United States v. Madoff Sentencing (June

29, 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The court held that the fraud was staggering. It spanned more than 20 years. The fraud reached thousands of victims. Some $170 billion flowed into his business as a result of his fraudulent scheme. The presentence report uses a loss amount of $13 billion, but that number does not include the losses from money invested through the feeder funds. By any of these monetary measures, the fraud was unprecedented. The offense level of 52 is calculated by using a chart for loss amount that only goes up to $400 million. The loss figure is many times that amount. It's off the chart by many fold. Investors -- individuals, charities, pension funds, institutional clients -- were repeatedly lied to. Clients were sent these millions of pages of account statements that the government just alluded to confirming trades that were never made, attesting to balances that did not exist. The victims' including charitable organizations and pension funds made important decisions based on false information about fictitious accounts. D repeatedly lied to the SEC and the regulators, in writing and sworn testimony, by withholding material information, and by creating false documents to cover up his scheme. From the skim, D took income of more than $250 million from 1998 through 2007. D used the money to purchase a Manhattan apartment for a relative, the acquisition of two yachts, and the acquisition of four country club memberships at a cost of $950,000. Billions of dollars more were paid to individuals who generated investments for D through feeder funds. That D turned himself in and confessed was moments before the inevitable discovery was to come crashing down. None of these other cases are comparable to this case in terms of the scope, duration, and enormity of the fraud, and the degree of the betrayal. Not a single letter has been submitted attesting to D's good deeds or good character or civic or charitable activities. Based on his projected life expectancy and the fact that he turned himself in, D argued for a maximum sentence of 12 years. P wanted the 150-year maximum sentence.