Jump to content

Talk:Jean-Pierre Van Rossem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

freezer?

[edit]

About his wife: and he kept her body in a freezer at the graveyard, because he suspected she was murdered and he wanted to keep the body as long as possible.

He really did this, there are lots of newspaper and magazines that have reported on this, I will try to get some references.

http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/querulant/cryonics/cryonicist.htm

Lower-right column, there is a description of the events. I will find some more

Brothels guide

[edit]

I read somewhere once that he published once a visitor's guide of the brothels of Belgium. Is this true ? Hektor 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He also ran a website and magazine on slot-car racing, can't say he's not a man of varied interests! Pete Fenelon 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytron=Ponzi?

[edit]

The article as it stands seems to state that moneytron worked (to a certain degree...) It was my understanding it was simply a Ponzi scheme and, as such, eventually doomed to failure when (enough) people wanted to cash out. 

Yeah, this article must have been written by someone that really wanted to believe him. It was 100% ponzi. Hence to need to show off with F1 racing to attract more investors. Hence also the secret "computer room" hidden behind a big bank style vault door that was actually empty. Phoxtrot (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jean-Pierre Van Rossem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean-Pierre Van Rossem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted criminal/fraudster

[edit]

An anonymous user keeps reverting the fact that Jean-Pierre Van Rossem was a convicted criminal from the lead. It is however one of the defining features of this person that he was a multiple times convicted fraudster/swindler whose "Moneytron" scheme was nothing but a fraud and that he did multiple stents in prison. In his fraudulent actions he is indeed comparable to Bernie Madoff. Reverting this defining feature of this person in the lead is a biased/NPOV action. After all, with other known fraudsters like Madoff, Kerviel, etc. this fact indeed features in the lead. So there is no reason not to mention this fact in this lead either. -- fdewaele, 3 May 2019, 10:27 CET

You are comparing van Rossem to the biggest fraudster in world history, this is absurt and can even call it defamation, he was a politician, author, painter, public figure, teacher, guru, formulla one team owner he spoke for universities, and many other things, bernie madoff was non of these, to reduce van rossem's life to that single monetron case is absurt and not correct, yes he comited fraud, but he was not foremost a criminal like john gotti, or bernie maddof that you are trying to paint him, i just ask for a little nuance. 2A02:A03F:48D8:F200:2DE2:EC2B:8C9E:437D (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Van Rossem was arguably the biggest fraudster in Belgium's history and it is one of the - if not THE - defining issues of his life so it clearly merits mentioning in the lead. He is thus very comparable with Madoff and other fraudsters. Most of the other things you mention were a direct consequence of his fraud. Without his fraudulent scheme he would never have been elected to Parliament, he would never have sponsored/owned a formula one team, and so on. Without his fraudulent moneytron scheme, Van Rossem would never have been in the public eye. Also, it's not defamation when it is true. After all it is a fact that he was a multiple times convicted criminal and fraudster and that it was not the one instance of moneytron, which defrauded investors and also siphoned that money off to the criminal circuit, but that he also knowingly used and traded forged shares of Deutsche bank. Even as recent as 2018, just before his death, he was once more convicted for new fraud, forgery, tax evasion, and got 2 years imprisonment, a fine of 12.000 euro and 390.000 euro was declared forfeited by the Belgian criminal court. The man thus never seemed to learn and kept defrauding. So I repeat: it definately was a defining issue and thus more than meritable to be mentioned in the lead. -- fdewaele, 4 May 2019, 11:24 CET.

On what data do you base the claim that van rossem was one of belgians biggest fraudsters, this is a complete fantasy from your part, wikthout any proof or data to proof your claim, van Rossem won the public eye long before he got involved with moneytron, he won the The prestigous International Scholarship of Flanders-prize at the university of ghent, also the first convicition of fraud was over ruled by the international court of stratsbourg, the second conviction before his dead, had also to with the moneytron case, and van rossem whent to the court of apeals, but he died before the apeal court date, you are a biassed person that makes unsubstantial claims based in fantasy, and i would like an unbiassed administrator to resolve this 91.181.118.29 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts straight.
Winning the 1968 Prize of the Internationale Jaarbeurs van Vlaanderen for writing a thesis is not something which brings people to the general public's eye. It's rather a niche. It only gave him the opportunity to further study at the academic level under Lawrence Klein. It is something that features in an obituary but will not fill the newspapers of the day.
His conviction was never overturned by the ECHR, they don't even have the power to do that. They can only find in a given case that there was a breach of the ETHR and order monetary compensation. But that does not vacate a conviction. In his case the ECHR found a breach because the police didn't ahere to the rules with regards to a certain house search that took place on 24 juni 1990. Because his criminal conviction was never vacated by the Belgian Court of Cassation it still stands. And he didn't even get that monetary compensatory reward as it was later on refused by the Belgian courts (https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/van-rossem-verliest-juridische-strijd-na-22-jaar~be3d1c76/)
With regards to his final conviction: he indeed died before the appeal but that doesn't mean that the underlying facts of the case (which was based on fraud because he ha da higher living standard that his official income and thus was thought to have kept some of his illgotten Moneytron gains hiden - remember tat Al Capone was also caught for tax fraud and leving above his standard) dissapear or that the conviction is wiped out from history.
Without his fraudulent Moneytron scheme, for which he was convicted, all the things he did from the eighties on would have been impossible. The fraudulent scheme is the defining point of his life and he will always be connected to it.
As to resorting to the name calling: it is not me but it seems more likely you who are pushing a biased agenda. It is an established fact that he is a convicted criminal with regards to Moneytron, fraud, forgery, tax evasion.
I have no problem with third party mediation but even while appealing to that you keep reverting the text away from the original (plus you revert to a grammatically incorrect version of the first sentence), so let's say I don't have much trust in an anonymous user's promises... -- fdewaele, 4 May 2019, 14:00 CET.

