Breaking news. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 10:59:32 AM
Breaking news. :contract:
They have sentenced him to ... immortality? :huh:
Yes. He'll be released when he's approximately 225 years old. 200 for good behavior :)
This is meaningless. What needs to happen is his family has to give up every penny they have back to the investors and get real jobs.
Madoff was going to rot in prison for the rest of his days anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2009, 11:00:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 10:59:32 AM
Breaking news. :contract:
They have sentenced him to ... immortality? :huh:
I thought that was reserved for Time Lords.
@ Valmy: There was a judgment against him and his wife on Friday that effectively said precisely that.
Admit it Cal, you do the same thing in his shoes.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:01:18 AM
Yes. He'll be released when he's approximately 225 years old. 200 for good behavior :)
By that time, his ill-gotten gains hidden from the gov't will have multiplied by virtue of compount interest to such an extent he will rule us like unto an immortal god.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:01:42 AM
This is meaningless. What needs to happen is his family has to give up every penny they have back to the investors and get real jobs.
Madoff was going to rot in prison for the rest of his days anyway.
He's already been stripped of all his property. A well deserved sentence in my opinion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31604191/ns/business-us_business/
QuoteThe jailed Madoff already has taken a severe financial hit: Last week, a judge issued a preliminary $171 billion forfeiture order stripping Madoff of all his personal property, including real estate, investments, and $80 million in assets his wife Ruth had claimed were hers. The order left her with $2.5 million.
The terms require the Madoffs to sell a $7 million Manhattan apartment where Ruth Madoff still lives. An $11 million estate in Palm Beach, Fla., a $4 million home in Montauk and a $2.2 million boat will be put on the market as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2009, 11:03:01 AM
Admit it Cal, you do the same thing in his shoes.
Nein. I'm not Jewish enough. :(
QuoteThe order left her with $2.5 million.
Pity.
QuoteThe terms require the Madoffs to sell a $7 million Manhattan apartment where Ruth Madoff still lives.
Only in Manhattan could you find an apartment worth $7 million. I mean at least it should be a condo.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2009, 11:03:01 AM
Admit it Cal, you do the same thing in his shoes.
Nein. I'm not Jewish enough. :(
:yes:
Those of Germanic heritage prefer world-domination plans involving massive invasions and massacres, not financial diddling.
Though some go in for world domination plans involving scat porn, those are much less likely to be successful.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2009, 11:03:01 AM
Admit it Cal, you do the same thing in his shoes.
Nein. I'm not Jewish enough. :(
That just means you'd be caught quicker.
What would have been amusing is if he stood up and said, "okay, you caught me. it was worth it though--i lived my life off of ill gotten gains as one of the wealthiest people in the country and the tradeoff of spending my last few elderly years in the pen isn't so bad."
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:06:25 AM
Only in Manhattan could you find an apartment worth $7 million. I mean at least it should be a condo.
Huh? What's the difference?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 29, 2009, 11:11:51 AM
Huh? What's the difference?
The difference is pretty simple: a condo is an apartment you own. People tend to call their apartments 'condos' in order to make themselves sound like they have a nice place even though they do not own a house.
I meant is jokingly, like if you are going to pay that much you might as well get the honor of having it called a condomenium, or better a penthouse.
His wife was left with 2.5 million, which the claim is it was her money. But she was part of the scam, wasn't she? I wonder if she'll also be brought up on charges at some point. If not, or in addition to, I'm thinking she'll be sued.
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 11:27:31 AM
His wife was left with 2.5 million, which the claim is it was her money. But she was part of the scam, wasn't she? I wonder if she'll also be brought up on charges at some point. If not, or in addition to, I'm thinking she'll be sued.
She got away with it, it seems at this point.
All the assets should be confiscated to pay back the investors it seems to me.
Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Those of Germanic heritage prefer world-domination plans involving massive invasions and massacres, not financial diddling.
One thing I'd never be accused of having is subtlety. :(
He'll probably be the first person to be shivved at a minimum security prison for white collar criminals. :(
Sorry that I won't join the lynching mob here, but the sentence is extremely unjust.
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
How is that fucked up? What he did ruined alot more lives than raping or murdering and far more damaging to society.
We are talking about 65 billion dollars here Mart. People like him threaten to destroy our entire system, which no raping or murdering could achieve. We depend on people following the rules.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
How is that fucked up? What he did ruined alot more lives than raping or murdering and far more damaging to society.
We are talking about 65 billion dollars here Mart.
It's still just money. I don't buy into the school of penalization that argues that 1,000,000 petty thefts is as bad as bank robbery or that 1,000,000 instances of jaywalking is as bad as murder.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Sorry that I won't join the lynching mob here, but the sentence is extremely unjust.
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
As opposed to other crimes, such as humane rape?
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:40:36 AM
We are talking about 65 billion dollars here Mart. People like him threaten to destroy our entire system, which no raping or murdering could achieve. We depend on people following the rules.
