Madoff Sentenced To 150 Years

selven was one of several readers to send in the news that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. "Bernard Madoff's victims gasped and cheered when he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, but they walked away knowing little more about how he carried out the biggest robbery in Wall Street history. In one of the most dramatic courtroom conclusions to a corporate fraud case, the 71-year-old swindler was unemotional as he was berated by distraught investors during the 90-minute proceeding. Many former clients had hoped he would shed more light on his crime and explain why he victimized so many for so long. But he did not. Madoff called his crime 'an error of judgment' and his 'failure,' reiterating previous statements that he alone was responsible for the $65 billion investment fraud. His victims said they did not hear much new from Madoff in his five-minute statement. They also said they did not believe anything he said. As he handed down the maximum penalty allowed, US District Judge Denny Chin... [said], 'I simply do not get the sense that Mr. Madoff has done all that he could or told all that he knows.'"

Comments

Last thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Last post!

-- Madoff

Re:Last thing to do

[gyrogeerloose]

Hey, he's lucky he didn't get life...

Re:Last thing to do

[gyrogeerloose]

No appeals--he pled guilty. And since he was brought up on federal charges, he's got to serve a minimum of 85% of the sentence. That means he'll be eligible for parol in 2136.

Re:Last thing to do

[Dmala]

Since skeletal remains are unlikely to be a danger to the community, they'll probably let the bastard go.

Now what about

[al0ha]

all the jackasses at the SEC that ignored data again and again which pointed to fraud and enabled him to get away with this for so many years?

Re:Now what about

[helbent]

Really. The SEC investigated him 3 times over the years and they didn't seem to catch on to the poignant fact that Madoff didn't do a single trade in the past 13 years or so. I wonder what kind of genius you have to be to have those kind of rock-solid blinders on?

Re:Now what about

[moon3]

Because he was a former head of Nasdaq. He was one of the rule makers. You do not expect the head of the major exchange to be a Ponzi schemer. Just like a head of police is very unlikely to be a drug dealer.

Re:Now what about

[FiloEleven]

That's what FDIC insurance is for. It would have cost less than $750 billion to pay FDIC on all those accounts, and that money would have gone to people who would be more likely to spend it and "kick-start the economy" from the ground up instead of hoarding it like the bankers.

Giving more money to bankers is throwing people to the wolves.

Re:Now what about

[donj]

Sorry, but this post being moderated 5 completely discredits the competence slashdot's user base. I used to work in the financial institutions group (advising banks & insurers) of a major US Investment Bank for the last two years and witnessed the impact of the Lehman Brothers collapse on the financial system and especially other banks first hand. The global financial systems are too interlinked that ANY significant bank would have survived the collapse of even Lehman Brothers without significant government intervention - and no being a prudent bank would NOT have helped! Being prudent only impacts the asset side of the banks balance sheet i.e. a prudent bank will take less losses, however, this really doesn't help in staying solvent. The business model of banks is very simple. They borrow money from - investors - other banks - from customer deposits - central banks (repo'ing assets) add a charge (spread) on top of their funding costs (i.e. what they pay for the above) and lend it to out again. Sure, they can also trade themselves and do advisory business but borrowing and lending is really the core. Quite simply, after the Lehman collapse banks weren't able to borrow money any more: - investors were not willing to buy bank bonds any more - banks stopped lending to each other - customers withdraw money from their bank accounts - Central banks tried to relax requirements to borrow money from them but this doesn't make up for the above (moreover, this already is government intervention) This happens because investors & customers lost faith in the banking system and were afraid of another insolvency. Moreover it's a vicious circle, as soon as people are aware a bank has issues they withdraw their money making it even harder for the bank to survive. As banks have to continuously refinance themselves (as bonds they issued mature etc), not being able to borrow money any more will let a bank that is perfectly fine on the asset side go belly up within days or weeks. I've seen it, post Lehman every other week a new (PRUDENT) bank almost went bankrupt and could only survive with government intervention. You see being a prudent bank helps on the asset side and in the medium term on the liability side but in the short term after a major bank collapsed EVERY bank can go bankrupt within days given that they are extremely vulnerable on the liability side.

Madoff is content

[Red Flayer]

I've thought this since news of the scandal broke:

You know why Bernie Madoff seems to be very complacent about the whole thing? Because his sons got off scot-free. Madoff is quite fine with sacrificing his freedom for the rest of his life... there are few things more [noble? gratifying?] than sacrificing yourself for your children.

I still believe it very unlikely that Bernie's sons didn't knowingly participate in this... or at least were aware of it. The whole way that the story broke... Madoff confessed to his son when he caught him trying to cover it up or something... then the sons convincing him to turn himself in...

I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.

Re:DOOOOOOPED!