So now you are comparing him to Al Capone? Al Capone, Bernie Madoff, who's next? And you claim that he's the biggest fraudster belgium has ever seen, where is the proof? plus you claim that the fraud conviction is the begining of his public carreer? Van Rossem did his first radio interview in 1987 on the dutch VPRO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKcZVqm8qk4&t , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whJzcU3fdY0 and already published economic articles in various newspapers like le monde this was before the whole Moneytron saga, so your claim is false, and you have no proof for it what so ever, dus based in fantasy, it is clear that you want to paint him as a great criminal, witch is simply not true, yes he was convicted of fraud, but he is not the kind of criminal like al capone or bernie madoff that you try to paint him, he was not involved in organized crime or the Cosa Nostra, and i am not doing namecalling, but you just did, by sugesting i am iliterate. 91.181.118.29 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the intent on whitewashing Van Rossem? He was a career criminal. If you look at the number of convictions Van Rossem had during his life, it was not the one instance of Moneytron for which he was prosecuted and convicted. His criminal career already began with a conviction and jailtime in 1971 for forgery and using blank cheques. He was convicted and sentenced to jail in separate cases in 1971, 1973 (4 years jail), 1991/1995 (Moneytron, 5 years jail) and lastly in 2018 (2 years jail but appeal process ended due to his death making the conviction moot). The common factor always being fraud and forgery. Given those facts there is no other conclusion that he was he was a career fraud criminal, which is worth explicitly mentioning in the lead. The way you formulate it, it seems as if his criminal career was confined to the 90s. Which was definitely not the case.
You are twisting my words. What I repeatedly said is that his Moneytron fraud was the defining moment of his career/life and he did get convicted for it and spent years in jail. In 1987 his Moneytron scheme was already up and running. And Moneytron was not “accidently” fraud but was designed from the get go to defraud the customers and enrich himself. Making the criminal intent of the perpetrator obvious.
Without his Moneytron-fraud he would never have gotten the media attention he had for the rest of his life, nor the riches to spent during is heyday, nor would he have been able to create a visible enough profile to get elected to Parliament (which handily also meant inviolability for criminal persecution).
So, yes with regards to Moneytron he was indeed like Bernie Madoff (of course with regards to a lower amount of $ involved) in that he with Moneytron also concocted a ponzi scheme to explicitly defraud investors (to the tune of 32 billion Belgian francs (or about 793 million euros not adjusted for inflation), which if it wasn’t the greatest Belgian fraud it sure is amongst the greater) who he had promised the stars. The wiki article on ponzi schemes even lists Moneytron as exact such a scheme. It was also catalogued as one by the Belgian courts (http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20110701_110)
But even into the 2010s according the Belgian courts, he continued scheming. The antifraud section found numerous suspicious transactions on the bank accounts of Van Rossem’s girlfriend, his son and his son’s company. Cash deposits of suspicious origin which were then taken out in cash again. The bankrupt Van Rossem still managed a luxurious lifestyle buying cars and other goods all in cash while officially having no money (so he didn’t have to repay his victims) nor (besides a small pension) an income. https://derijkstebelgen.be/nieuws/verborgen-luxe-leven-van-jean-pierre-van-rossem-eindigt-in-twee-jaar-effectieve-cel
I thus made the analogy with Al Capone with regards to Van Rossem's last conviction: both he and Capone were prosecuted because they were living "above their means" and not for any other criminal act. The government considered that (amongst other things) tax fraud because both Capone and Van Rossem did not declare their income correctly. That's the analogy. In Van Rossem's case the courts claimed that the not declared income was part of the ill-gotten gains of Moneytron he had successfully managed to hide.
Lastly, you keep reverting to a version which (besides limiting it to the 90s) is linguistically not correct. Haven't you noticed the incorrect punctuation? -- fdewaele, 4 May 2019, 16:03 CET.

