PDA

View Full Version : Bernard Madoff Meets 150 Years in Prison


Tysyacha
06-29-2009, 06:18 PM
I hope you enjoy your time together! :rollin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_madoff_scandal;_ylt=AtFszW7RY2CXoT2DMpgig.Os0NU E;_ylu=X3oDMTJpbnRxMmpwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjI5L3V zX21hZG9mZl9zY2FuZGFsBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fd G9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNiZXJuYXJkbWFkb2Y-

I can't say I feel the least bit sorry for this man--er, this greedy wastard.

JediAthos
06-29-2009, 06:23 PM
Good...nuff said

Jae Onasi
06-29-2009, 06:37 PM
There's no way he can ever repay all the people he swindled, so I'm glad he's stuck in jail for the rest of his life for destroying the financial lives of so many.

Web Rider
06-29-2009, 06:38 PM
haw haw! serves him right.

urluckyday
06-29-2009, 06:52 PM
You coulda put him in there for 20 years and it would do the same thing. He's gonna die in prison soon enough anyway...I'm more mad at the fact that his wife gets to keep over 2 million in assets even though she was involved in his scheme as well...their entire family (knowing or not) should be forced to give up any amount of money that is owed b/c of the case...

jrrtoken
06-29-2009, 06:57 PM
I'm surprised he got that long of a sentence. I figured he would've payed off the judge, but to my delight, he got what he deserved.

Trench
06-29-2009, 06:58 PM
I hope they put him in a cell with the biggest, meanest, most insane guy on the entire cell block:swear::firemad:.

Web Rider
06-29-2009, 06:58 PM
You coulda put him in there for 20 years and it would do the same thing. He's gonna die in prison soon enough anyway...I'm more mad at the fact that his wife gets to keep over 2 million in assets even though she was involved in his scheme as well...their entire family (knowing or not) should be forced to give up any amount of money that is owed b/c of the case...

I suppose you are going to fork over the cash too? He paid taxes on that, and you got government services(roads, police, fire), on those taxes, so, how much should I put you down for? 10 million?

Astor
06-29-2009, 07:27 PM
I laughed this afternoon when, watching Fox Newsertainment, the reporter said 'yes, 150 years, that's basically a life sentence'. :lol:

I'm more mad at the fact that his wife gets to keep over 2 million in assets even though she was involved in his scheme as well...their entire family (knowing or not) should be forced to give up any amount of money that is owed b/c of the case...

Why should they be punished for something they may not have been party to? They may have benefitted from his fraud, but I think it unfair to punish his family for his crimes.

They should focus on finding out his accomplices and making them pay.

ForeverNight
06-29-2009, 07:37 PM
Fully agree, Astor!

Anyway, if I remember rightly Life in the US is only aboutt 35 years... which makes no sense.

So, think of this as five life sentences and we'll be closer to what's happening....

Now, maybe if they seized the assets that he stole/swindled/et cetera we might be able to _pay_ for some of what the Government wants to do.

Jae Onasi
06-30-2009, 02:19 AM
They have seized nearly all of his assets, and those of his wife's, too, even though she has not been implicated in his crimes in any way. She gave up about 60 million or so to settle the issue quickly. The authorities are giving back this money to the people who've been swindled, but it'll not be nearly enough to cover the losses, of course.

vanir
06-30-2009, 03:20 AM
Poor guy was just a bit confused. When people said they wanted to invest in something with really big returns he didn't think they meant for them.

Still you might say he deserves what he gets for being not too bright. He could've put precisely what he was doing in the fineprint and got away with it.

Lord of Hunger
06-30-2009, 12:49 PM
When it comes down to it his trial wasn't about delivering justice (even though that may have occurred as a side effect), but about making everyone feel good. Is that wrong? I'll leave that to great minds than my own, but it's important to note.

JediAthos
06-30-2009, 01:28 PM
When it comes down to it his trial wasn't about delivering justice (even though that may have occurred as a side effect), but about making everyone feel good. Is that wrong? I'll leave that to great minds than my own, but it's important to note.

