crupi, identified as members of Madoff’s back office staff. Prosecutors said in a news release that Bongiorno was a supervisor of the back office staff and was responsible for answering questions from clients about their purported investments, along with overseeing the fabrication of account statements, trade confirmations and other documents and distributing those documents to clients. A lawyer for Bongiorno did not immediately return a telephone call for comment Tuesday. Eric Breslin, a lawyer for Crupi, said: “Our position is that Ms. Crupi did nothing wrong here, and we intend to contest the government’s allegations.” Madoff, 72, is serving a 150-year prison term after admitting that his secretive investment advisory service at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities never bought any securities. Instead, he used new investments to pay returns to existing clients. DiPascali’s cooperation has delayed his sentencing on his guilty plea to securities fraud, money laundering and other charges that carry potential penalties of up to 125 years in prison. “I was loyal to him. I ended up being loyal to a terrible, terrible fault,” DiPascali said during the plea. DiPascali began working for Madoff in 1975, just after he finished high school. He has said he became aware of the fraud by the 1980s or early 1990s. After the plea, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan twice turned down bail packages that were arranged for DiPascali and were supported by prosecutors. He called DiPascali’s role in the fraud “crucial” and the potential sentence “astronomical.” He asked for proof that DiPascali’s cooperation had been significant. He agreed to the $10 million bail in February but ordered that DiPascali remain under house arrest after his release and required that he and his wife forfeit all family assets except for an amount less than $300,000 to be agreed upon by the government, the defendant and the judge. The government in April filed papers saying DiPascali’s wife could keep $178,000 after the family gave up assets estimated to be worth more than $6 million. The government said the sales of three cars and a yacht alone totaled nearly $1 million. It was unclear where DiPascali was headed Tuesday. In January, he and his wife, Joanne DiPascali, agreed to the sale and forfeiture of their Bridgewater, N.J., home, which is being prepared for its marketing and sale. Items also surrendered by the couple included a Jet Ski, two motorcycles, two minibikes, a scooter and a snow blower, along with watches and jewelry. The judge has asked prosecutors to notify him by letter before Nov. 17 whether DiPascali’s cooperation has concluded and whether the parties are prepared to proceed with sentencing. In a May 14 letter to the judge, prosecutors said DiPascali’s cooperation was ongoing. It confirmed that DiPascali’s cooperation had been partly responsible for the charges brought against Madoff’s former director of operations and the two computer programmers. The government said it expects to call DiPascali as a witness should those cases proceed to trial. The government redacted several paragraphs from the letter, saying disclosure of all its parts would unfairly prejudice subjects of the investigation who haven’t been indicted. Prosecutors have said they expect to request leniency at sentencing in return for the cooperation.

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff: "F–k My Victims"

June 7, 2010

Bernie Madoff appears to have none of the remorse expected of a man staring down a 150-year sentence. According to a lengthy new piece by Steve Fishman in New York magazine, Madoff, who apparently pals around with a former mob boss and a spy in a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina told a fellow inmante, “F— my victims. I carried them for twenty years, and now I’m doing 150 years.” Madoff, whose con artist bona fides seems to have turned some fellow inmates into “groupies,” even indicated to other prisoners that some of his victims actually deserved to have their money taken from them. Overall, Madoff comes off as cocksure, unrepentant and a bit miffed at the world. Here’s New York magazine: He was past apologizing. In prison, he crafted his own version of events. From MCC, Madoff explained the trap he was in. “People just kept throwing money at me,” Madoff related to a prison consultant who advised him on how to endure prison life. “Some guy wanted to invest, and if I said no, the guy said, ‘What, I’m not good enough?’ ” One day, Shannon Hay, a drug dealer who lived in the same unit in Butner as Madoff, asked about his crimes. “He told me his side. He took money off of people who were rich and greedy and wanted more,” says Hay, who was released in December. People, in other words, who deserved it. The idea that Madoff “carried” his investors or those in his employ, was echoed by earlier comments he reportedly made to another prison. Late last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Madoff told Kenneth C. White, a convicted bank robber, that he “carried” his employees for years and felt that they had ?turned their back on him” In December, Madoff reportedly suffered a broken nose and fractured ribs in a prison fight. (It was initially reported that Madoff fell out of bed.) Convicted of a decades-long Ponzi scheme, Madoff’s total take from investors is said to approach $19 billion Read the entire piece at New York magazine here.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Madoff Victims to Hedge Funds: Show Us the Money!

May 18, 2010

In a recent blog , I gave this definition of hedge funds: “A way for fund managers to make unbelievable profits by convincing wealthy investors, pensions and trusts they have discovered a way to achieve high returns without commensurate risk. Qualifies as one of the greatest wealth transfer vehicles in modern times.” I was being too kind. Pre-Madoff, hedge funds were all the rage. These were the captains of Wall Street. They had figured out a way to make money in any market. Trillions of dollars flowed into their coffers. The hedge fund managers became the rock stars of the financial world. What a difference a big fraud makes. Now many of these funds claim they were also victims of Madoff. They want you to believe they were clueless about his machinations. That’s the justification for keeping their obscene fees for advising their clients to invest with him. The investors are wiped out. The hedge funds and banks are swimming in cash. Any wonder why investors have lost confidence in the financial system? Take Ivy Asset Management for example. This is no rinky dink operation. It is wholly owned by the Bank of New York Mellon. According to a Complaint filed by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, (the allegations of the complaint have yet to be proven), filed in the New York State Supreme Court, Ivy scored $40 million in fees (!) by placing over $227 million of its clients’ funds with Madoff. How difficult would it have been for the Wharton and Harvard trained M.B.A’s at Ivy and other hedge funds and banks to figure out Madoff was a fraud? They were handsomely paid to perform due diligence. Cuomo alleges Ivy knew, or should have known, there weren’t enough options traded to support Madoff’s much touted “split strike conversion” strategy. A press release issued by the Attorney General references a memorandum, written in 2002, by Ivy’s Chief Investment Officer, Howard Wohl. Mr. Wohl wrote this to a subordinate who could not figure out Madoff’s sterling performance record: “Ah, Madoff, You omitted one possibility – he’s a fraud!” It’s ironic that Ivy and the other hedge funds and banks who promoted Madoff can defend these lawsuits with the interest on their fees. They have lawyered up with the finest legal minds in the country, with one goal in mind: Hanging on to their ill-gotten fees and not making restitution to the clients who were harmed by their negligence. Predictably, the lawyers (with help from Congress and the courts) are doing a fine job. One court dismissed claims against Union Bancaire Privee Asset Management and its Swiss parent Union Bancaire Privee. These firms created 11 “fund of funds” that lost over $700 million by investing with Madoff. This distinguished Swiss Bank has over $60 billion under management. According to a report on its web site “it is one of the biggest wealth-management banks in private hands.” Its real expertise is doing due diligence on hedge funds. Here’s what it states : “Research and hedge-fund selection are all driven by a due diligence process which is divided into three main strata of risk analysis: qualitative, quantitative and structural risk. This process has been developed with one of the best experts in the auditing world and allows us to make an extremely strict selection of asset managers. The process of due diligence enables us to establish a list of recommended funds that we consider to be the elite of the industry. This list is updated every month and forms the basis of our portfolio recommendations.” Wow. That’s so impressive! You have to wonder how all these experts couldn’t figure out that Bernie was running a primitive Ponzi scheme. Did the distinguished Board of Directors of Union Bancaire decide to do the right thing and make investors whole? After all, their sterling “due diligence” utterly failed. No way. They hired world class lawyers and got the investors’ claims tossed out. In a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Greisa in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Barron v. Igolnikov, 09-Civ. 4471), the Court found the lawsuit was preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”), a statute that places severe limitations on certain class actions. Judge Greisa found SLUSA applicable even though it applies only to purchases of “covered securities”, which are defined generally as being securities sold on national exchanges. Hedge funds invest in “covered securities”, but are not “covered securities” themselves. At least one other Court disagrees. In a case in the same Court (Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 05 Civ. 9016), Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held that SLUSA did not apply to investments in hedge funds because “…to hold otherwise would extend the reach of SLUSA to any investment vehicle with covered securities in its portfolio.” But I digress. Simply stated, and regardless of legal technicalities, all hedge funds and banks who recommended investments in Madoff should be required to make good on the losses. Since private parties are having difficulty achieving this result, the public sector should take action. The Attorneys General in each state should follow Cuomo’s lead. State Securities Commissioners should emulate the aggressiveness of Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin, who entered into a Consent Order with another Madoff “feeder fund”, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors, and obtained restitution for residents of Massachusetts. The SEC, FINRA and banking regulators have all been reluctant to force disgorgement of fees and reimbursement of losses for entities under their jurisdiction. It’s time to say “enough.” Madoff investors relied on these purported financial gurus. The burden of the losses should fall on those who held themselves out as financial experts with extensive due diligence expertise. Not on individual investors who suffered the losses. Show Madoff investors the money! The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. .

Read the full article →

Madoff Sons, Brother Could Face Charges: AP

April 30, 2010

NEW YORK — Federal authorities will charge at least two employees from disgraced financier Bernard Madoff’s former firm in the coming weeks — and Madoff’s brother and two sons could be next, two people familiar with the probe into Madoff’s financial fraud told The Associated Press. Madoff’s brother, Peter, and sons Andrew and Mark — executives in the Madoff firm’s legitimate market-making and proprietary-trading business — are likely to face tax fraud charges later this year, but may escape more serious securities fraud charges if authorities fail to come up with solid evidence they knowingly participated in the massive fraud, the people said. The people, who asked not to be identified because the investigation hasn’t been completed, declined to name the two employees or specify possible charges. Four other employees and an outside accountant already have been charged with helping Madoff pull off a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme that spanned decades and burned thousands of investors. The 71-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year prison term after admitting that his secretive investment advisory service at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities never bought any securities. Instead, he created phantom wealth by using new investments to pay returns to existing clients. There was no response to requests for comment Friday from lawyers for Madoff’s brother and sons. The Madoffs have vehemently denied wrongdoing in past bankruptcy court filings and in their attorneys’ statements. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan declined on Friday to discuss the status of the investigation. Although it doesn’t specify the tax crimes the family could face, a criminal complaint filed in February against Madoff’s operations chief, Daniel Bonventre, implicates Madoff relatives without naming them. Under Bonventre’s watch, it says, the firm “extended more than 15 loans, totaling over $50 million, to Madoff family members and key employees” for the purchase of luxury homes, and “purported to forgive most of these loans after a few years.” The firm, it adds, also “made millions of dollars in payments directly from the Ponzi Scheme Accounts to Madoff, family members and certain employees, including Bonventre. These payments were separate and apart from payments made through the payroll system. … (Bonventre) did not record, or cause others to record, these transactions at all.” Bonventre has pleaded not guilty to charges he banked nearly $300,000 in undeclared income derived from the fraud. The 16-month Madoff investigation is grinding forward, with FBI agents still camped out on the 17th floor of a Manhattan skyscraper that once was home to Madoff’s financial empire. The agents and prosecutors also continue to cultivate Frank DiPascali, a chief Madoff aide, as their star cooperator. As part of a plea deal, DiPascali’s “continued cooperation” has been of “substantial assistance to the government in its investigation and prosecution of others,” prosecutors wrote in a February letter to a federal judge in Manhattan. A trustee liquidating Madoff’s assets has alleged in a civil case that it would have been impossible for the brother and sons not to know about a scheme that enriched the family, and has demanded they return ill-gotten gains to victims. In responding court papers, attorneys for Peter Madoff called the accusations “a sensationalistic attempt to lump together members of the Madoff family and create liability by association.” Likewise, the sons have insisted they were in the dark. Court papers credit them with contacting “authorities within hours of learning of their father’s betrayal of their trust (and that of his investors).” Federal authorities have said in the past that Madoff’s wife Ruth probably won’t be prosecuted because – unlike her sons and brother-in-law – she had no official position or responsibility in the business. ___ Associated Press writer Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

