Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
“…The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its intended use was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its application has been more widespread.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico. The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.[1] G. Robert Blakey remains an expert on RICO;[2] his former student Michael Goldsmith also gained a reputation as one of the nation’s leading RICO experts.[3]
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant’s assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A “person damaged in his business or property” can sue one or more “racketeers.” The plaintiff must prove the existence of a “criminal enterprise.” The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, “We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”[4]
The time before RICO was signed into law (October 15, 1970), was referred to as “The Golden Age” by those involved in organized crime. The term “The Golden Age” can be found on any of the multitude of “Mob Speak” glossaries on the internet.
RICO offenses
Under the law, racketeering activity means:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they “have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. …”
Brian Ross ABC News: Bernie Madoff Investigation part 1
Brian Ross ABC News: Bernie Madoff Investigation part 2
Brian Ross ABC News: Bernie Madoff investigation part 3
The Man Who Knew
The Man Who Figured Out Madoff’s Scheme Part Pt 1
The Man Who Figured Out Madoff’s Scheme Part Pt 2
The Madoff Money Trail – Bloomberg
Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market
Madoff Victims On Guilty Plea
$50B Scam Victims Speak
Bernard Madoff $50bn Ponzi Scheme – How Did He Do It?
Inside Story – The Madoff Scandal – Dec 17 – Part 1
Inside Story – The Madoff Scandal – Dec 17 – Part 2
Spotlight on Madoff: The Palm Beach Story
$50 Billion Wall Street Scam
Background Articles and Videos
JUNE 30, 2009
‘Evil’ Madoff Gets 150 Years in Epic Fraud
Victims Cheer Tough Sentence; Judge Slams Financier for Stonewalling Investigators; True Size of Losses Still a Mystery
“… Bernard Madoff, the self-confessed author of the biggest financial swindle in history, was sentenced to the maximum 150 years behind bars for what his judge called an “extraordinarily evil” fraud that shook the nation’s faith in its financial and legal systems and took “a staggering toll” on rich and poor alike.
The landmark sentence, one of the stiffest ever given for a white-collar crime, came just six months after Mr. Madoff, a pioneer on Wall Street, allegedly told his sons that his entire business was a massive Ponzi scheme. The penalty sparked a burst of applause in a courtroom packed with victims of the fraud. …”
“…Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff (pronounced /ˈmeɪdɒf/; born April 29, 1938) is an American former financier and convicted felon. Madoff, who served as a non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, pled guilty to an 11-count criminal complaint, admitting to defrauding thousands of investors of billions of dollars and was convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme that has been called the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person.[3][4] Federal prosecutors estimated client losses, which included fabricated gains, of almost $65 billion.[5] On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, the maximum allowed.[6][7] As there is no parole in the federal correctional system, it was tantamount to a life sentence.
Madoff founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960, and was its chairman until his arrest on December 11, 2008.[8][9] The firm was one of the top market maker businesses on Wall Street,[10] which bypassed “specialist” firms, by directly executing orders over the counter from retail brokers.[11]
He was said to have confessed to his sons first on December 10, 2008, that the asset management arm of his firm was a giant Ponzi scheme—as he put it, “one big lie.” [12] They then passed this information to authorities.[13][14] The following day, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested Madoff and charged him with one count of securities fraud. The SEC conducted several investigations into Madoff’s business practices since 1999, which critics contend were incompetently handled.[10]
“…A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.
The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi,[1] who became notorious for using the technique after emigrating from Italy to the United States in 1903. Ponzi did not invent the scheme (Charles Dickens’ 1857 novel Little Dorrit described such a scheme decades before Ponzi was born, for example), but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. His original scheme was in theory based on arbitraging international reply coupons for postage stamps, but soon diverted investors’ money to support payments to earlier investors and Ponzi’s person wealth.
…”
“…Pay-as-you-go social insurance: Detractors of the Social Security program in the United States often draw parallels between it and a Ponzi scheme, because people who make payments receive benefits later from payments made by others.[3] Conservative economist Walter Williams adds, “Social Security is unsustainable because it is not meeting the first order condition of a Ponzi scheme, namely expanding the pool of suckers.”[4] However, as the Social Security Administration points out, “There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system,” and “as long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money being paid out, the system can continue forever.”[1] See also Social Security debate (United States)#Criticism of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme.
