Talk:Bernie Madoff

The image of Madoff leaving court is particularly poor

The image on this page is very fuzzy. There are much better images of him that can seen on Google images. Why can't one of these be put onto this page?

Any Quotes Where Madoff Admits To Being A Sociopath?

He has been pretty open about his crimes, has he also admitted to having no conscience and no empathy for others? If so, citing this along with adding an article section on his sociopathy and links to the wiki article on sociopaths would be relevant.

205.240.11.90 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sociopaths don't "admit" to being a sociopaths. It's obvious he is one, however, and this has been stated in EVERY news venue from CNN to Time... It would enlighten a lot of people about sociopaths but some editors refuse to put this in the article for some unknown reason. Can't fight the beast that is wikipedia. Angelatomato (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Madoff's Sons Did Not Turn Him In To Authorities

This assertion has been repeated since the story broke and has been published by many media outlets.

His sons contacted their attorney who, in turn, was required to report his knowledge of the potential crime.

The cynics might assume that this is a concerted effort to ensure the sons are not implicated in the alleged misdeeds.

69.244.219.135 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If someone could give a reference for this sequence, then it can be added to the article. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is contrary to what I have read. However, I don't believe lawyers have an obligation to report ongoing crimes to the authorities except maybe in the case of violent crimes. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trawling sources. This one [1], already a reference in the article, only states involvement of 'the two senior employees' (e.g. fact 21.), but not even any family-tie with Madoff. The seacrh continues. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of this idea. Even SEC does not mention from who the info came, or which people were present at Madoff's appartement on 10 Dec (reading the text, there couold have been another person, e.g. a lawyer). Very shady. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The person who actually turned Bernie in to the SEC was an attorney named Martin Flumenbaum from the firm of Paul, Weiss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.135 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not an attorney but if you need a source...try Wiki itself under "Misprision of felony"

United States federal law "Misprision of felony" is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Apparently the concept dates back to English common law...but is, in fact, U.S. law. I believe that many state Bar Associations have requirements for members of the bar to report any knowledge of a felony. Madoff's sons would have no such requirement because it involved a family member. It's probably why most defense attorneys will never ask a defendant if they are, in fact, guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.135 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, I cannot find the source for a fact that his employee-sons did turn him in (where do the main papers know this from?). Nor an advocate (as 69.244.219.135 states). The only facts are: ' two senior emplyees'. What does NYT, Bloomberg etc. know, and where from? -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, here is a link http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/16madoff.html?em to a New york Times article (published 12/15/08) identifying the "two senior employees" as Madoff's sons...allbeit from unnamed sources. It also states that Flumenbaum was the person who notified authorities.

It is also interesting to note that today's (01/05/09) bail revocation hearing was followed by multiple stories that stated Madoff's mailing of valuables was once again brought out by "family members".

I continue to believe that this is a concerted campaign to keep Madoff's brother and sons from facing charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.135 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the law in general always trumps attorney-client privilege, in any US jurisdiction some penalty from a reprimand by the local bar to prison time could be expected for a lawyer failing to disclose a serious and public crime. A given practitioner could only rationally be expected to take a gamble on this with a decent surety of not being discovered, which obviously was lacking in this case. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I edited the intro to present the events in the order in which they took place according to published media accounts of that week. If there's a published account that Madoff's sons did not pass the information to the SEC regarding the admission by Madoff, I will correct the article. If the sons did not speak directly to an SEC lawyer but chose to have their lawyer speak to the SEC's lawyer to start the chain of events that is of no consequence. patsw (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for Behavior? Sociopath?

Madoff fits perfectly with the profile of a sociopath or psychopath. (As a little psych 101- Sociopaths repress guilt, psychopaths simply don't feel it...sociopaths are made, psychopaths are born...) Anyway, there are over 10,000 references to him being a sociopath on the web now, and it's a BIG question on everyone's mind just "why" this man could do something like this while seeming so "nice and friendly." Sociopaths and psychopaths are not fully understood in our society, but corporate america allows them to run rampant. If one good thing came out of madoff, it's a giant spotlight on just how sociopaths operate. Everyone loves them until they are destroyed by them. So, I suggest putting in the following text: "Although not formally diagnosed, behavioral evidence lends strong support to the hypothesis that Madoff's behavior was driven by sociopathic tendencies" with a link to the main article on sociopaths to read more...and a citation to any 1 of 11,000 links online that call him a sociopath or psychopath. Thanks

Anything along these lines would be purely speculative and therefore improper for Wikipedia. Also, psychologists generally don't differentiate between psychopaths and sociopaths--they're usually used interchangeably, and the debate about whether they're born or made has not been decided. I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but it doesn't track with standard definitions, including what Wikipedia has to say about psychopaths and sociopaths.QuizzicalBee (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, surprise, I am getting a PhD in psychology and spent 2 yrs doing research on psychopaths. I know wikipedia is all about consensus and not expertise, so feel free to ignore everything I am saying. The terms are interchangeable outside of academia, but not among researchers. He's clearly a sociopath (or psychopath). Even TIME/CNN is calling him one: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1870050,00.html?iid=tsmodule Angelatomato (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no hard info on that yet. When the financial history of Madoff's fund is reconstructed by the trustee's auditors, we'll know more. If it turns out that the fund's returns were real for the first few years (quite possible in the 1990s), and then one year Madoff didn't make his numbers and started faking it, it's the "rogue trader" scenario, like Nick Leeson. If the fund was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, that's a different story. Forensic accountants are working through the holidays to sort this out.[2]. We can't speculate on Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're the same. The free dictionary states that "`psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by `sociopath'". I researched and wrote an essay on psychopaths a couple of years ago. [3] Makes a lot of sense today, they're everywhere. JohnClarknew (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a small distinction. I just pulled this from a paper written by someone at Harvard... and it cites literature from Hare who studied psychopaths for 30 yrs. I hope that is better than the free online dictionary: "Though the DSM does not recognize psychopathy as a formal personality disorder, it is not identical to antisocial personality disorder (APD) or sociopathy. Aspects of APD overlap descriptions of psychopathy and sociopathy. However, an APD diagnosis does not require evidence for personality traits such as lack of empathy, grandiosity, and shallow emotion that characterize psychopathy. The APD definition is focused on overt criminal behavior, and is therefore most similar to sociopathy. Sociopathy refers to attitudes and (frequently criminal) behaviors that are products of the harsh environment in which an individual was raised. A sociopath can feel guilt, though the emotion may not be very salient. Psychopaths are different from sociopaths and individuals with APD because psychopathy is specifically characterized by the lack of conscience and inability to feel empathy or guilt. Psychopathy can be diagnosed regardless of actual criminal behavior though aberrant behavior is often present. (Babiak and Hare, 2006). Despite various semantic separations, Hare (1985) found that 73% of APD patients also demonstrated psychopathy. " Angelatomato (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too speculative, and original research. Wait for the audit reports. There's a good chance that his early 10% returns were real; you could get that in the 1990s. If the reported results diverged from reality in the first down year, then we know something. --John Nagle (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An Aside on "investment" vs. "speculation"