SEC Rarely Rewards Whistleblowers, Inspector General Investigation Finds

April 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission has had a bounty program for two decades to reward outside whistleblowers. But it has made few payments and must be improved, the agency’s watchdog says. A report released Thursday by SEC inspector general David Kotz examines the bounty program in the wake of the SEC’s colossal breakdown that allowed Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar fraud to go undetected for 16 years – despite abundant red flags raised by whistleblowers. The review by Kotz’s office found there have been very few payments made under the program, which is limited to insider trading cases. Only a total $159,537 has been paid to five people since the program began in 1989. Few applications for bounties have come in over the same 20-year period for a little-known program, the report said. The report also found: _ The application process for bounties needs to be made more user-friendly. Applications should be more promptly and fully reviewed by SEC staff. _ The SEC needs to put in procedures to help the staff assess the information provided by whistleblowers to determine whether awards are merited. The criteria for judging bounty applications are vague and not subject to judicial review. _ A communication plan should be developed to inform the public and SEC staff about the bounty program. _ The SEC should adopt practices of the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service regarding applications for bounties, analysis of whistleblower information, tracking of tips and complaints, and record keeping. The SEC already “has begun to take steps to correct the deficiencies,” the report notes. SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami agreed with all the report’s recommendations, Kotz said in a memo. The report said there is evidence that bounties “are an effective tool to encourage whistleblowers to come forward.” The agency has asked Congress to expand its authority to pay bounties for whistleblower information related to any kind of case that leads to enforcement action bringing fines over $1 million. The legislative proposal is being considered by the House and Senate. “Right now, the main reward for being a whistleblower is the good feeling you get of having done something important, because (the SEC doesn’t) have the authority to pay except where the whistleblowing relates to insider trading,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in congressional testimony last year. Broadening the agency’s authority would enable it to “run with that kind of information and to pursue cases in a much more aggressive way,” she said. In reports by his office issued last year, Kotz chronicled in detail how the SEC bungled five investigations of Madoff’s business between June 1992 and December 2008, when the prominent money manager confessed the scheme to his sons. Kotz found that the agency’s enforcement staff lacked adequate guidance on how to properly analyze complaints, and therefore failed to thoroughly review a complaint on Madoff brought to them in 2001 by private fraud investigator Harry Markopolos. Over the 16-year period, the SEC received six “substantive complaints that raised significant red flags” regarding Madoff’s operations, Kotz’s investigation found. The agency also received complaints from a number of other sources, all containing specific information that called for a thorough examination of Madoff’s business, the inquiry found. It said SEC enforcement staff rejected whistleblowers’ offers to provide additional evidence. Madoff pleaded guilty in March 2009. He is serving a 150-year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina for what could be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, with investor losses estimated so far at $13 billion to $19 billion – at least 13 times the SEC’s request to Congress for its entire budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Madoff’s epic fraud destroyed thousands of people’s life savings, wrecked charities and jolted investor confidence during the worst days of the financial crisis. Ordinary people as well as Hollywood celebrities, big hedge funds and international banks lost money investing with Madoff.

Read the full article →

SEC Rarely Rewards Whistleblowers, Inspector General Investigation Finds

April 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission has had a bounty program for two decades to reward outside whistleblowers. But it has made few payments and must be improved, the agency’s watchdog says. A report released Thursday by SEC inspector general David Kotz examines the bounty program in the wake of the SEC’s colossal breakdown that allowed Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar fraud to go undetected for 16 years – despite abundant red flags raised by whistleblowers. The review by Kotz’s office found there have been very few payments made under the program, which is limited to insider trading cases. Only a total $159,537 has been paid to five people since the program began in 1989. Few applications for bounties have come in over the same 20-year period for a little-known program, the report said. The report also found: _ The application process for bounties needs to be made more user-friendly. Applications should be more promptly and fully reviewed by SEC staff. _ The SEC needs to put in procedures to help the staff assess the information provided by whistleblowers to determine whether awards are merited. The criteria for judging bounty applications are vague and not subject to judicial review. _ A communication plan should be developed to inform the public and SEC staff about the bounty program. _ The SEC should adopt practices of the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service regarding applications for bounties, analysis of whistleblower information, tracking of tips and complaints, and record keeping. The SEC already “has begun to take steps to correct the deficiencies,” the report notes. SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami agreed with all the report’s recommendations, Kotz said in a memo. The report said there is evidence that bounties “are an effective tool to encourage whistleblowers to come forward.” The agency has asked Congress to expand its authority to pay bounties for whistleblower information related to any kind of case that leads to enforcement action bringing fines over $1 million. The legislative proposal is being considered by the House and Senate. “Right now, the main reward for being a whistleblower is the good feeling you get of having done something important, because (the SEC doesn’t) have the authority to pay except where the whistleblowing relates to insider trading,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in congressional testimony last year. Broadening the agency’s authority would enable it to “run with that kind of information and to pursue cases in a much more aggressive way,” she said. In reports by his office issued last year, Kotz chronicled in detail how the SEC bungled five investigations of Madoff’s business between June 1992 and December 2008, when the prominent money manager confessed the scheme to his sons. Kotz found that the agency’s enforcement staff lacked adequate guidance on how to properly analyze complaints, and therefore failed to thoroughly review a complaint on Madoff brought to them in 2001 by private fraud investigator Harry Markopolos. Over the 16-year period, the SEC received six “substantive complaints that raised significant red flags” regarding Madoff’s operations, Kotz’s investigation found. The agency also received complaints from a number of other sources, all containing specific information that called for a thorough examination of Madoff’s business, the inquiry found. It said SEC enforcement staff rejected whistleblowers’ offers to provide additional evidence. Madoff pleaded guilty in March 2009. He is serving a 150-year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina for what could be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, with investor losses estimated so far at $13 billion to $19 billion – at least 13 times the SEC’s request to Congress for its entire budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Madoff’s epic fraud destroyed thousands of people’s life savings, wrecked charities and jolted investor confidence during the worst days of the financial crisis. Ordinary people as well as Hollywood celebrities, big hedge funds and international banks lost money investing with Madoff.

Read the full article →

UBS May Escape Hundreds of Madoff Lawsuits After Luxembourg Court Ruling

March 4, 2010

By Stephanie Bodoni March 4 (Bloomberg) — UBS AG and Ernst & Young LLP won a Luxembourg court ruling potentially nullifying hundreds of claims by investors who lost money in funds tied to Bernard Madoff’s fraud. Luxembourg’s commercial court said in a ruling today concerning 10 test cases that investors can’t bring individual lawsuits for damages. “The recovery of the capital assets belongs exclusively to the liquidators” of mutual funds that invested with Madoff, the court said. The Luxembourg case comes as UBS aims to post its first annual profit since 2006 this year and halt withdrawals by wealthy clients after spinning off toxic assets. The Swiss government is trying to salvage an accord with the U.S. over access to UBS accounts held by clients suspected of dodging taxes that was blocked last month by a national court. “This has been just one of the many things hanging over UBS but any issue that can be cleared up can only help,” said Andreas Venditti , an analyst at Zuercher Kantonalbank who has a “market weight” recommendation on the stock. Investors who lost millions of dollars through Access International Advisors LLC’s LuxAlpha Sicav-American Selection fund filed more than 100 lawsuits against UBS and Ernst & Young for “seriously neglecting” their fund supervisory duties. Luxembourg’s commercial court in April 2009 decided to hear some of the cases to test whether the claims were admissible. “UBS welcomes the clarification of Luxembourg law as expressed by today’s decisions,” Tatiana Togni , a spokeswoman for the Zurich-based bank, said in an e-mail. UBS Shares UBS dropped as much as 1.3 percent, or 20 centimes, in Zurich and traded 1 centimes lower to 15.51 francs at 10:40 a.m., extending the year’s decline to 3.6 percent. LuxAlpha, which invested 95 percent of its assets with Madoff, said it had $1.4 billion in net assets a month before the former Nasdaq Stock Market chairman’s December 2008 arrest. The fund was dissolved and is being liquidated. “All I can say at this moment is that we’re considering appealing,” Franck Greff, a lawyer in four of the test cases, said in an interview after the ruling. Fund Custodian The fund’s liquidators in December filed their own lawsuit against UBS, Ernst & Young, the fund’s manager, Access International Advisors LLC, the fund’s administrators and Luxembourg’s financial regulator. UBS served as the custodian for LuxAlpha, and was responsible for oversight of funds and managed deposits and payments to investors. “This ruling means investors can’t have proper access to justice by being denied to enforce their rights in court. That’s a problem,” said Erik Bomans , a Brussels-based partner for Deminor, which advises some 800 investors with Madoff losses. Today’s decision could affect similar suits concerning Luxembourg Investment Fund and Herald (Lux) US Absolute Return , which were also dissolved last year after investing with Madoff. Madoff, 71, pleaded guilty last year in federal court in Manhattan and was sentenced in June to 150 years in prison for using money from new clients to pay earlier investors. He directed a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme from his now-defunct New York money-management firm. One of the issues the Luxembourg court tried to clarify during four days of hearings last November was whether investors who used an intermediary to place their money with the now- defunct fund could be considered shareholders and bring claims. ‘Sponsored’ by UBS LuxAlpha was created in 2004 and was “sponsored” by UBS AG, according to a fund prospectus. UBS has previously said LuxAlpha’s fund documents contained an explicit waiver that “made it very clear that UBS (Luxembourg) SA was not expected to be responsible for the safekeeping of the assets.” Ernst & Young, which audited the fund’s accounts and was to provide information to the Luxembourg financial regulator, is being accused in one complaint by a French investor of being “co-responsible” for losses because it “didn’t follow the necessary obligatory controls and checks.” To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at sbodoni@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Madoff’s Minions: An Illustrated Guide

January 20, 2010

Bernie Madoff swore he’d acted alone when he pleaded guilty to his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. It was a preposterous claim, so why, more than a year later, isn’t more of his inner circle behind bars? Neither the FBI nor the US Attorney’s Office is talking. But for some of these Madoff enablers, the vacation on the investors’ dime may not last forever.