The $65 billion is kind of gorrilla math. It is the paper value of the funds that he told people they had, not what they invested.
Anyway, I'm curious how such things are approached in non-US legal systems - because in Poland (and I suspect this is similar in some other continental Europe countries) we really do not have the same concept of compounding the penalty.
So we have a crime of stealing a "petty amount of money", or a "moderate amount of money" or a "grand amount of money", but if you commit several instances of the same kind of crime before being caught and then are tried for it, it is treated as one big crime, rather than a number of smaller crimes.
And on top of that, while our legal system allows for adding up penalties for individual crimes, the total cannot be bigger than the maximum penalty for any of the individual crimes involved.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:42:51 AM
It's still just money.
He stole more money than the ENTIRE economy of Belarus man.
QuoteI don't buy into the school of penalization that argues that 1,000,000 petty thefts is as bad as bank robbery or that 1,000,000 instances of jaywalking is as bad as murder.
:lmfao: What he did was a felony already. How can you compare petty thefts and jay walking to that? Marty analogies strike again.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 11:42:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Sorry that I won't join the lynching mob here, but the sentence is extremely unjust.
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
As opposed to other crimes, such as humane rape?
:P
Well, I meant excessive cruelty rape. Something like torture followed by gangbang as opposed to a "date rape", for example.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:48:19 AM
So we have a crime of stealing a "petty amount of money", or a "moderate amount of money" or a "grand amount of money", but if you commit several instances of the same kind of crime before being caught and then are tried for it, it is treated as one big crime, rather than a number of smaller crimes.
He would get a very long jail time for financial fraud, which is a very dangerous and serious crime, anyway. It is not just the amount of money it is also the damage this sort of thing does to our entire society.
I agree with Marti in this case... the sentence does seem excessive. OTOH, the intent of the judge I am sure is just to make it difficult for Madoff to ever walk out of prison alive. Clearly the 150 is supposed to act as some kind of a deterrent. The problem with this approach is that people who are sociopathic in the way Madoff is think they'll never be caught, so I hardly think anyone is going to be deterred. In fact, I think deterrent sentencing is probably ineffective in virtually any circumstance.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Sorry that I won't join the lynching mob here, but the sentence is extremely unjust.
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
But let's face it, you're the last person who should have a say in formulating public policy.
At any rate, fraud on that scale deserves a significant prison sentence, and at his age, any such sentence is effectively a life sentence anyways.
At any rate, he's provided for his family and then fallen on his sword. His wife will be taken care of for the rest of her life (2.5 million is plenty of money to die on). I'm sure his children are also well-provided for. Well done him.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:51:30 AM
I agree with Marti in this case... the sentence does seem excessive. OTOH, the intent of the judge I am sure is just to make it difficult for Madoff to ever walk out of prison alive. Clearly the 150 is supposed to act as some kind of a deterrent. The problem with this approach is that people who are sociopathic in the way Madoff is think they'll never be caught, so I hardly think anyone is going to be deterred. In fact, I think deterrent sentencing is probably ineffective in virtually any circumstance.
Well I disagree.
But in any case at his age even a lighter sentence would have had the same effect anyway.
The primary issue to me is that his family does not end up profiting from his crimes and that as much money as possible is recovered.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:53:00 AM
The primary issue to me is that his family does not end up profiting from his crimes and that as much money as possible is recovered.
Well, I completely agree on this point and I'm sure everyone else does too.
Don't US courts take the age of the accused into account when passing a sentence, too? I mean, here, a guy his age would get maybe 2-3 years in prison on account of his age.
That being said, Polish legal system is so slow to act, the guy would have probably waited for 5 years in jail before the sentence was passed. Which I suppose is worse, considering that he could die in jail while still being technically innocent. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:56:09 AM
Don't US courts take the age of the accused into account when passing a sentence, too? I mean, here, a guy his age would get maybe 2-3 years in prison on account of his age.
Yes they do. It is not very common for a seventy year old to get a sentence like that.
From today's NYT article on the sentencing:
Quotein meting out the maximum sentence, Judge Chin pointed out that no friends, family or other supporters had submitted any letters on Mr. Madoff's behalf, attesting to the strength of his character or good deeds he had done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global)
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 11:27:31 AM
His wife was left with 2.5 million, which the claim is it was her money. But she was part of the scam, wasn't she? I wonder if she'll also be brought up on charges at some point. If not, or in addition to, I'm thinking she'll be sued.
I wonder how that worked...
give one wife to madoff, get two back?
or isn't it that kind of 'being part' you mean :p
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:51:30 AM
I agree with Marti in this case... the sentence does seem excessive. OTOH, the intent of the judge I am sure is just to make it difficult for Madoff to ever walk out of prison alive. Clearly the 150 is supposed to act as some kind of a deterrent. The problem with this approach is that people who are sociopathic in the way Madoff is think they'll never be caught, so I hardly think anyone is going to be deterred. In fact, I think deterrent sentencing is probably ineffective in virtually any circumstance.
