White-Collar Crime
Judge Accepts Madoff Guilty Plea, Revokes Bail
Posted Mar 12, 2009 8:53 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Bernard Madoff has pleaded guilty to operating a Ponzi scheme that cost investors billions of dollars in losses.
Judge Denny Chin accepted the plea and ordered Madoff to report to jail, prompting applause in the courtroom, report StreetInsider and the Associated Press. The Am Law Daily has a live blog of the events.
"I am deeply sorry and ashamed," Madoff said, according to an account by CNBC. "I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done."
Madoff said his investment business was a fraud, but his other businesses—run by his brother and sons—were all legitimate. Madoff's crimes were discovered after he confessed to his sons, Andrew and Mark, and they alerted their lawyer, according to earlier reports.
"I knew what I was doing was wrong and criminal, but I thought I could do it quickly and extricate my clients from it," Madoff said, according to an account on the Am Law Daily. Madoff said his aim was to satisfy client expectations.
Madoff said he led clients to believe he was purchasing stock with their money, but beginning in the 1990s, he deposited the cash into an account at Chase Manhattan in New York. Madoff said he used that money to pay clients who wanted to withdraw funds, the Am Law Daily reports.
Lawyers for the government differed with that account, contending the Ponzi scheme began in the 1980s, according to an Am Law Daily post.
The first victim to speak challenged Madoff to look him in the eye, the Am Law Daily says. Only three were allowed to speak before Chin cut them off.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has the full plea allocution read at today's hearing.
Sentencing is set for June 16.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Eliot Bernstein
Mar 14, 2009 9:24 AM CST
MADOFF + STANFORD = PROSKAUER ROSE
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved a lot of clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford’s attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer’s assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by he and Proskauer, his butt on fire.
Proskauer Rose and Foley and Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
The Trillion Dollar suit according to judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER AND A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit www.iviewit.tv.
The Federal Court cases
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.