Read the full article →

Madoff Leaves Prison Hospital, Back In Cell

December 30, 2009

BUTNER, N.C. — Bernard Madoff has left his North Carolina prison’s hospital unit and returned to his cell. The 71-year-old disgraced financier had been transferred to a prison hospital on Dec. 18. Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Denise Simmons said Wednesday he was transferred back to the medium security section of the complex Monday. She declined to discuss Madoff’s health. Madoff’s lawyer has said that Madoff had dizziness and high blood pressure. Prisons officials have said he was not assaulted. Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence after pleading guilty to fraud and admitting to cheating thousands of investors out of billions of dollars.

Read the full article →

AP: Ponzi Busts Nearly Quadrupled In 2009

December 28, 2009

(AP — CURT ANDERSON) – It was a rough year for Ponzi schemes. In 2009, the recession unraveled nearly four times as many of the investment scams as fell apart in 2008, with “Ponzi” becoming a buzzword again thanks to the collapse of Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion plot. Tens of thousands of investors, some of them losing their life’s savings, watched more than $16.5 billion disappear like smoke in 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of scams in all 50 states. While the dollar figure was lower than in 2008, that’s only because Madoff — who pleaded guilty earlier this year and is serving a 150-year prison sentence — was arrested in December 2008 and didn’t count toward this year’s total. In all, more than 150 Ponzi schemes collapsed in 2009, compared to about 40 in 2008, according to the AP’s examination of criminal cases at all U.S. attorneys’ offices and the FBI, as well as criminal and civil actions taken by state prosecutors and regulators at both the federal and state levels. The 2009 scams ranged in size from a few hundred thousand dollars to the $7 billion bogus international banking empire authorities say jailed financier Allen Stanford orchestrated, as well as the $1.2 billion scheme they say was operated by disbarred Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein. Both have pleaded not guilty. While enforcement efforts have ramped up — in large part because of the discovery of Madoff’s fraud, estimated at $21 billion to $50 billion — the main reason so many Ponzi schemes have come to light is clear. “The financial meltdown has resulted in the exposure of numerous fraudulent schemes that otherwise might have gone undetected for a longer period of time,” said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general for the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal division. A Ponzi scheme depends on a constant infusion of new investors to pay older ones and furnish the cash for the scammers’ lavish lifestyles. This year, when the pool of people willing to become new investors shrank and existing investors clamored to withdraw money, scams collapsed across the country. “Some portion of the investors in the Ponzi scheme always get the short end of the stick and do not get paid,” said Elizabeth Nowicki, a former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney who now teaches law at Boston University. Even those who say they did their homework before investing ended up losing everything. A retired Air Force sergeant, Tom Annis searched the Internet for red flags like complaints or lawsuits involving Minneapolis-based host Patrick Kiley after hearing about his investment on a weekly Christian radio show called “Follow The Money.” Finding none, the 63-year-old from Jacksonville, Fla., invested his $270,000 nest egg — money that has since evaporated after federal regulators shut down what they’ve called an elaborate, $190 million Ponzi scheme. “I tried to do my level of due diligence,” Annis said. “How could I be duped like this after years of investing?” Ponzi schemes, named for infamous swindler Charles Ponzi, are extremely simple: Investors attracted by promises of high profits are paid with money from an ever-increasing pool of new investors, with the scammer skimming off the top. Sometimes the investments are at least partially legitimate but more often are completely fictional. There’s no reserve fund for lean times, or for when droves of investors start demanding their money. Ponzi himself was an Italian immigrant who concocted a scheme in 1919 involving bogus investments in postal currency. He cheated thousands of people out of $10 million, eventually going to jail for wire fraud before being deported back to Italy in 1934. Eighty years after his scheme, federal statistics paint the picture of a Ponzi nation: _The FBI opened more than 2,100 securities fraud investigations in 2009, up from 1,750 in 2008. The FBI also had 651 agents working in 2009 on high-yield investment fraud cases, which include Ponzis, compared with 429 last year. _The SEC this year issued 82 percent more restraining orders against Ponzi schemes and other securities fraud cases this year than in 2008, and it opened about 6 percent more investigations. Ponzi scheme investigations now make up 21 percent of the SEC’s enforcement workload, compared with 17 percent in 2008 and 9 percent in 2005. _The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed 31 civil actions in Ponzi cases this year, more than twice the 2008 amount. Many of the 2009 cases have yet to head to trial. In its tally, the AP counted schemes in which prosecutions were initiated or in which regulators filed civil cases in 2008 and 2009. The Justice Department does not have totals of how many people were convicted in Ponzi schemes for either year, or for previous years. Experts believe the recession was the main reason for the collapse of so many Ponzi schemes, though the Madoff case brought greater regulatory scrutiny and heightened public awareness. More people are inclined to raise questions when things don’t look right. “We do get a lot more questions from investors now,” said Denise Voigt Crawford, Texas Securities Comissioner. “They are really worried about Ponzi schemes. That’s a good thing.”

Read the full article →

Stanley Chais, Investor Tied To Madoff, The Subject Of New Criminal Probe

December 11, 2009

NEW YORK — A criminal probe of a prominent California investment manager parallels a civil investigation that concluded he fed nearly $1 billion of investor money to Bernard Madoff, earning a quarter billion dollars in fees along the way, prosecutors said Friday. Prosecutors filed papers with a judge in U.S. District Court in Manhattan asking that the civil case brought against investment adviser Stanley Chais by the Securities and Exchange Commission be delayed six months while they determine whether to bring criminal charges. Assistant U.S. Attorney William J. Stellmach wrote that a criminal probe was looking at “very similar conduct” to what the SEC found when it concluded that Chais falsely told investors he was personally managing money in three funds when he just turned it over to Madoff. The SEC also said Chais collected about $269 million in fees from the Chais funds between 1995 and 2008 while he provided false account statements to investors and asked Madoff to promise never to report losses from his trading, Stellmach noted. The SEC said Madoff reported in November 2008 that the Chais funds held more than $900 million in his accounts. The SEC alleged that Chais and his family members withdrew about a half a billion dollars more than they invested with Madoff while thousands of other investors lost money with the 71-year-old man now serving a 150-year prison sentence for fraud. Stellmach said the government initiated its probe of Chais and his funds shortly after Madoff’s fraud was revealed Dec. 11, 2008, after he confessed to family that he could not account for about $50 billion he was supposed to be managing. He had informed investors two weeks earlier that their initial investment of more than $20 billion had grown to over $65 billion. Stellmach said the criminal probe seeks to learn whether Chais and others associated with the Chais entities knew Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme, misrepresented Chais as personally devising and executing the Chais funds’ investment strategy and whether they lied to investors. The prosecutor said the government wants to know if Chais and others violated federal laws against conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, schemes to defraud in connection with securities, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, money laundering and securities fraud. Eugene Licker, a lawyer for Chais, said the submission by prosecutors contains nothing beyond what the SEC had already alleged, “which Mr. Chais has denied.” He added: “The government of course feels compelled to investigate, and we are confident that the investigations will support Mr. Chais’ denials of any wrongdoing.” Licker also noted that Chais has agreed to let the civil case be delayed until the criminal probe is finished. Stellmach said letting the civil case proceed could lead to depositions that might “impair the usefulness of the cooperating witnesses whom the government expects to call at any criminal trials arising from the Madoff fraud generally or its investigation of Chais specifically.” Prosecutors asked that the civil case against Chais be delayed until June 18.

Read the full article →

Most Madoff Victims Have Been Denied Repayment One Year After His Arrest

December 10, 2009

By Erik Larson Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — Most of the people who say they lost money with Bernard Madoff have had their claims denied because they invested with the con man indirectly or withdrew more money than they put in. Trustee Irving Picard has turned down about 9,900 of the 11,500 people whose claims he has analyzed, with another 4,500 cases still to be looked into. The 1,600 people whose claims he has approved have losses totaling $4.69 million, though they’ll get at most $500,000 to begin with, pending the results of Picard’s suits against people he regards as beneficiaries of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. One year after Madoff’s arrest in his penthouse apartment in Manhattan on Dec. 11, 2008, exposing the swindle and ruining thousands of investors, the denial of most claims and the approval of some at lesser amounts than victims sought has emerged as the biggest dispute in the case. Many alleged victims argue they should be paid years’ worth of fake profit. Picard’s method for determining claims is “grossly unfair,” retiree Ken Macher, who claims he lost a savings account once worth $1.6 million, said in a Dec. 7 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. Picard is depriving Macher of “some small relief from the loss of our entire investment,” he said. Macher’s claim was denied because he withdrew $1 million in 2007 after having invested only about $365,500, according to the filing. Macher, of Fairfax, California, said the funds were immediately placed in another Madoff account that was wiped out. Reality “We never received any of the money,” said Macher, who said in his filing he took a consulting job to help save his home. “Equating this transaction with a withdrawal in which the investor actually received the funds ignores the reality of the circumstances.” A call to the phone number listed for Macher’s address in Fairfax wasn’t returned. Picard is calculating claims based on cash deposits minus withdrawals. Helen Chaitman , who testified yesterday in Washington at a congressional subcommittee hearing about the case, said the liquidation is taking too long because Picard didn’t set claims based on Madoff’s last account statements. “He’s violating a federal statute which mandates that customers be paid based on their last statements,” Chaitman said today in a phone interview. “He’s going through decades’ worth of records in order to disqualify eligible investors.” February Hearing U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland will consider the disagreement at a Feb. 2 hearing in New York. Picard, hired by the government-chartered Securities Investor Protection Corp., has said that cash losses were about $21 billion, while victims thought they had $65 billion based on profit from securities that Madoff didn’t actually purchase. SIPC will pay about $561 million for the investors’ claims, money it has raised through fees charged to its 5,227 brokerage firm members. Investor claims that exceed $500,000 will get a share of what Picard recovers in lawsuits seeking about $15 billion in fake profit to be distributed to victims. Out of 11,500 determined so far, Picard denied about 9,900, mostly because they invested indirectly through so-called feeder funds. Picard has said the victims who invested indirectly through so-called feeder funds may still get some cash if claims by the funds are approved and those funds use the money to repay customers. Some feeder funds have also had claims denied. Picard declined to comment. Federal Prison Billions of dollars in investor cash were funneled into the fraud by funds including those run by New York-based Fairfield Greenwich Group, investment manager J. Ezra Merkin’s Gabriel Capital Corp., Spanish lender Banco Santander SA and Bermuda- based Kingate Management Ltd., among others. Many of the funds were sued by Picard for the return of profit from the fraud. Madoff, 71, pleaded guilty in March and is serving a 150- year sentence at a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina. The case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 08-01789, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Madoff’s Yachts, Mercedes, Wife’s Jewels Fetch $3 Million for Scam Victims

