Talk:Bernie Madoff

Removed content (possibly machine-translated from German Wikipedia)

Luxembourg [change] The fund “Lux-Alpha” and “Lux-Invest” of the Swiss UBS and “subject” of the British HSBC, who were involved in Madoff, were operated under Luxembourg law. [71] Luxalpha, Luxinvest and Herald Fund Luxembourg had in the meantime the share redemption exposed. According to the Luxembourg bank supervision CSSF total of 16 funds had exposed as a result of engagement with Madoff the share redemption. [72].

The “Lux SICAV-Alpha” was liquidated by order of the Luxembourg financial supervisory authority CSSF. [73] By order of the CSSF, the “Herald (Lux) SICAV” liquidated. [74] Another fund in Luxembourg, the Luxembourg Investment Fund-US Equity Plus from a subsidiary of Swiss UBS was sanctioned by the CSSF, as the fund by Madoff Investments had suffered heavy losses. The legal closing of the fund was provided. [75] After Luxalpha Herald and was liquidated in May 2009, the Luxembourg Investment Fund UBS. [76]

The Luxembourg public prosecutor has taken account of the two funds and Luxalpha LuxInvest investigation into the branch of UBS in Luxembourg. It should have been committed include falsification of documents. UBS Luxembourg was aware in 2005 of the dual role as fund manager and Madoff Fondsunterdepositär what would have been prohibited in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg concerning the conflict of interest [77].

Switzerland [Edit] Banque Benedict Hentsch, the Swiss Fairfield Partners SA, based in Geneva announced that it had invested 56 million Swiss francs (47.5 million U.S. dollars) of their customers Madoff. [78] According to this report are Carl and Ruth Shapiro, major donor for the Museum of Fine Arts, but also the Brandeis University and the affected Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. But the Shapiro have subsequently lost half of their assets, some 220 million dollars. Also damaged were Avram and Carol Goldberg, the former owners of Stop and Shop, a supermarket chain, and Stephen Fine, president of Biltrite Corp.. As Reuters reported [79], Swiss banks alone had lost $ 4,220,000,000.

Which specializes in hedge fund Union Bancaire Privée, which had administered in June, 127 billion Swiss francs, gave a total commitment of 700 million U.S. dollars and 800 million in Swiss francs at Madoff. This represented less than 1 percent of total assets under management. This affected mainly the fund DINV total return, its yield is worsened by 3 percent. The bank itself had not invested their own money in Madoff. [80] [81] It denied in January 2009, to have ignored warnings. [82] In May, U.S. investors filed a lawsuit. They demand the restitution of confiscated commissions and interest rates. [83]

The Bank Benedict Hentsch had been merged in August with Fairfield Greenwich Group, which had invested 7.5 billion U.S. dollars in Madoff. The EIM Group, which is 2% of their capital, or 220 million dollars was invested in Madoff was one of the victims. Also everyone Notz Stucki & Cie, and were Benbassat & Cie. Is not affected by his own admission Credit Suisse.

When the damage was not immediately identify, affected and to what extent the banks themselves or their customers were. It was clear that several hundred customers of Hypo Swiss Private Bank Geneva were affected. These are, however, customers who had deliberately and invests on its own with Madoff. [84]. The fraud cost the customer CHF 175 million. Hypo Swiss Private Bank Geneva, and February 2008 Anglo Irish Bank (Suisse) SA was called, was active as a subsidiary of Ireland’s Anglo Irish Bank for years in the hedge fund business. The Zurich headquarters of Hypo Swiss, however, was only marginally affected indirectly through third-party products. [85] Hyposwiss, part of the St. Galler Kantonalbank, provides services to wealthy investors with portfolios 3:00 to 10:00 million. [86]

Syz & Co and Pictet in his own words were not affected, as Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch, Mirabaud and GAM (Julius Baer). Bank Julius Baer told the news agency Reuters that there was no damage.

UBS announced the losses were insignificant. The French asset manager Oddo, however, the shares of its customers who were in Luxembourg Lux Alpha fund, which in turn Depositärin UBS was, and on 4 November had sold, sued UBS. He had never received the money, said a spokeswoman of the French news agency AFP. Therefore Oddo had initiated against UBS in Luxembourg to a process. [87] On 15 January, the UBS Luxembourg condemned to pay compensation of 30 million €.

In principle rotates the legal dispute over the responsibilities of the custodian of funds. “According to Bloomberg, would the big banks, UBS and HSBC to be sued up to 3.2 billion dollars,” reported on 15 January, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. [88]

UBS had to disclose documents that might prove a violation of their duty of care, a Luxembourg district court ruled, had brought suit against the two individual plaintiffs and the shareholders’ association Deminor. It was about possible contracts between UBS and the investment firm and a Madoff held under lock and auditor’s report. The Luxembourg bank supervision CSSF asked the Swiss to give an account about the business practices. [89] Similarly, it was issued a month later the Herald-Lux Fund. [90]

Austria [change] In Austria, have been harmed, especially retail investors, after an initial estimate of the National Bank for 350 million euros. They had invested in Primeo funds of Pioneer Alternative Investment Management, which belong to the UniCredit Bank Austria group originally, in Milan, and in fund Herald, Herald Herald U.S. and Luxembourg. Primeo investment advisor for the Fund, the Bank Austria Worldwide Fund Management, which was 100% owned by Bank Austria Group. General Manager, and front woman acted Dr. Ursula Fano-Leszczynski.