In the 1920s, whenever a generous person wanted to send a piece of mail overseas, he or she would probably also buy an international reply coupon. This was handy for the recipient because it was a voucher that paid for the postage required to reply back to the sender. Because this was a relatively common system at the time, no one questioned Charles Ponzi (an Italian immigrant to the United States) when he found an intriguing investment opportunity in the process.
Ponzi’s investment idea was plausible: He could buy reply coupons in a different country where they were cheaper, and then sell them in the United States where they were worth more [source: Trex]. The difference was profit that he could share with his investors. He sucked his investors in by promising 50 percent returns in 45 to 90 days [source: Valentine].
The hitch? When he tried to carry through on his business idea, it didn’t work out as well in practice as it did in theory. The mechanics of conducting business overseas, transporting the coupons and exchanging them for cash caused delays and extra costs that prevented him from paying investors as quickly as he’d promised. Nevertheless, he kept the bad news to himself. Every day, new, excited investors who heard about the idea wanted in and handed over their savings. Ponzi decided to take the money, but not run. He kept up the ruse by paying off his initial investors with some of the new money that was pouring in and pocketed some for himself. Because his early investors were making money, no one was complaining.
He wasn’t clever enough, though. The whole thing fell apart after a few months of Ponzi living lavishly on the millions he had made. People starting wondering how he was buying and selling what must’ve been 160 million reply coupons out of the 27,000 that existed in the world [source: Trex]. Eventually, authorities busted him.
Charles Ponzi wasn’t the first to implement such a scam. However, he stood out from the rest of the petty crooks because of the amount of money he raked in — which totaled millions of dollars — and number of people he swindled. …”
“… Does Ponzi Scheme Mean?
A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop.
Investopedia explains Ponzi Scheme
The Ponzi scam is named after Charles Ponzi, a clerk in Boston who first orchestrated such a scheme in 1919.
A Ponzi scheme is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors’ funds to pay the earlier backers. One difference between the two schemes is that the Ponzi mastermind gathers all relevant funds from new investors and then distributes them. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, allow each investor to directly benefit depending on how many new investors are recruited. In this case, the person on the top of the pyramid does not at any point have access to all the money in the system.
For both schemes, however, eventually there isn’t enough money to go around and the schemes unravel. …”
For more than two decades, Bernard Madoff’s secretary sat just outside his office. She knew his clients and his feeders, his moods, habits, and indiscretions. She saw both sides of his wife, Ruth. Until December 11, 2008, she trusted him as a generous, caring boss. Now, in an exclusive collaboration with Mark Seal, Eleanor Squillari describes the madness surrounding Madoff’s arrest—meticulously planned, she believes, by him—her role in helping the feds, and the mysteries of the 17th floor, two levels down, where his massive Ponzi scheme was perpetrated.
By Mark Seal and Eleanor Squillari June 2009
“…Who was Bernie trying to protect? Quite a few people had to have been involved in the Ponzi scheme. The scam was too massive and went on too long for one person to manage it. How did he do it? Did Bernie manipulate the whole thing through the ignorance of most of his staff and the intelligence of a few?
On the day of Bernie’s arrest, I remembered a recent thank-you note an investor had sent him: “At a time when so much seems to be falling apart and so many people hurt, it is simply amazing to see how your discipline, instincts, your talents have kept it all together. It is truly an astonishing performance, and we are very grateful for it.”
Performance. The perfect word. As the calls from now destitute investors mushroomed, I felt sick, manipulated, and abused by the boss I had so long admired. I got up from my desk, went into the bathroom, and threw up.
This Office Is Now a Crime Scene
The days following Bernie’s arrest were surreal. Most of the employees showed up for work, but not Bernie, Ruth, Mark, or Andy. I never saw them again. Peter and Shana came in, but she left later on that week. Peter stayed on, trying to help, but he was visibly overwhelmed. One day a co-worker and I looked into his office and saw him sitting at his desk with his head in his hands, sobbing. “Now I hate Bernie,” said the co-worker, who had lost her life savings. A couple of days later, the F.B.I. asked Peter to leave and escorted him out of the building.
Amid all the confusion I spotted Noel Levine, a thin gentleman in his 80s who owns a real-estate company called Troon Management and who shared office space with us. He had just lost double-digit millions to Bernie and was walking around in a daze. I thought back a few years, to the time when Levine’s secretary had been caught embezzling $6 million of his money. She was sent to prison, and I asked Bernie what he thought about it. “You know, Noel has to take some responsibility for this,” he said. “He should have been keeping an eye on his personal finances. That’s why I’ve always had Ruth watching the books. Nothing gets by Ruth.” I was surprised when he added, “Well, you know what happens is, it starts out with you taking a little bit, maybe a few hundred, a few thousand. You get comfortable with that, and before you know it, it snowballs into something big.”