[Red Flayer]

There must have been dozens to hundreds of people orchestrating this. But it's ok, we'll pin it all on one guy and see how gullible the public is. This guy is up there with the Lee Harvey Oswalds of patsies.

I'm not sure you're aware of how the world of high-finance works. There have been hedge funds handling over $10B with FIVE employees. Seriously.

I think it's very likely that there were others in-the-know. But they probably worked out a plea to provide documentation to nail the case against Madoff, which is why they won't be prosecuted. Or Madoff is looking for redemption after perpetrating this fraud, and decided to shoulder the rap for everyone else involved. I think the last option is the most likely, and I think that his sons were who he was protecting.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned. As long as someone gets hanged (or imprisoned forever) we don't care. Hell, look at the swindling by Enron execs... that directly affected the retirement savings of millions of people, and in the end, we didn't really care.

As far as the general public is concerned, it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the wealthy. That's business by another name. And it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the poor -- that's business as usual. All we really care about is when the poor steal from the wealthy, because we always look down on those poorer than us, we like to imagine ourselves as wealthy, and so when the poor steal, it's an affront to our ideals.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit... so I'll just sum up by saying: Yes, others were likely involved. Yes, he took the fall. But no one cares, as long as there's a spectacle.

Re:Now here's an inconvenient truth:

[Abreu]

There are several sites I no longer bother opening links for:

digg

facebook

televisa

foxnews

Re:They need to find the money now

[jonbryce]

Most of the $65bn never existed in the first place. The rest would have been handed out to customers who had withdrawn money in the past.

The $65bn is what his clients thought they had in their accounts with him, but a lot of that can be attributed to fictitious gains that he reported on their accounts.

Re:Good... although

[node 3]

I'm sure Madoff operated with that understanding (hey, he can't be stupid), yet still got caught in spite of that. I don't really think this sends any message anyone wasn't already aware of.

The message before today was, "and if you get caught, you get 3-10 years, then you're back out and you'll be rich."

A lot of people take these sorts of risks under the impression that, worst case, they spend a few years in jail, and they're fine with the prospect of trading a few years of their life in exchange for wealth far beyond their natural means.

Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."

Re:DOOOOOOPED! You Are So Wrong...

[Nom du Keyboard]

But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned.
As far as the general public is concerned, it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the wealthy.

Excuse me, but...

I lost my job over this when my employer tanked because of Madoff's scam, and I never had a dime invested with him. This has affected all kinds of people!

Re:Good... although

[Red Flayer]

Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."

But if you're old, and you've lived a full life, you can rest assured that your kids and your wife will still get to live a life of luxury, while you live a life of leisure in a state-run old age home. And you'll have plenty of influence to ensure you get a comfy life inside prison, since you can pay off anyone you need.

Re:Good... although

[FooAtWFU]

Speaking of his wife, there's this little piece on how Ruth Madoff Faces Living Off a Scant $2.5 Million.

Her $2.5 million settlement should give her an annual income of maybe $125,000 a year [...] That's a pretty good income. It's a lot more than many of her husband's ruined victims will have. But it will hardly support her past lifestyle. [...] The irony, of course, is that Mrs Madoff really needs right now a financial adviser she can trust to handle her money.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Darkness404]

Which honestly is pointless. Should Madoff be banned from operating a company? Sure. Should he have to return his stolen goods and pay back the people he scammed? Yes. Should he be forced to liquefy most of his assets to help pay back? Yes. Should he be in prison not just scamming people once but effectively scamming the taxpayers. No. Prison should be reserved for only dangerous people who committed violent crimes and need to be put away for a while so they don't go back into crime and when they get out of prison they for the most part should be rehabilitated and able to live a normal life (with perhaps a few restrictions such as banning the sale/possession of firearms form violent criminals). Madoff is not a danger to society. And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice. No matter how much he scammed, he does not belong in jail. He should be working the rest of his life making small payments to pay for those he scammed. Prison is not the place for non-violent criminals, those should be placed on house arrest, have fines, restrictions or be placed on probation. Why should my tax dollars pay to lock away someone who wouldn't threaten anyone's lives, property, etc if he was out on the streets (with again restrictions on what he can and can't do economically).

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Mprx]

In a country without socialized healthcare, fraud *is* a violent crime.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[plover]

There were at least two people who took their own lives directly because of their losses from his theft:

• Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet
• William Foxton

These men are equally as dead as any two other murder victims, and were apparently in no trouble or danger prior to Madoff's criminal activity.

And just in case you want to blame the victims, consider the phrase "danger to society" doesn't necessarily mean "physical danger". Compare what he did to a mugger pointing a gun at you, but not shooting you: you might lose $200 bucks from your wallet, you might have crapped your pants, but you're still alive, and still have a job. Causing the collapse of hundreds of businesses, the unemployment of thousands, the destruction of retirement funds of tens of thousands of people -- I'd say he ranks right up there with any weapon of mass destruction in terms of the damage done to our society. "Danger to society" isn't exclusively the province of the barrel of a gun.

Prison is exactly the right place for him to spend the next 150 years. My only complaint is that he didn't start serving it when he began his fraud, which federal investigators place about 1975. He got to live too many good years outside of the gray bars.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[modecx]

punishment
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 : a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an
offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process

He's not going to prison because he's currently a danger to anyone. He's going to prison because The People decided he should be punished for his misdeeds. The People have decided that probation is just not enough punishment for destroying the pensions of thousands--maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of victims. Maybe he didn't physically assault these people--but he didn't just rob them of money, he robbed many of these people of YEARS of their hard work... Remember, some people have to get along by trading their, blood, sweat and tears; ultimately trading time for currency. When you annihilate someone's retirement account, I think an argument could be made that you're literally stealing time from their lives. Isn't that what murderers do, if more suddenly or brutally?

And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice.

The way I see it, prisons have two primary services to society: Deterrence before the act, and reformation after sentencing. You're welcome to argue their effectiveness in either of these roles (rather dismal, IMO)--but that's not the point. The point is, laws are useless unless they're backed by a set of mean and nasty, pointy teeth when it's appropriate. So what if it is "setting an example"? Maybe the prior examples just weren't harsh enough to dissuade ol' Bernie? Perhaps this might deter the next douche who starts on the path of stealing 65-70 billion, and contributing in no small part to a globally upset economy?

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[nbauman]

From your post, I'm pretty sure you've never had to get health care in the U.S. for someone who didn't have any money. Correct?

There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.

Name one.

In the U.K., under the NICE system, they set a price limit on every condition. If they can save a year of life for about $50,000, they will do it. If it costs more than that, NICE recommends against it, but if people complain about it, the government usually gives in and pays for it anyway. They try to avoid giving out $100,000 drugs that have minimal effectiveness, but they treat long-term conditions better than we do in the U.S.

The U.K. is the cheapest, stingiest system in Europe. Sweden probably has the best care in the world.

But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need.

I just spent several days on the phone over the last few months trying to help a friend of mine who lost his job and health insurance get on Medicaid, so I know something about what actually happens. The city welfare agency just delayed his application for months. He had one condition that required lifetime medication to save his life, so it was a serious business. I made half a dozen calls to those non-profits and got nowhere.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that demonstrates how you can die in the U.S. if you can't afford health care. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm The WSJ had a whole series like that. (This is for people who don't believe Michael Moore.)

Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments

As the WSJ story shows, that's not true.

but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.

So how come the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are on salary and get paid the same whatever they do, has some of the best outcomes in the country?

If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason,

That's supposed to be a benefit? If you take antibiotics when you don't need them, you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could kill you later.

with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.

Ridiculous. I just read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which French doctors described how they were treating cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome in their socialist system. Is that non-common enough for you? They were using canakinumab, which will probably cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Re:Ridiculous

[digitalunity]

What madoff did was 100x times worse than your average 7-11 robber.

Yeah, I said it. It's worse than even a violent crime. 7-11 is insured and gets their money back, the crime is far from victimless but there is typically just 1-2 victims and they recover.

Because of madoff, thousands will suffer through the last years of their lives living from social security check to check, will not have access to the medications they need or the mobility required to live a healthy senior life.

I have no pity for the man. 150 years wasn't enough. Sadly, he will die of old age before any possible recompense can be served.

No, he's not out on bail.

[Animats]

No. He's been in jail for months.

In the words of the New Yorker, on his bail hearing a few months back: "As soon as Sorkin finished asking that Madoff's bail be continued, Chin said curtly, "I don't need to hear from the government. It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff." Immediate applause, quickly tamped down by the Judge. Moments later, two court officers approached Madoff, who stood silently and still, and then he moved his arms a little so that his hands were behind his back. And then there was a click."

That was Madoff's last moment of freedom for the rest of his life. Madoff is Federal inmate #61727-054 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City, NY. That's a maximum security facility. Here is Madoff's cell.

MCC isn't a long-term facility, so the Bureau of Prisons will probably move him after a while.

Re:Ridiculous

[Opportunist]

That's basically what bugs me about it. What's the worth of a life sentence for someone who is 77?

Given the chance, would you not do what he did? Live in luxury for 30ish years of your life, then spend the last 2-3 in prison?

What bugs me even more is that he is now found guilty, we're happy about it, and that's the last we'll hear about it. Provisions to keep this from repeating? Oversight of financial markets? Bah, what for, we got the bad guy...