November 18, 2009

By Katya Kazakina Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — In less than a week, the U.S. Marshals Service has raised $3 million for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff, selling off his personal assets including a teak-accented yacht, diamond earrings and a N.Y. Mets jacket. The agency plans to hold two or three more sales, though they haven’t been scheduled yet. All the proceeds are to go to victims of Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Yesterday, his three powerboats and a Mercedes-Benz fetched $1.1 million at an auction in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Last weekend dozens of items owned by Madoff and his wife Ruth , including her diamond earrings and his Mets sports jacket, raised more than $900,000 in Manhattan. “All of these auctions are exceeding our expectations,” Barry Golden, deputy U.S. Marshals public information officer, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “Every dollar counts.” The 71-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to using money from new clients to pay off old ones. At yesterday’s auction, “Bull,” a 55-foot 1969 Rybovich Sportfish, sold for $700,000. “Sitting Bull,” a 38-foot 2003 Shelter Island Runabout Sport, went for $320,000. “Little Bull,” a 24-foot 2000 center-console boat from Maverick Boat Co. , brought in $21,000. Convertible Asset In addition, a 1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible owned by Ruth Madoff sold for $30,000. The car had 12,827 miles on it. By the time the auction got underway, 70 bidders had registered with National Liquidators , a Florida-based vessel- recovery company offering Madoff’s boats and the Mercedes-Benz for the marshals service. The sale began at 4 p.m. New York time and took less than an hour, according to the service. The company also took in $950,000 for a 61-foot 2003 Viking sport-fishing yacht owned by Frank DiPascali , former chief financial officer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. He pleaded guilty to aiding Madoff in the Ponzi scheme. That money also will go to the fund for the victims. Golden said he couldn’t characterize the buyers of the yachts. The Madoff provenance wouldn’t have meant very much to hard-core fishermen, said John D’Agostino, sales manager at HMY Yacht Sales , a Florida-based company that sells used yachts. “They want a deal,” he said in a telephone interview. “They could care less whose boat it was.” The sale could have attracted European buyers, said George Fortune, broker with Monte Carlo Luxury Yachts in Monaco. “The Euro is quite strong against the dollar and few people who are buying yachts at the moment are gravitating towards the U.S. market,” he said. Teak Woodwork The custom-designed “Bull” features a hydraulic elevator and teak woodwork, said Bob Toney, chief executive officer of National Liquidators. Bar glasses have hand-painted bulls. “Mr. Madoff has taken better care of his yachts than anyone else I know,” Toney said in a telephone interview. “They were crew-maintained all the time.” The average price for a 1969 Rybovich is $450,000 in HMY’s database, D’Agostino said. The U.S. Marshals Service seized the vessels on April 1. It is responsible for the management and disposition of the Madoffs’ assets, and for collecting the proceeds from sales. The couple’s homes in Manhattan and West Palm Beach are currently for sale. The asking price of their penthouse apartment in Manhattan was recently cut by $1 million to $8.9 million after almost two months on the market. To contact the reporter of this story: Katya Kazakina in New York at kkazakina@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Madoff Yachts, Fishing Boat Draw Bargain Hunters in Florida Asset Auction

November 17, 2009

By Katya Kazakina Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Three powerboats owned by Bernard L. Madoff and named with various forms of “bull” are being auctioned today in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with sale proceeds to benefit the victims of his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. By noon today, 55 bidders had registered with National Liquidators , a Florida-based vessel-recovery company offering Madoff’s three boats and a black Mercedes Benz for the U.S. Marshals Service. The sale begins at 4 p.m. New York time and includes eight lots, of which three aren’t related to Madoff. The 71-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to using money from new clients to pay off old ones. Bidders had to make a $100,000 deposit to compete for “Bull,” a 55-foot 1969 Rybovich Sportfish, or “Sitting Bull,” a 38-foot 2003 Shelter Island Runabout Sport. Those interested in his “Little Bull,” a 24-foot 2000 center-console powerboat from Maverick Boat Co. , or his 1999 Mercedes had to put up $50,000. The car has 12,827 miles on it. “I hope every boat sells and a lot of money returns to the victims fund,” said Bob Toney, president of National Liquidators, in a telephone interview. He declined to release the presale estimates. The company is also selling a 61-foot 2003 Viking sport- fishing yacht owned by Frank DiPascali , former chief financial officer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, who pleaded guilty to aiding Madoff in the Ponzi scheme. The Madoff provenance isn’t likely to attract hard-core fishermen, said John D’Agostino, sales manager at HMY Yacht Sales , a Florida-based company that sells used yachts. “They want a deal,” he said in a telephone interview. “They could care less whose boat it was.” Hand-Painted Bulls Madoff’s custom-designed “Bull” features a hydraulic elevator, Toney said, and teak woodwork. Bar glasses have hand- painted bulls. “Mr. Madoff has taken better care of his yachts than anyone else I know,” Toney said. “They were crew-maintained all the time.” The average price for a 1969 Rybovich is $450,000 in HMY’s database, D’Agostino said. Madoff’s “Bull” could “go for $500,000 or more,” he said. “The runabout could probably get up into the $500,000s as well, only because it’s a newer boat.” The smallest boat could fetch about $20,000 to $30,000, according to D’Agostino. Yachtworld.com’s database for used boats lists a 21-foot 2000 Maverick for $18,000, he said. By comparison, a 78-foot custom-made 2009 Rybovich is currently listed for $7.5 million, he said. Seized Assets The U.S. Marshals Service seized the vessels on April 1. It is responsible for the management and disposition of Bernard and Ruth Madoff’s assets, and for collecting the proceeds from sales of the assets, which will be used for victim restitution. Furs, Rolex watches, a Mets sports jacket, diamonds and hundreds of other personal items belonging to the Madoffs fetched more than $900,000 at a packed New York auction last weekend. About 2,000 dealers and collectors placed bids online and in the ballroom of the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Many of the roughly 170 lots surpassed high estimates set by Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers , the Pflugerville, Texas, company, handling the sale for the U.S. Marshals Service. To contact the reporter of this story: Katya Kazakina in New York at kkazakina@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff’s Yacht, Smaller Boats Up For Auction

November 16, 2009

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A vintage 55-foot yacht named “Bull” and two smaller boats that once belonged to imprisoned financier Bernard Madoff are headed for the auction block, along with an even bigger yacht once owned by Madoff’s right-hand man. Madoff’s 1969 Rybovitch sportfisher, a wooden boat meticulously restored, is the prize offering at Tuesday’s private auction. As of Monday, 29 people had put up a $100,000 deposit for the opportunity to bid and more were expected to register, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. “People have heard of it. It’s a piece of history,” said Bob Toney, president and CEO of National Liquidators, which is handling the auction for the government. Also for sale are Madoff’s 38-foot Shelter Island runabout, named “Sitting Bull,” and a 24-foot Maverick center console named “Little Bull.” Then there’s Madoff’s black 1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible, which has just 12,800 miles on the odometer, and a 61-foot Viking fishing yacht formerly owned by Madoff’s ex-chief financial officer, Frank DiPascali. Together, the vessels and car could fetch several million dollars, but officials don’t want to put a price tag on any particular item before the auction. Madoff’s notoriety could also boost the final sales prices, said Jennifer Crane of the Marshals’ asset forfeiture division. “You can’t really put a price on this,” she said. “Our goal is to make as much money as possible.” The proceeds will go to investors in Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme. He is currently serving a 150-year federal prison sentence in North Carolina. An auction this past weekend in New York of jewelry, dishes, clothing and other personal property brought in more than $1 million, Crane said, with three or four additional auctions of personal property yet to be scheduled. Madoff’s penthouse apartment in Manhattan is on the market for $8.9 million – recently reduced by $1 million – and the asking price for his waterfront Palm Beach mansion is $7.9 million. A beach house in the Hamptons on New York’s Long Island sold last month for $9.4 million.

Read the full article →

Madoff `Prisoner’ Watch, New York Mets Jacket Snapped Up in $900,000 Sale

November 15, 2009

By Philip Boroff Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) — Bernard L. Madoff’s Rolex “prisoner watch” and his New York Mets jacket were among 170 items sold last night in a Manhattan auction that raised more than $900,000 for victims of his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. About 2,000 dealers and collectors placed bids online, and in the ballroom of the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers, for keepsakes, jewelry and clothing owned by Madoff and his wife, Ruth . Many of the lots blew past high estimates set by Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers , the Pflugerville, Texas, company that handled the sale for the U.S. Marshals Service. “People were paying for the provenance, the notoriety,” one bidder, Sherwin Robin, said in an interview at the sale. “The prices were over retail.” Mrs. Madoff’s 14-carat diamond earrings sold for $70,000 to become the top lot. Personalized items also fetched a premium. The blue satin Mets jacket, with “Madoff” stitched on the back, had a $720 high estimate and went for $14,500, 20 times as much, to an online bidder. “What size is it?” screamed Miami dealer Alan Richardson, breaking the tension in the saleroom as he was outbid. Madoff’s 18-carat gold “prisoner watch” — one of about 50 watches on the block — sold for $65,000. It got its name because Rolex offered similar steel ones to prisoners of war in Germany during World War II. The pre-Victorian earrings, which had a high estimate of $21,400, were bought by a man with a Russian accent sitting in the back of the ballroom. Wearing a black pullover and baseball cap, he identified himself as a dealer and otherwise declined to comment. Charm Bracelet Robin, a 60-year-old lawyer from Savannah, Georgia, was in town for a legal conference and bid $1,500 for a ladies 14-carat charm bracelet. It sold for $3,000, more than the high presale estimate of $1,000. The goods had been seized from Madoff’s Manhattan penthouse and home in Montauk, New York, by the Marshals Service, which supports the federal judiciary system. The total just exceeded $900,000, above the presale estimate of about $470,000 to $586,000, according to Bloomberg calculations. The Marshals Service declined to say how much the auction raised. The 71-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence after pleading guilty to using money from new clients to pay off old ones. Prosecutors said he told investors they had as much as $65 billion with New York-based Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Geneva Watches Seventeen Rolexes he owned were on offer, as well as seven Cartier watches, and others from Patek Philippe , Audemars Piguet and Franck Muller. Many of the watchmakers are in or near Geneva, a city where financial institutions lost about $7 billion from investments with Madoff. Also on the block were 11 leather Hermes handbags owned by 68-year-old Mrs. Madoff, as well as bags by Chanel, Prada, Jil Sander , Judith Leiber, Bottega Veneta and Louis Vuitton. One Lady Hermes brown suede handbag, plus two other purses, sold for $1,900, compared with a $210 high estimate. There were also a pair of Bull and Bear-motif Tiffany & Co. cufflinks and a Tiffany silver key ring monogrammed “BLM.” The bric a brac included ash trays from hotels: three from the Hotel Plaza Athenee in New York, two from the Eden Roc in the south of France and one from Hotel Cipriani in Venice. The Madoffs’ Christofle flatware, engraved “RMB” was up for grabs, as was stationery imprinted with “Bernard L. Madoff Securities.” Madoff’s Wallet A men’s Mont Blanc black leather wallet, embossed with “BM,” sold for $2,200. Three boogie boards, with “Madoff” written in magic marker on one, and assorted fishing gear went for $1,000. On Nov. 17, the Marshals Service is auctioning three boats Madoff owned in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Also on the block is a luxury sport-fishing yacht owned by Frank DiPascali , who pleaded guilty to aiding Madoff in the Ponzi scheme. The 3 1/2-hour sale was packed with media, with some 150 journalists covering the auction preview on Friday. “I’d have to rob a bank to get this much press,” music entrepreneur Norman Chesky said, trailed by reporters, as he rolled out a tree-stump table he bought for $500. To contact the reporter on the story: Philip Boroff at pboroff@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Madoff `Prisoner’ Watch Brings $65,000 at Auction, Wife’s Earrings $70,000