This case is maybe not the best example, because of what you say.
But a lot of white collar criminal cases of a financial nature involve shades of gray, and can result in very long prison sentences. Coupled with the fact that white collar financial crime has very high conviction rates, I've seen some agonizing over strategies that may look bad in the worst case scenario. "Top bunk" is a common saying when making a tough decision.
Ruth Madoff published a cookbook. I am sure her cookbook's sales netted her $2.5M. :)
I may be a grade A moron but the people who invested heavily in Madoff's shit without checking that he was legit maybe weren't very bright. From what I've read about Madoff (basically thread titles on Languish) it seems the guy was just collecting the Stupid Tax.
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2009, 12:25:59 PM
I may be a grade A moron but the people who invested heavily in Madoff's shit without checking that he was legit maybe weren't very bright. From what I've read about Madoff (basically thread titles on Languish) it seems the guy was just collecting the Stupid Tax.
Agreed.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 11:51:30 AM
I agree with Marti in this case... the sentence does seem excessive. OTOH, the intent of the judge I am sure is just to make it difficult for Madoff to ever walk out of prison alive. Clearly the 150 is supposed to act as some kind of a deterrent. The problem with this approach is that people who are sociopathic in the way Madoff is think they'll never be caught, so I hardly think anyone is going to be deterred. In fact, I think deterrent sentencing is probably ineffective in virtually any circumstance.
Well people still committed crimes in Rome or India when the penalties ran to impalement or crucifixion, so deterrence is rarely effective. But then, as now, it is good for society to see visible proof that criminals without the necessary political connections will pay for their crimes.
So the lesson learned is: always be a Kennedy. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 12:14:06 PM
From today's NYT article on the sentencing:
Quotein meting out the maximum sentence, Judge Chin pointed out that no friends, family or other supporters had submitted any letters on Mr. Madoff's behalf, attesting to the strength of his character or good deeds he had done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global)
What's up with judges having names like body parts? Learned Hand. Judge Chin. Etc.
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 12:29:50 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 12:14:06 PM
From today's NYT article on the sentencing:
Quotein meting out the maximum sentence, Judge Chin pointed out that no friends, family or other supporters had submitted any letters on Mr. Madoff's behalf, attesting to the strength of his character or good deeds he had done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30madoff.html?ref=global)
What's up with judges having names like body parts? Learned Hand. Judge Chin. Etc.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19690107&id=KI4RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c-kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4441,2259145
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2009, 12:25:59 PM
I may be a grade A moron but the people who invested heavily in Madoff's shit without checking that he was legit maybe weren't very bright. From what I've read about Madoff (basically thread titles on Languish) it seems the guy was just collecting the Stupid Tax.
No argument here.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 29, 2009, 12:28:00 PMWell people still committed crimes in Rome or India when the penalties ran to impalement or crucifixion, so deterrence is rarely effective.
I think you're missing the point. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that deterrent isn't effective with everyone. After all, I would guess there would be more people committing crimes if there was no deterrent at all.
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
The death penalty and life imprisonment are the same. The only thing is that the death penalty is superior in a moral sense.
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2009, 07:23:57 PM
The death penalty and life imprisonment are the same. The only thing is that the death penalty is superior in a moral sense.
Schtick aside, I kinda agree with you here. Life imprisonment and the death penalty both assume that a person is incapable of functioning in society. Nursing along thousands of aberrant failures, as well as stretching the resources available to the normal and those benefiting from rehabilitation, is kind of stupid in that context.
Anyway, the joke I made before my accounting final earlier: at least he didn't get life. :P
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
Seeing as how people practically begged him for financial horrors, no I don't agree.
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
:huh: This is America, not China. ^_^
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2009, 07:23:57 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
The death penalty and life imprisonment are the same. The only thing is that the death penalty is superior in a moral sense.
Its cheaper for society is what it is.
Quote from: garbon on June 29, 2009, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
Seeing as how people practically begged him for financial horrors, no I don't agree.
People didn't ask to be financially ruined, charities gone out of business, families losing college money, etc. They just invested, as millions of us do every day.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 09:16:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
:huh: This is America, not China. ^_^
Aw heck, we can go China like once in a while. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Take his money away, sure, but getting a life sentence for something that does not involve murder or cruel rape is just fucked up.
How is that fucked up? What he did ruined alot more lives than raping or murdering and far more damaging to society.
We are talking about 65 billion dollars here Mart. People like him threaten to destroy our entire system, which no raping or murdering could achieve. We depend on people following the rules.
Cause Marty is actually a white collar criminal.
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 10:14:26 PM
People didn't ask to be financially ruined, charities gone out of business, families losing college money, etc. They just invested, as millions of us do every day.
Act like a fool and you largely deserve what you get.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 12:03:20 AM
Act like a fool and you largely deserve what you get.
