Tag: Peter Madoff

  • Court-appointed trustee goes after Madoff family’s wealth

    It looks like court-appointed Madoff trustee Irving Picard is going after the whole shebang: Not just Bernard Madoff’s Manhattan penthouse and home in the Hamptons, but also a good chunk of the wealth accumulated by his wife, brother and sons.

    In his latest filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, Picard argues that the convicted swindler used his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS), “as his personal piggy bank” to support “a lavish lifestyle” for himself and his wife, as well as for his brother and other members of his family.

    Hint: Doubleclick on boxes with plus signs to expand, or click the tool bar at left for more options.

    MAP HINTS: Boxes with + signs can be expanded by doubleclicking. Solid lines are current relations. Dotted lines are former relations. For more options, right-click on a box or click on the map tools to the left. (Requires Flash)

    “Madoff used BLMIS to siphon funds which were, in reality, other people’s money, for his personal use and the benefit of his inner circle,” Picard says in the filing submitted Tuesday evening. “Plain and simple, he stole it.”

    Picard, who is charged with returning as much money as possible to burned investors, contends that Madoff used money stolen from investors, for instance, to buy country club memberships for himself, his wife and one of his sons.

    He also loaned $9 million to his brother, the firm’s chief compliance officer, in 2007, from one of the firm’s accounts, according to the papers. Picard said there is no evidence the loan was ever repaid. Peter Madoff’s wife, Marion, was also listed on the firm’s payroll with a salary of $163,500 in 2008, although there is no indication she did any work.

    The firm also gave money to ventures begun by Madoff family members, including $1.7 million to Madoff Energy Holdings LLC, owned by Madoff’s sons Andrew and Mark, and his niece, Shana Madoff, the filing said.

    The firm paid out $4.5 million to support Ruth Madoff’s real-estate-related investments through various entities under the name “Sterling,” with no benefit to Madoff’s firm or his customers, according to the papers.

    Madoff placed his boat captain, his maid and his house-sitter in Florida on the firm’s payroll, and used the firm to provided corporate credit cards to his son’s wife and brother’s wife, even though they didn’t work for him, according to the filing.

    More than $11.5 million was used to buy two yachts for the Madoff family, the filing said. Another $4.4 million appears to have been used by Andrew Madoff last October to purchase an Upper East Side apartment, while $6.5 million was loaned to Mark Madoff and his wife, Stephanie, last spring to purchase property on Nantucket, again with no evidence that any money was repaid.

    Bernard Madoff, 71, was arrested Dec. 11 and pleaded guilty March 12 to running a $65-billion Ponzi scheme in which early investors were paid with the money of new clients. He is in jail, awaiting sentencing, and faces as much as 150 years in prison for various counts of securities fraud and other crimes.

    Picard made the allegations in connection with his attempt to consolidate the bankruptcy proceedings of Madoff’s companies with those filed against Madoff by a group of investors.

    Click here to sign up for the Muckety Newsletter



    Follow Muckety on Twitter



     Read related stories: Madoff · Recent Stories  

    0 Comments

    • There are no comments yet, be the first by filling in the form below.

    Leave a Comment



    • Judge rejects hardship plea from ex-Detroit mayor

      May 8, 2009 at 6:36pm

      Convicted felon and former Detroit mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick today lost a hardship bid to reduce $6,000 in monthly restitution payments to the city for his crimes.

    • Is the noose tightening around Peter Madoff?

      Peter B. Madoff, the younger brother and business partner of convicted felon Bernard Madoff, is under increasing scrutiny from investigators, as well as victims of the $65 billion investor fraud.

      The latest indication of the younger Madoff’s possible exposure comes from the report of one investor, who said that he withdrew a small sum entrusted to Bernard Madoff in July 1985, and received a $10,000 check drawn on the older Madoff’s bank account – but signed by Peter Madoff.

      Hint: Click in map to explore connectionsStory continues below interactive map 

      MucketyMap

      MAP HINTS: Click expands a name. Control+Click centers map on a name. Solid lines are current relations. Dotted lines are former relations. For advanced tools choose Tools > Options from the menu at top. More help. Not seeing the maps? Please go here to check for the latest version of Java.

      The investor provided a copy of the check to the New York Times, but asked not to be identified to guard his family’s privacy. The investor said that others in his family had also received checks with Peter Madoff’s signature in the mid-1980s, although later checks were signed only by Bernard Madoff.

      The timing could prove crucial. In his guilty plea, Bernard Madoff stated that he had begun the fraud in the early 1990s “to the best of my recollection.” Authorities, however, date the scheme to the early 1980s, although they have not publicly revealed any evidence.

      John R. Wing, a lawyer for Peter Madoff, 63, has said his client, who was the firm’s senior managing partner and chief compliance officer, had no knowledge of the fraud and has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

      But yesterday, a New York State Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Bucaria, sitting in Nassau County, imposed a temporary asset freeze on Peter Madoff’s accounts at the request of a law student from Dix Hills, NY. The law student, Andrew Ross Samuels, had been the beneficiary of a college trust fund, which was entirely lost to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

      The freeze prohibits Peter Madoff from moving money from any bank, brokerage firm or other financial institution or from selling or borrowing against his physical assets. It also requires him to disclose the location of any assets he has “secreted” so far, and directs any financial institution to take “reasonable precautions” to ensure that he complies with the order.

      Steven R. Schlesinger, a lawyer for Samuels, said that his client was the beneficiary of a $478,000 fund set up in 1997 by Samuel’s grandfather, Martin J. Joel Jr. and Peter Madoff as the trustees.

      When Joel died in 2003, Peter Madoff became the sole trustee, and the entire fund was invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, according to Schlesinger.

      Besides investing the trust fund in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, Peter Madoff also did not notify Samuels that he could have terminated the trust in 2007, when he turned 21, the complaint says.

      The lawsuit is at least the second brought against Peter Madoff since his brother’s arrest.

      Last month, two children of N.J. Senator Frank Lautenberg filed an action against the younger Madoff, saying that as the firm’s senior managing partner and chief compliance officer, he either failed to spot “obvious, material red flags” of fraud, or covered them up.

      The Lautenbergs, who had invested a family philanthropy as well as individual savings with Madoff’s firm, say they lost $7 million as a result of the scheme.

      Peter Madoff joined his brother’s firm in 1970 after completing law school, and together they helped pioneer the computer-driven trading methods that culminated in the development of the electronic trading network known as the Nasdaq market.

      Click here to sign up for the Muckety Newsletter



      Follow Muckety on Twitter


      Muckety's Facebook page


       Read related stories: Madoff · Recent Stories  

      1 Comments

      • #1.   Silk32 03.26.2009

        The common thread amongst Madoff, Standford and Charles Ponzi is (i) they all offered returns to investors that was higher than the competition’s and was seemingly too good to be true, (ii) they had outsized reputations for business acument and (iii) they “looked the part”. Corporate swindlers succeed within Corporate America because they have what is known as “executive presence” and they prey on corporations’ penchant for looking only at the surface of things. If a group of innercity kids can figure this out then I know adults can. To learn more go to http://www.newyorkshockexchange.com/content/view/85/37/

      Leave a Comment