November 14, 2009

By Philip Boroff Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) — Ruth Madoff’s 14-carat diamond earrings sold for $70,000 today in a Manhattan auction of keepsakes, jewelry and clothing owned by Bernard L. Madoff and his wife that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for victims of his Ponzi scheme. An 18-carat gold Rolex “prisoner watch” — one of about 50 watches on the block — sold for $65,000. It got its name because Rolex offered similar steel ones to prisoners of war in Germany during World War II. The 71-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence after pleading guilty to using money from new clients to pay off old ones. Prosecutors said he told investors they had as much as $65 billion with New York-based Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. About 2,000 dealers and collectors placed bids in the ballroom of the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers and online. Many of the roughly 170 lots blew past high estimates set by Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers , the Pflugerville, Texas, company that handled the sale for the U.S. Marshals Service. The goods had been seized from Madoff’s Manhattan penthouse and home in Montauk, New York, by the Marshals Service, which supports the federal judiciary system. In all, the Madoff lots had a presale estimate of about $470,000 to $586,000, according to Bloomberg calculations. The Marshals Service declined to say how much the auction raised. The pre-Victorian earrings, a top lot with a higher estimate of $21,400, were bought by a man with a Russian accent sitting in the back of the ballroom. Wearing a black pullover and baseball cap, he identified himself as a dealer and otherwise declined to comment. ‘The Notoriety’ “People were paying for the provenance, the notoriety,” said Sherwin Robin, a 60-year-old lawyer from Savannah, Georgia. “The prices were over retail.” Robin was in town for a legal conference and bid $1,500 for a ladies 14-carat charm bracelet. It sold for $3,000, above the high presale estimate of $1,000. Personalized items fetched a premium. A blue satin New York Mets jacket, with “Madoff” stitched on the back, had a $720 high estimate and went for $14,500, 20 times as much, to an online bidder. “What size is it?” screamed Miami dealer Alan Richardson, breaking the tension in the saleroom as he was outbid. ‘BM’ Wallet A men’s Mont Blanc black leather wallet, embossed with “BM,” sold for $2,200. Three boogie boards, with “Madoff” written in magic marker on one, and assorted fishing gear went for $1,000. A Lady Hermes brown suede handbag, plus two other purses, sold for $1,900, compared with a $210 high estimate. On Dec. 17, the Marshals Service is auctioning three boats Madoff owned in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Also on the block is a luxury sport-fishing yacht owned by Frank DiPascali , who pleaded guilty to aiding Madoff in the Ponzi scheme. The 3 1/2-hour sale was packed with media, with some 150 journalists covering the auction preview on Friday. “I’d have to rob a bank to get this much press,” music entrepreneur Norman Chesky said, trailed by two reporters, as he rolled out a tree-stump table he bought for $500. To contact the reporter on the story: Philip Boroff at pboroff@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Video: Madoffs’ Rolexes, Furs, Hermes Handbags Set for Auction: Video

November 13, 2009

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) — Seventeen Rolexes, including an Oyster chronograph watch, fur coats and designer handbags are among the 150 to 200 lots up for auction that once belonged to Bernard and Ruth Madoff. The items will be auctioned tomorrow at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers to benefit victims of his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Bloomberg’s Gigi Stone reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Madoffs’ Rolexes, Furs, Hermes Handbags Set for Auction: Video

November 13, 2009

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) — Seventeen Rolexes, including an Oyster chronograph watch, fur coats and designer handbags are among the 150 to 200 lots up for auction that once belonged to Bernard and Ruth Madoff. The items will be auctioned tomorrow at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers to benefit victims of his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Bloomberg’s Gigi Stone reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Bernard Madoff Grins, Bill Gates Beams in Ex-Pop Star Cano’s London Show

November 9, 2009

Interview by Farah Nayeri Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) — Bernard Madoff , the financier who is serving a 150-year prison sentence for running a $65 billion Ponzi scheme, flashes a big smile. Madoff sits on the back wall of what was once a milk-truck depot. His wax portrait, recreated from a Wall Street Journal image, is given pride of place inside London’s Riflemaker Dairy gallery. The wax Madoff is the latest in a series by the Spanish pop-star-turned-artist Jose-Maria Cano , “The Wall Street 100.” Cano makes wall-sized wax-and-paraffin paintings based on the Wall Street Journal’s dotty black-and-white head shots. They’re his sarcastic take on how finance overtook all else. Madoff epitomizes the phenomenon. “He’s very special: the incarnation of this financial world,” says Cano, dressed in army pants and a padded bomber jacket inside the chilly ex-depot. “Madoff is the prophet.” Cano, 50, started the Madoff work on the day that stories first appeared on the scandal, and now considers it “the best one by far.” Though his gallery has had undisclosed offers from interested buyers, “I would prefer not to sell Bernard Madoff,” he says. “I love that painting.” Before taking up art full time a decade ago, Cano was a pop star, co-founder with his brother Nacho of the band Mecano , which sold 25 million records in the 1980s and 1990s. Then Cano became entangled in a bitter divorce, and found that his son had Asperger Syndrome, a condition he knew nothing about. Going on a global tour with the band suddenly seemed futile, and he left it in 1998. Divorce Paintings He decided to make art out of the streams of letters he received from his wife’s divorce lawyer, and turned more than 100 of them into wax paintings that he hung in his home. The works were spotted, and shown at the same time as Art Basel Miami in 2004. His artistic career took off. Today, the walls of Riflemaker Dairy are covered with large wax likenesses: Italy’s prime minister Silvio Berlusconi , a bit chubby around the jowls; Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates , looking cheery; Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich , flashing a toothy smile; and News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch , his bow- tie slightly askew. Cano has a home in Holland Park, bought when he moved to London in 1993 from Paul Berrow, manager of the rock band Duran Duran. Last month, his wax portrait of Queen Elizabeth II sold at Sotheby’s for 61,250 pounds ($102,503). So why is he so critical of high finance? Shifting Billions The artist has a problem with those who get rich speculating. In his view, they “do nothing” besides shifting money at their computer, and are “creating billions — from where? From what?” “When things get out of proportion,” Cano cautions, “they create tension, and then a cracking point.” Cano’s true passion is drawing, he says. He took drawing lessons every day after school from the age of 9 to 17. He hoped to become an architect. Much as he enjoys living in London, he remembers feeling alienated by the surfeit of bankers in the city — until the financial meltdown brought on by the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. “The normal people were hidden: It was, like, red Ferraris all around the place,” he says. “London is much more interesting since the crisis.” To contact the writer on this story: Farah Nayeri in London at Farahn@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

SEC’s Madoff Report: Madoff Was Amazed Regulators Repeatedly Failed To Detect His Fraud

October 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — Bernard Madoff was apparently convinced that it never even occurred to Securities and Exchange Commission staff he was running a Ponzi scheme, despite the agency’s numerous probes of his business. A document released Friday details a prison interview conducted on June 17 by the SEC inspector general in which Madoff says he had the impression that “it never entered the SEC’s mind that it was a Ponzi scheme.” There were some shades of boasting even as Madoff sat in jail a few months after pleading guilty to fraud. The only problem with officials at the SEC’s Washington headquarters, Madoff said, is that he had “too much credibility with them and they dismissed” the idea of a Ponzi scheme. The disgraced financier confided that he didn’t bring an attorney with him when he testified in an inquiry by the SEC’s enforcement division because he believed he didn’t need one – and he was trying to fool the government investigators into thinking he had nothing to hide. The details emerged in a summary of Inspector General David Kotz’s interview with Madoff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, released along with hundreds of other documents related to Kotz’s extensive investigation of the SEC’s stunning failure to detect Madoff’s fraudulent scheme for 16 years. As the SEC inspectors carried out probe after probe of his business, Madoff said in the interview he was “worried every time” that he’d be caught. “It was a nightmare for me,” he said. “I wish they caught me six years ago, eight years ago.” Madoff, 71, a former Nasdaq stock market chairman, pleaded guilty in March to charges that his secretive investment-adviser operation was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme that destroyed thousands of people’s life savings and wrecked charities. It was possibly the largest-ever Ponzi: the classic scheme in which investors are paid with other investors’ money rather than actual profits on their investment. He is serving a 150-year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina. Kotz also issued a statement Friday saying his probe found no evidence to support Madoff’s claim of having a “close relationship” with SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who previously headed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the brokerage industry’s self-policing organization. In the interview, Madoff called Schapiro a “dear friend,” saying she “probably thinks, I wish I never knew this guy.” Like the SEC, FINRA made periodic exams of Madoff’s brokerage operation, which functioned separately from his investment business hidden from regulators’ view. An internal review by FINRA found a regulatory breakdown on the part of the organization in the Madoff case. The new details from Kotz’s inquiry came the same day as word that Madoff’s longtime auditor is expected to plead guilty next week in a cooperation deal. Prosecutors told a federal judge in New York that accountant David Friehling was expected to offer a guilty plea at a conference Tuesday to revised charges that accuse him of securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, making false filings to the SEC, and obstructing or impeding administration of the Internal Revenue laws. The charges carry a prison term of up to 108 years, though significant cooperation with prosecutors can bring leniency. In his interview with Kotz, Madoff said the SEC never asked him about his tiny accounting firm. It seemed incongruous that, with more than $65 billion in private investments he claimed he oversaw for thousands of people, Madoff used what seemed to be a small-time auditor with a minuscule office in suburban New City, N.Y. Authorities say that Friehling appeared to have rubber-stamped Madoff’s records. Kotz’s report of his investigation, made public in early September, painstakingly detailed how the agency’s investigations of Madoff were bungled, with disputes among inspection staffers over the findings, lack of communication among SEC offices in various cities and repeated failures to act on credible complaints from outsiders forming a sea of red flags. An inspection of Madoff’s operation in 2003-04, for example, “was put on the back burner” even though the exam team still had unresolved questions, Kotz found. Madoff said in the interview that the SEC examiners “never asked” for basic records to corroborate his operations. Madoff’s former finance chief, Frank DiPascali, is cooperating with prosecutors after pleading guilty in August to helping Madoff carry out his fraud. Madoff was asked in the interview whether he was concerned about DiPascali’s testimony. His answer: “No, he didn’t know anything was wrong, either.”