Which only holds true for the initial rounds of investors. By the end of the scheme, Madoff was supposedly pretty trustworthy. It wasn't just the investors that failed to look over his shoulder;
no one did.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 30, 2009, 12:05:50 AM
Which only holds true for the initial rounds of investors. By the end of the scheme, Madoff was supposedly pretty trustworthy. It wasn't just the investors that failed to look over his shoulder; no one did.
Everyone is jumping off a bridge, I think I shall too! :swiss:
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 12:08:44 AM
Everyone is jumping off a bridge, I think I shall too! :swiss:
Spare us; it's easy to sound all pompous and prescient after the guy has already been convicted and sentenced- until this year, a lot of people more skilled than you and me in financial matters thought Madoff was the real thing.
I'm not saying that I'd do better at all (unlike you I don't pretend to be encyclopedia brown), but I don't feel sorry for them.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
I'm not saying that I'd do better at all (unlike you I don't pretend to be encyclopedia brown), but I don't feel sorry for them.
Holy crap - now there's a pop culture reference to something I hadn't even though of for 20 years or so...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 30, 2009, 12:20:14 AM
... a lot of people more skilled than you and me in financial matters thought Madoff was the real thing.
And others didn't.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_-ggjiS6hBSI%2FSYnSZdZm7iI%2FAAAAAAAAAZ4%2Fo_Ek7nPpxBk%2Fs400%2FHarry%2BMarkopolos%2BMadoff%2BWhistleblower.JPG&hash=8a2e9e4f027e46e43c84a1c386c3dc8b72ca7d48)
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 29, 2009, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
This is all this guy got, for the financial horrors he put upon people, wiped them out, retirees, companies, as well as charities that got ruined by his schemes? He deserved much worse! Death penalty would have been proper, only mitigated by how much he cooperated to get some of the money back.
Seeing as how people practically begged him for financial horrors, no I don't agree.
People didn't ask to be financially ruined, charities gone out of business, families losing college money, etc. They just invested, as millions of us do every day.
It was obvious that the guy is a "miracle worker", a "magic Jew" that will conjure you money out of thin air.
Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for greedy idiots.
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2009, 12:25:59 PM
I may be a grade A moron but the people who invested heavily in Madoff's shit without checking that he was legit maybe weren't very bright. From what I've read about Madoff (basically thread titles on Languish) it seems the guy was just collecting the Stupid Tax.
A lot of banks put their money in his fund. Maybe you should check if your own bank isn't one of them. You don't want to put your money in a bank ruled by morons.
Sometimes I wonder if I have the brains to say no if someone asks me to invest in a similar scheme.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2009, 12:30:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
I'm not saying that I'd do better at all (unlike you I don't pretend to be encyclopedia brown), but I don't feel sorry for them.
Holy crap - now there's a pop culture reference to something I hadn't even though of for 20 years or so...
Personally, I preferred Einstein Anderson, but yeah, good show garbo.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on June 30, 2009, 03:34:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2009, 12:25:59 PM
I may be a grade A moron but the people who invested heavily in Madoff's shit without checking that he was legit maybe weren't very bright. From what I've read about Madoff (basically thread titles on Languish) it seems the guy was just collecting the Stupid Tax.
A lot of banks put their money in his fund. Maybe you should check if your own bank isn't one of them. You don't want to put your money in a bank ruled by morons.
You're not going far enough. Martinus is a moron himself for dealing with them. In fact, Martinus is a moron in any event, but you should show more audacity in your attacks on him.
I see, everyone is blaming the victims! How classic! Mad dog Madoff is the culprit here, not those duped by his schemes.
Quote from: KRonn on June 30, 2009, 07:21:35 AM
I see, everyone is blaming the victims! How classic! Mad dog Madoff is the culprit here, not those duped by his schemes.
Yeah... while you can make an argument that these people ought to have been more careful, Madoff was once chairman of NASDAQ so he seems like someone who you could have trusted, and so well known that one might have assumed he was under a bit more scrutiny than he was in reality.
There were charity groups that invested, along with individuals and businesses. I just don't see them all as greedy, stupid people. The ones who were stupid were the SEC who were being warned by those who had figured things out.
Also, I don't believe this is just about Madoff. He had a couple of hundred employees, and they all did the work, some wrote up the investment reports sent to customers. At least some of them, a certain core of people, had to know something. But I think most of them were just workers who wound up stunned by the whole thing.
Well, that's probably part of the reason for the extremely harsh sentence... Madoff hasn't cooperated one bit with the feds in naming his accomplices, and he MUST have had some. Remember, the guy did plead guilty--but you don't see that reflected in his sentence at all.
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2009, 01:24:04 AM
It was obvious that the guy is a "miracle worker", a "magic Jew" that will conjure you money out of thin air.
Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for greedy idiots.
Investing a pension fund is not exactly the same as greedy idiots. Idiots maybe, but some investment dude was just trying to do his job and find a good place for his customers retirement funds? You don't have sympathy for those people?
