5 ms·

What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?

by xmodem 4y ago

RC_ITR 4y ago
Madoff admitted to his crimes so it was easy to arrest him right away. Ken Lay, who did not admit to crimes, took 3 years to be indicted and then was convicted.
- fmajid 4y ago
  And IIRC then died before penalties could be assessed so his widow got all of his ill-gotten gains scot-free.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    So $2.5 million isn't nothing (not by a long shot), but 'scot-free' is probably not a fair characterization, especially considering she has a conservator monitoring all her purchases now (to make sure she's not hiding cash).[1] Plus her sons, who actually turned their dad in: one killed himself over this, and the other died of lymphoma (won't comment on psychological stress, but you have to imagine the fallout from the scandal didn't help). [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_must_make_do_on_12.html https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_...
    - fmajid 4y ago
      I was talking about Ken Lay, not Madoff. Sorry if that was unclear.
- tiahura 4y ago
  No he wasn't. He died before the appeal was finished so the conviction was vacated.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    What I love about Hacker News is that a person can be convicted of a crime, die while still convicted of that crime, but then have the conviction thrown out after they have left this mortal plane and someone will still be like "Ummm actually he was never convicted of any crimes" I guess I'm glad that Alan Turing was never convicted of 'Gross Indecency' then! Makes the UK look a lot more progressive!
  - tzs 4y ago
    For those curious how that works see [1]. How common is this? I don’t recall ever hearing about it, even though I went to law school. I don’t know if I just forgot about or it just never came up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio
Arainach 4y ago
Madoff confessed.
BlackJack 4y ago
Madoff was arrested fast because his sons went to prosecutors and admitted to the fraud. That's very strong evidence + direct witnesses vs. here where they have to prove fraud and gather evidence.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008? Madoff confessed to his sons and said he was imminently going to surrender to authorities, his sons called the FBI, the FBI interviewed him at home (no arrest, no warrant, no indictment), and he confessed to the scheme being a large scale fraud to the FBI. And Madoff was physically within US jurisdiction. And Madoff had much clearer records and much less complicated an organization that the FTX network of companies, which seems to have been highly optimized to conceal specific evidence of fraud and theft by, between, and by insiders against the companies in the network.
- bnralt 4y ago
  Madoff was also involved in a highly regulated industry. That's one thing that confuses me about all of this. A main selling point - probably _the_ main selling point - for crypto has been that it allows users to avoid the current legal framework. And that was also the main reason FTX gave for moving to the Bahamas - there was much less regulations. It's strange to see people actively seeking a space outside of the government's legal jurisdiction, and then getting incensed that the government isn't entering that jurisdiction more quickly to protect them when things inevitably go sideways.
  - eric_cc 4y ago
    You’re confusing things. Centralized exchanges like FTX are acting as asset custodians in the same way as a bank, or a stock broker. FTX is not a cryptocurrency. Crypto users that espouse freedom from government are usually talking about being able to use crypto, on chain, without government interference. They don’t want to be taxed for using bitcoin as a currency, be able to use decentralized services without complex regulations and tax laws, etc. etc I’ve never heard the case made that asset custodians should be able to steal assets from their customers regardless of the underlying asset.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rvba 4y ago

What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?

by xmodem 4y ago

What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?

RC_ITR 4y ago

Madoff admitted to his crimes so it was easy to arrest him right away. Ken Lay, who did not admit to crimes, took 3 years to be indicted and then was convicted.

fmajid 4y ago
And IIRC then died before penalties could be assessed so his widow got all of his ill-gotten gains scot-free.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  So $2.5 million isn't nothing (not by a long shot), but 'scot-free' is probably not a fair characterization, especially considering she has a conservator monitoring all her purchases now (to make sure she's not hiding cash).[1] Plus her sons, who actually turned their dad in: one killed himself over this, and the other died of lymphoma (won't comment on psychological stress, but you have to imagine the fallout from the scandal didn't help). [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_must_make_do_on_12.html https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_...
  - fmajid 4y ago
    I was talking about Ken Lay, not Madoff. Sorry if that was unclear.
tiahura 4y ago
No he wasn't. He died before the appeal was finished so the conviction was vacated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  What I love about Hacker News is that a person can be convicted of a crime, die while still convicted of that crime, but then have the conviction thrown out after they have left this mortal plane and someone will still be like "Ummm actually he was never convicted of any crimes" I guess I'm glad that Alan Turing was never convicted of 'Gross Indecency' then! Makes the UK look a lot more progressive!
- tzs 4y ago
  For those curious how that works see [1]. How common is this? I don’t recall ever hearing about it, even though I went to law school. I don’t know if I just forgot about or it just never came up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio

Arainach 4y ago

Madoff confessed.

BlackJack 4y ago

Madoff was arrested fast because his sons went to prosecutors and admitted to the fraud. That's very strong evidence + direct witnesses vs. here where they have to prove fraud and gather evidence.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008? Madoff confessed to his sons and said he was imminently going to surrender to authorities, his sons called the FBI, the FBI interviewed him at home (no arrest, no warrant, no indictment), and he confessed to the scheme being a large scale fraud to the FBI. And Madoff was physically within US jurisdiction. And Madoff had much clearer records and much less complicated an organization that the FTX network of companies, which seems to have been highly optimized to conceal specific evidence of fraud and theft by, between, and by insiders against the companies in the network.

bnralt 4y ago
Madoff was also involved in a highly regulated industry. That's one thing that confuses me about all of this. A main selling point - probably _the_ main selling point - for crypto has been that it allows users to avoid the current legal framework. And that was also the main reason FTX gave for moving to the Bahamas - there was much less regulations. It's strange to see people actively seeking a space outside of the government's legal jurisdiction, and then getting incensed that the government isn't entering that jurisdiction more quickly to protect them when things inevitably go sideways.
- eric_cc 4y ago
  You’re confusing things. Centralized exchanges like FTX are acting as asset custodians in the same way as a bank, or a stock broker. FTX is not a cryptocurrency. Crypto users that espouse freedom from government are usually talking about being able to use crypto, on chain, without government interference. They don’t want to be taxed for using bitcoin as a currency, be able to use decentralized services without complex regulations and tax laws, etc. etc I’ve never heard the case made that asset custodians should be able to steal assets from their customers regardless of the underlying asset.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rvba 4y ago