Haven't paid attention to this thread² since starting it but good to see the process work. Saw Mort Zuckerman on the News Hour last night and he claimed to have never heard of Madoff before this broke only of the Ascot Fund and some charity he was associated with which had put everything in the fund, sounded odd¹. The thing is though, how is a Ponzi scheme different from "investing" in general? Somebody somewhere in the chain of money creation collects the profit extracted from unpaid labor and distributes it. If they keep it or distribute in ways that returns the extracted value OR loss back in a way that is somehow direct to higher levels of the value extraction food chain then that's OK. But if you mix the streams AND cause a big mess then suddenly people don't want your ethnicity discussed, don't know you, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
¹I believe he actually said 'I never heard of him until ...'.

Lycurgus, "investment" is different from "speculation" (see Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor), and they are both different from "securities fraud." In this case, the fraud was a "Ponzi scheme." A Ponzi scheme distributes profits to old investors from the principle investment of new investors. In reality, though, there are no profits at all. The profits are coming from the new money the manager brings into the fund. (There need not be any investment at all.) But, in regular investment, your profit comes from the difference between what you initially paid for a stock and what you ultimately sell it for. The profits actually come from a valid source, that is the rise in market value of a particular stock on the day you decide to sell. And that rise is based on company performance (and investor psychology). The problem with the Ponzi scheme is that if you don't keep getting new investors' money to pay profits to the older investors, the scheme will collapses like house of cards and the last investor(s) to join will get burned. ask123 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Lycurgus, no one's trying to supress details on Madoff's ethnicity. It's just a matter of relevancy. In the case of this subject, religion is only relevant in a biographical context. As far as Madoff's victims are concerned, some were Jewish. Some were Christian. Some were Muslim. Some were Hindi. Etc., etc., etc. If you find some other significance for Madoff's religion, please let us know. But, as of now, there is none other. ask123 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I'm aware of this. My point is that the distribution of "profit" and the entire Price System are arbitrary and there is little inherent difference in the "corrupt" distribution of "profit" relative to that which is considered "legitimate". In "reality" the concept of "profit" generally confounds the extraction of surplus value with "productivity", i.e. the production of socially useful goods and services. The distribution of any part of the value of applied labor-power to any besides those persons supplying it is inherently unjust in my view so in this sense the difference between the operation of a Ponzi scheme and an investment service which maintains the integrity of the chain from primary investor to application of the capital to some production process and the flow of extracted profit back to said investors is, at the level of that matter of principle of the producers of said value having the right to all of it, negligible. Lycurgus (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the issue that caused me to create this thread², it is largely irrelevant/unimportant by comparision with these fundamental issues except for the glaring attempt to suppress info and the contradiction relative to clear usage elsewhere in wiki. Lycurgus (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic. As for you other point, I think it's a bit naive. Almost all of the amenities you enjoy are here as a result of the evolution of the economy. When I say evolution, I don't mean evolution into publicly traded markets. That's even further advanced than I'm thinking. Even just a basic, rather rudimentary economy -- but one that has evolved beyond the single, individual laborer -- defies your Utopian vision. How about someone who thinks of an idea for a product and then has others with expertise assemble it? If the guy with the idea gets paid for that, is that "unjust," as you put it? Many people in a company besides laborers will get paid because it takes more than just labor to make something and to sustain production over a long period of time. Moreover, many of the products today are so complex that it's actually impossible for laborers to do it alone.

And, as far as the equities markets are concerned, they serve an important purpose in and of themselves: raising money for the businesses that are traded. As I'm sure you know, when a company goes public, it sells shares to the public. The proceeds from those sales help finance the future endeavors of the company. It's a way of financing the company's vision (just as issuing bonds are) and is the main reason a company will need to issue shares or go public at all. This form of financing is a lynchpin for many (if not most) of the products you use and enjoy today. Without it, many of these business would lose viability. As far as public shareholders go, they help finance the company's vision in exchange for a piece of ownership. And when you're an owner, you're entitled to a portion of the profits via dividends and have the opportunity to make money selling your shares if they appreciate in price. They don't get to become owners gratis remember. And owners also have the possibility of loosing money through depreciation in price. So, in that way, the equities markets serve an important purpose, one very different from an actual deception. One other major difference: when you buy stock, you are entitled to the "full and fair disclosure" of the company's dealings. Madoff forged all of that -- he provided no full and fair disclosure since he lied about everything. ask123 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By "producers of said value" I meant all those involved in production. The fair division of proceeds from the group product is a (mere) technical problem. An "investor" who supplies nothing but capital is not a member of this set but obviously everyone with some role in actual production, including the person whose original idea some project was, are. Lycurgus (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The point being, both the idealized abstraction 'said value' (i.e the work product of an arbitrary group of workers), state and other 'real' forms of the money commodity, and money forms offered by a Madoff are themselves nothing, at most paper or a precious metal. The real thing(s) underlying and commanding all are the actual instances of applied labor power. It is merely the imprimatur of a social order that separates the "fictitious capital" of a Madoff sold as shares in his investment service or stipulates his accounting as improper and that of the other agencies not deriving their legitimacy by explicit transfer of all the value from its natural owners, i.e. those that produced it. Lycurgus (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This digression into Marxist economic theory is somewhat off topic. --John Nagle (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, or at least in my case, acceptance of the Labour Theory of Value doesn't necessarily imply an acceptance of Marxist economic theory, even if the latter is defined by the former. I do accept the former but I don't even consider the latter to actually be an economic theory³. The relevance to the article, while not direct (which is why it's here in the background), is obvious. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't want it to go unremarked that I have observed the display above in language of the confusion that exists in the mind of the typical American about such terms as "labour" or "working class", let alone comparatively esoteric matters such as founding principles of economics. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, apparently the SEC couldn't see much difference over the 15 or 16 years where they rejected fraud allegations. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