But anyway I am worried about the health of our financial sector and that is why guys like this need to be made an example of. Your personal opinion that anybody who invests is a greedy idiot or not is irrelevent to the seriousness of the crime. Last I checked you don't punish criminals less just because their victims were morons.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 07:54:01 AM
Well, that's probably part of the reason for the extremely harsh sentence... Madoff hasn't cooperated one bit with the feds in naming his accomplices, and he MUST have had some. Remember, the guy did plead guilty--but you don't see that reflected in his sentence at all.
He is trying to protect his family and wants them to get away with as much of the money as possible it seems to me.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
He is trying to protect his family and wants them to get away with as much of the money as possible it seems to me.
Indeed, it would shock me if his wife and sons didn't know what he was doing, despite their vehement denials. I also suspect he had an inner circle of the largest investors who knew as well. I've met Robert Jaffe and he has that slimy used-car salesman vibe, and the guy's job was basically marketing Madoff.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 07:58:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
He is trying to protect his family and wants them to get away with as much of the money as possible it seems to me.
Indeed, it would shock me if his wife and sons didn't know what he was doing, despite their vehement denials. I also suspect he had an inner circle of the largest investors who knew as well. I've met Robert Jaffe and he has that slimy used-car salesman vibe, and the guy's job was basically marketing Madoff.
In the US, can you be forced to testify against your closest family?
If you're the defendant, you can never be forced to testify in a criminal case. I'm not sure if the prosecution could have called, say Ruth Madoff and tried to force her to testify against her spouse.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 08:03:18 AM
If you're the defendant, you can never be forced to testify in a criminal case. I'm not sure if the prosecution could have called, say Ruth Madoff and tried to force her to testify against her spouse.
Well, then what I am saying is that: if you can't be forced to testify against your relatives, then it shouldn't be possible to increase your penalty (or at all take it into account in sentencing you) whether you turned in your relatives who were in on it or not - which is something you implied here. Otherwise the "can't be forced to testify" thing becomes illusory.
:unsure:
I'm not sure I get exactly what you're saying, but if a defendant pleads guilty and then helps the prosecution get to the bottom of a crime which involves potentially many associates, it makes sense to me that the sentence be reduced. I don't think it should matter whether or not said associates are family members.
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Well, then what I am saying is that: if you can't be forced to testify against your relatives, then it shouldn't be possible to increase your penalty (or at all take it into account in sentencing you) whether you turned in your relatives who were in on it or not - which is something you implied here. Otherwise the "can't be forced to testify" thing becomes illusory.
What Caliga means is that you can get off lighter via what we call a 'Plea bargain' which is common in Common Law countries like the US. The accused can get a lighter sentence by cooperating with law enforcement either to plead guilty and thus save us all the court time or to help turn in their accomplices. We use this to break up organize crime and the like. Italy, which is a Civil Law country, adopted this system to help break up the Mafia for example.
So it gives the accused a way out, I guess it could be twisted to be seen as coercion to testify. We Common Law types are wacky like that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 07:54:55 AM
Investing a pension fund is not exactly the same as greedy idiots. Idiots maybe, but some investment dude was just trying to do his job and find a good place for his customers retirement funds? You don't have sympathy for those people?
But anyway I am worried about the health of our financial sector and that is why guys like this need to be made an example of. Your personal opinion that anybody who invests is a greedy idiot or not is irrelevent to the seriousness of the crime. Last I checked you don't punish criminals less just because their victims were morons.
Investing a pension fund and expecting to get 17% return in deflationary times is pretty idiotic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2009, 08:29:52 AM
Investing a pension fund and expecting to get 17% return in deflationary times is pretty idiotic.
I never said it wasn't.
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 07:17:26 AM
You're not going far enough. Martinus is a moron himself for dealing with them. In fact, Martinus is a moron in any event, but you should show more audacity in your attacks on him.
Oh, fuck off
(you mean something like this?)
Quote from: Jos Theelen on June 30, 2009, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 07:17:26 AM
You're not going far enough. Martinus is a moron himself for dealing with them. In fact, Martinus is a moron in any event, but you should show more audacity in your attacks on him.
Oh, fuck off
(you mean something like this?)
Too simple. Use what you know about the person against them.
The larger question is to what extent victims of any fraud are the authors of their own misfortune, and so not deserving of sympathy.
I'm inclined to err on the side of sympathy, particularly in cases like this where the fraudster had very impressive real credentials, and some very sophisticated people and organizations were fooled.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 10:13:27 AM
The larger question is to what extent victims of any fraud are the authors of their own misfortune, and so not deserving of sympathy.
I'm inclined to err on the side of sympathy, particularly in cases like this where the fraudster had very impressive real credentials, and some very sophisticated people and organizations were fooled.
I am not really crazy over the blame the victim mentality, nor do I see how it is really relevent on how much Madoff should be charged. Committing crimes against the gullible and foolish is no less serious a crime than committing them against the sophisticated and the brilliant.
