"Investment manager" (and that term is used very loosely) Bernard Madoff, the former Nasdaq chairman, was charged on Thursday with massive fraud.
Time reports that
according to the U.S. Attorney's office in the southern district of New York, Madoff admitted to defrauding clients for up to $50 billion in a massive Ponzi scheme that was committed over a number of years. (See the top 10 scandals of 2008.) Forbes reports that
Madoff, known to his mates as Bernie, informed “senior employees,” possibly his sons, that his investment advisory business was a fraud. (See "
Mad Madoff.")
Madoff reportedly said he was “finished,” that he had “absolutely nothing,” that “it's all just one big lie.” He allegedly stated that the business was insolvent, and that it had been for years. His estimated losses from the fraud clocked in at $50.0 billion. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said regulatory files showed that the firm had more than $17.0 billion in assets under management at the start of the year and that virtually all of that is missing.
The 70-year-old Madoff is being charged with one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5.0 million. Madoff was released on his own recognizance after posting a $10.0 million bond secured by his Manhattan apartment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the federal court in New York to freeze Madoff’s assets. The commission also appointed a receiver who will try to gather all the assets and will try to determine whether anyone else was complicit in the fraud. “The process takes years,” said Powers. “Although these frauds may appear simple, forensic accountants must go through the various transactions that occurred to understand the full extent.”
Powers said Ponzi-like schemes typical start when the scamster made a bad investment decision or dipped into clients' funds, and instead of admitting to the mistake or paying back the losses, uses new money from investors to meet redemptions.
Some are considering Madoff’s scheme the biggest fraud case in Wall Street’s history. Madoff’s clients, which reportedly include Lombardier, the Loeb Family, Banco Santander, and a slew of charities, will likely seek civil lawsuits or other legal action to try to recover the money they’ve invested.
If you want to send a simple Christmas greeting by e-mail and so avoid the guilt of using paper this year, here is the simplest method:
Somewhere in the digital Dardenelles:
I previously had the misfortune (on this occasion anyway) to manage a group of Fisheries scientists. Our Department had a great internet filter which let them monitor staff internet useage. I kept getting calls from our HR people about all the deviants in my section who continually searched sex sites. Of course, closer examination invariably showed that scientists intent on breeding fish needed to search for 'sex' when looking up scientific papers on fish breeding. Kevin I wish you well with your filter. I'm sure it will slow down the internet, frustrate legitimate users, cost a fortune and be as effective as Grocery watch and Fuel watch.
Posted by Dan of Brisbane / 09 Dec 2008 9:16pm / Permalink
We must have internet filtering. The Australian adult population do not have the capacity to protect their own children from accessing the internet in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the obviously ignorant people must call upon the immortal power of glorious education revolutionary Chairman Rudd to save the Australian masses from corruption by the tyranny and evils of the internet, and do a better job of raising YOUR kids by controlling, censoring and determining what is and what isn't appropriate for YOU and YOUR family. LONG LIVE Rudd!
Posted by David / 09 Dec 2008 9:34pm / Permalink
I am an adult who lives in a democratic society and as such I have a right to decide what I see, do, hear and how I act. I do not need an elected official making these decisions for me or telling me what is best for me or my family. This type of filter is the sort of thing one expects of China and the like, not Australia. Parents are responsible for what their children view on the internet and there is already available plenty of existing software to block offensive material. Most kids at some stage will expose themselves to pornography whether in sharing magazines, books, comics, or the net. Lets face it it has been around a long, long time. Mine went looking on the net before the "nanny type" software was available, but we were checking what and where they were going and we confronted them then dealt with it as responsible parents. They knew the rules, they knew we could check on them and they knew the penalties if they continued. And they stopped. Apparently loss of mobiles, going out, pocket money etc was more important. As some other people have stated this will not stop the pedophiles, they will just find other ways around the blocks, they always have regardless of the medium. All it will do is hinder Australia's ability to have a useful fast internet system. It needs to be an OPT IN system for those not prepared or capable of overseeing their own children. And let the rest of use benefit from all the advantages the web can give us. And for the record I am not interested in pornography but to each his own. I am a lot more concerned about the violence that is allowed on our TV's, films and computer games and think it does more damage to kids who are constantly exposed and desensitized by it.
Posted by Marg / 09 Dec 2008 9:28pm / Permalink
I live in a swing seat that labour won by 900 votes. If this filter proposal goes through, I will change my vote and lobby everyone I know to do the same. If I convince ten people, who convince 10 people each, who convince another 10 people each then the ALP is one seat closer to losing the treasury benches. I hope you think the risk of losing government is worth trying to introduce an unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist and exists as a tool to allow the back room boys to censor at will the information we can see. A solution that can only be used by future governments even more fascist than this one to strip us of our rights to get information they do not like. Remember the Nazis were voted in legally - this is how it starts.
Posted by Dean Nicholls / 09 Dec 2008 9:24pm / Permalink
I must post here as I very strongly object to ANY form of filtering of Internet content. If I want content to be filtered I will do so at a personal/home level to protect my children from unwanted content.
Posted by Web Wizard / 12 Dec 2008 3:35pm / Permalink
First we need an internet filter. Then we need a newsagent filter to make sure no publications slip through that parents may object to. Then we need a library and book shop filter to make sure the same protection is there. Then government should be able to filter what the teachers at schools and universities can say (to protect the children). Same for movie theatres, TV, Radio, Australia post and so on. Stop this mad idea now.
Posted by Tim / 12 Dec 2008 3:20pm / Permalink
I find the methods used by Conroy to convince us we need mandatory ISP censorship to be disgusting. Exploiting victims of child abuse and peoples fears of it is a very underhanded way to foist totalitarian like control of information on society. Sure the less tech savvy might lap it up. But the rest of us see straight through it. We know the filtering will not stop child abuse, we know that a secret blacklist will be an open invitation for censorship. At least we can take comfort in the fact that if the train wreck is implemented that the blacklist will leak. Then everyone will see the real motivation for censorship. Weather that be political, religious or commercial. ie governments silencing critics, Family First forcing Christianity on us, Media conglomerates trying in vain to stop piracy or a combination.
Posted by Cleanfeed will not be forgotten come next election! / 12 Dec 2008 3:04pm / Permalink
You guys are turning out to be worse than your predecessors. Censoring the Internet will be your downfall. You have no idea what you've just started. You've woken a sleeping giant.
Posted by cameronreilly / 12 Dec 2008 2:02pm / Permalink
(Some of the comments turning up on the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy consultation blog begun on 8 December 2008)
By yesterday morning Conroy's blog had received over 700 comments with the vast majority against his filtering plan. Won't be long before the comment function is closed or this large block of negative opinion suffers an 'accident'.