Guest MonkeySee Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I do not know about you, but I think this slimeball Madoff should be behind bars. He has wrecked so many lives and he is under house arrest in his penthouse apartment. Toss him in jail. Reuters – Bernard Madoff is escorted from Federal Court in New York January 5, 2009. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters) NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. prosecutors asked a judge to jail accused swindler Bernard Madoff on Monday, saying he sent jewelry and other items worth more than $1 million to family and friends in violation of his bail. A lawyer for investment adviser Madoff, who made his first court appearance since his December 11 arrest on a charge of securities fraud in what could be Wall Street's biggest scam, said his client had already returned some of the items and argued that the 70-year-old was not a flight risk. The U.S. magistrate judge reserved decision and asked both sides for more information concerning the purported $50 billion scheme by Thursday. As Madoff appeared in the Manhattan federal court, regulators appeared before a congressional panel which was not as restrained as the magistrate. "Many of us have lost confidence in the SEC," U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, told Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General David Kotz as he testified before the House Financial Services Committee. At the hearing on Madoff's alleged fraud, Kotz promised to have his report to Congress "in a matter of months, not years." Meanwhile Madoff remains under house arrest in his Manhattan apartment and 24-hour surveillance as part of his $10 million bail, which has also required his assets to be frozen. Many of Madoff's clients who say he stole their life savings are outraged that he has not been jailed, but allowed to remain in his $7 million apartment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 The last I heard he was going to be going to jail instead of house arrest because while under house arrest he was sending jewelry to relatives to avoid it being confiscated.. I don't know why he was allowed house arrest in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 The last I heard he was going to be going to jail He belongs in jail. The a**hole stole perhaps $50 billion, and he not in jail? A man with money is treated much differently in the justice system. A poor kid caught with a few joints or a crack pipe is thrown in jail in a New York minute and a slime ball like Madoff, that has ruined hundreds of lives, is in the lap of luxury. Makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 He belongs in jail. . . Makes no sense. Totally agree. But i wonder if you saw the excellent 1-hour CNN Madoff Scandal Special late last night. According to the legal adviser, the complexity of Madoff's dealings is such that the investigators need him to help unravel its mysteries. His lawyer successfully pleaded that they are far more likely to get assistance from Madoff if he's luxuriating in his Penthouse than in prison. The only consolation is that prison will come later - unless, of course, he does a flying farang number first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Ol' Bernie is going to prison for the rest of his life and the only issue there is how long it'll take to complete the criminal process against him. Just too much money stolen (people will be lining up at the sentencing to denounce this guy). The question to me is how many others are directly involved. There is no way this guy did this on his own. A lot of people were handling the money, accounting for it, allegedly auditing the deals, sending out reports, etc.. A dozen or more people? Maybe, and I hope Fitzgerald gets them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 The question to me is how many others are directly involved. There is no way this guy did this on his own. It seems most of the people who marketed his "investment funds" were relatives, and even they may have believed the lies Madoff was telling them. Remember, it was his sons who reported him to the authorities. On the other hand, "investors" were given regular statements (I think, monthly) outlining details of their funds. So there must have been a host of smaller fry beavering away to churn these out. It's hard to believe that no-one who worked for him smelled a rat years ago when the SEC was first alerted to possible malpractice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Astrrro Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 In Amerika people are presumed innocent till proven guilty. Bail is a right if not a continued danger to the community or a flight risk. In practice the Madoffs and OJs and Toxins can raise bailo money but crackheads can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 In Amerika people are presumed innocent till proven guilty. Bail is a right if not a continued danger to the community or a flight risk. In practice the Madoffs and OJs and Toxins can raise bailo money but crackheads can't. In America, the government takes a drug dealer's assest, claiming it was from illegal activity, and then throws him in jail. Madoff steals billions of dollars and is able to post $10 million bond, which most probably came from his illegal activities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorTose Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 In America, the government takes a drug dealer's assest, claiming it was from illegal activity, and then throws him in jail. Madoff steals billions of dollars and is able to post $10 million bond, which most probably came from his illegal activities. Outstanding point. However, what is wrong with this picture is that the government gets to take assests before there is a conviction. That is a very bad law that has been often abused and it should be abolished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Outstanding point. However, what is wrong with this picture is that the government gets to take assests before there is a conviction. That is a very bad law that has been often abused and it should be abolished. And what do you propose to be put in its place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorTose Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And what do you propose to be put in its place? Quite of few things but that would be a new thread called "America's approach to drugs--how to change the current approach and find an approach that works." Another possiblity for a thread title could just be "harm reduction". If interested start a new thread and I will