No surprise by me; I'll be interested to see who else gets charged in this nasty scam.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31638766/ns/business-us_business/
Source: 10 more will be charged in Madoff scam
Won't disclose whether that includes family members or ex-employees
updated 8:10 a.m. ET, Tues., June 30, 2009
NEW YORK - Federal authorities are pressing a probe of 10 associates of Bernard Madoff despite a sentence that means the mastermind of one of the biggest financial frauds in history will spend the rest of his days behind bars, The Associated Press has learned.
A person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, wouldn't detail potential charges or say whether the 10 would include Madoff's family or former employees. So far, only Madoff and an accountant accused of failing to make basic auditing checks have been criminally charged in the multibillion-dollar hoax.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 30, 2009, 12:20:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 12:08:44 AM
Everyone is jumping off a bridge, I think I shall too! :swiss:
Spare us; it's easy to sound all pompous and prescient after the guy has already been convicted and sentenced- until this year, a lot of people more skilled than you and me in financial matters thought Madoff was the real thing.
Hedge funds don't have much oversight, and the price for that is only qualified sophisticated investors can invest. Hence what you and garbon wouldn't do is irrelevant, because neither of you likely meet the criteria as a sophisticated investor.
I am quite certain that I never would have given Madoff any money, nor would I have freely invested in a group that did so to a material extent (there is always the chance to get burned through a pension that you don't have control over). I can tell you that every investment I have, and every investment I ever will have, I have done the following: a) reviewed the financials, b) reviewed the audit report, c) reviewed the strategy and business condition. That isn't being sophisticated, that is simply having basic sense, and Madoff failed all 3 counts.
I certainly think that the Three-card Monte guys on the street should be punished for what they do to tourists, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the marks. My main objection to the dealers is that they look like Eastern Europe trash (which they are) and smell bad.
I expect a guy investing $100 million to be a LOT more careful to check out stuff than a gullible tourist investing $100. Anything else would be insulting to him.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2009, 11:55:41 AM
I certainly think that the Three-card Monte guys on the street should be punished for what they do to tourists, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the marks. My main objection to the dealers is that they look like Eastern Europe trash (which they are) and smell bad.
I expect a guy investing $100 million to be a LOT more careful to check out stuff than a gullible tourist investing $100. Anything else would be insulting to him.
I think the investors did check out, perform due diligence, on Madoff's firm. I've seen some reports that people did that. What ever the case, as much as we want to scorn them, they didn't deserve to be robbed and scammed.
As for investing. Does anyone do any investing? I'm sure you do. Money market funds, stocks, maybe an investment firm like Fidelity, Paine Webber, or with your company retirement account, or what ever? It's common. What isn't so common is probably investing with someone like a Madoff company, but I don't know; I think there are a lot of firms that handle investing like that, as the middle men type corporation.
I guess Madoff isn't eligible for a more cushy type Federal prison, the "country club" ones for short sentence white collar crime. He's going to an austere prison, not hard labor or anything like that, but to a medium or maximum security prison.
Quote from: KRonn on June 30, 2009, 12:09:10 PM
I think the investors did check out, perform due diligence, on Madoff's firm. I've seen some reports that people did that. What ever the case, as much as we want to scorn them, they didn't deserve to be robbed and scammed.
If you ask them, of course many will say they did due diligence. The reality is that this guy didn't have a real audit or real financial statements and refused to disclose specifics of his business plan. His returns also defied common sense. Any reasonable level of due diligence would have caused someone to walk away.
Does that mean what he did wasn't very bad? Nope--and I think he deserves his jail term. Does that mean I don't have some sympathy for the people who lost money (I suspect almost all of which were millionaires)? The answer is no once more. But I'm going to reserve much more sympathy for those that suffered worse fates and had less responsibility for their own downfall--like the plane crash victims today.
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on June 30, 2009, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 07:17:26 AM
You're not going far enough. Martinus is a moron himself for dealing with them. In fact, Martinus is a moron in any event, but you should show more audacity in your attacks on him.
Oh, fuck off
(you mean something like this?)
Too simple. Use what you know about the person against them.
Difficult. The only thing I know that he seems to be a nice guy. And because Poland just joined the EU, I cannot say nasty things about Polaks.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on June 30, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on June 30, 2009, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2009, 07:17:26 AM
You're not going far enough. Martinus is a moron himself for dealing with them. In fact, Martinus is a moron in any event, but you should show more audacity in your attacks on him.
Oh, fuck off
(you mean something like this?)
Too simple. Use what you know about the person against them.
Difficult. The only thing I know that he seems to be a nice guy. And because Poland just joined the EU, I cannot say nasty things about Polaks.
You can hit him in his anti-semitism, his homosexuality, his fanaticism or the fact that he pretends to be a lawyer. However, Martinus also sees himself as a sophisticate and as an enlightened person amongst a mass of ignorant Poles, so if you attack him as provincial and as a low-grade Russian, it should get a result.