The Primeo funds for 2008 still had a return of 6.5%. The Herald-funds have been invested by the private Austrian bank Medici, who was based in Vienna. [91] the end of March 2009, the proportion of from Austria to New York amounts transferred already estimated at 3.2 billion €. [92]

Bank Medici [Edit] The Medici Bank was one of a quarter of the Uni Credit, the rest belonged to Sonja Kohn, who had advised the government in economic affairs and the chairman of the bank was. [93]

On 31 December 2008, the Private Bank Medici was forcibly put under state supervision and appointed a government inspector. Managed by the Bank and the Fund created in Madoff LLC funds should include a volume of 3.6 billion dollars. The bank itself, which had 15 employees, estimates the total to 2.1 billion. As late as November 2008, the Viennese banker who finished at “Germany’s Hedge Fund Award” the first place. [94] According to a review of the Sunday newspaper on 11 January 2009 [95] Kohn knew personally since the 80s Bernard Madoff. She had met him in Monsey, a mainly Orthodox Jewish community members inhabited place near New York [96]. In 1990 she founded the company Eurovaleur and after they had returned to Vienna, Medici Financial Services GmbH - all the while the unprotected name “Medici” without passing on any contacts exhibit the Florentine bank. From 1996 to 2000, she advised the Austrian Finance Minister Johann Farnleitner 1999 and received the Grand Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria. According to the Sunday newspaper could Kohn predominantly Madoff Investments have driven. Kohn claims to have not known about Madoff pyramid scheme.

Against the Medici Bank led the Austrian National Bank, through an examination. Kohn is with Madoff fraud system 50 million euros per year earned. It should help fund monies in Ireland and Luxembourg have raised and transferred to the Cayman Islands to Madoff. Of these, only 8 million euros a year, will be flown to Vienna, the rest in Switzerland, possibly to the private banking Gene Valor, Benbassat & Cie [97].

On 18 December, the former stock exchange chief Stefan Zapotocky his seat was in the control panel on the Austrian banking industry-Holding AG Fimbag. He had the Board of the Fund managed by Madoff sat Alpha-Prime, [98] was co-developed by Sonia Kohn been [99] Kohn had Cohmad of Madoff Securities Group -. According to the ad that William Galvin, Secretary of State in charge of the U.S. State of Massachusetts published -.. received $ 526,000 [100] Cohmad (composed of Maurice Cohn and Madoff) in turn had received over 67 million dollars from brokers for Madoff services [101] On 22 January countered rumors the bank, the closure is imminent.

Kohn, still on 12 February would remain head of the Medici Bank could not prevent the sale of the bank, the two days was announced later. [102] The attorney Gabriel Lansky showed Kohn and other directors of the Bank for alleged fraud and breach of trust in, the prosecution began its investigations on 25 February 2009, [103].

In March 2009, the company’s website published a statement only that the bank was the victim Madoff, and that it would seek to damage. [104]

On 19 March, the Supervisory Board to close the bank, although a week before the return of the banking license, “an issue” had been. The return of the banking license means, but “not necessarily entail the liquidation of the Company,” which had 20 employees. [105]

Primeo Fund Unicredit Bank Austria [change] As part of the liquidation of the Primeo-Select fund, which was estimated at 650 million euros, was on 24 March in London held the first meeting of investors. Investors who had bought shares in Bank Austria Fund, but are not considered at this time the liquidation because they were not granted status as a shareholder of the Fund. Kroll Limited, the liquidator is in the Cayman Islands.

source: Wikipedia.de

media

Huw and Bob and written a song called Bernies Blues which can be seen and heard on youtube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.213.153 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The main photo is a mugshot. Seriously?

Could somebody please fix that. 94.222.185.215 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to fix that. It is the only good quality freely-licensed photo available, and, unlike some mug shots, doesn't place him in an obviously derogatory light. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Incarceration heading, add:

In his letter to his daughter-in-law, Madoff claimed that he was being treated in prison like a "Mafia don. They call me either Uncle Bernie or Mr. Madoff. I can't walk anywhere without someone shouting their greetings and encouragement, to keep my spirit up. It's really quite sweet, how concerned everyone is about my well being, including the staff...It's much safer here than walking the streets of New York."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/mafia-don-bernie-madoffs-boastful-letter-angry-daughter/story?id=14777562 Newsboyron (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, in accord with the principle of WP:BRD.  Chzz  ►  07:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible name change

It seems fitting to title the page Bernie Madoff, rather than Bernard Madoff, since this is the name he is best known by publicly. Flawlessfrogs (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)flawlessfrogs

