Why exactly would a man living in great material comfort and with a very high probability of be able to continue do so for the next several years be looking for an "exit"?   Why would he volunteer to be locked up in a medium security federal prison for the rest of his life instead of living in comfort in his penthouse, sleeping in his own bed, eating good food and not being beaten up or extorted by his fellow convicts?   I mean, really, even the good old "club fed" didn't remotely compare to a multi-million dollar penthouse. Believe me, both the quality of the living arrangements and the caliber of the inmate population the federal prison system has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few years.    

I think Jeralyn's point (which I agree with) is that because Madoff gains nothing by this plea there is no reason for him to enter it.  Any reasonably capable lawyer could probably keep him living in palatial splendor for several more years at least.  He didn't make a deal to save his family from prosecution or to preserve their ill-gotten gains.   If there isn't a secret deal, what's the idea behind this plea?  

  So, he decides the agreement really provides him no gain and in fact a bigger loss than no agreement. That would make some sense if those assumptions are accurate.

 As for  buying  him much more "freedom," the difference between the time he would be required to surrender to serve his sentence under a plea agreement conviction and straight-up plea may be negligible.

  He might even believe that going to trial would not increase the time before he is incarcerated because he belives both that the government would seek revocation of release on bond and the court would order it if he digs in his heels and insists upon a trial.

   When weighing all these factors including the stress of the proceedings, he might just have decided that pleading straight-up and not being bound to help the government locate assets serves the greatest good from his perspective.

  Who knows how much he might have somewhere in the world under other names or in anonymous accounts that he believes the government will either not be able to find or pry loose if it does find it unless he tells them where it is and agrees to execute documents transferring the assets to the government.  The money might not do him any good but it might help others he wants to help and if voluntarily disclosing it and transferring it won't prevent him from going to prison for the rest of his life what is his real incentive?

In court, it would come out that his wife and sons were deeply implicated in the fraud and theft.

Or, maybe Bernie has a terminal medical condition and has nothing to lose (and his family a lot to gain) by his going off to prison quietly.

b) He doesn't want a trial because of what would come out. (Like whatever organized crime was behind him?)

1.  How could the feds "lower the boom" on him?  Modoff just agreed to forfeit all his money and go straight to a federal prison where, shall we say, his lifestyle will undergo a nightmarish change for the worse?  He agreed to die in prison---what more could the feds do to him?

2.  Again, unless there is a secret side deal, the plea stops nothing from coming out because the feds have already indicated that they are going to continue investigating his family and everyone associated with him.  How does this plea stop things from coming out?

3.  I don't read Madoff as a "broken man".  This guy did terrible stuff to people who were supposedly his friends, he took everybody he could even charities and people of very limited means---he took everything they had and he did it for maybe 20-30 years.  This guy has got lots of heart----he is one stone cold, evil M-F.

Jeralyn: "I don't get it. ... What am I missing?"

Of course, if you think about it, Bernie's two sons, Mark and Andrew, were both working for Bernard L. Madoff Securities, as was Bernie's brother Peter, and Peter's two children, Roger and Shana. Further, it should be noted that the activities of Shana's husband, Eric Swanson, are also at the center of another investigation by the Securities & Exchange Commission.

None of us are going to see any evidence of a handshake agreement between Bernie and the Justice Dept. that spares family members from prosecution if Dad / Uncle Bernie agrees to elocute fully and take the fall.

In that regard, let me add some more Kafka-eque food for thought to this toxic and professionally incestuous mix, by also noting that back in 2001, incoming SEC Chair Mary Shapiro appointed Mark Madoff to the board of the National Adjudicatory Council, which oversees all disciplinary actions rendered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which is currently headed up by -- cue "Dueling Banjos" -- Mary Shapiro.

Hope this additional information clarifies things for you, Jeralyn. It only served to make me want to consume an entire bottle of wine by myself in less than an hour. But since I don't drink, I'm going to bed instead.

Possibilities I see?

1. No trial might mean no further development of evidence that might implicate family members.

2. He may actual be remorseful about what happened.

  If he got caught being less than truthful about assets then the government could void the plea agreement if it chose and if he was truthful then assets he might wish to remain available for others in the future would be lost.

  The question really should be framed as what potential benefits would there have been from going to trial. Other than the possibility of acquittal on almost all charges it would seem the answer is none, unless we assume he would be allowed to remain out on home confinement for the duration.

  As for a straight up plea versus a plea agreement, it's probably safe to assume the government was not willing to offer him any consideration that made that worth the costs.