² "jewishness not notable?" originally "religion not notable?", the first thread created in the discussion page for this article (currently in Archive 2 Lycurgus (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)).
³ Which is why it's called "Marxian political economy", it's mostly politics relatively little mathematics/economics. To be distinguished from, e.g. Modern Analysis of Value Theory (Y. Fujumori 1982)

Rabbi wants Madoff excommunicated for bringing shame on Jewish people

A quick search in Google will show that “Madoff” and “Jewish” brings about 295,000 web links already. This is certainly an interesting fact given that it has only been a short time ago that he was placed under house arrest. I think the comments about Madoff's Jewishness being just a tiny fact and nothing relevant to this article is somewhat naive, given the fact that the JTA website has just published an open letter today by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman (religious leader of Temple Beth El in Stamford) to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations calling for Madoff to be excommunicated from the Judaic faith here:

[Rabbi: Kick Madoff out of the the Jewish people] [4]

The article goes on to say, and I would have to agree, that the most effective way to address it is through a clear repudiation not only of Madoff himself, but of the anti-Judaic nature of his acts. Covering something up or downplaying it does nothing but fuels the fire of "jewish conspiracy theories". The Truth is always perfect even when ugly. If you try to always paint a rosy picture of yourself or one's country or tribe it comes off as completely inauthentic. Is not modesty the foundation of all virtue? Like everything else in this World there are good apples and bad apples, but this does not detract from the fact, that whether they are good or bad they are still apples.

The information about Rabbi Hammerman writing the letter asking for Madoff to be excommunicated and "cut off" from the Judaic faith is relevant and should be included in this article for the simple fact it is addressed to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. A serious issue! Anyone else agree?

Mindeagle (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Too soon. So far, it's just one person's opinion. If actual movement in that direction starts, it's worth a mention. --John Nagle (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with Nagle. Mindeagle is correct, this is the opinion of a Rabbi and it is clearly a position that has resonance within the Jewish community. All communities harbor scoundrels, and trying to hide the warts only exaggerates them in the minds of haters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.61.155 (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than the original publication of Hammerman's letter, this hasn't yet been picked up by other media or organizations. So it's not something that's really happening yet. Madoff has been kicked off the board of Yeshiva University; that's real. The Palm Beach Country Club hasn't been heard from yet. --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nagle, thanks for the comments and your updates regarding what Madoff has been "cut off" from so far. You might be right about it being too soon to mention the excommunication issue, I don't want to jump the gun yet, though I thought it was a fairly serious issue when religious leaders are involved. However, one can hardly deny the outrage coming from Jewish groups, because he stole from his own people. There should be something here about the World Jewish community's reaction to the allegations made against Madoff, because it is simply too big to ignore. The outrage from concerned Jewish groups is very real, as is their concern that Madoff's behaviour will lead to futher hatred towards Jewish people. Try doing a search in Google for "madoff jewish" and look at the hundreds of thousands of websites and blogs from Jewish perspectives talking about Madoff and just how much of a Jew he is. These are unashamedly Jewish interest websites that play up his Jewishness, not some loony hate-group trying to create a negative image. The very first two links are to the Jewish Journal with headlines like:

Is Bernie Madoff Jewish? Very. Oy. | U.S. | Jewish Journal' [5]

Madoff: Jewish, yes, but Orthodox too?' [6]

Madoff: Jewish fury as a community reviles a cultural betrayal ...' [7]

Now this is an issue that is not going to go away on its own accord. Some people here have commented that they think there is some sort of double standard and censoring going on in Wikipedia to deny Madoff's Jewish ethnicity and ancestry. Whilst this can be construed as an opinion, the facts do seem to suggest it as a possibility as most articles on people in Wikipedia mention Jewish ethnicity usually in the first sentence. Sometimes these articles even note a Jewish grandparent (even on the paternal line) in the first paragraph, as if this Jewishness was crucial or the most important thing about the person that made them everything of what they are. Yet, in this article his ethnicity (orthodox Jew) takes a back seat to everything else. That is you would have no idea he is Jewish without looking in the info box. I also noticed that somebody has edited out the bit about him being born into a Jewish family in the last 24 hours. Surely, this is a pure case of biased reporting in my mind and shows some sort of censoring is indeed going on, as numerous other's here in this talk section have raised as a major concern. I abhor ideologies of hatred of every description and creed, but if there is one thing that riles me up and I truly take issue with and make a stand on, is the suppression of the Truth. I could be of the mark here, but my intuition tells me it is politically motivated and not in the interests of Wikipedia NPOV or humanity as a whole. To a certain extent, I can understand political lobbying organisations like the ADL & AIPEC being concerned that such facts may breed resentment and hatred in someone looking for someone or group to blame, but in this case I think it goes against what Wikipedia is all about. As far as I know Wikipedia is not a PR tool for political agendas or generating public opinion. Anyone else agree?

Madoff has been condemned by hundreds of Jewish groups who denounced his behaviour as the very anti-thesis of what it means to be a Jew, namely the importance and emphasis on ethics and values (just remember that the World's most famous Jew was also the World's greatest ethical teacher). The fact that all these Jewish groups are going ballistic over his actions shows that it is indeed an isolated case of a grossly deceptive and wicked act from a Jewish person in the public eye. The thing is he must have been very convincing to all he stole from, and it is a shame, because he looks like a nice guy with a warm smile and portly belly, the sort of guy you could have a laugh with and trust.

It is not my style to change the article or make additions to it, until there is a consensus from other editors and in the interests of Wikipedia's NPOV some of this consensus must come from other editors who identify themselves as Jewish. Only in that way will we get a nice balanced article that has no political sentiments running through it...just the facts and no opinion. As you can no doubt tell, I am not Jewish (actually Scottish) and will listen to anyone who does not have a political agenda in mind, to keep this article honest. One of the values of my culture is that the ugly facts of life should never be covered up or swept under the table, you must present life as it is in its entirety, warts and all, regardless of whether it is pretty or not. Those who share a similar vision of responsibility towards honesty, please speak up? No this is not an open invitation for all the Anti-semites and racists to crawl out from under their rocks in a show of support. Let's just keep to the facts. I'll be back in the next 12 hours before I make my changes, however, some consensus beforehand would be in the interests of all the editors to this article.