What exactly to you mean it wasn't about delivering justice? I suppose that if you consider justice to be that everyone who got swindled gets back what they lost then perhaps you're right.

At the same time, the guy was discovered to have committed a crime, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Seems like the justice system at work to me.

HdVaderII
06-30-2009, 01:28 PM
The man deserved what he got.

urluckyday
06-30-2009, 07:04 PM
Why should they be punished for something they may not have been party to? They may have benefitted from his fraud, but I think it unfair to punish his family for his crimes.

They should focus on finding out his accomplices and making them pay.

While I understand that the family members all did not know what was going on, but the mere fact that it is still not their money requires them to return it. It's unfortunate, but it's not their money to keep.

About his accomplices...his wife is right there and they're letting her keep millions (over 2.5 million) in assets...

urluckyday
06-30-2009, 07:08 PM
I suppose you are going to fork over the cash too? He paid taxes on that, and you got government services(roads, police, fire), on those taxes, so, how much should I put you down for? 10 million?

I don't understand what this has to do with anything...you're almost telling me to be thankful that he stole millions. It's like saying that we should let a bank robber off the hook if he takes the money he steals and donates it to a worthy cause.

Web Rider
06-30-2009, 07:47 PM
I don't understand what this has to do with anything...you're almost telling me to be thankful that he stole millions. It's like saying that we should let a bank robber off the hook if he takes the money he steals and donates it to a worthy cause.

No, you were stating that "any of his family that had profited" from this should be punished too by having their money taken away as well, even if they didn't know he was committing a crime. You and I profitted off of him too because of the absurd amounts his family paid in taxes. Therefore, we should have to fork over money too.

There's no sense punishing more people for his scam.

urluckyday
06-30-2009, 07:52 PM
I did not profit from his scam in any way. Taxes are one thing that benefit society, but I did not receive any money. It's up to the government to return the money to its rightful owners....it's not like the original asset owners don't pay taxes either...so in any case, the money will reach the same destination eventually.

Any person, including family member, who received any money from this scam has no right to hold the money. It's like receiving stolen property. I'm sorry if it seems ruthless, but many more people suffer by not having their money returned...the amount of victims is an exponential amount over the amount of benefactors (including his family).

Trench
06-30-2009, 07:56 PM
Taxes are one thing that benefit society

Are you mad:confused:? Do you even live in the U.S? Taxes are murder. They don't benefit anybody except the the governments that charge them.

urluckyday
06-30-2009, 08:08 PM
^Yes, I am in America...I pay taxes just like everyone else in the US...sure it's never nice giving money out of pocket...but I know that it helps our country out, so I don't worry about it too much unless they get extreme...

Darth Avlectus
06-30-2009, 08:08 PM
This guy, like his predecessor Ponsi, are the bane of the existence for capitalism.

Would not be surprised if he got put into one of those joints that is more like a hotel--for nonviolent offenders and celebs. No doubt paid his way there since he wasn't getting out of this.

Good riddance Mr "Made-off-with-your-money". You F*cking ganef (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ganef)*!
*(Ganef is old jewish for basically "conniving thief". Pronounced "Gone-if")
I don't see why we should necessarily punish the wife, unless there is proof that gun moll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_moll) did actually act as an accomplice to her husband's crimes.

When it comes down to it his trial wasn't about delivering justice (even though that may have occurred as a side effect), but about making everyone feel good. Is that wrong? I'll leave that to great minds than my own, but it's important to note.

What exactly to you mean it wasn't about delivering justice? I suppose that if you consider justice to be that everyone who got swindled gets back what they lost then perhaps you're right.

At the same time, the guy was discovered to have committed a crime, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Seems like the justice system at work to me.

Nobody is saying the justice department is perfect--it certainly can't make up for all the screwing-over that Bernie did to all those people.

They have seized nearly all of his assets, and those of his wife's, too, even though she has not been implicated in his crimes in any way. She gave up about 60 million or so to settle the issue quickly. The authorities are giving back this money to the people who've been swindled, but it'll not be nearly enough to cover the losses, of course.

