Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If he’s currently refusing dialysis and has been alleging that he’s suffering from stage 4 kidney disease since 2014, then that casts enough doubt for me to say he should stay right where he is.

Take your dialysis and submit to an independent medical exam, and I might be persuaded to reconsider.

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Player said:

If he’s currently refusing dialysis and has been alleging that he’s suffering from stage 4 kidney disease since 2014, then that casts enough doubt for me to say he should stay right where he is.

Take your dialysis and submit to an independent medical exam, and I might be persuaded to reconsider.

His diagnosis and prognosis is established by the BOP.  He's not subject to "independent medical exam."  End-stage renal disease is a step beyond Stage 4.  I suppose if he's released, he shouldn't be allowed to start dialysis.

Posted
Ebbers got released, too, and promptly died.  I'm fine with this.  Incarceration of the old and dying serves no purpose.
I generally agree with this. But this guy fucked over a lot of people. He deserves to stay in
Posted
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

His diagnosis and prognosis is established by the BOP.  He's not subject to "independent medical exam."  End-stage renal disease is a step beyond Stage 4.  I suppose if he's released, he shouldn't be allowed to start dialysis.

I think justice is better served by leaving him where he is, making reasonable medical care available to him, and letting nature take its course. 

Dying alone in prison without all of the comforts that his remaining wealth might provide if he were granted "compassionate release" might serve as a deterrent to others. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Player said:

I think justice is better served by leaving him where he is, making reasonable medical care available to him, and letting nature take its course. 

Dying alone in prison without all of the comforts that his remaining wealth might provide if he were granted "compassionate release" might serve as a deterrent to others. 

I suppose I can buy a value judgment that he should remain imprisoned.

I do not buy the deterrent effect.  People like Madoff aren't deterred, they think they won't be caught.  Whether they die in prison or at home has little or no bearing on that.

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ebbers got released, too, and promptly died.  I'm fine with this.  Incarceration of the old and dying serves no purpose.

I disagree.  It has a deterrent effect.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I suppose I can buy a value judgment that he should remain imprisoned.
I do not buy the deterrent effect.  People like Madoff aren't deterred, they think they won't be caught.  Whether they die in prison or at home has little or no bearing on that.
I get you, but a lot of poor people die every day in prison for less reason than him in my opinion

Maybe not the best argument. Hell, I had more sympathy for aaraon Hernandez.
Posted
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose I can buy a value judgment that he should remain imprisoned.

I do not buy the deterrent effect.  People like Madoff aren't deterred, they think they won't be caught.  Whether they die in prison or at home has little or no bearing on that.

Hmm. I would think Ponzi scheme operators would be different than most financial criminals in that respect. Everyone knows that every Ponzi scheme eventually collapses. The gamble would seem to be not that you won't get caught, but that you will bail before you get caught. Getting caught has to be part of the calculus, right? 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I will still never understand, how gossiping traders on Wall Street never noticed that none of them had Bernie's firm trading through them with active tickets.  These guys are the epitome of the wanna-be cool kids table in high school cafeterias and none of them ever noticed, "Yeah, it sucks...we'd love to have some Bernie's shop trading through us."  And of course due to egos, everybody else in the bar said the same thing.  But you'd think after that many years, those egos would finally ask, "I get it, he's not using us.  But who's he using?  Would love to find out their secret sauce."  I realize the technology and law enforcement wasn't there yet at the time, and complacency and greed led the investors not to ask questions or demand proper reporting, but how did all those traders and third-party counterparts never wonder, 'Hey, who actually clears these billions every quarter'?"  

And you can't say greed.  Because greed is precisely what would leave traders to actively inquire about who was pushing these buy-sale orders through.  They'd want to know so they could either bad mouth them to get the new business or they'd try to pony up pari passou with these shops.  That's the last mystery about him.  IMO, anyway...

Edited by Lobo
Posted

This man single handedly destroyed thousands upon thousands of peoples lives.   I'm sure people died prematurely as a result of his embezzlement scheme. Rot in hell sir.  Let God (if there is one) sort out his forgiveness.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
14 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

I disagree.  It has a deterrent effect.

Hmm.  A ponzi schemer says, welp, if I get caught, I'll go to prison, but at least I won't die there?  LETS DO IT!

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Hmm. I would think Ponzi scheme operators would be different than most financial criminals in that respect. Everyone knows that every Ponzi scheme eventually collapses. The gamble would seem to be not that you won't get caught, but that you will bail before you get caught. Getting caught has to be part of the calculus, right? 

I think the tendency with Ponzi schemers is that they divert funds to personal use, pay dividends from investments, see how easy it is and then the thing rapidly grows out of control.  At some point, yeah, they probably figure that they'll get caught, but the crime is nearly complete.  The prospect of apprehension and punishment had no deterrent effect at that point.

Nonetheless, as with the post above, I don't think the (un)availability of compassionate release figures heavily into their calculation.

 

People are just straining to find a reason to indulge bloodlust without acknowledging it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

Not to diminish his crime or to argue for an early release, but the latest report I could fund is that the litigation trustee has so far distributed 76% of the amounts lost by investors. He’s done that by suing those earlier investors that made a profit as well as other investment companies and financial institutions that dealt with Madoff. No doubt many of the victims quickly sold their claims to claims traders at very low amounts just happy to get anything, and those traders have done very well.

Posted
3 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Not to diminish his crime or to argue for an early release, but the latest report I could fund is that the litigation trustee has so far distributed 76% of the amounts lost by investors. He’s done that by suing those earlier investors that made a profit as well as other investment companies and financial institutions that dealt with Madoff. No doubt many of the victims quickly sold their claims to claims traders at very low amounts just happy to get anything, and those traders have done very well.

Yeah, that's amazing good work by that trustee.

Posted
Yeah, that's amazing good work by that trustee.

I agree. That said, many of the claims he made were no brainers. There’s a lot of case law on claims against the winners (i.e. those who are net in the money—even innocently) in a Ponzi scheme.
Posted

Meanwhile, Jon Corzine stole $1.2 billion and never saw the inside of a prison cell, because he’s well connected. Three years ago he settled with the CFTC for $5 million, or 0.4% of what he stole. Pretty cool.

Posted
Meanwhile, Jon Corzine stole $1.2 billion and never saw the inside of a prison cell, because he’s well connected. Three years ago he settled with the CFTC for $5 million, or 0.4% of what he stole. Pretty cool.
I remember reading about that. Pretty fucked up
Posted
14 minutes ago, HouTex said:


I agree. That said, many of the claims he made were no brainers. There’s a lot of case law on claims against the winners (i.e. those who are net in the money—even innocently) in a Ponzi scheme.

Oh yeah.  Even so, you don't see that success rate too often.  The "local" Stanford receivership has collected a tiny fraction of that.  And I think the Madoff percentage is net of legal fees, to boot.

Posted
8 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This man single handedly destroyed thousands upon thousands of peoples lives.   I'm sure people died prematurely as a result of his embezzlement scheme. Rot in hell sir.  Let God (if there is one) sort out his forgiveness.

He got Kevin Bacon and that chick of his, lost thousands, consequently millions.

  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...