Read the full article →

Finra Missed Opportunities to Catch Stanford, Madoff, Internal Report Says

October 2, 2009

By Joshua Gallu, David Scheer and Ian Katz Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority didn’t fully probe transactions at Bernard Madoff’s firm and repeatedly failed to investigate tips about R. Allen Stanford’s alleged $7 billion fraud, an internal report found. The staff of the U.S. brokerage industry’s main regulator is “not adequately trained” on its investigative authority, and the Washington-based watchdog lacks procedures to escalate matters to senior management or special investigators “based on the gravity and substance of the fraud allegations,” according to a report posted on Finra’s Web site today. The report shows that regulatory lapses linked to Madoff’s record Ponzi scheme weren’t confined to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been faulted by its own internal watchdog for inadequately pursuing tips over 16 years. Finra said it will create a new Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence to ensure that staff with expertise in fraud detection respond rapidly to suspected scams. “As regulators, we owe it to investors — especially those harmed by recent scandals — to develop a better, more comprehensive, response to fraud,” Finra Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum said in a statement. “I am committed to taking the lessons from the report’s findings to make Finra even stronger.” Jurisdictional Limits In a series of reports this year, SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz has faulted his agency’s oversight of Madoff and examined its attempts to investigate Stanford. In the Stanford case, he concluded the SEC was hampered by jurisdictional limits and Stanford’s refusal to cooperate. Kotz found that the SEC never fully investigated at least six tips on Madoff since 1992 while he was building a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. While there is no evidence that Finra received similar whistleblower complaints, its examiners did uncover several facts worthy of inquiry that, “with the benefit of hindsight, should have been pursued,” the Finra report said. In 2006, Finra examiners noticed Madoff was making payments to Cohmad Securities Corp., according to the report. Had examiners sought more documents, they may have realized that the fees were for steering clients to Madoff’s investment advisory business. Such a discovery “may not have uncovered the Ponzi scheme, but it would have undermined the Madoff firm’s longstanding representations” that it didn’t have customer accounts, the report said. Money Laundering In 2007, Finra staff uncovered commissions from a London affiliate that criminal investigators have linked to money laundering, according to the report. If examiners had fully scrutinized the transactions, they may have fueled suspicions and prompted a broader investigation, it said. In 2003, Finra received an anonymous letter calling Stanford’s business a “massive Ponzi scheme that will destroy the life savings of many.” The letter was not seen by the organization’s enforcement staff until six years later after an analyst determined Stanford’s CDs were not securities and therefore outside of Finra’s jurisdiction, the report said. The analyst referred the letter to the SEC. “By more aggressively using its authority, Finra could have obtained evidence of wrongdoing much earlier than it did,” the report said. If examiners had fully pursued information that Stanford’s customers were selling securities to purchase CDs based on his allegedly false advertising, they may have found sufficient evidence of fraud, the report said. Employee Complaints On at least two occasions, Finra handled complaints from former Stanford employees who claimed they had been fired after refusing to sell CD’s without conducting due diligence. One of the former employees said Stanford was soliciting unsophisticated investors in Latin America and that the value of his bank’s assets were “well below” his obligations to clients, indicating he was running a Ponzi scheme. Finra didn’t follow up on the allegations, the report said. Madoff, 71, is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a fraud that federal investigators said dated to at least the 1980s. Cohmad, which was sued by the SEC in June, has denied wrongdoing. Stanford, 59, faces 21 fraud and conspiracy counts linked to what the SEC has called a “massive” scheme to defraud investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. He denies wrongdoing and remains in a Texas jail awaiting trial. Finra Panel The report was prepared by a special panel formed to review Finra’s examination program, particularly the Madoff Ponzi scheme and Stanford’s alleged fraud. It was led by Charles Bowsher , U.S. comptroller general from 1981 to 1996. Other members included Harvey Goldschmid , a former SEC commissioner; Joel Seligman , president of the University of Rochester; and Ellyn Brown , Maryland’s securities commissioner from 1987 to 1992. Finra, funded by Wall Street firms and overseen by the SEC, writes rules for and polices almost 4,800 brokerages. Its board includes representatives of the financial industry along with former regulators and academics. To contact the reporters on this story: Joshua Gallu in Washington at jgallu@bloomberg.net ; David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net ; Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Video: Estimated Assets In Madoff Sell-Off – $59M

September 11, 2009

$59 million is the estimated money Federal Marshals hope to recoup in selling Madoff’s assets. (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Video: Estimated Assets In Madoff Sell-Off – $59M

September 11, 2009

$59 million is the estimated money Federal Marshals hope to recoup in selling Madoff’s assets. (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Happy Wall Street Day?

September 6, 2009

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Abraham Lincoln Believe it or not, we used to share Lincoln’s belief in the value of labor. In fact, Labor Day began in 1882 to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.” ( http://www.dol.gov/OPA/ABOUTDOL/LABORDAY.HTM ). Oh have we ditched that commonsense notion! Today, we worship wealth while labor is just another “input,” a way to maximize production and profit. We even have a theory of global “comparative advantage,” which holds that we’re better off if that “input” is in some faraway nation where wages are low and we don’t have to see the factories that are poisoning workers and the environment. We have so devalued labor that we hardly notice when millions of people lose their jobs. If you take a close look at government reports, you’ll see that 29,732,000 of our fellow Americans are unemployed and underemployed, giving us a real unemployment rate 18.55 percent. But not to worry, we are told. Labor doesn’t really matter anymore in the grand scheme of things. What matters is wealth, especially Wall Street wealth. Lincoln thought labor created wealth. Now we think Wall Street creates value and wealth by moving money around, by buying and selling money instruments, and by passively investing accumulated wealth. Take the Madoff scandal. Investors honestly believed they were entitled to double-digit returns every month, without fail, for doing absolutely nothing. They became easy prey to a swindler. All Madoff did was build on what he saw happening on Wall Street: Investors were flocking to fantasy finance instruments like synthetic CDOs that had almost no connection to any real assets. Madoff took it one step further: Instead of giving his gullible investors financial instruments that were almost worthless, he gave them nothing at all. And he got away with it because everyone wanted to believe in the magic of wealth creation. We began building our sandcastles in the sky in the 1970s, when economists and policy-makers fell in love with the idea of deregulated markets. Organized labor was a constraint. Taxes on the wealthy were a constraint. Regulations on finance were a constraint. The answer was so simple: eliminate the constraints and unfetter the markets. This would bring new efficiency and new wealth to our economy. All boats would rise. Instead, it marked the end of labor as Lincoln knew it. We weren’t paying much attention as real wages for the average worker declined over the next three decades. We were too enthralled by our orgy of fantasy finance. So much money gushed to the top of the income ladder that the wealthy literally ran out of real world investments. Deregulated Wall Street “financial engineers” solved this problem by creating new derivative financial products for people to invest in. Bubbles inflated everywhere. Tangible assets didn’t matter anymore, since it turned out we could make money from money, indefinitely and without any serious real world constraints. (Forgive me again for leading you to The Looting of America , which recounts this whole outrageous story.) Not only did our free-market fetish destabilize the economy, but it saddled us with an aristocracy of wealth and waste that now blocks us from solving our problems. The wealthy are determined to hold onto their fictional profit-making activities and astronomical salaries–even if it means forcing the rest of us to bail them out again with trillions of dollars in subsidies and toxic asset guarantees. With wealth they can buy the political process. But they also can shape our minds. They want us to believe that they are the natural rulers of our universe and that we are powerless to change it. Our free-market love-affair also broke the bonds that connected the top and the bottom of our society. The wealthy have no clue what it’s like to live like most Americans do each day. A few statistics tell it all: • In 1970 the ratio of compensation between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker was 45 to 1. By 2006 it was a whopping 1,723 to one. • By 2007 there were about 400,000 tax payers with adjustable gross incomes over $1 million. They had about as much income as the bottom 67 million tax returns! That’s the worst distribution of wealth since 1928 – no coincidence there. • Today the top 400 billionaires have enough wealth (more than $1.56 trillion combined) to endow all of our public colleges and universities so that tuition would be free ……forever. Unfortunately, we seem to have learned very little since it all came tumbling down just about a year ago. We had a golden opportunity to slap taxes and fees on unproductive Wall Street speculation. We could have instituted real salary caps on an industry that we’ve bailed out from top to bottom. We could have shut down the fantasy finance casinos. All of this was possible because the financial sector had collapsed, right before our eyes–along with the entire free market theory of finance. But what did we do instead? We lavished them with trillions of dollars in cash, no interest loans and asset guarantees…and got nearly nothing in return. This Labor Day is a happy one for the super rich and Wall Street firms enjoying renewed profits and bonuses. They know they will not face a populist revolt. They can sit back and collect the money, while 30 million unemployed and underemployed people struggle to get by. They’ll continue to get away with it as long as we believe that it’s OK to get double-digit returns by gambling with taxpayer-secured money. How long are we going to keep believing that someone like Andrew J. Hall, an oil speculator, is entitled to $100 million from a bank that is totally on the dole (our dole)? So much for the value of real labor in the real economy. How long are we going to allow Wall Street to make up new casino games that not only are utterly and completely insane but also add nothing at all to society? (For the latest, see “Wall Street Pursues Profits in Bundles of Life Insurance” — about new securities that bet on us dying — the sooner, the better. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html?hp ) But, I’m not ready yet to go from Labor Day to Wall Street Day. I fear that our economy will collapse again–maybe soon–if we don’t find ways to employ our people productively. In fact, I’m fairly certain that no nation can survive for long if it fails to find sufficient work for its own. Maybe you’ll make it to retirement without too much suffering. But there will be hell to pay for our kids if we don’t tackle our obscene distribution of wealth. So Happy Labor Day! Maybe this year we can gain a little of Lincoln’s respect for the worth of his fellow citizens. It’s a good time to take a moment to value our brothers and sisters who do all the things that need doing every day. And maybe we’ll even begin to see that there’s something wrong with accumulating wealth by doing nothing productive at all…. and believe once again that we can do something about it. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It , Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