-- Mindeagle (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Jewish aspect is handled appropriately in the article. I don't think the "excommunication" bit belongs, unless it gets traction. JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Madoff's identity is being swept under the carpet in order to serve the ADL's political agenda -- and this is PR and advocacy pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.61.155 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems prominently mentioned to me. What do you want to add? JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His use of affinity fraud as a section. Failure to being this up is dishonest at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.61.155 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His preying on the Jewish community is dealt with somewhat amply in "sales methods." Since he did not exclusively prey on Jews, I don't think that "affinity fraud" is precisely what he engaged in. JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that section is not set up to focus on the affinity aspect. Please respect my intelligence and begin genuinely assuming goodwill instead of blackballing any and all who want the communal aspects of this affair highlighted as haters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.61.155 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with some other person. I haven't even participated in this discussion that much, and have not therefore "blackballed" anyone to the best of my recollection. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Jewish aspect is handled appropriately now. It has "miraculously" appeared in the article again in the last 24 hours. Glad to see somebody's conscience got the better of them and is at least trying to be honest and open. After much consideration and putting the shoe on the other foot, I see it is a bit politically sensitive at this time to mention the affinity. But you got to wonder, does Madoff have an army of scribers working for him, and if so, just how much of a kickback from the missing 50 billion are they getting? Reminds me of the essence of Leonard Cohen's song "Everybody Knows" - the dice was loaded, the ship's captain lied, the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, that's the way it goes...and everybody knows. Talk about the frustration of political impotence. Peace! -- Mindeagle (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it definitely belongs in the article, and it is there. I don't see what this IP's complaint is. If it wasn't there at all I could see the issue. Right now, it is mentioned. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... Why should it be mentioned? Who is this Rabbi and why is he notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.174.129 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rabbi himself is not that notable, however, the letter and who it is addressed to is. An open letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. However there has been little uptake by the media regarding the reaction or reply to the letter. For this reason, we can safely assume that it does not represent the views of these organisations and is therefore not as "newsworthy" for Wikipedia as I first assumed when the story broke. By the way you should sign your posts, and be prepared to put your name behind what you say, so that you come of as credible, rather than an anonymous lurker with an agenda. -- Mindeagle (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Religon=Jewish"

While true, I wonder why this is necessary. It is true that he ripped off Jewish charities, but I think that it may be harmful to this encyclopedia to highlight that in the infobox. JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth is never harmful to any encyclopedia, omissions can be and cover ups surely are.Enemyunknown (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a cover up, as the article makes his religion relatively clear. I just question why his religion is in the infobox, if that is not ordinarily done. His religion being singled out may offend some readers. I'm less concerned after reading the section below, but still have misgivings. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Enemyunknown you are supremely correct, but JohnnyB256 has a case in point. There is absolutely no need for the jewish charity information in the infobox. This point has been raised over and over again in these discussion pages. It is fair to say that his religion/ethnicity has been adequately covered in the main body of the article. It had been removed a couple of times in the past, but is here to stay in its current guise, as there have been no objections, and nobody is suppressing any truth that we know of so far. It is a simple fact and nothing more. Let's try and move beyond any repressed conspiracy theories as Wikipedia is not the place to discuss hypothetical opinions. If your a rational thinker you will realise that if there is a conspiracy it will be with a group of associates, and hopefully in the end the truth will be revealed as we go deeper down the rabbit hole. It is very easy and actually quite lazy to follow fanciful accusations - you can't label a whole people with the stroke of a pen from the actions of one man. Be honest and stay true! -- Mindeagle (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mindeagle says, "you can't label a whole people with the stroke of a pen from the actions of one man." Tell that to the German people. I know, special cases require typical hypocracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.10.125 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Rightly Changed to Include "Confessed Felon" (Citation already exists later in article)

This fact is cited in a quote in the same article: "According to the SEC, Madoff confessed to an FBI agent that there was “no innocent explanation” for his behavior," (See footnote 70).

So the article even notes and cites later that he has confessed to the FBI, although not yet in court. Therefore it is acceptable to start the article by including the phrase "confessed felon".

205.240.11.90 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Confessed criminal", maybe? --John Nagle (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert "Confessed felon"

Please let's be proper about this. Nobody is a felon until they are convicted, so we cannot call Madoff a felon, even though it might appear likely to us that we should be able to later. Also the "confessed" part needs to be put in the proper format. The FBI and the SEC have said that he has confessed. They will have their chance in court to prove that. Do I think that the FBI might be lying about this? Well, I can't see why they would, but the FBI has lied about some serious things in the past. Smallbones (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have sources we can say he confessed,and there are an abundance. Calling him a felon without a conviction should be treated as vandalism22:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's only one ultimate source, the FBI, as far as I can tell. Since all other sources go back to the FBI, we can only say that "according to the FBI, he confessed." I suppose that mention of a "confession" with it directly footnoted to the FBI news release would be ok to most folks, but let's not push it any further than that. Smallbones (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Felon is too strong language to use at this stage. Footnote to original FBI press release would be the most correct and official source. Yes you are right also about the FBI lieing about a lot of serious things in the past, but for this one, I can't see any political motivation to frame Madoff. For a start he is well connected, with friends in high places. Secondly of what interest is it to the FBI? What would they stand to gain from it? Unless Madoff had connections to terrorist organisations or was using the scheme to fund paramilitary operations elsewhere there is no immediate motive for a framing. The media reports suggest he lived an affluent lifestyle with multiple homes and yachts. One can safely assume at this point in time he was using the money to fund his lifestyle. One thing though, as much as a terrible crime it is to deceive people like this, you can't argue that the guy didn't have balls, for the sheer audacity of daring to pull off something of this scale. -- Mindeagle (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If the subject is Arab or Muslim it is sufficient to cite a news article quoting unnamed US government officials in order to assert guilt. Fourtildas (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article should be split

IMHO, the alleged fraud should be in a different article than this one, the article on BLM himself. There are many resaons for this: size is one, but the current arrangement also diffuses the biographical details of BLM because of this article's (necessary) focus on the fraud, and with more and more knock-on effects (Fairfield Greenwich, Bank Medici, etc.), the connection to BLM become more remote: taken to the extreme, you would imagine having all of WP's American Civil War content within the Abraham Lincoln article. I will be happy to do the split, and welcome any help, but want to get some reactions/comments before proceeding. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

IMEHO, the only thing most people are interested in about Madoff is the scandal, at this point they are one and the same thing. Of course there could be some separation made: just take the sections "Personal" and "Career" and add a bit from "Philanthropy" and you've got your BLMadoff article. But I don't think that would solve anything. Much of that material would have to be retained here as well. I don't see much of the fraud material getting very remote from BLM, after all it is alleged that this is a one person crime! In short, why not wait until the article gets at least 50% bigger, then the splits you are writing about might start to show more. Smallbones (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that people are going to care about will be the fraud, I doubt that anything other than fraud-related matter will be added to the article going forward, so splitting the article seems moot. patsw (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lawrence Madoff vs Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

What is the subject of this article, is it the person Madoff or his firm? Both are bold in the entry. Thats like putting Bill Gates and Microsoft in a single article with a double entry. --217.83.57.130 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the person Bernard Lawrence Madoff. Obviously his business, which is closely held by the family, has a close relation to the person. Smallbones (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent Conveyance

--John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The article states that the statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyances is 6 years. However, the statute of limitations is only two years.