I don't want to whitewash Van Rossem at all, i just want nuance, and most of all facts no assumptions and myths, so he was a fraudster, we agree on that, i pointed to the 90's because that is the case that the media and everyone else talks about, because he was also convicted of driving to fast and driving without insurance and so on, we can put that also in his biography then?, it is the moneytron case that got all the atention, the case in 2018 was also related to the moneytron case, as it is about money from the then moneytron case that was withold

but what i do not agree on is that the moneytron system was designed from the beginning to defraud investors, because there is no proof of that, that is just an assumption, but we do not know the facts about this.

you claim also that he became a politician to get inviolability? the man wrote countless atricles, and books about both national and international politics his entire life, just look at his facebook page, or website he also was invited and did many political debates, he had 3 political parties of his own, Rossem, Rossem 2, and Anderz, so this again is an asumption.

ypu also claim that he was a belgian bernie madoff because his moneytron system was a ponzi scheme, well according to some it was, according others, including the person who ownes the website https://derijkstebelgen.be claims that it was a white wash operation for black money, and not a ponzi scheme, so who's right in this matter, i also see articles that claim that van rossem was convicted for selling duplicated stocks, plus the 793 million, that you mention there is no proof of this what so ever, this is what van rossem always claimed himself, but there is no proof to support this claim, it could be less it could be more, do you have acces to court documents regarding this matter? i do not

you point at this entry as proof ponzi schemes well it might suprise you but i am the one who wrote it there, and after concideration it was wrong for me to do that, becuase apart from a few articles there is no proof at all

and comparing him to Al capone, that is just framing sorry, then you can compare him to Marc dutroux also, becuase marc dutroux also did not declare his income, and defrauded the government, Al capone was a mafia boss in the cosa nostra that was responsible for murders, and a whole bunch of other crimes, i think u heard this from Bart de wever in the media, when he talks about the drug crime problem in Antwerp, but this has nothing to do with van rossem 91.181.118.29 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you are doing is definately not nuancing things but rather trying to hide the fact the man made an entire career out of defrauding people. From the 1970s til the 2010s he was convicted on at least 4 separate occasions for fraud. There is no reason why he should be treated with kid gloves to “nuance” what he did. The article should at least mention he’s a “multiple times convicted felon”.
As to Moneytron: most of the media AND the Belgian criminal justice system have labelled it a ponzi scheme. JPVR himself repeatedly said in interviews he wanted to “fuck the system” with it. As the courts have stated it that way in their rulings, there is no reason to say it was not. There is also no reason to distrust various Belgian newspaper articles which plainly state that it was such a scheme (https://moneytalk.knack.be/geld-en-beurs/beleggen/ponzi-uitvinder-van-de-eeuw/article-normal-400669.html?cookie_check=1557050229 ) or even explicitly state the courts did label it so. See for instance http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20110701_110
You’ll see that even De Standaard directly connects Van Rossem and Madoff. The newspaper clearly stated with regards to JPVR in 2011 “But much earlier Belgium had it’s own Madoff […]”
In fact derijkstebelgen.be in 2018 explictly also stated Moneytron to be a ponzi scheme: https://derijkstebelgen.be/nieuws/verborgen-luxe-leven-van-jean-pierre-van-rossem-eindigt-in-twee-jaar-effectieve-cel
You claim to have written that part of the article on ponzi schemes but there is no way to verify that claim as you always use changing anonymous IP adresses. So that’s no argument at all.
And as Reagan once said… “there you go again”. You make a habit of twisting words. I never said that he went into politics purely to get inviolability I said “Without his Moneytron-fraud he would never have gotten the media attention he had for the rest of his life, nor the riches to spent during is heyday, nor would he have been able to create a visible enough profile to get elected to Parliament (which handily also meant inviolability for criminal persecution).” Which is definately not what you are saying I said. After all it is a fact that his inviolability became handy because it meant that his trial had to be postponed for four years. De Standaard though did actually hint in the above provided link JPVR went into politics to postpone the court case though.
Comparing him to Capone is not a framing story. We were discussing his latest conviction which was based on the fact JPVR was living above his means and that that fact was used by the criminal justice system to initiate prosecutionfor alongst other things tax fraud. There were historical international precedents for that like Capone where just the same fact was used to initiate procesution without linking it to other crimles he may or may not have committed. – fdewaele, 5 May 2019, 12:10 CET.

death ?

[edit]

He gave a few "last interviews". First at a student which made it into a very poor made interview. THen later a docu-series of a few episodes featuring him meeting people from his carreer and life. During this time he was under investigation and he stated he will never go back to jail, and suggested he had a way to commit suicide. And would use it if he'd be called to go back to prison.

Shortly after being convicted again in his old age, he passed away. Anyone who has seen these last interviews of him are certain he has comitted suicide following the courts decision. but nowhere it's been reported officially. "cause of death is unknown for now"

Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCvOakmU6M


Feature on his, preceding his death by a few months: https://www.vier.be/van-rossem/jean-pierre-van-rossem-overleden-vier-zendt-laatste-tv-interview-vanavond-uit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.48.163 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Rossem is not a Marxist

[edit]

Van Rossem is not a Marxist, he has anarchist ideas, he believes in Liberty, freedom, individualism, he was anti-state, anti-authority he advocated the austrian school of economics (pure capitalism), and he had a libertarian party, so please stop calling him Marxist, he was not! thanks

he explains it here himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fNv6br2Lw (look timestamps 07:13 to 07:56) 87.65.48.152 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Pierre_Van_Rossem&oldid=1208822741"