Report Cites Finra Lapses in Fraud Probes

FINRAhas repeatedly denied that it had any responsibility for the Madoff Mess, claiming earlier this year that  "[n]one of the fraudulent activities that have been alleged deal with the activities of the broker-dealer or come under the jurisdiction of FINRA" according to Reuters. But today a special FINRA committee has release a report that addresses teh failure of FINRA to uncover the Stanford CD program issues, and yes, the Madoff Mess. The report states "FINRA examiners did come across several facts worthy of inquiry with the Madoff scheme that, with the benefit of hindsight, should have been pursued."
More>>>

One of the Richest Men in the US Can't Afford an Attorney

There is something wrong with this picture. Texas financier R. Allen Stanford was reported to be worth approximately 2 billion dollars before his arrest on securities fraud charges. Yesterday, the court appointed a public defender to represent him, because he cannot afford an attorney.

How is it that a billionaire does not have money to pay an attorney? The government has seized all of his assets and apparently will not release any funds for Stanford to retain counsel.

I don't have a perfect solution to this problem, but something is wrong when the government can accuse (not convict) a citizen of a crime, and seize all of his assets to that he cannot afford to have an attorney represent him. I am sure that the public defender will do as good a job as he or she can, but a public defender's office is not equipped to  defend a 7 billion dollar fraud case.

Without doing the research, it seems to me that this must be a constitutional violation here. The man has been accused of committing a crime, he has not been convicted, and no one has established that all of his assets are the proceeds of the alleged crime. How does the court justifiy the seizure of all of a defendant's assets on the filing of an accusatory instrument?
More>>>

FINRA Admits Getting Tipped Regarding Stanford

FINRA acknowledged today that  it received a tip from an employee in 2003 that the company was running a Ponzi scheme—but did not follow up. The reason for the lack of follow up is, according to testimony that Dan Sibears of FINRA will present today, is supposedly because FINRA policy is to only follow up on complaints from customers, not employees.

Sibears says that the policy was changed in March of this year.

More>>>