Interesting article on the SEC investigating Madoff's firm. Seems an investigator had some suspicions but not enough to really pursue things. Then as the SEC was under pressure to investigate other matters the Madoff case was put on the back burner. Also, another SEC official looking into the case later married Madoff's niece but was not in the relationship while he was working on the case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31702178/ns/business-washington_post/
[size]SEC lawyer issued Madoff warning in 2004
Investigator raised alarm about irregularities but was pointed elsewhere
An investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission warned superiors as far back as 2004 about irregularities at Bernard L. Madoff's financial management firm, but she was told to focus on an unrelated matter, according to agency documents and sources familiar with the investigation.
Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, a lawyer in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, sent e-mails to a supervisor, saying information provided by Madoff during her review didn't add up and suggesting a set of questions to ask his firm, documents show. Several of these questions directly challenged Madoff activities that much later turned out to be elements of his massive fraud.
But with the agency under pressure to look for wrongdoing in the mutual fund industry, she wasn't able to continue pursuing Madoff, according to documents and two people familiar with the investigation, and her team soon concluded its work on the probe.
Walker-Lightfoot's supervisors on the case were Mark Donohue, then a branch chief in her department, and his boss, Eric Swanson, an assistant director of the department, said two people familiar with the investigation. Swanson later married Madoff's niece, and their relationship is now under review by the agency's inspector general, who is examining the SEC's handling of the Madoff case.
Madoff confessed in December to running "a giant Ponzi scheme" worth potentially $50 billion, and he was sentenced Monday to 150 years in prison after victims told a judge about how Madoff had destroyed their lives. Authorities are continuing to investigate other people and firms that might have abetted the fraud.
The SEC's inability to detect Madoff's fraud was a high-profile embarrassment for the agency, which was already under scrutiny for the collapse of investment banks under its watch, helping fuel the financial crisis. SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro, who took over shortly after the Madoff case came to light, has acknowledged that the agency's performance was a failure, saying the SEC needed to improve enforcement and its surveillance of financial markets.
At least five times over nearly 20 years, the SEC has investigated Madoff's business, but it never discovered the tremendous fraud. In 2007, for instance, the agency reviewed his activities after warnings from a one-time rival, Harry Markopolos, that Madoff was probably running a Ponzi scheme.
Three years before, in early 2004, Walker-Lightfoot was assigned to examine Madoff's relationship with various hedge funds. The SEC suspected that Madoff may have been allowing the funds to trade ahead of his own trades, which would give them an unfair advantage.
The agency asked Madoff to turn over reams of information — accounting statements, trade confirmations and other documents — and told him to detail his strategy, called "split-strike conversion." Madoff told the SEC that he used sophisticated trading practices to buy and sell stocks, employing stock options as hedges to limit losses. He told investors he never lost money.
Inconsistencies
Walker-Lightfoot, a staff lawyer, had previously worked at the American Stock Exchange, where she developed an expertise in specialized trading strategies. When she reviewed the paper documents and electronic data supplied by Madoff, she found it full of inconsistencies, according to documents, a former SEC official and another person knowledgeable about the 2004 investigation.
For example, the standard industry practice was that a firm buying a security must pay for it — or "settle" — within three days. But Madoff's settlements were erratic. Sometimes he settled only a day later after the purchase, sometimes seven days later.
She was also focused on his claim that he was using the same strategy for all his investors, which would involve trading stocks and hedges at the same time. On review, he seemed to be following different approaches on different accounts.
Her concerns would later prove to be on the mark. Earlier this year, the Justice Department accused Madoff of fabricating his strategy, generating false account statements and trade confirmations, and lying to investigators.
INTERACTIVE
Rich folks, behaving badly
A rogues' gallery
A look at characters caught up in famous financial scandals.
In early March 2004, Walker-Lightfoot shared her concerns with her supervisors, said a former SEC official and another person aware of the conversation.
Donohue, who still works for the SEC, was not available to comment for this article, an agency spokesman said. Swanson, no longer with the agency, declined to comment.
In response to Walker-Lightfoot's concerns, Donohue asked her to describe what additional information she wanted from Madoff, a person familiar with the discussion said.
So she sent Donohue an e-mail with nine follow-up questions she wanted to ask Madoff's firm, documents show. Several focused on the unusual trading patterns she had noticed. Others touched more broadly on questions about how Madoff ran his business.
"Do you hold any other form of brokerage account statements or accounting documents for these accounts?" Walker-Lightfoot asked. "Do you have the prime brokerage or custodial banking agreements for these accounts?"
Click for related content
Trustee: $231 million so far for Madoff victims
Source: 10 more will be charged in Madoff scam
Cartoonists' take on the sad situation
If pursued, these questions may have led to discovery of the fraud. That's because Madoff was in fact maintaining personal custody of investors' assets, unlike the practice followed by many investment companies. These firms use a third-party custodian to hold investors' funds, and that helps assure investors that their funds are where the companies say they are.