Yeah, lots of it disappeared to expensive vacations, yachts, cars, parties, and other stuff. We couldn't hope to retrieve all of it. I feel for those poor people.

Web Rider
06-30-2009, 09:54 PM
I did not profit from his scam in any way. Taxes are one thing that benefit society, but I did not receive any money. It's up to the government to return the money to its rightful owners....it's not like the original asset owners don't pay taxes either...so in any case, the money will reach the same destination eventually.
You got roads, hospitals, police, fire, in some places water, gas and electric. You benefit from taxes just as much as they benefit from taxes. And since they paid more, we benefited a LOT from their taxes.

Any person, including family member, who received any money from this scam has no right to hold the money. It's like receiving stolen property. I'm sorry if it seems ruthless, but many more people suffer by not having their money returned...the amount of victims is an exponential amount over the amount of benefactors (including his family).
Causing one person to suffer to make another person not suffer STILL leaves you with people suffering. If you rob the rich to help the poor, the poor may be well off, but now the once rich are poor.

The money to pay the debts didn't exist to start with. The amount these people are "owed" isn't there.

urluckyday
06-30-2009, 09:58 PM
^So it's a catch 22?

Also, I'm pretty sure those roads, hospitals, etc. you're talking about were state taxes since the fed. gov't doesn't usually handle things like that...

vanir
07-01-2009, 12:48 AM
Does it seem wrong that I just don't have the same sense of abhorrence for this man than more violent individuals who receive much lesser sentencing?

Economics is politics. Maybe he should've tried a defence of promoting a socialist system...

:P

Lord of Hunger
07-01-2009, 01:07 AM
What exactly to you mean it wasn't about delivering justice? I suppose that if you consider justice to be that everyone who got swindled gets back what they lost then perhaps you're right.
Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell.
At the same time, the guy was discovered to have committed a crime, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Seems like the justice system at work to me.
Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation.

More justice will occur when the wife sells the mansion and other possessions bought through criminal actions. Just putting Madoff into a prison where he'll probably get prison raped or something does not make the world a better place or make him a better person. Why rejoice in that?

Darth Avlectus
07-01-2009, 02:06 AM
Does it seem wrong that I just don't have the same sense of abhorrence for this man than more violent individuals who receive much lesser sentencing?

Economics is politics. Maybe he should've tried a defence of promoting a socialist system...

:P

SAY WHAT?! :rolleyes: :rofl:

mur'phon
07-01-2009, 04:05 AM
While I'm against severe punishment in most cases, crimes done for personal (materal) gain without other acceptable motives (i.e your family would starve) should be punished more severly than now simply because I believe it is more efective in such cases.

Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell.

While by that definition of justice you are right, the system also (thankfully) aims to deter others thinking about commiting the same crime.

Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation.

Agreed (see above), however this is one case where I'd argue the harsh punishment is the right thing to do (at least from a utilitarian perspective).

Totenkopf
07-01-2009, 04:52 AM
Ultimately, given the circumstances, justice has been served. I agree that the 150 yr sentence was as much a warning to others as a punishment for Madoff's crimes. I also agree that the wife should basically be left as destitute as his victim's. Have to wonder if he didn't fall on his sword to protect his family. I suspect his sons and wife should probably be in the slammer as well. "Justice" is sometimes as selective as the course of "least resistance". His prosecution would prove to be a slam dunk, but the others.. maybe not. Nevertheless, hard to feel anything bordering on sympathy for this man or think that his penalty was too harsh.

But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner.

JediAthos
07-01-2009, 09:01 AM
Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell.

Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation.

More justice will occur when the wife sells the mansion and other possessions bought through criminal actions. Just putting Madoff into a prison where he'll probably get prison raped or something does not make the world a better place or make him a better person. Why rejoice in that?

The justice system is not now, nor has it ever been designed to repair the injury. You can't repair most of the things that people are brought to trial for. Murder, rape, child abuse, assault etc...can never be repaired. The only thing the system can do is punish the guilty. In so far as theft is concerned, if law enforcement is able to recover the stolen items then yes they are returned, but if not the only thing that is left is to punish the guilty. That is what the justice system has always been designed to do.

