Case Analysis - Essay Example

Case Analysis Table of Contents Particulars 3 The Facts 3 Issues Presented in the Case 4 Holdings of the Case 5 Rationale and Agreement 6 References 8 Particulars Name of the Case - Bernard Madoff Date of Justice – 12 March, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Charges – At least 11 offences that includes money laundering, various frauds in securities, wire and mail, preparation o false statements, imaginary returns with Security Exchange Commission, wiping of money from the employee benefit plans and many other serious charges. Judge – Justice Chin The Facts Bernard Lawrence Madoff, the founder of Bernard L. Madoff Investment LLC in the year of 1960 and the chairman till 11th December, 2008, had also been the chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange. The wealth management company of Madoff, himself being one of the leading professionals of the industry, was found to be a scam that is often referred as the largest fraud in investments in the entire history of Wall Street (Brockman, “Q&A: Madoff Case Puts Spotlight On SEC"). The Security Exchange Commission had repeatedly investigated the fillings and returns of the company but could not get hold of any suspicious facts. Therefore, the very validity of the SEC investigations has been brought to question by the event. Though the allegations against the wealth management institution fist came up in the year 1999 yet there was no serious concern within the industry. Amidst the recession that led to the closure and bankruptcy of one after the other big players, the company registered spectacularly high profits. It all began in the year 2008, when Mr. Madoff reportedly called off one of the senior executives of the company (supposedly his elder son) and wished to pay off bonus (USD 173 M) to the investors two months earlier than the prescribed date. On the other hand, the company was unable to pay USD 7 Billion in terms of redemptions. The inquisitive son when charged senior Madoff about the fact, Bernard broke down and admitted that the business he was into, was ‘a big lie’ and accepted that it was a ‘giant Ponzi scheme’. The two sons called up FBI agents and Bernard Madoff was arrested (David, “The Madoff Chronicles, Part III: Did the Sons Know”). Issues Presented in the Case The very case of Bernard Madoff in charge of fraudulent activities with the people’s money was an open – book case. Madoff himself had admitted about his crime and also in the court of the law, he did not plead innocence rather admitted guilt of at least eleven felonies on 12 March, 2009. In his statement, this former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange said he was sorry for what all he did and seeked forgiveness from the victims. His attorneys admitted that the scam his company was in to, commenced from early 1990s, though many of the experts feel it to be from the eighties. The advocates of Madoff requested to the honorable judge for imprisonment with a lesser term (twelve years) as according to the life expectancy reports issued by the government, Mr. Madoff had only thirteen years of life. But the public prosecutors protested the lessening of the terms and argued for life imprisonment of 150 years. On June 29, 2009, Mr. Madoff was sentenced for 150 years of life imprisonments with provisions of reduction if found to be behaving good with the fellow imprisoned inmates. Holdings of the Case The open book case of Mr. Madoff had left his solicitors with little opportunities to fight for his innocence. The only area of contest was the term of the imprisonment. The advocates and lawyers of Mr. Madoff tried to reduce the imprisonment to a term of twelve years as he was already seventy years old. But the public attorneys vehemently protested of such reduction and contested for 150 years of imprisonment. Justice Chin, the judge in whose court was Mr. Madoff judged, held, “I have a sense Mr. Madoff has not done all that he could do or told all that he knows”. Such a statement was a clear indication of the direction on to which the case was proceeding. Justice Chin also observed the very case of the fraud as the “unprecedented” and “staggering”. Justice Chin was totally convinced of the mal intentions of Madoff and also strong terms like “extraordinarily evil” about the case. Despite the claims by the Madoff that the scam commenced from 1991, Justice Chin thought the fraud to begin from the years of 1980s. The judge also expected that harsh punishment was required for such “off the chart” crimes so that it would prevent the future generations in getting indulge into such unlawful activities. Rationale and Agreement The case of Bernard Madoff came as a rude shock to the industry as a whole. The company tried to portray very strong financial positions amidst financial recession and meltdown. It consumed enough money from the market. The money was never channelized in to any legitimate business. The closure of the company forced many of the small sized and mid-sized organizations to close down. Most astonishingly, such a scam can never be expected from a former chairman of NASDAQ stock exchange. The efforts of SEC were equally frustrating. Keeping in mind all these considerations, the judgment awarded by the court of law is befitting. As Justice Chin observed such crime to be ‘off the chart’ and ‘extraordinarily evil’, exemplary punishments were required to retain faith of the general public upon the financial system and the judiciary and so imprisonment for 150 years had been a perfect one. The admission of the eleven charges by Madoff himself should not have reduced his punishment and it did not. The so called wealth manager had played with the people’s money at least for more than eighteen years. He himself had admitted to the court of law that if he would not have surrendered about his deeds, he would have easily exposed. Being a man of such high statute and living legend to many, such admission has undoubtedly been a blow to the concerned industry. Therefore, trendsetting punishments were required for such a criminal and the court of Justice Chin did the same. References Brockman, Joshua. “Q&A: Madoff Case Puts Spotlight On SEC". 12 December, 2009. National Public Radio. December 17, 2008. Margolick, David. “The Madoff Chronicles, Part III: Did the Sons Know”. 12 December, 2009 Vanity Fair. July, 2009. Read More