11 U.S.C. 548(A)(1): "The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition

Citation please. Leujohn ^(talk) 08:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not currently semiprotected. The fraudulent conveyance paragraph (in the recovery section) has 2 references. Reuters says 6 years, "Bankruptcy-receivership practices make all investors vulnerable, he added. "Once they can go into bankruptcy they can go back six years. Anything past your principal, I'm guessing, is fair game to be brought back in." Forbes says 2-3 years. I'd guess that the original entry of this material was done by a lawyer, and I found it (and the doctrine itself) to be somewhat aggressive, and have toned it down previously. I'll look at it again, but remember that anybody can edit this. Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article IS semiprotected. Shouldn't there be a lock symbol on it? Smallbones (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

where actual fraud is alleged, the Statute of Limitations is six years from the fraudulent transfer or two years from the time the fraud was discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.[8][9] Basically, there is a penalty for knowing there is fraud but not doing anything about it.Wapondaponda (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So I'll (optimistically) take that to mean the current paragraph is more or less ok. Please change it if it isn't. The part that I found aggressive is where people who didn't know it was fraud can have the $'s taken back (is this the "constructive fraudulent conveyance" part?) Of course we can't give legal advice, and lawyers writing here are apt to split hairs. Smallbones (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Look for a reliable source on that. There's a distinction between transactions which can be unwound retroactively in bankruptcy, and financial claims involving fraud. Both are possible, but the law on each is completely different. --John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Uniform fraudulent transfer act covers both. This is what happened with the Bayou Hedge Fund Group as per businessweek article.Wapondaponda (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Madoff Firm's Assets

SIPC President, Stephen Harbeck, reported to congress on January 6, 2009 that the Madoff Investment firm has liquid asset in excess of $800 million to satisfy debtors of the firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M778little (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Satisfy", no. That would imply full payment. --John Nagle (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Transposed numbers in "Previous SEC Investigations" section

The first sentence under the heading "Previous SEC investigations" reads: "Madoff Securities LLC was investigated at least 16 times in eight years by the SEC or other regulatory authorities." However, the source article for this sentence reads: "Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was examined at least eight times in 16 years by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators..."

So fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.84.33 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph S. Forte

If you love editing this article, you may like editing Joseph S. Forte

Smallbones (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

moved material to new article List of investors in Bernard L. Madoff Securities

There was a huge table in this article that I moved lock, stock, and barrel to the new article. It simply takes too much space here, and tends to be inaccurate (double counting), and sensationalist (Did you know the Dr Doom lost $x.x million?!); and there are at least 2 reliable sources listed with a similar table: The WSJ (footnote 100), the New York Times (under external links) and there used to be a Bloomberg table linked as well. I'll suggest that people who think that this is needed go and clean up the new list article, inserting references, etc.

The (lack of) a need to have such a table in this article was discussed extensively on this page about December 19 (some folks are almost a month late on this!) Smallbones (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a more appropriate title is required, "list of investors in Bernard L. Madoff Securities" reads as if investors bought shares in Bernard L. Madoff Securities. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quasiracial/religious classifications

There is certainly an ethnic/religious angle here, but only because Madoff made something out of it, and exploited it. It doesn't seem necessary to me to classify his family in any given way in the introduction. As for the way he made others trust him because of their shared religion and of how they saw his origins - it is good that that is being treated, and perhaps it can be treated at greater length and more explicitly.

It's also a good thing that there are no tags of the "X Jew" and "Jewish X" at the bottom. At the same time, it seems to me that such tags are grossly overused all over wikipedia. If we are going to delete them from articles on objectionable characters, and insert them at the bottom of articles on laudable individuals, then we are introducing a rather crude kind of systemic bias into Wikipedia. Feketekave (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a previous user said: see the Modigliani, Heine, Michelson and Einstein biographies. Actually, this is as good a time as any to have a general discussion of these issues. Feketekave (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(Comment: I was asked to come here by some of Feketekave's edit summaries.) I'm generally against such classifications unless the subject strongly self-identifies as such, or the religious classification played an important role in the subject's public life. I certainly agree that such categorizations are generally overused. So, I think that the Modigliani categorization should have been removed, as you did. However, the fact that Albert Einstein was an ethnic Jew, and identified very strongly with the Jewish people played a significant part in his public life, and so the Jewish-related categories should not have been removed. (Moreover, there are reams of discussion in the archives of the talk page about precisely this issue establishing consensus for inclusion in the category.) Removal of Heinrich Heine from the category is also clearly inappropriate, given that he is widely considered to be an important Jewish poet by both secular and Jewish scholars. In short, I encourage you to remove persons from inappropriate categories, but also to attempt to exercise better judgment in doing so. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit: I have made no attempt to remove the relevance of the Jewish question (namely, some) to Heine's life; I simply believe that (much like here) categories are an exceptionally bad way to go about it.

How Israelis think of Heine is really a matter about Israelis, not a matter about Heine. (Any human group tries to gets its hands on laudable men that arguably do not quite belong to them; witness some things written and done in Poland and Lithuania about Mickiewicz.) Still, I removed none of that material.

As for Einstein: to put things crudely, he was less "Jewish" than Madoff and more so than Heine. To wit, Einstein was not from anything anybody would recognise as a Jewish background - in part because his parents seem to have belonged to no religion, and in part because the so-called ethnic category "Jewish" is to some extent a U.S. ethnic construct based on the idealisation of certain cultural patterns that may have had some relation to Madoff's background of origin (New York, etc.) and none to Einstein's.

At the same time, Einstein was an early romantic Zionist, believed in something called the Jewish people - to the point of criticising people who thought of Judaism primarily as a religion - and stated those opinions publicly; all of that can go in such sections of his biographical article as treat the times in his life in which he took such positions.

There is one way in which these categories affected Einstein more than Madoff: Einstein experienced much more antisemitism than Madoff presumably ever did - not only, mind you, during the Nazi period. We should have a footnote somewhere mentioning some of the discussions that were going on in faculty meetings (recorded in writing!) when Einstein was a young lecturer getting hired.

