home

Feds Seize Madoff Apt, Serve Ruth With Notice to Vacate

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM EST
Tags: Bernard Madoff (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The U.S. Marshal's today "seized" Bernie and Ruth Madoff's Park Ave. apartment, which they agreed to forfeit to the Government. The Marshal's served Ruth with a "Notice to Vacate."

This was by agreement (pdf) which provided that Ruth would vacate by Bernie's sentencing date or such other time as the parties agreed to in writing. Only once she's vacated the apartment, does she get her $2.5 million cash from the Government.

So, she's not being tossed unexpectedly onto the street.

< Time For Another Blogger Ethics Panel: WaPo Selling Access | 9th Circuit Judge Gets Public Admonishment for Explicit Postings on Internet >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Feds Seize Madoff Apt, Serve Ruth With Notice to Vacate | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What is the federal government's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    rationale for permitting Ms. Madoff to get $2.5 million in cash?

    It's in the agreement (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    Link above.

    Parent
    probably (none / 0) (#2)
    by candideinnc on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    I would think she said, if you don't agree to leave me something, I'll tie it up in court forever, which will cost more than 2.5 million.  Still, it's a pretty nice deal.  You can throw me out of my house any time, if you give me 2.5 million on the deal.  I have no sympathy for this family of bottom eaters, and neither should this blog.  There are too many more deserving people whose punishment warrants attention.  I have nothing but contempt for the Madoffs.

    that's fine for you but.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    I have no sympathy for this family of bottom eaters, and neither should this blog.

    That's fine for you, but please don't tell us what this blog (or its readers) should think or feel. Thank You.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#9)
    by candideinnc on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    My opinion is as valuable or valueless as it is.  Don't you tell me that I don't have a right to it.

    Parent
    I said exactly the opposite (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    I said that's fine for you to believe. Just don't tell this blog or its readers what they should believe. Please be polite.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    I agree and think the whole family was in on it, but Ruth Madoff has not been charged, nor found guilty of anything, and the fact that she would have specific claims to some of the property (similar to an "injured spouses" for tax purposes), is why she gets to keep $2.5 million.

    Parent
    You gotta figure (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    some, anyway, of Bernie's money was earned legitimately. His Ponzi scheme wasn't the only way he made money...was it?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    And some of the money / property had to be hers as well.

    Parent
    that would be (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    "innocent spouse", for tax purposes. she would hardly qualify, having benefited significantly over the years from the illegal activity in question.

    this might well be a first, in the annals of eviction history; she gets booted to the curb, with 2.5 mill. in pocket change. hardly someone worth expending a great deal of sympathy on.

    Parent

    Forfeiture vs Restitution (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    I posted a guest-blog entry at Professor Ellen Podgor's White Collar Crime Prof Blog about how the Madoff forfeiture deal screwed the victims for the benefit of the federal government.  Presumably, Madoff entered into this deal precisely for the feature that benefits his wife.

    Parent
    I don't think anybody... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    who cheered the 150 years can complain about the 2.5 million...that was part of the deal that lead to the 150 years so beloved by the masses.

    If it was up to me I woulda took all the dough except enough for value meals and a cockroach-ridden studio apt for the whole crime family, and hold the 15 decades...but the prosecutors who represent the people wanted a big sentence, big headlines, and hopefully a promotion...getting the hoodwinked as much of their money back as possible isn't a primary concern...the cage was.

    um.............. (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    2.5 mill., out of 50 billion, doesn't even qualify as the proverbial drop in the bucket.

    Parent
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    unless he conned you out of 1.5 million and you ain't seen d*ck come back from what was seized...then it don't seem like a drop.

    And ya can't gamble with Bernie's 150 years with another bookie...they want cash:)

    Parent

    except, it would (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    unless he conned you out of 1.5 million and you ain't seen d*ck come back from what was seized...then it don't seem like a drop.

    since out of that 2.5mill, you might (if you're lucky) get a nickel. enough to buy a small piece of chewing gum, maybe.

    Parent

    Lucky for her... (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    ...she can still afford the new high brow burgers at Mickey D's and won't have to stoop to eating that bourgeois value meal crap.

    Parent
    The Mickey D's.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    by me has had those out for a couple months...they're real good for fast food, but expensive...the value meal with one of those is like 8 bucks.

    If I was Mrs. Made-off I'd leave the country immediately...cuz if I got took I'd be looking her up.

    Parent

    As i understand it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bemused on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:10:21 PM EST
      Ruth had at least two theories available to her that make this agreement understandable. First, that some substantial portion of the property she held jointly with Bernie was acquired prior to the earliest known criminal act by Bernie. Thus, if she succeeded in establishing an interest in property which could not be shown to have been purchased with tainted money then while the government could seize and sell such property to satisfy the judgment against Bernie it would have to distribute to her an amount equal to her share of interest in the property.

      Second, even with regard to property which was purchased after the commencement of the course of criminal conduct resulting in conviction, that fact alone does not conclusively prove the purchase was made with tainted money.

    This is a good deal (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    I just had a case involving a guy who got bought out of his rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan, because the owner wanted to remodel the whole place into a mansion or something.  The guy got paid a cool $3 million - and he was just a renter with no equity!  3 million bucks just to move!

    Hey if she doesn't want the cash (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jen M on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    I'll take it.

    something i am curious about: (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    how does this agreement affect the ability of individuals to sue mrs. madoff personally, or does it?

    that 2.5 mill. might not last long.

    Not at all, CP (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    ... assuming she has any liability to some victim of her husband's frauds.  My beef with the deal is that by going the forfeiture route rather than establishing a process in the criminal case for claims of restitution, the victims are left on their own, and probably out in the cold, while Mrs. M. walks away with an unchallenged $2.5 million.

    Parent
    Feds Seize Madoff Apt, Serve Ruth With Notice to Vacate | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment