6 ms·
I'm surprised at the recovery rate. $11.5 billion out of $25-$30 billion (But principle). There's another $5 billion+ sitting around. There was definitely en
by pcurve 9y ago
I'm surprised at the recovery rate. $11.5 billion out of $25-$30 billion (But principle). There's another $5 billion+ sitting around. There was definitely enough money for this have gone on for decades longer.
Lawyer fees have exceeded $1 billion so far, which I suppose is reasonable given the money returned.
- anovikov 9y agoWhat was the total amount on the client accounts (including the never existing, made-up interest, which obviously can't be returned), when the scam collapsed?
- wmf 9y agoEither $50B or $64B according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal
- danjayh 9y agoRead to the end. They're suing people who took their money out, reclaiming it into the bankruptcy trust, and disbursing it (even though these people didn't break any laws). The fund didn't actually have all of the money that they're confiscating for disbursement.
- alexbeloi 9y agoIf somebody robbed a bank and gave you the money, there would be an expectation that you would have to return that money, 'possession of stolen property' and all that. The fact that the money was given in the form of investment returns doesn't change that. I think we can all agree that each investor should get their principal investment back. I don't think there's a good argument for letting people keep the impossibly high returns on that principal.
- cm2187 9y agoAnd if you sold a car to that bank robber without knowing it was a robber you would have to reverse the transaction?
- alex_hitchins 9y agoDepends if the car was bought with stolen money or traded for stolen goods. If so, then I'd say yes.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoShould everyone expect every transaction to be subject to clawback? Employees have no guarantee their pay is final, vendors have no guarantee their pay for products delivered will be paid for, etc?
- Spooky23 9y agoThe law generally renders those contracts null and void. You never technically hold title to stolen goods or things purchased with stolen goods.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIs this for any contract? If someone steals $20 and buys some food, does the food merchant now have to return the $20 and suffer the loss? I've never heard of any situation like this. Usually, this type of liability is in events such as vehicle, house, land, or business purchases for which there is title insurance. But if the buyer does the due diligence, and they're not aware of any illegitimate funds being used, how much should they suffer? How much should the person who it was stolen from be liable?
- Spooky23 9y agoYes. The title to the property never transfers away from the original victim. If I steal a pen and sell it to you for $1, the owner can compel you to return it, and you need to go after me for your dollar. Obviously in reality the hassle is often not worth it. This is one of the reasons that banks and companies are so obnoxious and seemingly overreactive to risk.
- scandox 9y agoHasn't there always been an argument that due to the fact he didn't actually make investments per se that he may have lost a lot less money than many honest and legitimate investment brokers? I'm not really savvy about these things but if I invested in a bullish Hedge fund in 2006,2007,2008 would I not have lost everything? Whereas with Madoff I would have got back a significant fraction of my investment?
- conanbatt 9y agoThis is very much like "Damages" shows it is. Who knows how the game of hiding billions plays out.