Perhaps some will call me a bad person, I'm not sure I care, but I have always found it satisfying to see someone who committed grievous crimes against other people be convicted and sentenced for what they did. The system isn't perfect..far from it..but it is what it is.

mur'phon
07-03-2009, 08:36 AM
But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner.

Hardly just the govt's fault, anyone buying into a scheme where you are guaranteed high stable returns that consitently beats the market, are basically asking to be fooled.

JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught.

Nedak
07-03-2009, 01:17 PM
HAHA! Touche American Government!

Darth Avlectus
07-06-2009, 04:59 AM
^^^You and your hilarious one-liners. *shakes head and chuckles*

Well, I'd say that the judge not backing down, especially with the remorselessness of Made-off(-with-your-money)'s dimeanor that justice has been served. You can't get much better for this individual but maybe marginal at best. Now the governing board ought to be prosecuted for ethics violations.


But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner.

Bah, you know these people will probably end up getting off easier (probably one of those "hotel joints" for their incarceration) for being enablers. However, I agree. Part of the reason for their jobs was to ensure ethical integrity which they did not.

This case is exactly what people like you and me consider the bane of the free market. Without integrity the foundation is corrupted; the establishment can never last with a corrupt foundation.

The justice system is not now, nor has it ever been designed to repair the injury. You can't repair most of the things that people are brought to trial for. Murder, rape, child abuse, assault etc...can never be repaired. The only thing the system can do is punish the guilty. In so far as theft is concerned, if law enforcement is able to recover the stolen items then yes they are returned, but if not the only thing that is left is to punish the guilty. That is what the justice system has always been designed to do.

QFT. On occasion it has also to try to rehabilitate the guilty back to a functional status for their return to society. This gives varied results. I don't know of late the success rates but I would imagine it is not good--probably quite pitiful. Certainly we hear more about the failures, though this may be media hyperbole to some extent. The failures just go to show, it only yields so much returns w.r.t. results it gets.

Perhaps some will call me a bad person, I'm not sure I care, but I have always found it satisfying to see someone who committed grievous crimes against other people be convicted and sentenced for what they did. The system isn't perfect..far from it..but it is what it is.

I think you're right. On the other side of the token: this is a construct of our civility. Another gray zone or catch 22.

On the one hand it prevents us from punishing or executing the wrongfully accused/arrested. On the other hand it does just the opposite in certain cases.

Also consider it keeps citizens from becoming barbaric. (Hint: "If the cops/lord don't get him, then I will!") Yet it can also be a vehicle/means to an end (or to no end) for the most vile and despicable of people. Well worth considering.

Hardly just the govt's fault, anyone buying into a scheme where you are guaranteed high stable returns that consitently beats the market, are basically asking to be fooled.

Where the person investing lacked common sense to a large margin I'll agree with you. HOWEVER: Where it was a much more realistic sounding fabrication that even people with common sense could believe...well, that is some rather *crafty* fabricating :swear:... Wouldn't you say?

So for at least the latter, I'll say that is case enough to prove the board ought to be ashamed of itself.

JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught.

Caught in the first place? Caught in the act? What? (I am interested to hear it.)

Q
07-06-2009, 06:24 AM
Madoff. What an appropriate name for this guy.

He Madoff with billions-'till he got caught. :p

urluckyday
07-06-2009, 06:48 PM
^I hope you're not just thinking of that lol...that's such an old joke even today.

Q
07-07-2009, 03:58 AM
No, but no one had mentioned it yet in the thread. ;)

Allronix
07-07-2009, 05:44 AM
Well, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a little cell, eating institutional food, and maybe working for any luxuries. The millions that the state confiscated from him will go back into repaying as much as possible to the victims.

As to his wife? Maybe she was in on it, maybe she was merely a trophy bimbo who went shopping with the money, but never questioned where it came from. If she was in on it, the court system can deal with her.

It's not perfect - justice seldom is. Still, one takes a victory when one can.

Darth Avlectus
07-07-2009, 03:10 PM
^^^Exactly. Better, vastly, than letting that ganif off easy.

