Replies

The NYTimes interview with Madoff seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. The fallout seems to confirm conclusions in my post:

From Madoff’s Credibility Ends When His Mouth Moves: Ann Woolner - BL, by Ann Woolner, 2011 February 17

< snip > ..... You might expect that having almost two years in prison to reflect, after learning of the suicides, the heartbreak, the financial devastation he left in his wake, Madoff might have used his first newspaper interview to express gut-wrenching remorse, perhaps fling his soul onto the mercy of those he hurt.
Instead, he said of them, “I would have loved for them to not lose anything, but that was a risk they were well aware of by investing in the market.”
The fact that they weren’t investing in the market is why Madoff’s in prison. He concocted mountains of phony paperwork to trick them into thinking they were, and that they were doing quite well at it. ..... < snip >

Good comments in the article on what Madoff didn't say, and didn't offer any proof or specifics (particularly referring to JPMorgan and other non-FOB parties accused by him and Picard of being "complicit in one form or another" in his crimes or "should have known" about them). Picard would have to rely on Madoff's testimony to prove to the courts that institutions knew about the specific crimes he accuses them of, rather than vague statements that they "should have known" or "had to know."

Conclusion: there is no evidence of JPMorgan's knowledge or involvement in Madoff's scheme in 115-page lawsuit that was filed by Picard to bankruptcy court - wrong legal venue, at that.

And now, at last, tables are being turned on Bernie's new partner - Irving Picard - in their latest efforts to make everyone happy by deflecting the blame, protection of FOBs and "deep pockets" legal extortion schemes. He is getting deserved backlash from real victims for quietly shielding FOBs (Friends of Bernie) by favorable settlement terms and thus keeping the damaging info from criminal prosecutors:

From Madoff victims file to stop $220M deal - NYP, by Chuck Bennett,

Victims of Bernie Madoff were fleeced again when the federal trustee charged with finding their stolen billions agreed to a relatively low settlement with one of the Ponzi schemer's closest confidants, court papers filed yesterday charge.
The estate of Norman Levy, a Manhattan real estate broker who acted as Madoff's surrogate father and was one of his first investors, settled with trustee Irving Picard for $220 million last year, but a lawyer representing several hundred victims has asked a federal bankruptcy judge to cancel that deal.
"What in God's name were they doing together," asked lawyer Helen Davis Chaitman, referring to the billions that Madoff moved between his accounts and Levy's accounts via JPMorgan Chase.
Levy, who died in 2005, was identified as Customer No. 1, the man who moved $100 billion back and forth with Madoff, in Picard's lawsuit against the bank. ..... < snip >

The irony here is delicious - Picard is now on the hot seat and his spokesman called Chartma's motion "without merit".

Here is an interesting mini-Madoff episode that shows why Madoff's "consistent" or "stable" results were so effective as a sales pitch to certain demographic (and why he was really surprised to find that there were people doubting his returns and his scheme):

From Fugitive Kim used Bernie M.O. - NYP, by Kaja Whitehouse, 2011 February 18

Fugitive hedge-fund manager Brian Kim, who stands accused of cheating investors out of $4 million, appears to have scrambled to cover a telltale sign of his alleged fraud on the heels of Bernie Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme.
For 16 straight months -- starting with the first signs of the credit crunch in September 2007 and prior to Madoff's downfall in late 2008 -- the founder of Liquid Capital Management had been reporting bizarrely consistent monthly returns of precisely 0.14 percent, The Post has learned.
Before that, Kim's returns had been highly volatile, up 518 percent one month and down 51 percent the next.
Experts say the volatile numbers are more plausible, given Kim's strategy of trading futures. But volatility is a turnoff to investors, and Kim was eager to attract funding. ..... < snip >

In the aftermath of Madoff confession "stable returns" became a red flag for fraud watchers. 35-year old Kim, immediately changed his MO and "returns" - in January, 2009 Kim replaced the 0.14 number with returns that were still unusually consistent, but slightly varied and not identical from month to month.

Another "affinity" or "identity" mini-Madoff Ponzi schemer (this one Amish, of all people) seems to have gotten little more than a slap on the wrist:

From 77-year-old Amish financial adviser charged in Ponzi scheme - NYP, 2011 February 17

A 77-year-old Ohio-based Amish financial adviser defrauded members of his community out of tens of millions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme reminiscent of Bernie Madoff, according to filings from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The commission alleged that between 1986 and June 2010, Monroe L. Beachy -- while running the unregistered A&M Investments in Sugarcreek, Ohio -- raised approximately $33 million from over 2,600 investors, the vast majority of whom were from the Amish community, which otherwise shuns much of the modern world. ..... < snip >
..... The SEC let Beachy settle its complaint without denying or admitting he had violated the Securities Act. No penalty was paid based on his financial condition, the agency said. ..... < snip >

And another "sleeper" Madoff-like (too big and too different to call it mini-Madoff) Ponzi soap opera just became even more interesting:

Stanford Sues U.S. Prosecutors, SEC and FBI Agents - BL, by Andrew M. Harris and Laurel Brubaker Calkins, 2011 February 17

SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan and DoJ spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment, FBI Houston's office PR person Shauna Dunlap has yet to return the call.

Stanford's 39-page lawsuit doesn't sue the agencies directly, but names 12 persons working for the SEC, FBI and the DoJ as defendants. Complaint includes attorney Stephen Korotash who leads the SEC’s civil suit and criminal case prosecutors Gregg Costa and Paul Pelletier.

Stanford accuses individuals of "abusive law enforcement", denying him the "constitutional rights," right of legal defense, in part by intimidation and freezing "his" accounts, and seeks $7.2 billion in damages.