As for Madoff: again, here there is the desire to categorise, though some of it comes from racist quarters rather than from ethnic patriots on ego trips. So much the worse. At the same time, Madoff did not just happen to spend a great deal of his social life in exclusive clubs associated to one particular sector of the upper class; he used the way he was seen - by people in the same environment and by people from different environments but of the same faith and having related kinds of self-perception - in order to con. Feketekave (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add that something particularly obnoxious about categories (or lists) is that non-inclusion or deletion of a category [X] tends to be taken as a statement that the subject is a [non-X]. These issues are not binary. Feketekave (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not too fussed about categories and the infobox, why has his Jewish background been removed from his personal section? Ticklemygrits (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jew

Why are you people trying to hide the fact that he's a Jew? Don't tell me you believe it's irrelevant or smth like that. Charles Ponzi's Italian descent is all over the place in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. Please refrain from speaking in a non-constructive fashion. Feketekave (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to rationalize things the way you do isn't convincing. A lot of people will want to know some basic things about the man (either from the categories at the bottom or the factbox on the right) and ethnicity, occupation, place of birth are clearly relevant, just as they are for any other person of some importance. Removing him from the relevant categories is clearly an attempt to hide his ethnicity and your arguments are not going to convince me or a lot of other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A classification by descent isn't a fact about him - it's a fact about you.

At the same time, his *acting* in an "ethnic" way - belonging to ethnically constituted clubs, being involved in ethnic matters - is relevant to his life and career, in that he managed to use that to con. I have made no attempt to hide that. Feketekave (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same absurd accusation about "hiding" has been made by other people - whose motivations are possibly not the same as yours - when myself or others have opposed categorising individuals who are famous for their contributions, as opposed to damage caused. Feketekave (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think ethnicity helps define an individual, for better or worse. I would never oppose categorising Jews or any other people based on ethnicity who have positive merits. You're jumping to conclusions by assuming I'm an anti-semite. All I said was that it's relevant and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should category "American Jews" be included?

There are 2,824 Pages in the category "American Jews." I'm not entirely sure I support categorizing anybody by ethnicity or religion, but Wikipedia currently supports these categories, and there would be something lost by not including them. Note that on the page Wikipedia:Categorization of people states: "By gender, religion, race or ethnicity, and sexuality See also: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality Currently, Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The placement of people in these categories may be problematic."

If we take as given that ethnic/religious categories are allowed, I think Madoff should be categorized in the category "American Jews." 1) He seems to self-identify with the group in his charities, memberships, etc. I haven't seen a reference to which synogague he's a member of, but other memberships seem to imply self-identification. 2)The New York Jewish community seems to identify him as a member. I have seen references on this, so just let me know if you need one here. 3) He is commonly identified by reliable sources (New York Times, Washington Post, etc) as Jewish. 4) there is some mention in reliable sources that the scheme is an "affinity fraud" based upon his ethnic group, so this is relevant to the article. In short, if anybody qualifies for this category, I think Madoff should.

At the same time, there has been some repeated Anti-semitism shown on this page. We cannot allow this, and we must be constantly vigilant against it. Is the category by itself anti-semitic? I think not.

I'll suggest that we include the category, and argue elsewhere, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality whether the category should be allowed at all. Smallbones (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the section #Quasiracial/religious classifications above for a discussion (let's try not to fragment this discussion). -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That link is just 2 sections above. I think that the only argument here is whether the general category should exist or not, i.e this is not an article-specific discussion. Let's have the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality rather than here - that is if there is any discussion that we should get rid of all racial/ethnic/regilious categories on people. Smallbones (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just about every biographical article about a person whose ethnicity is known has at least one ethnic category. I don't see why Madoff should be an exception. Naturally controversy is never far from these categories but that should be discussed Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.Personally I would prefer category by ethnicity and occupation, rather than the overpopulated ethnicity categories. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear with the many categories that exist on Wikipedia concerning successful Jews of Science, Arts, and etc. that Madoff's classification was withheld by the interests of the very lobby who created many of those categories. 96.243.177.81 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue is the sourcing. Could someone please add the source, within this section of the talk page, that would support the categorization, and then I will add the source and the cat to the article, unless someone beats me to it. Right now, the article does not contain such a source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More generally, I would encourage editors to consider adding the template {{Category unsourced}} to articles where they believe a category is not sufficiently supported by the sources in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, do you mean that there should be a source that states Madoff's ethnicity. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was one of those fairly obvious issues that no explicit source was necessary. But that said, here is an article from bloomberg news. The quote is "While Madoff is both Jewish". I don't think a source that explicitly states that he is American is necessary.By not including the category we may actually be giving excuses to some unscrupulous individuals to make disruptive edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, this discussion has happened before on this very talk page. Sources have been given (plenty of them), citing various authorities that call Madoff a Jew. For whatever reason, that was not sufficient. It seems to be rather cyclical. What I've observed is that someone will say why can't we call Madoff a Jew? And then people will ask for sources. After sources are given, there will be some discussion that concludes we can't add that fact to the article. Rinse and repeat. There was a rather notorious sockpuppetmaster who made a big deal about the Jewishness of various people, so obviously, for whatever reason, this is an incredibly contentious issue with a lot at stake for a lot of people. So I prefer not to make a big deal about it. But I do find it a bit strange how there are many articles on famous scientists, mathematicians, etc. that mention they are Jews (and there is probably much less sourcing for that than Madoff), but somehow calling Madoff a Jew (something no one would have contested before the charges of Ponzi scheme) is so contestable. --C S (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a source mentioning Madoff's ethnicity until Feketekave removed it. And I agree with Smallbones that this a is an argument about whether ethnic based lists and ethnic classifications should be on Wiki, rather than whether Madoff fits into those lists/ethicities.Ticklemygrits (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones and Ticklemygrits in that this is part of a broader argument. Still, this article both belongs to that broader discussion and illuminates it to a certain extent. There has been a parallel discussion going on at Talk:Albert Einstein. And yes - I do find it very odd that it is somehow fine to claim that famous scientists (most of them atheists, some of them Christians, Mithraists, etc.) are part of a club, but criminals automatically do not belong in it.

It would be best if this discussion could be taken to a place where people who never visit the page on Madoff can participate. I've copied some of my posts (and some replies to them) to Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality - perhaps we can take the discussion there.

