Excuse me, but unless this GREATLY eases a criminal prosecution against Madoff, why in the FUCK would the SEC throw that maggot a bone? The news stories are trying to spin this like it's a great victory for the feds. All I SEE is pressure being conveniently deflected.

Am I missing something?

Unless the news reports I am reading are hiding part of the story, I don't really see that the SEC threw Madoff a bone. Essentially, he simply agreed not to contest the allegations in the SEC complaint against him. This will make it easier, at least theoretically, for them to use any assets he still has and they can get their hands on for restitution to his victims.

I'm not really sure the SEC really gave anything meaningful up. And the criminal case, which is prosecuted by a U.S. attorney, not the SEC, goes on.

If you have seen something contrary, let us know.

(Message edited by LAguy on February 09, 2009)

Hmm, what'd he give up, vs. what'd he gain?

He folded with a complete losing hand. The SEC made the public exposure question go away, avoiding constant public embarassment.

The SEC nailed themselves to the cross with evidence already all-in re: the criminal case. They have no more leverage?

I'm no expert, but wonder why the FUCK anyone would FOLD a hand where they had ALL the cards and held ALL the chips? Unless they actually held NOTHING themelves and didn't want anyone to see that???

Please forgive the poker/conspiracy analogies...

I'm sorry Porker but I'm not following you. Essentially it looks like Madoff decided not to contest the SEC charges against him because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere doing so. He may be able to get an uneducated or unintelligent juror to side with him at his criminal trial (he will only need one) but his violation of SEC rules/regs is so blatant there is no way he could win the SEC's civil suit against him. He is saving his resources for the criminal trial and/or criminal plea bargain negotiations.

As to the SEC, it is doubtful Congress (or the press for that matter) is going to protect them which is the only way the SEC would avoid further exposure for their failure to stop Madoff earlier.

It also is worth noting the newspaper reports I have read characterize his "settlement" with the SEC as a "partial settlement." It is not like the SEC is through with him.

But bottom line is it appears Madoff essentially plead guilty (at least the civil trial equivalent). What do you want the SEC to do, refuse to accept his guilty as charged plead and say "No, we prefer you plead innocent so our attorneys could get some trial experience"?

(Message edited by LAguy on February 09, 2009)

(Message edited by LAguy on February 09, 2009)

He plead "no contest". What did the gov'ts side WIN with that? Or LOSE? They agreed not to push too far, he agreed not to fight. That's called a DRAW, and unless the feds got some considerable advantage from it on the criminal side, I'm sorry, but they folded a winning hand and got nothing in return?

(Message edited by porker on February 09, 2009)

No contest in a civil trial is essentially equivalent to pleading guilty in a criminal trial. There is no such thing as a guilty plea in a civil trial.

What exactly did they not get that they could have from a trial?

100% elaboration of what he did and 100% of his assets? For ME, Joe Q. Public, I want him to SQUIRM and then I want him BROKE, and then I want him to worry about dropping the soap for the rest of miserable life.

And I didn't lose a cent...

Again, I think the SEC wins here because the headlines get muted quickly.

LAGuy, you may be making good points, but "case over, to be announced" consequences just doesn't sound very satisfying for someone that is the poster child for Wall St. greed.

Porker, you can't force a defendant - criminal or civil - NOT to plead guilty just to so you can have a trial in public. We don't run a medieval test system anymore. He essentially plead guilty, because he clearly is.

I suspect he'll plea bargain out on the criminal case as well, there's no way he'll go to trial there unless the best plea bargain he can get is not much better than the worst-case guilty verdict sentence. Then he may roll the dice, but the last thing he wants is a public pig fuck of a trial.

Cat, I agree for the most part. But I don't think the U.S. Attorney is going to give him any deal that wouldn't result in him dying in jail. Which most people would agree, he deserves. Nonetheless, if your Madoff, do you take a deal like that or roll the dice with a jury?

Well, all a jury will do is convict him, his guilt isn't at question. What is is the sentence - what will a judge give him after a trial conviction vs. a plea bargain. The plea bargain will be better. They may drag it out, negotiate a lot, but in the end he'll plead out and go to jail.

Only if Madoff somehow can retrieve a significant portion of the lost investments provide significant restitution to his investors will he have any leverage in plea bargain negotiations with the government.

Otherwise once he is convicted he spends the rest of his life in jail.

I don't think Madoff could have done this by himself, so he'll have to rat out everyone involved as well as accounting for all the money - who got paid out early, who all got taken, where the remaining cash not paid out is right now.

It will get messy as hell. So far, the focus has been on the last ones in who got taken. What about the ones who got paid?

Well, here is some jerking off material for those who thought Madoff was going to lead the easy life:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/19/2009-03-19_bernie_madoffs_hellhole_ponzi_schemer_is.html

Justice is finally served, Madoff has been sentenced to the maximum 150 years in prison for his multibillion-dollar fraud scheme.

(Message edited by copperfieldkid on June 29, 2009)

Good deal. Now they need to find his co-conspirators, as something this big was not pulled off by a single person.

Interesting if true:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/madoff-probe-10-others-to_n_222893.html