In a separate e-mail to Donohue later in March, Walker-Lightfoot put some of her suspicions in writing.
For instance, documents show, she detailed her findings on two accounts at Madoff's firm. One belonged to a hedge fund called Tremont and the other to a smaller hedge fund called Sway.
Madoff had told the SEC that all his accounts traded based on the same specific conditions. But in her e-mail, which she copied to colleague Jacqueline Wood, Walker-Lightfoot noted "significant differences between the Tremont and Sway account transactions." The variation in the dates of trades seemed to contradict a key part of his strategy and "does not make sense," she wrote.
She also flagged other doubts about Madoff's strategy. He was supposed to buy and sell stocks and then trade options as a hedge against any loss. But his financial records suggested that he often completed trades without the corresponding hedges or hedged without completing the corresponding trades. As she wrote, "the corresponding equity activity/or hedge restructuring" didn't occur. In reality, the later criminal complaint said, many of the trades never happened at all.
....
Quote from: KRonn on July 02, 2009, 09:55:15 AM
Interesting article on the SEC investigating Madoff's firm. Seems an investigator had some suspicions but not enough to really pursue things. Then as the SEC was under pressure to investigate other matters the Madoff case was put on the back burner. Also, another SEC official looking into the case later married Madoff's niece but was not in the relationship while he was working on the case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31702178/ns/business-washington_post/
A bit of an understatement.
Saw that earlier as well, for those adverse to reading articles, a woman tried to raise some flags in 2004, but was ordered to drop it by her supervisor, who ended up married to Madoff's niece. No claims about whether or not they were in a relationship at the time the investigator was ordered off the case.
Love and money is a wonderful mix. :wub:
QuoteLawsuit: Madoff's New Friends Include Druggie, Child Molester
Victims' Lawyer Lets Loose on Madoff Sons, Brother and KPMG
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and ANNA SCHECTER
Oct. 21, 2009
Convicted con man Bernard Madoff, who slept on luxury linens and dined at the finest restaurants, is now sleeping in the lower bunk of a two man cell in a federal prison, with a 21-year-old convicted drug dealer for a roommate and a child molester cooking his pizza, according to a new victims' lawsuit filed by the lone outsider to visit him behind bars.
In his first prison interview, a buff-looking Bernie Madoff said he couldn't believe he got away with his massive Ponzi scheme for so long.
San Francisco attorney Joe Cotchett says the former billionaire now spends time with former Colombo crime family boss Carmine Persico and convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, amid a gang of fellow inmates in prison for drug and sex crimes.
Madoff should feel comfortable among the former drug dealers given his long association with office messengers who provided him and his wife Ruth with large amounts of marijuana over the years, according to accounts by former employee in a new book by ABC's Brian Ross, "The Madoff Chronicles."
As the former Madoff staffers told Ross, Bernie liked to let off steam.
"Especially in the early days, a messenger known in the office as Little Rick would be dispatched to Harlem to bring back marijuana for Bernie and others in the office."
"Little Rick ended up losing his job in 2003 when he couldn't kick his own problem with cocaine and drugs were discovered in his desk. He says he wasn't the only one with a problem at the Madoff firm. "There was white powder all over that office. It was like the freaking North Pole," Little Rick said. "Are you freaking kidding me?"
And as the firm grew, as reported by Ross in the "Chronicles," Bernie liked wild times at office parties.
"At one Christmas Party, Bernie rented out the entire floor of the disco New York, New York, and there were topless waitresses and waiters in just g-strings," said Little Rick.
The lawsuit also brings new accusations against KPMG, a prestigious "Big 4" accounting firm, responsible for so-called independent audits of a several of the largest of Madoff's U.S. "feeder funds," as well as Madoff's London office.
The lawsuit alleges there is "substantial evidence that KPMG either knew or failed to disclose or failed to detect" the massive Ponzi scheme.
And in particular, the suit questions the role of David Yim, a director in KPMG's London office, whose cell phone number was found in Madoff's personal address book and who was one of the auditors assigned to Madoff's London operation, according to the lawsuit.
"Either Yim knew or was willfully blind to the blatant fraud occurring. Yim was in constant contact with Madoff and his phone number was in Madoff's directory of key contact information."
I'm beginning to like this guy. :cool:
It just keeps on getting better and better with this guy and his investment firm from Hades. I wonder how the investigations are going into what some of the other higher ranking officials knew or were involved in?
So what exactly is this lawsuit trying to prove? The guy is convicted, there's no money for them to take. Are they trying to rip off the accounting firm or something?
I'm glad a lawsuit is going forward. As far as I know, also the Feds and State authorities are continuing to probe into all this. It couldn't have just been Mad-dog who was in on this. His sons and business partners had to know something, some likely involved. And the other firms doing the accounting should have found something, but unless involved criminally I guess the suit can only be brought against them for incompetence or some such.