Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would hope that the government wouldn't simply seize the wife's property unless it could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that stolen money was used to purchase the property registered in her name. Assumptions made by talking heads and message board fools are one thing, the law is quite another. If she was in on his scheme and used stolen money to purchase the property, then yes, by all means seize it. Simply being married doesn't automatically make her guilty, though.
i would hope that her property would be seized because she is completely trying to circumvent the law as evidenced by this:
On the day federal authorities announced they would be going after Ruth Madoff for any role she may have played in Bernard Madoff's billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, Florida property records show she filed for and was granted a homestead exemption for the couple's Palm Beach mansion -- a move that most experts agree is likely an attempt to keep what money she can amid her husband's swindles.
also:
Despite claims to the contrary, investigators found that Ruth Madoff had maintained an account which mixed personal and fund monies.4 On February 11, 2009, investigators said Ruth Madoff had withdrawn more than $15 million from a brokerage account co-owned by her husband in the weeks before Bernard Madoff was arrested.
i would hope that her property would be seized because she is completely trying to circumvent the law as evidenced by this:
On the day federal authorities announced they would be going after Ruth Madoff for any role she may have played in Bernard Madoff's billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, Florida property records show she filed for and was granted a homestead exemption for the couple's Palm Beach mansion -- a move that most experts agree is likely an attempt to keep what money she can amid her husband's swindles.
also:
Despite claims to the contrary, investigators found that Ruth Madoff had maintained an account which mixed personal and fund monies.4 On February 11, 2009, investigators said Ruth Madoff had withdrawn more than $15 million from a brokerage account co-owned by her husband in the weeks before Bernard Madoff was arrested.
I'm not sure that Bolshevism has anything to do with how her assets are ultimately distributed. The luxury penthouse, she'll probably lose. Homes are generally considered joint assets, and when the dust settles, she probably won't be able to afford the taxes and fees on it anyway. Her net worth will probably be subtracted from the $62 million. Jewelry, clothing and so on will probably be considered personal possessions, though I wouldn't be surprised if the auditors compare their insurance papers against the jewelry and go after some of the more expensive pieces. She's lived very well for most of her life, and will have to substantially roll back her living standard. But then, she, in a way, was an investor in Bernie's scheme. She invested her confidence in him, she may have invested some money with him. She certainly invested her energies and time and participation in this marriage. So, she, like all the other investors, got conned and end up losing on their investments. The difference is, right now, she's got assets to fight for, whereas many of the other investors have already lost their assets.
The Bolshevik comment was directed mostly at those on this forum who, like the lemming peasants and workers during the Russian revolution, favored the blanket expropriation of the elite's property.
What needs to happen is a cool-headed court procedure where the wife's finances and assets line by line. Those assets with clear ties to the stolen money should be seized.
Did Madoff and his wife have legitimate income that wasn't connected to the Ponzi scheme?
Stolen money doesn't get legitimatized by handing it over to another person, such as your wife or kids.
If the source of Mrs. Madoff's money was the stolen funds from the Madoff ponzi scheme theft, then it needs to be returned to the people it was stolen from, with any interest or earnings or appreciation it may have generated in her possession of it.
After all, if a "bank robber" comes home with a pile of money and hands it to his wife to buy a house and personal effects ... all of those assets are the "fruit of stolen money". It's still stolen ... whether or not Mrs. Madoff knew that it was stolen, the knowledge is now there that it was stolen money. Too bad for her if she loses it all ... it's not rightfully hers to keep.
Stolen money doesn't get legitimatized by handing it over to another person, such as your wife or kids.
If the source of Mrs. Madoff's money was the stolen funds from the Madoff ponzi scheme theft, then it needs to be returned to the people it was stolen from, with any interest or earnings or appreciation it may have generated in her possession of it.
After all, if a "bank robber" comes home with a pile of money and hands it to his wife to buy a house and personal effects ... all of those assets are the "fruit of stolen money". It's still stolen ... whether or not Mrs. Madoff knew that it was stolen, the knowledge is now there that it was stolen money. Too bad for her if she loses it all ... it's not rightfully hers to keep.
That's most likely why the properties are in her name; his attempt to protect his stash of stolen money.
I would hope that the government wouldn't simply seize the wife's property unless it could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that stolen money was used to purchase the property registered in her name. Assumptions made by talking heads and message board fools are one thing, the law is quite another. If she was in on his scheme and used stolen money to purchase the property, then yes, by all means seize it. Simply being married doesn't automatically make her guilty, though.
So why in a drug seizure they do not have to prove anything ? The double standard in this country has to change ...
The Bolshevik comment was directed mostly at those on this forum who, like the lemming peasants and workers during the Russian revolution, favored the blanket expropriation of the elite's property.
What needs to happen is a cool-headed court procedure where the wife's finances and assets line by line. Those assets with clear ties to the stolen money should be seized.
Did Madoff and his wife have legitimate income that wasn't connected to the Ponzi scheme?
The problem with the legitimate income is that even if the restaurant or other businesses they owned generated legitimate income, were those businesses obtained via funds generated by Madoff's illegal activities? I think initially Madoff's business was legitimate, but some time ago he made the decision to defraud clients. I think what probably happened is that he had a reputation for what were really spectacular returns on investments. And then one year the numbers didn't work out. And he used the money from new investors to pad out his results that year, rationalizing that he would make it up the next year, and that if he didn't do it, all of his clients would suffer because of the damage to his reputation. The next year, he couldn't quite cover what he'd borrowed the previous year, but nobody had caught on, so he padded again. And eventually, his investment operation dwindled, and he just kept up the Ponzi scheme, which grew bigger and bigger because people trusted him. The wonder of it is that he didn't get caught a lot sooner, because the people who worked in that office had to realize what was happening.
Now we lean the true meaning of entitled. Just because ol' Bernie changed from King of the Investors to King of the Swindlers does not change his wife's sense of being entitled to an extravagant lifestyle. The truely entitled in this society are not the poor they are the very upper of the upper crust.
BTW - I think DC called it. Keeping up the reputation spiraled into defraud everyone.
The problem with the legitimate income is that even if the restaurant or other businesses they owned generated legitimate income, were those businesses obtained via funds generated by Madoff's illegal activities? I think initially Madoff's business was legitimate, but some time ago he made the decision to defraud clients. I think what probably happened is that he had a reputation for what were really spectacular returns on investments. And then one year the numbers didn't work out. And he used the money from new investors to pad out his results that year, rationalizing that he would make it up the next year, and that if he didn't do it, all of his clients would suffer because of the damage to his reputation. The next year, he couldn't quite cover what he'd borrowed the previous year, but nobody had caught on, so he padded again. And eventually, his investment operation dwindled, and he just kept up the Ponzi scheme, which grew bigger and bigger because people trusted him. The wonder of it is that he didn't get caught a lot sooner, because the people who worked in that office had to realize what was happening.
I think your scenario is right on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