I think that may have been the way it happened with Bernie. …”
“…Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior.[3][4] The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy.[5] In the ICD-10 diagnosis criteria, the terms antisocial/dissocial personality disorder are used.
The term is used as a definition in law, for example, “psychopathic personality disorder” under the Mental Health Act 1983 of the UK as well as to denote a severe condition often related to antisocial or dissocial personality disorder as defined by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).[6] The term “psychopathy” is often confused with psychotic disorders. It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths.[7][8][9]
The psychopath is defined by a psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes.[10][11][12] Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions. This definition has been met with criticism from others stating that these characteristics are present in all human life under a specific set of circumstances, even in the absence of any physical difference in biological brain makeup.[citation needed]
…”
“…In contemporary research, psychopathy has been most frequently operationalized by Dr.Robert D. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The checklist assesses both interpersonal and affective components as well as lifestyle and antisocial deficits. However, the research results cannot be easily extrapolated to the clinical diagnoses of dissocial personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. A sample research finding is that between 50 percent and 80 percent of prisoners in England and Wales meet the diagnostic criteria of dissocial personality disorder, but only 15 percent would be predicted to be psychopathic as measured by the PCL-R. Therefore, the findings drawn from psychopathy research have not yet been shown to be relevant as an aid to diagnosis and treatment of dissocial or antisocial personality disorders.[20]
Hare’s items
The following findings are for research purposes only, and are not used in clinical diagnosis. These items cover the affective, interpersonal, and behavioral features. Each item is rated on a score from zero to two. The sum total determines the extent of a person’s psychopathy.[6]
Factor1: Aggressive narcissism
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions …”
“… Symptoms
Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Superficial charm
Criminal versatility
Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
Impulse control problems
Irresponsibility
Inability to tolerate boredom
Pathological narcissism
Pathological lying
Shallow affect
Deceitfulness/manipulativeness
Aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated physical fights or assaults on others
Lack of empathy
Lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others
A sense of extreme entitlement
Lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions
Promiscuous sexual behavior, sexually deviant lifestyle
Anti Social Personality Disorder and Bernard Madoff
Posted by Allan N. Schwartz, LCSW, PhD
“… Next is a partial profile of the Anti Social Personality Disorder.
1. If you find this list to be chilling, it should be. Read this profile and attempt to grasp the nature of someone who possesses zero ability to feel guilt or remorse.
2. Glibness and Superficial Charm
3. Manipulative
4. They never recognize the rights of others.
5. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering.
6. Grandiose Sense of Self
7. Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
8. Pathological Lying
9. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
10. A deep seated rage.
11. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
12. Shallow Emotions
13. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive.
14. Callousness and Lack of Empathy
People invested with Mr. Madoff because he won their trust. They came to believe that he had their best interests at heart and that he would do nothing to hurt them. Their trust came to be totally misguided. He has left in his wake, ruined lives. Countless numbers of people who planned to live off of their investments during their retirement are left with nothing, including those who are presently elderly and are suddenly unable to pay their medical bills and are even left homeless.
This is a partial profile of the anti social personality disordered person. However, it provides a fairly clear idea of who they are. One of the most striking aspects of these persons is their ability to charm others. People like Madoff are able to win friends and advocates because they seem to be so warm and sincere in their behaviors and attitudes. However, this is all facade and, in reality, they are able to cause huge amounts of harm without the least bit of regret.
It is also true that it is nearly impossible to treat such a person with psychotherapy because of their lack of conscience and need to lie and deceive.
Did Mr. Madoff fit all the characteristics listed here? Probably not but he does fit enough of them so that he comes into clear focus.
A friend of mine, discussing the case of Mr. Madoff, asked me if I thought he felt the least bit of sorrow now that he is in prison? I thought about this for a moment or two and concluded that the answer is “No,” he feels no remorse. You see, the temptation is to want to believe that he is sorry for all the pain he caused but, I do not believe that is true. For the rest of us, the answer would be yes but not for Mr. Madoff. This friend of mine, also a mental health professional, pointed out that there is something missing in people like Madoff. He is quite correct about this. …”
You must be logged in to post a comment.