ST JOHN’S, Antigua – Former Stanford Development Company (SDC) Director Barbara Street will be appealing a recent and second High Court judgment that SDC has no properly constituted Board of Directors, and therefore she is not a director.
In her ruling, Justice Pearletta Lanns said Street should cease to describe herself as SDC’s director given that “at best, her directorship expired in 2010.”
Apart from challenging the ruling, Street is also appealing a decision of the Registrar of Companies who denied her application to resume directorship of SDC.
“We have filed an application to compel the registrar to act upon the filing because we have made an application to the registrar since last year and she had not responded,” said Hugh Marshall Jr, who is Street’s attorney.
He said directorships expire every year and have to be reappointed.
“We have done that but the registrar has not accepted any of the filings and hasn’t stated why,” he added.
Justice Lanns’ decision arose out of a claim filed by Stanford International Bank (SIB) (acting through its joint liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickenson).
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Showing posts with label FSRC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FSRC. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Allen Stanford: From Billionaire to Inmate
By Jeanine Ibrahim | CNBC
The case of Allen Stanford, a former billionaire who once allegedly sealed a deal with blood and is currently serving a 110-year federal prison sentence, could soon be back in the headlines. A federal judge ruled last month that investors could proceed with a lawsuit that alleges the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was negligent in its handling of the fraud.
Texas-born Robert Allen Stanford exuded wealth. At his height in 2008, he was one of the richest men in America, listed on the Forbes 400, and worth an estimated $2.2 billion.
He defined conspicuous consumption. In one three year period alone, he spent $100 million on aircraft, which included helicopters and private Lear Jets. He even spent $12 million lengthening his yacht by just 6 feet.
As it happened, however, Stanford indulged in these perks with ill-gotten gains. In early 2009, the scale and scope of Stanford's extravagances finally caught up to him.
Stanford was eventually convicted of selling fraudulent certificates of deposit from his offshore bank on the island of Antigua in an international $7 billion Ponzi scheme, a case that drew comparisons to disgraced broker Bernie Madoff's multibillion dollar fraud. To date, none of the more than 20,000 investors he bilked have recovered any money.
In their lawsuit, the investors claim that on four instances and as early as 1997, the SEC determined that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme. Still, the agency did not act accordingly and failed to notify the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Investigators did not bring charges against Stanford until 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis.
The government moved to dismiss the case, but U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected the motion. He ruled that if the SEC knew Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme as alleged by plaintiffs, the agency was obligated to report it. Scola added that the government could argue that it did not know Stanford was running a fraud if and when the case moved to summary judgment.
SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment to "American Greed." Nonetheless, the attorney for the investors, Gaytri Kachroo, said the ruling was significant. "It truly provides the investing public a precedent and therefore the hope that a case against the SEC can succeed if meritorious under the law," the lawyer said.
A Conman's Bogus Empire of Epic Proportions
Beyond fancy toys, Stanford bought a small island for $63 million. He owned mansions in Houston, Antigua, and St. Croix. And in Coral Gables, Fla. an enormous 18,000 square foot castle. It was fit for a king: the property included 57 rooms, a tower and a moat. Yet after just one year of living there, he grew tired of the sprawling estate - moving out and having it demolished.
He also loved the game of cricket. By 2008, he was considered the world's number one promoter of the sport, even offering up a $20 million cash prize, the largest ever for a team sporting event, for a match in London.
Yet according to the U.S. Attorney's office, Stanford was not playing with honest money. He got it by siphoning off loans to himself, approximately $2.2 billion from depositor's CD holdings, without ever revealing these loans to investors.
From Brash Texan to Big Money Banker
Stanford grew up in a small town 90 miles south of Dallas. Much like his home-state, everything about the man was Texas-sized.
Doug Birdsong, who used to workout with Stanford, recalled him as a muscular man, standing 6'5" and weighing about 330 pounds. "He was the biggest, he was the best, and he was the boss," Birdsong told "American Greed."
His early business ventures ended in failure. After losing a string of health clubs to bankruptcy in 1982 and racking up $13 million in personal debt, Stanford took a few more stabs at entrepreneurship before heading to the Caribbean, where he first entered banking.
He founded "Stanford International Bank" in 1991 on Antigua. It was there that he laid the foundation of his empire, becoming the island's largest employer.
He targeted wealthy Latin Americans worried about the stability of their governments, and it worked. Within three years, the bank's assets skyrocketed to $350 million.
One year later, he moved into the U.S. market, establishing Stanford Financial Group in Houston. The company became known for selling certificate of deposits (CDs). Synonymous with safety, CDs seemed like a smart choice for potential buyers. As Stanford's investors piled into these instruments, in less than a decade the group grew to $3 billion.
