Gov't. Asks Court to Revoke Madoff's Bond

Bernie Madoff is in more hot water. He and his wife mailed packages of jewelry and other personal effects to their sons and a few others last week, in violation of a court order preventing him from transferring assets.

The Government asked the Court to revoke Bernie's bond. The Court has ordered briefs.

Bernie's lawyer also now disputes he is cooperating with the Government. He said that it's the company that is cooperating.

< Franken Declares Victory | Inside The CIA: Not Able To Say No To Torture? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, at least his sons showed the sense (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    to call their lawyers upon receiving and opening the packages.

    As to the senior Mr. Madoff, all I have to say is "$200 mittens"?

    Who pays $200 for mittens?
    What are these precious $200 mittens made of?  
    What could they be made of, such that they cost $200?

    I have sincere doubts as to there being any - Any - sympathy available to Mr. Madoff.  He won't be getting any from me.  Outside of my fixed costs for mortgage, phone, heat, light, and car gas I can make it the better part of a month - food, incidentals and the little things that chew up cash in $2, $5 and $10 increments - on the $200 he spent on mittens.

    Not that I like living poor but, in these times, it seems that's all I have left.  

    $200 Mittens Easy (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:32:18 PM EST
     They get more than that for tee shirts.

    Not that unusual if the mittens are a fashion accessory, embroidered cashmere or silk hand made or something like that.


    I was being a bit rhetorical and sarcastic (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    at the same time - I am well aware that it's quite easy to spend $200 on mittens....

    My point is, I guess, that that kind of behavior - what will be seen as flagrant extravagance by someone accused of being the largest thief/fraud in history - ain't going to win him any friends.  Nor will it influence people - like me - favoably toward him.

    I am literally struggling to put food on my table and keep the electricity and phone running (and let's not talk about the foreclosure, thank you) in the face of no business worth talking about and no payments from clients and the ones who do pay are making me suffer for every frickin' penny and seeing this kind of behavior makes me livid.  


    Boy I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    I need a bailout.  Hey, I am worthy.  Have done lots of pro bono work.  Have great creds; good heart; never cheated anyone.  Sounds like a personal ad.  

    I share your fury, scribe.  I will be paying off my school loans out of my social security payments, if it even exists by that time.    


    Exactly (none / 0) (#5)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    that is why I say 50 million or 50 billion; it is all the same to me.  I am going to google mittens and see if I can find $200 mittens.

    i found them and they are about $200 (none / 0) (#6)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    They are RATHER easy to find on the net.  Expedition mittens run that high; they are seamless and promise to keep you warm and dry, blah, blah, blah.    

    Thanks for the reminder! (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    I need new mittens and keep forgetting to check sales. I won't be payin' no $200 for no stinkin' mittens!

    As a wise old lawyer friend of mine says, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:43:42 PM EST
    "He who values his property more highly than his liberty is well on his way to losing both."

    I'm worried that the Court ordered briefs... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jerry on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:31:27 PM EST
    Madoff is known to send $200 mittens and then the Court orders briefs, is this some sort of under the table arrangement?

    This whole case infuriates me (none / 0) (#2)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    The government does not have clean hands here either.  There were many complaints filed with the SEC and nothing happened at all.  Many investors were sophisticated financial people who should have known better.  The buzz is that many thought the profits were the result of insider trading.  

    Now everyone is outraged??  

    The first to be compensated should be the philanthropies who lost money.  Only then should everyone else line up.  

    There is no way 50 million can just disappear.  The money had to have been put somewhere.  I do understand that long time clients were paid the 10% per year on their investments and got income to which they probably were not entitled.  I say disgorge them of those profits.  Follow the money.    

    As far as the trinkets Madoff allegedly mailed out in breach of the court order, the government should be concentrating on finding the real money, not family memorabilia.

    Correction 50 billion (none / 0) (#3)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:27:18 PM EST
    LOL  It is all the same to me.

    eh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nasarius on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:52:52 AM EST
    $50 million is pocket change, the sort of money a major company could lose without flinching.

    $50 billion is staggering; you have enough money to run Thailand out of pocket for a year.

    At some point you have more money than any sane person could spend, but still, it's a big difference.


    "a billion here, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:38:35 AM EST
    a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

    or something to that effect.

    wasn't there one these clowns (an enron biggie, i think) who had a 5 or 6K shower curtain? not that it makes all that much difference, but by comparison, $200 mittens is chump change.

    even were the gov't to locate every asset of the madoff entity, it won't come to anywhere near the 50 billion. bear in mind, some of that was actually paid to earlier investors (at 10%, that's a healthy chunk right there), some was paid out to investors who cashed out, much was spent on non-capital expenditures (food, travel, etc), that's just gone.

    the 50 billion is a tad misleading, it reflects the totality of investments made, over a 40 year period, not what's actually possibly still around.

    as a cpa and auditor, what really stuck out for me, as a "red flag", was the constant positive rate of return. no fund, unless invested wholly in gov't bonds, has a constant positive ROI, not even the best managed ones. to my knowledge, this was not the case with mr. madoff's company.

    Everything the man possesses (none / 0) (#14)
    by OldCity on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:46:21 AM EST
    was obtained through fraud.  He doesn't have legitimate claim to any of his property, any of his family's "heirlooms".  

    It's clear that he subsidized his lifestyle and that of his family on the backs of those who invested with him.  It's easy to be unsympathetic to the more wealthy investors, but the bundled smaller investors like charities certainly should be outraged at this behavior.

    I am concerned that the judge in the case has not deprived him of his liberty at this time.  There's enough evidence to convince just about anyone that the guy is a flight risk and that he's almost certainly hidden assets.  I think it's critical that he be denied access to communications devices, internet, etc until forensic accountants can make a dent.  

    The case says a great deal about the failure of the SEC to investigate; clearly the "summary judgement" test was a failed policy of that agency.  It also says a lot about greed and the culture of investment in America.  His was among the least transparent funds I ever saw.  How anyone could commit monies to such an opaque scheme is beyond me.

    His sons, frankly, are far from honorable.  they are in self-preservation mode, more than anything else.  It's simply not credible for them to state that they had no inkling of the trouble the firm was in or that their father's methods were not suspect.      

    simply put, (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    How anyone could commit monies to such an opaque scheme is beyond me.

    commissions and other fees. the other funds, that put their client's money with madoff, failed to do any kind of due diligence; the guy promised and delivered a constant 10% ROI, and had "audited" financial statements. what else was there to know?

    this was easy money for the fund managers.


    if one is interested in continuing to (none / 0) (#16)
    by OldCity on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    be a money manager, then due diligence is essential.  If there's only one fund out there delivering the ROI that Madoff was, and despite those earnings there's no investment in technical support for the product...online statements, for example, then a fund manager has a responsibility to validate the activity of the fund.  

    As I alluded to before, greed trumped common sense and professional ethics.  The guys that invested are gonna get sued, and sued big time because they failed to exercise the proper diligence in validating the credibility of the fund, the returns and capital on hand.  

    Things that appear to good to be true usually are.