Feketekave (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I added a source, mind you. Feketekave (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough Feketekave, I can understand your point of view but I don't think it really relates to the article as the policies stand now. But I can see that debate of the policies is a good thing.Ticklemygrits (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" does not appear where there has been an admission

The use of "alleged" applies in most cases where there is a warrant, arrest, or an indictment prior to conviction. When the accused maintains innocence -- "alleged" is what the style guide calls for. However, this is not the case with Bernard Madoff. Many reliable sources recognize that he made an admission and quoting him stating "it's one big lie". So, for example, the Wall Street Journal puts it simply

Mr. Madoff last month confessed to running a Ponzi scheme that cost investors more than $50 billion. "Cuomo Subpoenas Madoff Investor". Wall Street Journal. 2008-01-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

There has been no denial in media reports that he made this admission which started a chain of events leading to his arrest on December 11, 2008.

Where "alleged" does apply is with respect to the specific criminality of what he admitted to doing. There has been no indictment and therefore no list of alleged criminal acts and exact statutes he is accused of violating.

Please sign your posts with (Smallbones (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)).

According to the U.S. Supreme Court "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

Why should Wikipedia be immune from this elementary law? Madoff has been charged with 1 count of fraud. I submit that anything not yet proven in court that in effect says "he's guilty" should be prefaced by "alleged" or something similar. This has been discussed at length above on this page. I was surprised by the sentence in the WSJ, but do please note that they say "alleged" further down.

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography for guidance (this should be a basic there) and will put back "alleged." If you want to remove it, please clear it with them or WP:BLPN first. Smallbones (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors make the judgment calls on what goes into the Wikipedia. It is obvious that we do not wait for a Supreme Court decision before entering text here. Since you asked, yes, the Wikipedia is immune from the constraints of the judiciary of the United States. I agree with you on the presumption of innocence when the defendant has not made a statement that he has conducted a fraud. We are dealing hear with an unusual case here -- the defendant made an admission which became widely reported in reliable sources. Also,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography is for guidance not for making final editing decisions. I will take it up over there.

Let's advance the discussion a bit:

1. Madoff made an admission that he conducted a fraud which was reported widely in reliable sources. The admission appears all over the media without a qualifying alleged, and is not sourced solely from the SEC complaint.

Here's where I disagree entirely with you. Nobody says that their reporters got a confession directly from Madoff or from his sons. The sole ultimate source is the FBI. In the first weeks of the scandal this was very clear in every reliable source. Perhaps now they are getting a bit lazy and not explaining directly where the "confession" comes from. Smallbones (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neither Madoff or his representatives has not denied or disputed the December 10 admission. They can do their talking in court and not the media, but it is worth noting here it is undenied and undisputed.
2. Assume for the sake of the argument that the admission was fabricated totally by the SEC lawyers -- how can the government hope to make an conviction stick when they lacked probable cause for the arrest which is based on the December 10 admission?
3. Madoff is alleged to have violated securities laws. He plead not guilty.
4. The fact the admission appears in the SEC complaint doesn't automatically trigger a downgrade to alleged.
5. He made the admission -- not "alleged" to have made the admission to employees (identified in media accounts as his sons)
6. It is possible to write the article stating the admission of the fraud as fact and the criminality of the fraud as alleged. patsw (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Articles dated December 12 or December 13 may include alleged to refer to the admission on December 11. Subsequent interviews and reporting confirmed that the account of the admission was made by Madoff given in the SEC complaint was accurate. patsw (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
8. In a filing to the court, Madoff's laywer confirmed the December 10 admission. I give the citation and a quote from the article. patsw (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've got a source, but ...

OK, I see now that you actually have some information (rather than just pulling this out of nowhere) - but you just put the ref in the article! Nevertheless, I advise caution here.

1. The NYTimes article dated Jan 9 (not the 15th) says "Ira Lee Sorkin, a lawyer for Bernard Madoff, also refused to comment on the chronology of his client’s confession. In a filing he made this week opposing bail revocation, Mr. Sorkin reported that his client confessed to his sons, his brother and his wife on the same day, Dec. 10." To my knowledge this hasn't been retracted.
2. But the January 10 Boston Globe reprint of the NYTimes article says only "Ira Lee Sorkin, a lawyer for Bernard Madoff, also refused to comment on the chronology of his client's confession." Which is surprisingly different.
3. Todays (1/19) Telegraph "Based on the confessions Mr Madoff allegedly made to his sons and to an FBI agent prior to his arrest on December 11, the accused fraudster was, at least since 2005, when the current fraud charge dates back to, operating what is known as a "Ponzi scheme""
4. Today's Bloomberg "The probe follows by a month the alleged confession by New York’s Bernard Madoff of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme."

2 reliable sources still (today) calling it an "alleged confession" The NYTimes 10 days ago saying in effect that they have proof that he confessed, but then some slight backing off on this (in the Boston Globes reprint).

The most aggressively I'd put this is "The New York Times reports that Madoff's lawyer confirmed the confession in a court document." or something similar, but not in the lede. This deserves following up on, but is not conclusive IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes suggested immediately above, but... Diana Hendriques (the same NYTimes author as for the Jan 9 article) wrote in a Jan 13 article "Mr. Madoff told F.B.I. agents last month that he had overseen a financial fraud and estimated that it had cost investors as much as $50 billion, according to the criminal complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan. The fraud was continuing just days before Mr. Madoff confessed it to the F.B.I., according to a lawsuit filed by a New York company that asserts Mr. Madoff took in $10 million from it on Dec. 5." My emphasis If the author of your reference doesn't repeat the supposedly confessed confession when it seems called for, why should we believe it? She used the equivalent of "alleged", why shouldn't we? Smallbones (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now my turn to impute laziness on the part of the media. Some wrote alleged on December 12 and have not changed the template to follow the progress of the story: the interviews with BMIS-connected people and Sorkin's filing which confirm it. Sorkin refuses to comment to the media (of course) because he sees no advantage to his client to do so. Sorkin hasn't confirmed or denied the December 10 admission to the media. The December 10 admission belongs in the introduction since it is the trigger event for the arrest, the arraignment, the multiple bail hearings, and all that has followed. The fact that the December 10 admission appears in the SEC complaint doesn't automatically downgrade it to an allegation. His sons Andrew and Mark Madoff went on the record to the media as early as December 12 with their account of the admission by their father the previous day. patsw (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't cut it if the cite (2) given is all the backing you have. It says "“Mark and Andrew Madoff are not involved in the firm’s asset management business, and neither had any knowledge of the fraud before their father informed them of it on Wednesday,” according to a statement by Flumenbaum of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York." At first reading that comes close to what you wrote above, but with a lawyer's statement (not the Madoff sons') you have to be pretty careful and read exactly what it says. It is a completely negative statement. It does not say that they know now about a fraud committed by their father, it says they didn't know about a fraud before Wednesday - you are imputing that this means that they do know about a fraud now. It does not say the Madoff Sr. confessed to them a fraud that he committed, only that he "informed them" of a fraud on Wednesday. You are putting words into the mouth of somebody who obviously chooses his words carefully.