We generally use a person's real name. To use his nick-name might be considered derogatory. Check WP:NAME before doing anything like this. Smallbones (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Without taking a position on this particular suggestion, I note that the first example in the Common names section of the linked article is Bill Clinton. Of course, Jimmy Carter could have been used just as easily. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support name change. I've never heard him in the news as Bernard. Small, a derogatory nickname would be Wacko Jacko, not a shortned form of his name like Bill for William or Jimmy for James. CTJF83 13:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support name change, and obviously a redirect of Bernard Madoff would be set up. 'Bernie' is a common shortening of Bernard - it's no more a nickname, let alone a derogatory nickname, than is Tom for Thomas or Eddie for Edward. Colonel Tom 05:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment A gnews search for Bernie Madoff yields twice as many hits as Bernard Madoff. So, clearly Bernie is the more commonly used name and what most people would search for if they look him up on WP.MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per proposer and common search term. (Note: This vote solicited by RFC bot. KP.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral The only google news searches that would be relevant are those that search on one name and exclude the other. If you do a google news search on "Bernard Madoff" excluding Bernie you get 5 million hits; Bernie minus Bernard yields 6 million, and a search on both yields only 1 million. So yes Bernie is a bit more common but Bernard is hardly unrecognizable. Redirect from Bernard to Bernie or vice versa is clearly essential, and with redirects in place there is little impact on searching for readers. So it's a matter of personal preference - I'd probably go for Bernie, and I think concern about it being derogatory are just laughable given who we're talking about, but let's not pretend that it's hard for readers to find him as either Bernie or Bernard. (I'm also here as a result of RFC bot request.) Tvoz/talk 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per FA examples like Magic Johnson, Frank McNamara (VC), Jerry Voorhis, etc., etc. Doc talk 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think that in making these decisions we put on blinders and pretend infamy and fame are the same. Therefore I don't think we compare Madoff with Clinton or Carter as an above post suggests. I think that we trivialize the man when we opt for his nickname when that man is not an ex-president of the United States but rather a person incarcerated for life and who apparently has accomplished little. It is a contrivance to opt for the nickname when the reader can just as easily find the article using the proper name of the individual that the article is about. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Comment - shall we then make John Henry Holliday, Edward Teach, and Clyde Barrow the main article pages for their subjects, with redirects to those pages instead of the reverse, as it is now?  Frank  |  talk  16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

John Henry Holliday and Edward Teach are historical characters. They are no longer living and WP:BLP would not necessarily apply to them. Also, the passage of time endows them with a historical patina that is probably not ours to manipulate, unless a cogent argument can be made for doing so. The names of the individuals that are the subject of those articles are already cast solidly in the form that editors have chosen: Doc Holliday and Blackbeard. As for Clyde Barrow, he doesn't actually have an article of his own. Apparently the choice was made to present as a title the popularly reported duo of Bonnie and Clyde. Perhaps separately they are not notable; I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your logic. CTJF83 17:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

CTJF83—what I am saying is that I think that out of respectfulness we should stick to the proper name. There is no cause for resorting to names that imply familiarity. As an encyclopedia source I think we should instead be conveying respect and objectivity, and I think those qualities are better conveyed by our sticking to a name embodying more rather than less propriety. I don't think that we should be opting to refer to the subject as though we were on a familiar basis with him. Rather we should opt for the terminology that conveys that we maintain distance. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am not getting the logic here. Because Madoff is alive we shouldn't prefer a familiar name to reach his article? Were the others I linked alive today, would you also suggest we use their formal names? And I also don't see the distinction between fame and infamy in your comments; as others have pointed out, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are still alive but use the familiar name. Nevertheless, if I were to meet one of them, I would far more likely address them as "Mr. President" over either their formal name or their common nickname.  Frank  |  talk  19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank—you say that "…if I were to meet one of them, I would far more likely address them as 'Mr. President' over either their formal name or their common nickname." This is a distinction predicated on fame verses infamy, or at least that in the context of ex-presidents of the United States. There are references conveying respect such as "Mr. President" but none comparable for prison convicts. All they have is their real name. What little dignity there is remaining in one's proper name should not be eroded further by reference to them by terms implying familiarity. Madoff is also an older person—one more reason not to speak of him in familiar terms. He is more than halfway through the expected lifespan of a human. There is freedom of behavior that is justified by proximity of relationship. We don't have the required proximity to Madoff to refer to him by the terminology that would imply we were on familiar terms with him. We are an encyclopedia. As such we should want to convey distance and objectivity, qualities better conveyed by proper name. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it; famous or infamous doesn't seem to be relevant. I'd probably address Madoff as "Mr. Madoff" over either familiar or formal first name anyway, at least upon first meeting him. Just common courtesy; that's not related to whether one is a former president or a prison inmate. At any rate, the discussion is started; let's see where consensus lies.  Frank  |  talk  20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

New data revealed in the NYT today Dec11-2011

Clearly the article needs revision. I have no desire to do it but here is the link for those who want to: Gatorinvancouver (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)