Read the full article →

Madoff Scam Touched Family of SEC Official Who Got 2005 Tip, Watchdog Says

September 4, 2009

By David Scheer Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — Family members of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement official, whose unit got an anonymous tip in 2005 suggesting Bernard Madoff may be running a Ponzi scheme, entrusted $2 million to the scam, the agency’s internal watchdog said. The e-mailed tip to the Office of Internet Enforcement was among at least six warnings the SEC failed to fully investigate during 16 years, Inspector General H. David Kotz said in a report released today. Investments by two members of the official’s family were disclosed as a footnote in the 457-page report, which doesn’t identify him or disclose any losses. Kotz’s eight-month review of the agency’s handling of the Madoff investigation found the SEC assigned inexperienced staff to follow up on tips, inadequately planned examinations and failed to seek records that would have uncovered the $65 billion fraud. Senior SEC officials include former chairmen were cleared of “inappropriate roles.” The Internet unit official told Kotz’s staff that he wasn’t aware of the tip until after Madoff’s fraud collapsed in December, and that it should have been forwarded for further investigation, according to the report. An attorney working in the office testified she couldn’t remember whether she referred it. Kotz concluded that it never was passed along. SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment. John Reed Stark , who has led the SEC’s Internet program since 1995, couldn’t immediately be reached after normal business hours. Kotz’s report faults the agency for repeatedly missing chances to catch the fraud over 16 years. The anonymous tip, received in October of 2005, claimed to be from a former client at Madoff’s New York-based investment advisory business. ‘Very Secretive’ “I know that Madoff company is very secretive about their operations and they refuse to disclose anything,” it said. “If my suspicions are true, then they are running a highly sophisticated scheme on a massive scale. And they have been doing it for a long time.” The informant also added, “After a short period of time, I decided to withdraw all my money (over $5 million).” Kotz also found that examiners failed to follow up on signs of fraud found during a routine examination of Renaissance Technologies LLC. An SEC compliance examiner informed his supervisor about internal e-mails at Renaissance, which indirectly invested in Madoff’s fund through a swap agreement with another firm, saying Madoff’s business may be a fraud, Kotz wrote. While the agency started an investigation of Madoff, it didn’t return to Renaissance to examine its information. Renaissance E-mails Renaissance e-mails said Madoff’s secrecy, auditor and fee structure were significant red flags, according to the report. Nathaniel Simons , portfolio manager for a Renaissance fund, said he didn’t understand how Madoff made money or why he used a fee structure that gave such a large percentage of profits to feeder funds. “As we don’t know why he does what he does, we have no idea if there are conflicts in his business that could come to some regulator’s attention,” Simons said in an e-mail dated Nov. 13, 2003, according to the report. “Throw in that his brother-in-law is his auditor and his son is also high up in the organization and you have the risk of some nasty allegations.” Madoff, 71, is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a fraud that federal investigators said dated to at least the 1980s. The scam funneled funds from new clients to pay returns that were purportedly generated by a stock and options trading strategy known as a split-strike conversion. SEC investigators have said Madoff and employees at his New York-based firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, used a variety of ruses, such as creating sham trading records, to avoid detection. The criminal case against Madoff is U.S. v. Madoff, 09-cr- 213, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Stanford Investors, Unlike Madoff’s, Won’t Get Their Money Back From SIPC

September 4, 2009

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Andrew M. Harris Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — Peter Kaltman, a retired accountant, says he was reassured by the Securities Investor Protection Corp. logo on the stationery of the brokerage that sold him $550,000 in Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit. “The CDs were sold by a SIPC-insured organization,’’ Kaltman said, referring to Stanford Group Co., the Antigua-based bank’s sister firm. “At the bottom of their business cards and stationary, there was the SIPC logo. Any correspondence I received with account information also had it. I absolutely thought I was covered.” Kaltman was wrong, unfortunately for him and other investors who lost $7 billion in the alleged Ponzi scheme involving Stanford CDs. The federal corporation won’t help any of them as it has some victims of swindler Bernard Madoff , SIPC’s president notified Stanford’s court-appointed receiver. “There’s an inordinately fine line being drawn here,’’ Kaltman, 63, of Reno, Nevada, said of SIPC’s decision to treat the two groups viewed by the government as Ponzi scheme victims differently. “It’s worse than a slap in the face. If I was allowed to use four-letter words, I would.” Under U.S. law, SIPC repays up to $500,000 in custodial losses to investors whose securities are missing from accounts at member firms, SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said in an interview. The protection doesn’t extend to investors who’ve got their certificates, even if the securities have been rendered worthless by fraudulent conduct, he said. Fall in Value “The fact that they went down in value is of no consequence,” Harbeck said Aug. 26. “The investors have custody of those CDs.” If the fraudulent securities were issued by a non-member institution, such as Stanford International Bank, investors are doubly out of luck, Harbeck said. Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC in Manhattan was a SIPC member. Stanford International Bank, unlike the related brokerage, wasn’t. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison June 29 after pleading guilty to running a Ponzi scheme that paid fictitious returns without ever buying the securities customers paid for. Stanford, who denies wrongdoing, is in jail awaiting trial on charges he misled investors about the safety of their investments and took more than $1 billion for his personal use. “With Madoff, the money was entrusted to him, and he just spent it,’’ Dallas lawyer Stephen Malouf , who represents more than 600 Stanford investors, said in an interview. “There was an extra step at Stanford, the purchase of the CDs, which are still there. SIPC doesn’t cover securities that are purchased but then decline in value.” SIPC’s Position Upheld SIPC’s position is in keeping with its traditional stance on investment losses, no matter how disappointed the agency’s decision leaves Stanford investors, a legal scholar said. “SIPC has never undertaken to reimburse investors when worthless securities are sold to them,” said David B. Ruder , a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who teaches at Chicago’s Northwestern University law school. Blaine Smith of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who saw his $1.5 million Stanford nest egg dwindle to $206, thought he had done proper due diligence before he invested 30 years of savings with a Stanford broker he knew from church. “I just wanted to find somewhere with a decent return, where my money would be safe,” Smith said. He and friends investigated Stanford and its investment strategy before turning over their money, he said in a phone interview. Smart People “These friends were doctors, lawyers, really smart people, who did their due diligence, too,” said Smith, 53, a retired refinery technician and homebuilder. “We trusted that they weren’t lying to us. I talked to these Stanford people over and over again, and they reassured me there was insurance” coverage on the Antiguan CDs. Smith said he doesn’t understand why SIPC views Stanford and Madoff investors differently. “I bought from an American broker at an American brokerage house that I thought was just like Merrill Lynch or any other brokerage,” Smith said. “But it turns out we didn’t buy anything. Our money was just cash that passed through the brokerage and the bank, and then Stanford spent it, just like Madoff did.” Some investors’ lawyers complain SIPC is splitting hairs by limiting coverage to securities that are “missing” instead of rendered worthless by fraud. “It’s a distinction without a difference,’’ Houston lawyer Michael Stanley said of SIPC’s interpretation. Lost Value “The Madoff clients’ securities were never there, so SIPC covers that loss and has been paying like slot machines,” Stanley, who represents Stanford investors, said in an interview. “But SIPC doesn’t pay if the underlying securities are there but the value has dropped, even if it dropped because of hanky panky. If you’ve got the certificate, SIPC says it is not paying.” Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey asked SIPC last month if investors’ losses on the Antiguan CDs could be partially covered. “Unfortunately, the answer is no,” Janvey said in a statement posted on his Web site . Janvey’s spokeswoman Nancy Sims said the receiver isn’t taking any further action on the matter because he “doesn’t believe there’s an appeal process available to him.” Malouf, who represents mostly Latin American investors, said he explored suing SIPC for failing to provide the same coverage for Stanford’s investors it is for Madoff’s. He found a Supreme Court ruling bars suits against the agency, he said. No Remedy “There is no private remedy to compel SIPC coverage,” Malouf said. “Congress could do it, and the SEC could do it. But they’re getting away with it until somebody raises hell about it.” Malouf said the SEC, which gives SIPC its marching orders, treats Stanford’s 130 business entities as a single commercial enterprise when it comes to the fraud litigation and the receiver’s sale of Stanford’s assets to repay claims against the estate. In contrast, he said, the SEC and SIPC take the opposite view when it comes to SIPC insurance, viewing the Antiguan bank as a separate entity that doesn’t qualify. “The SEC can’t have it both ways,” Malouf said. “They’re taking my clients’ money and using it to pay non-bank debts. If it is all one company, then there couldn’t have been any CDs purchased from a separate independent bank.” The Stanford Universe If the SEC believes that “all the Stanford universe is one consolidated entity,” Malouf said, then Stanford’s Antiguan certificates of deposit “are exactly what SIPC covers, fraud.’’ SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment when asked to clarify the agency’s position on whether Stanford’s businesses should be treated as a consolidated entity. The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., 3:09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 4:09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). To contact the reporters on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com : Andrew M. Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Madoff `Astonished’ SEC Failed to Stop Scheme After 2006 Agency Interview

September 3, 2009

By Ian Katz Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) — Bernard Madoff thought regulators had caught him in 2006 and was “astonished” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators never followed up on information he gave them, the agency’s internal watchdog said. Madoff, 71, told Inspector General H. David Kotz ’s office this year that after being questioned in May 2006 and giving his account number at Depository Trust Co. , an independent clearing agency, “I thought it was the end game, over. Monday morning they’ll call DTC and this will be over.” When that never happened, Madoff was “astonished,” according to a summary Kotz issued yesterday. The Ponzi scheme continued for 2 1/2 years. “This was perhaps the most egregious failure in the enforcement investigation of Madoff,” Kotz’s report said. “They never verified Madoff’s purported trading with any independent third parties.” By checking with the clearing agency, the SEC would have “immediately realized that Madoff was not trading in anywhere near the volume that he was showing on the customer statements.” The Kotz report detailed repeated missed opportunities by the agency after being alerted to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme activities at least six times dating back to 1992. The SEC assigned inexperienced lawyers to the investigation, supervisors denied requests of examiners to expand their review and staff withdrew a request for information from a third party on grounds a review of the data would be “too time-consuming,” Kotz said. ‘Continue to Regret’ The inquiry is the most exhaustive look yet into the SEC’s failure to detect the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme, the $65 billion fraud that spanned decades and burned thousands of investors, including universities, charities and affluent clients. Lawmakers crafting a regulatory overhaul have awaited Kotz’s findings since agency officials rebuffed questions at hearings in January and February, citing the continuing inquiry. “It is a failure that we continue to regret,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in a statement, adding that the agency is overhauling its enforcement and inspection units and reforming how it handles tips. The SEC case is a “colossal blunder,” Representative Paul Kanjorski , a Pennsylvania Democrat and chairman of a subcommittee on capital markets, said in a statement yesterday. Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, said the report shows “institutional failure on a grand scale.” ‘Inexperienced, Inept, Duped’ SEC staff and supervisors “consistently demonstrated they were inexperienced, inept and easily duped,” said James Cox , a law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “These were to a person, and there were many, individuals who seemed content to punch the clock but not push the investigation in any meaningful way.” While Kotz’s report portrays SEC enforcement staff as inexperienced and naïve, it doesn’t find that senior officials tried to improperly influence or interfere with inquiries. “It breaks my heart,” Harvey Pitt , SEC chairman 2001-2003 and now chief executive officer of Kalorama Partners, said on Bloomberg Television. “Even Madoff was astonished that he could talk his way out of some of this; that makes it even more painful.” Arthur Levitt , SEC chairman 1993-2001 and a board member of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, said the agency “slipped up big time” in failing to act on Madoff complaints. “Any of us associated with that agency, from chairman on down to the lowest level, bears some portion of the responsibility and some large portion of the embarrassment,” Levitt said in an interview Bloomberg Television. ‘Never Answered Question’ SEC investigators had met Madoff in response to complaints, including a 2006 session where he was asked how he achieved his returns on investment. “Madoff never really answered the question,” Kotz wrote. “Madoff claimed his remarkable returns were due to his personal ‘feel’ for when to get in and out of the market.” Because the staff lacked understanding of options trading, “they did not appreciate that Madoff was unable to provide a logical explanation for his incredibly consistent returns,” Kotz wrote. “Each member of the enforcement staff accepted as plausible Madoff’s claim that his returns were due to his perfect ‘gut feel.’” Madoff also tried to impress and intimidate SEC examiners. Throughout an examination by the SEC’s Northeast regional office in New York of Madoff’s firm in April 2005, “Madoff would drop the names of high-up people in the SEC,” Kotz wrote. Madoff told examiners Christopher Cox was going to be chairman three weeks before Cox was named, and claimed he himself “was on the short list” to be chairman. When examiners sought documents he didn’t want to provide, Madoff became angry, and his “veins were popping out of his neck.” Recent Graduate Most work on the investigation by the Northeast office was led by a “staff attorney who recently graduated from law school and only joined the SEC 19 months before she was given the Madoff investigation,” Kotz wrote. “She had never previously been the lead staff attorney on any investigation, and had been involved in very few investigations overall. The assignment was also her first real exposure to broker-dealer issues.” Enforcement officials failed to “appreciate the significance” of evidence from former money manager Harry Markopolos in 2005 and “almost immediately expressed skepticism and disbelief about the information,” Kotz wrote. “The enforcement staff claimed that Markopolos was not an insider or an investor, and thus, immediately discounted his evidence.” 1992 Complaint The SEC might have discovered Madoff’s fraud in 1992. The agency received client complaints about Avellino & Bienes , a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based firm that invested client money with Madoff, and suspected the firm ran a Ponzi scheme. The SEC, learning that Madoff controlled the firm’s funds, assembled an “inexperienced” inspection team that conducted a “brief and very limited examination of Madoff,” without seeking to determine how Avellino & Bienes repaid customers, Kotz wrote. “The result was a missed opportunity to uncover Madoff’s Ponzi scheme 16 years before Madoff confessed,” he said. The criminal case against Madoff is U.S. v. Madoff, 09-cr- 213, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Okun Sentenced to 100 Years for Defrauding Clients of Millions of Dollars Held in 1031 Exchange Trusts