Please remember that your second example of why we don't need to use "alleged confession" - Bloomberg - is, as of today (1-19), still using "alleged confession," as is your first example (as of (1-13)) Diana Hendriques of the NYTimes. If they are using "alleged confession" so should we. Smallbones (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored back the citation for sons' statement without removing alleged. The statement affirms that the sons were informed of the fraud on December 10 by their father. It specious to contend that the long fraud already stipulated at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC could have been perpetrated by anyone other than Madoff himself and the father was merely reporting his discovery of the fraud. Is anyone suggesting that Madoff is actually a victim of an unnamed individual or individuals who perpetrated this fraud?

I can reach out to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg reporters and get their take on when they would consistently remove alleged from the account of the December 11 admission. It is obvious we Wikipedians worry more about this than financial editors do as recent articles abound both with and without alleged. patsw (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is used too much, I think about eleven times. Other words can be used. I agree with the position that you have to deal with these things conservatively, no matter how cut and dried it may seem to be. "Alleged confession" seems to be a bit much, so maybe there is some other way of referring to it, such as "the FBI said he confessed" or words like that. At one point a few weeks ago Madoff was in the "criminals" category despite the lack of conviction, so at least that is not an issue anymore. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SEC Investigations

Ira Lee Sorkin should have a page: He is the common denominator and the key player in this game of musical chairs between all the parties: judge, federal prosecutors (their former boss) and defendants, past, present, and future.

please add facts in quotes: " Represented by Ira Lee Sorkin, Madoff's present attorney," Avellino & Bienes were accused of selling unregistered securities, and in its report the SEC mentioned the fund's "curiously steady" promised yearly returns to investors of 13.5% to 20%. However, the SEC did not look any more deeply into the matter. Through Mr. Sorkin, the lawyer who once oversaw the regulator’s New York office, the men agreed to return the money to investors, shut down their firm, undergo an audit and pay a fine of $350,000. Avellino then complained to the presiding Federal Judge, John E. Sprizzo,that Price Waterhouse fees were excessive. In April, 1993, the Judge ordered him to pay the bill of $428,679 in full. However, by the end of January, 1993, Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Avellino managed to curtail the audit, even though the judge concluded that Mr. Avellino had not been a credible witness in the case." "’92 Ponzi Case Missed Signals About Madoff" by Alex Berenson The New York Times January 17, 2009 p. A1 NY edition. Retrieved 1-17-09.</ Mashkin (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtive admirer (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff and His Wife, Ruth Madoff and Hadassah

RE: copyright a book. trademark a product. please reinsert in abridged form. Ruth's frame of mind and the influence she gave to or gleaned from her husband is why the new york times wrote the article. Her perceptions of power and success should be stated or inferred. It is the evolution of her goals for fame, recognition (and notoriety!) thanx 4 your assistence. some facts that you deleted, however are relevant.

RE: Hadassah. This is merely the first one which has come forward which will be compelled to return money from non-profit organizations. We will add more as they are disclosed. If you delete this, it will be difficult to locate it again. The link is a JTA article from New York Jewish Week [10] The facts were taken from the article, not the blog attached. Please reinsert. It can be deleted later, but it is already difficult to locate on the jta website. thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The claims I removed about Ruth Madoff were (i) Unsubstantiated by the references (the issue that was raised was whether the title of the book violated trademark, not copyright. (ii) Were a copyright violation in themselves, copying from some web-site. Anyway the NYTimes article provides what appears to be reliable information about the nature of the Kosher cookbook Ruth Madoff was involved with, but I do not think it coresses the bar of interest. Mashkin (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is everyone so persnickety about including Ruth Madoff's lack of due diligence? facts are facts and this fact had two sourced external links and a quote from the aggrieved party. This will be the beginning of a list of indiscretions for her. Would you rather begin a new page for her? According to the NY Times, they are inseparable. so... her accomplishments or failures are credit worthy for documentation. She cheated another who had the rights to her book title, and went ahead with publishing and lost a lot of money for her publisher, just like her hubby for his clients, so water seeks its own level...

Bottom line, both husband and wife are a team and play as a team; they lack due-diligence and it should be stated as such.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hadassah stuff is interesting. Unfortuneately I can't find anything other than the above link that looks like a reliable source. [11] looks close to being an RS, but identifies itself as a blog, and is just quoting the original source above. If another source could be found, and the edit is carefully worded, I'd put that material in, if others agree. Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The original source is ny jewish week, highlighted in the link within the jta article: http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a14606/News/New_York.html

found: http://blogs.jta.org/philanthropy/article/2009/01/15/1002277/jewish-week-over-20-years-hadassah-withdrew-130-million-from-madoff-account

"Hadassah’s treasurer, Marci Natan, has acknowledged to donors that Hadassah withdrew $130 million over the years. One of the callers to Natan, Stan Epstein of Santa Monica, Calif., expressed surprise when she told him of the $130 million. And he said she told him that Hadassah made another $50 million with Madoff that the organization reinvested with him..... Epstein, a commercial real estate transaction attorney who in the last 10 years has been a plaintiff’s class-action attorney, said it is his understanding from conversations with several bankruptcies lawyers that Hadassah may be forced by New York State law to return millions of dollars. (He said he is not representing anyone involved in the Madoff scandal.) He said the fact that Hadassah is a charitable organization does not exempt it from the law."

please reinsert it in some section. more will have to make refunds per NY law. thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick check on Google shows a Jerusalem Post article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1228728239808 JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted it using the Jewish Week source [1] under "recovery of funds" section. thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtive admirer (talk • contribs)

I guess so, but wouldn't the Jerusalem Post be more reliable? JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording of that part. The $42 million figure was guesswork by a lawyer. I haven't read it through all that thoroughly and am not sure this is the best place to talk about the Haddassah stuff. JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

the original source is NEW YORK JEWISH WEEK -- JTA AND JERUSALEM POST GOT IT FROM THERE. Just leave it there until a new sub section is added. i won't be able to find it again later! How do i link to read the archived talk pages here? i can't find it. thanx.Furtive admirer (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)