No, but no one had mentioned it yet in the thread. ;)

Hmm...let's see...I said "Made-off-with-your-money" and this being discussed means he got caught. I thought the humor was in the ironic truth? Don't I get any credit? :mad:

I guess if someone had to explicitly mention it, it was you. *Pats your shoulder.* "Good job!" :dev8:

urluckyday
07-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Well, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a little cell, eating institutional food, and maybe working for any luxuries. The millions that the state confiscated from him will go back into repaying as much as possible to the victims.

As to his wife? Maybe she was in on it, maybe she was merely a trophy bimbo who went shopping with the money, but never questioned where it came from. If she was in on it, the court system can deal with her.

It's not perfect - justice seldom is. Still, one takes a victory when one can.

No, his wife was in on it...and it's more like she dealt with the court system...they let her off easy and let her keep over 2 mil...I'll never have that much money in my life.

Q
07-07-2009, 06:16 PM
^^^Exactly. Better, vastly, than letting that ganif off easy.



Hmm...let's see...I said "Made-off-with-your-money" and this being discussed means he got caught. I thought the humor was in the ironic truth? Don't I get any credit? :mad:

I guess if someone had to explicitly mention it, it was you. *Pats your shoulder.* "Good job!" :dev8:
Oops. Sorry. :(

mur'phon
07-10-2009, 06:16 PM
Where the person investing lacked common sense to a large margin I'll agree with you. HOWEVER: Where it was a much more realistic sounding fabrication that even people with common sense could believe...well, that is some rather *crafty* fabricating ... Wouldn't you say?

Thing is, a lot of people knew it was a scam, his fabrication wasn't even a ery good one, he often reported to investors that he had bought shares which didn't exist, or at prices that where way out of wack. Even most fantastic investors don't beat the market buy much, and they (unless bat****) never promise that they'll provide consitent high returns, especially without a fee (which he did). In short, the only ones who I feel sorry for are those who invested in his scheme through midle men who promised due diligence. For those people, it's time to sue, and not just Madoff.

Caught in the first place? Caught in the act? What?

No idea what you're getting at, please elaborate.

Darth Avlectus
07-10-2009, 09:55 PM
Thing is, a lot of people knew it was a scam, his fabrication wasn't even a ery good one, he often reported to investors that he had bought shares which didn't exist, or at prices that where way out of wack. Even most fantastic investors don't beat the market buy much, and they (unless bat****) never promise that they'll provide consitent high returns, especially without a fee (which he did). In short, the only ones who I feel sorry for are those who invested in his scheme through midle men who promised due diligence. For those people, it's time to sue, and not just Madoff.

Odd I do not see the suing about to happen, though I guess I agree with you. Sad how much people let stuff slide, eh?





No idea what you're getting at, please elaborate.
You said:JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught.

I think I get the jist of what you're saying but that last part of caught I want you to clarify by more. More caught in the first place, in the act or having already comitted the crime? Not that I'm unimaginative--just that...what did you mean by more caught? Quantity? Caught in the process?

I'd agree more, if I saw any such way to do a better job, at least practically anyways. I'm just not sure it's attainable (Don't I wish), other than higher diligence/vigilance levels of individuals regulating. That in itself just seems like a shot in the dark, know what I mean?

mur'phon
07-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Odd I do not see the suing about to happen, though I guess I agree with you. Sad how much people let stuff slide, eh?

At least Fairfield is allready sued (probably to oblivion), the media might not report to much on this because it's hard to sell a "demon company" story when those in the company where probably thick rather than devious.

The "more caught" bit was referencing to economical crime in general, which has the unfortunate combination of being A: usually not severly punished, B: a crime few get caught doing, and C: a "selfish" crime (i.e it's a calculated risk you take, not something done because of your emotions at the time and usually not done out of self preservation). With the chance of geting caught low, the punishments light, and the rewards big, many will reason it is in their best interest to commit such crimes.

Increasing the punishment isn't going to cost much, catching more will, but ask yourself how much those crimes are allready costing us.