August 26, 2009

Before there was Bernie Madoff, there was Edward H. Okun, the former owner of The 1031 Tax Group LLP. Now Okun, like Madoff, has been sentenced to a century in prison for his leading role in a scheme to defraud and obtain approximately $126 million in…

Read the full article →

Madoff Lover Stuck With Him Because of His Tenderness and Wealth, Her Lust

August 19, 2009

By David Voreacos and Linda Sandler Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) — Sheryl Weinstein and Bernard Madoff nurtured a tender relationship that turned sexual five years after Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization where she was chief financial officer, invested millions of dollars with him. They kissed and caressed in hotel rooms and restaurants in New York for months until their extramarital affair blossomed one evening in 1993 at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington, Weinstein writes in her new tell-all book, “Madoff’s Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me.” “There was a gentle shyness about Bernie that I found endearing,” Weinstein writes. “And probably most enchanting was the way he made me feel. With Bernie I always felt wanted, desired, and that was an empowering sensation. During the past few months, the thrill — the buzz — of sexual tension had only gotten stronger.” Weinstein and Madoff had sex in hotels for months before the affair cooled and a warm friendship followed, she says. She trusted him with her family’s savings until Dec. 11, 2008, when he was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Rage followed. “He is a beast that has stolen for his own needs the livelihoods, savings, lives, hopes and dreams and futures of others,” Weinstein said June 29 to a federal judge in New York who sentenced Madoff to 150 years in prison. “He has fed upon us to satisfy his own needs. No matter how much he takes and from whom he takes, he is never satisfied. He is an equal opportunity destroyer.” Emotional Arc Such is Weinstein’s emotional arc in recounting her troubled marriage before the affair, Madoff’s courtship of her, her sexual awakening, and her intimate revelations of his shortcomings, both physical and emotional. She and her husband, Ronald, are struggling to recover from the shock of Madoff’s betrayal. She makes clear that she can lay Madoff, 71, bare unlike no one else, including his wife, Ruth. Weinstein, 60, begins her story with a February 1988 meeting at Madoff’s midtown Manhattan office with two colleagues from Hadassah, where she worked from 1984 to 1997 after serving as controller of New York’s Lincoln Center. A mysterious donor known as “Albert I.,” who lived in Paris, gave Hadassah $7 million on the grounds that Madoff manage the money. Weinstein had never heard of Madoff or his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. After the meeting, he began wooing her in flirtatious ways, and she “felt heat prickle my face.” Where Weinstein’s husband was bullying and emotionally abusive, Madoff was kind, charming and exciting, she writes. A series of lunches led to one at the Four Seasons, where he professed his desire for an affair. She balked, saying “Adultery is not my thing.” He said “that takes the pressure off,” she writes in a book St. Martin’s Press releases Aug. 25. Deep Friendship Their friendship deepened as her career, and Hadassah’s investments with Madoff, advanced. Hadassah said it invested a total of $40 million with Madoff and withdrew $130 million. Weinstein says Madoff long balked at meeting Hadassah’s financial advisory board, whose members she doesn’t identify. Around 1992, she writes, Madoff said “we’re doing a trade with treasuries” and asked Hadassah to invest. Hadassah agreed. At that time, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued a Florida investment firm, Avellino & Bienes, that invested $441 million with Madoff. The firm closed the business and refunded investors. After reading in the Wall Street Journal that Madoff was cleared of wrongdoing, she became convinced it was safe to invest her life savings with his firm, she said. Madoff’s secretary, she says, set up hotel meetings before the Willard encounter and made reservations in person “to ensure that the room would not turn up on his credit card.” Weinstein describes herself as smoking marijuana to relax. Madoff said his wife did too. Weinstein says she didn’t know if that was true. Great Kisser By the time they reached the Willard, Weinstein writes, she had learned that Madoff was a great kisser, a bad tipper, a name dropper, and a narcissist who may have obsessive-compulsive disorder or Tourette’s syndrome. At the Willard, Weinstein writes, she learned one of his many secrets that they discussed by telephone a few days later. “Bernie had a very small penis,” she writes. “Not only was it on the short side, it was small in circumference. That he was now pointing it out to me was telling. It clearly caused him great angst. I wanted to be careful how I responded. Men and their penises have a strange and unique relationship.” Still, she said: “I liked this man and didn’t want to emasculate him. His tiny penis hadn’t prevented me from climaxing.” Their encounters were “surprisingly exciting,” she says. ‘On Fire’ “When we made love, I was on fire. Bernie was a release valve, someone I could disappear with for a few hours. Somebody who would say nice things to me and treat me like a lady. He was an older man, and he was chivalrous. He opened doors for me, stood when I entered restaurants and was never short on compliments.” In the middle of the affair, Weinstein writes, Bernie professed his love for her at the Hilton Hotel. “Usually, we’d spend three or four hours talking, eating, and making love,” she writes. “I was getting myself together and Bernie was already dressed and pulling his coat from the closet. He was about to walk out the door when suddenly he turned back to look at me. ‘Sheryl, you know I love you.’” Her fantasies of a whirlwind romance in Europe and staying in five-star hotels began to end. The realities of an affair between two married people took root. “I knew in my heart of hearts that this was never going to be anything more than it was, simply an affair,” she writes. “But there was a part of me that wanted Bernie for myself. I wanted to be number one.” After the Affair After the affair ended, Weinstein rebuilt her emotional life with her husband. He took medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and his mood improved, she writes. She took antidepressants. They began to run a commercial laundry trade publication. They refinanced their Manhattan apartment and invested the cash with Madoff. Weinstein told her husband and their adult son about the affair a month after Madoff’s arrest. Weinstein doesn’t detail how much money she lost to Madoff. She does say she started with $70,000 and added an unspecified sum from her Hadassah compensation in addition to the unspecified mortgage money. “In order to move forward, I decided to tell my story,” she writes. “I truly hope Ronnie will be able to forgive me for sharing these private moments in our lives.” Peter Chavkin , a lawyer for Ruth Madoff , said she knew nothing about the “alleged affair.” That should remind people who say Ruth Madoff must have known of her husband’s fraud that “there are some things that some spouses, however close they are, do not share with each other,” Chavkin said. Madoff’s lawyer Ira Sorkin didn’t immediately respond to a call and e-mail seeking comment. Last week, he said Weinstein was “entitled to her free speech. Why one would go public with something like that, I don’t know. She’s entitled to say anything that might be deemed derogatory about herself.” To contact the reporters on this story: David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net ; Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Diane Francis: US and healthcare: the Madoff of nations

August 17, 2009

Bernie Madoff, if he was a health care policy expert, would be proud of the fact that greedy Wall Streeters, and their Republican sidekicks, appear to have beaten back health care reform again through fraud. Hopefully, the stock market leap in values, as health care reform withers, will make more Americans realize that the same vested interests that brought the world to its economic knees want to continue to be in charge and profit from America’s lousy health care system. Health care reform is like the Madoff scandal – there’s plenty of evidence that something is wrong, and certainly smelly, but nobody’s prepared to do anything much about it. Like the fraudster who got 150 years in jail, the current health care establishment tells lies, discredits detractors and pretends that everything’s alright. And the mass media also falls flat in executing its responsibility to expose dishonesty or educate, thus helping the health care perpetrators prosper. Most offensive and preposterous is the rhetorical question posed in some Republican/anti-reform advertisements: “How would you like to have a civil servant determine who your doctor will be?” Here are the facts. Civil servants have absolutely nothing to do with medicine in Canada, Europe or Japan. Residents are able to pick any doctor or specialist they wish and medical help is based on need not on the size of someone’s wallet or their insurers’ sign-off. The appropriate question should be to Americans: how do you like to having insurance company adjusters determine who your doctors will be? How’s that been working for you so far? How is that working for the 42 million without insurance and the millions more who have minimal insurance? The facts are really quite simple and the U.S. media should be hung out to dry for its inadequate knowledge and for repeating falsehoods. Here are the universal health care benefits in other countries: 1. An end to expensive lawsuits over medical costs. (could save 3% of GDP) 2. Dramatically lower healthcare costs (10% of GDP compared with 15% in U.S.) 3. Improved life spans and lower infant mortality rates 4. An end to personal bankruptcies due to medical bills. 5. A healthier, more productive workforce. 6. An economic underpinning for unemployed persons because they are not frightened of going broke or pushed over the financial edge if they, or their family members, get sick. 7. Lower health care costs mean greater economic competitiveness for the U.S. and competitive costs for businesses. Why can’t the United States figure out how to fix its critically ill system when other countries have done so, decades ago.

Read the full article →