contribute---lets not hijak this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve1903 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Has the guy not admitted he's a conman already? Guilty as sin your honour. The mega rich take care of their own. The law ain't for the likes of them - and politicians of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Has the guy not admitted he's a conman already? Guilty as sin your honour. The mega rich take care of their own. The law ain't for the likes of them - and politicians of course. This is so true. I hear the judge ruled to allow Madoff to continue to be free on bail even though he is mailing some assets to friends and relatives. This crook needs to see a jail cell, now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Has the guy not admitted he's a conman already? Guilty as sin your honour. The mega rich take care of their own. The law ain't for the likes of them - and politicians of course. This may sound strange, but were it not for the charities having lost billions, I would almost be looking at Madoff as the folk hero who made the Uber-Rich feel some pain for a change. Since he crossed the line into charity, I agree, Lock him up and throw away the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Since he crossed the line into charity, I agree, Lock him up and throw away the key There's one thing I don't understand. How is it that he "wiped out" so many people? I thought a Ponzi scheme repaid existing investors from the new money coming in. More new investors, the more there is for existing clients. So at the annual returns he was paying out, anyone who had put, say, $100,000 into the scheme and kept it there for 10 years would at least have made their money back. Sure, they've lost their original stake, but they're still a lot better off than most people dependent on investment or pension income which has tanked in the last year. I realise a Ponzi scheme needs lots more new mugs each year in order to pay off those already 'in'. But a good few of those, including the charities, seem to have put virtually all of their assets into the fund. This is breaking the cardinal rule of investing whereby you spread your assets. I should know. I broke the rule years ago and lost too much to think about. So I have less sympathy for the investors than perhaps some others. As for the charities, yes I am sad. But the trustees of many clearly failed in their duty by giving it all to one fund. So I trust they will also be brought to book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 There's one thing I don't understand. How is it that he "wiped out" so many people? I thought a Ponzi scheme repaid existing investors from the new money coming in. More new investors, the more there is for existing clients. So at the annual returns he was paying out, anyone who had put, say, $100,000 into the scheme and kept it there for 10 years would at least have made their money back. Sure, they've lost their original stake, but they're still a lot better off than most people dependent on investment or pension income which has tanked in the last year. Don't forget a lot of these financial geniuses kept re-investing gains and adding new investment money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Good point. In which case, I have even less sympathy for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slackersam Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think the deal is that even though Maddoff admitted to everything they need his help in going after some other Wall Street crooks and are going to treat him nicely until they've used up his co-operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think the deal is that even though Maddoff admitted to everything they need his help in going after some other Wall Street crooks and are going to treat him nicely until they've used up his co-operation. Usually the authorites do not give the head, or mastermind of the scheme, the deal. Often they will lean on one of the other participants. Although with Madoff's prestige and connections, they seem to be handling him with kid gloves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slackersam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Well, The thing is, he was tight with a lot of the Lehman Brothers, AIG, CitiGroup and other financial honchos. If he has information on them committing fraud, he's honestly a small fish. I don't know if he can do it, but if there is even a chance that he could help the feds bring charges against financial CEOS related to the mortgage mess his 50 billion scam makes him a really small fish compared to the hundreds and hundreds of billions those guys played fast and loose with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Well, The thing is, he was tight with a lot of the Lehman Brothers, AIG, CitiGroup and other financial honchos. If he has information on them committing fraud, he's honestly a small fish. I don't know if he can do it, but if there is even a chance that he could help the feds bring charges against financial CEOS related to the mortgage mess his 50 billion scam makes him a really small fish compared to the hundreds and hundreds of billions those guys played fast and loose with. I am surprised that the authorities do not lean on Madoff's wife or sons. That usually works in most cases. They threaten to arrest loved ones, so that the big fish cooperates. In my opinion, this case is different since Madoff was well respected and has connections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slackersam Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It's his sons who turned him in, so I suspect they've already cut deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It's his sons who turned him in, so I suspect they've already cut deals. I hear the wife worked very closely in the business with her husband. I am surprised the authorities do not threaten to charge her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slackersam Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 There was an article on that in the International Herald Tribune on Friday. I can't find it now, but it's interesting. The crux is they can't decide if she's a victim or an accomplice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The crux is they can't decide if she's a victim or an accomplice. If I were a betting man, I would say accomplice. From my perspective, the authorities are treating this guy like he was royalty. Treat the guy like they do drug dealers. He is a lot worse than a drug dealer in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
