SEC verknoeit bewijsvoering tegen Madoff-medeplichtigen

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

De organisatie die de fraude van Madoff dus jaren geleden had moeten
ontdekken, zorgt nu dat mededaders de dans gaan ontspringen door een
klungelige bewijsvoering.

Groet / Cees

PS. Dit is dus de organisatie die mensen die vrijwillig met duidelijke
aanwijzingen van fraude door Madoff kwamen gewoon negeerde.

February 2, 2010, 5:14 pm
Judge Dismisses S.E.C. Fraud Case Tied to Madoff
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/judge-dismisses-sec-fraud-case-tied-to-madoff/

In an opinion released on Tuesday, a federal judge in Manhattan
dismissed all of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil fraud
complaints against Cohmad Securities, a small brokerage firm that the
S.E.C. said had played a role in Bernard L. Madoff’s long-running Ponzi
scheme.

The commission had sued the Cohmad and its top executives in June,
accusing them of “knowingly or recklessly participating” in the Madoff
fraud scheme “by raising billions of dollars from hundreds of investors
under a shroud of secrecy,” The New York Times’s Diana B. Henriques reports.

The lawsuit was filed against Cohmad, which was co-founded by Mr. Madoff
and housed in his firm’s offices; Maurice J. Cohn, Cohmad’s co-founder
and chairman; Marcia B. Cohn, its president and Mr. Cohn’s daughter; and
Robert M. Jaffe, its vice president and the son-in-law of one of Mr.
Madoff’s earliest and largest individual investors, the philanthropist
Carl Shapiro of Palm Beach, Fla.

In his ruling, apparently filed late Monday, Federal District Judge
Louis L. Stanton said the commission “failed to allege facts giving rise
to a plausible inference” that either the Cohns or Mr. Jaffe intended to
defraud anyone, or had knowingly aided and abetted Mr. Madoff’s fraud.

“One who conducts normal business activities while ignorant that those
activities are furthering a fraud is not liable for securities fraud,”
Judge Stanton said.

The S.E.C.’s argument that Mr. Madoff’s secrecy put the defendants on
notice that he was running a fraud scheme amounted to little more than
“fraud by hindsight,” he noted. He called the S.E.C.’s argument
“speculative and flimsy.”

“We are reviewing the order and will proceed accordingly,” said John
Nester, a spokesman for the commission, about the judicial setback.

Judge Stanton did not dismiss claims that Mr. Cohn and Cohmad had aided
and abetted various record-keeping violations. More significantly, he
said the commission could amend its complaint and try again within 30 days.

Lawyers for Mr. Jaffe, led by Stanley S. Arkin, released a statement
saying they were “pleased that the court dismissed every single fraud
claim” against their client and rejected the commission’s “obvious
overreaching.”

Clifford Thau, a lawyer for the Cohns and their firm, said he was
confident that the commission would not be able to cure the deficiencies
Judge Stanton found it in their original complaint.

As for the nonfraud complaints upheld by the judge, Mr. Thau said his
clients “have substantial defenses to these claims that will result in
their dismissal as well.”

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********