Unwitting investors, however, had no idea that Stanford's CDs were anything but safe.
A Scam from the Start
Yet suspicions rose in 2005 when SEC investigators began taking a hard look at Stanford Financial Group, specifically his Certificates of Deposit from Antigua. Three years later, when two whistleblowers came forward, the agency was handed hard proof of Stanford's fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Pelletier got the case from the SEC. He landed a huge break when Jim Davis - Stanford's right-hand man since the 1980's and the company's chief financial officer - agreed to talk in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Davis confessed that from his first day on the job, the company simply made up numbers and cooked the books. "That's what his job was as CFO, and he continued to do that from 1987 or '88 all the way until 2009," Pelletier said.
When they first started the business, Davis said Stanford could do whatever he wanted on Antigua. He had the island's chief banking regulator in his back pocket. In a bizarre twist, the two even sealed a bribery scheme deal by becoming "blood brothers," cutting their fingers to mix their blood, according to Davis.
A decade-and-a-half after Stanford Financial Group first opened its Houston headquarters, the SEC shut its U.S. operations down. In June 2009, Stanford was mired in charges of fraud, conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Throughout his trial, however, the former high-flying billionaire steadfastly maintained his innocence. He attempted to put the blame on Davis, but a jury did not buy his story. This March, he was found guilty on 13 counts, and later sentenced to more than a century in prison.
Investors Devastated by Economic Homicide
Many of the investors at the sentencing were satisfied, with Sandra Dorrell being one of them.
In 2005, after selling off an office furniture business, she invested her money in the Stanford Group's CDs. A single mother who was battling a rare, life-threatening condition called Caroli's disease, she had planned to use her investment to give her peace of mind and financial security as she endured medical treatment.
Instead, she lost every penny.
"To lose $1.3 million to someone that absolutely stole the money from me is just horrific," Dorrell told CNBC's "American Greed."
Fellow investor Cassie Wilkinson, who along with her husband lost six-figures to Stanford's treachery, agreed.
"The sentencing for crimes like this has become so big and so long that they're comparing it to economic homicide, and really, that's what it is," she said. "Someone murdered the life that I knew, that I worked hard for. We were not born with money; we earned every single penny," Wilkinson added.
For 62-year-old Stanford, a projected release date of 2105 is a life sentence -one that he deserves, according to many of his victims.
The case of Allen Stanford, a former billionaire who once allegedly sealed a deal with blood and is currently serving a 110-year federal prison sentence, could soon be back in the headlines. A federal judge ruled last month that investors could proceed with a lawsuit that alleges the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was negligent in its handling of the fraud.
He defined conspicuous consumption. In one three year period alone, he spent $100 million on aircraft, which included helicopters and private Lear Jets. He even spent $12 million lengthening his yacht by just 6 feet.
As it happened, however, Stanford indulged in these perks with ill-gotten gains. In early 2009, the scale and scope of Stanford's extravagances finally caught up to him.
Stanford was eventually convicted of selling fraudulent certificates of deposit from his offshore bank on the island of Antigua in an international $7 billion Ponzi scheme, a case that drew comparisons to disgraced broker Bernie Madoff's multibillion dollar fraud. To date, none of the more than 20,000 investors he bilked have recovered any money.
In their lawsuit, the investors claim that on four instances and as early as 1997, the SEC determined that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme. Still, the agency did not act accordingly and failed to notify the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Investigators did not bring charges against Stanford until 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis.
The government moved to dismiss the case, but U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected the motion. He ruled that if the SEC knew Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme as alleged by plaintiffs, the agency was obligated to report it. Scola added that the government could argue that it did not know Stanford was running a fraud if and when the case moved to summary judgment.
SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment to "American Greed." Nonetheless, the attorney for the investors, Gaytri Kachroo, said the ruling was significant. "It truly provides the investing public a precedent and therefore the hope that a case against the SEC can succeed if meritorious under the law," the lawyer said.
A Conman's Bogus Empire of Epic Proportions
Beyond fancy toys, Stanford bought a small island for $63 million. He owned mansions in Houston, Antigua, and St. Croix. And in Coral Gables, Fla. an enormous 18,000 square foot castle. It was fit for a king: the property included 57 rooms, a tower and a moat. Yet after just one year of living there, he grew tired of the sprawling estate - moving out and having it demolished.
He also loved the game of cricket. By 2008, he was considered the world's number one promoter of the sport, even offering up a $20 million cash prize, the largest ever for a team sporting event, for a match in London.
Yet according to the U.S. Attorney's office, Stanford was not playing with honest money. He got it by siphoning off loans to himself, approximately $2.2 billion from depositor's CD holdings, without ever revealing these loans to investors.
From Brash Texan to Big Money Banker
Stanford grew up in a small town 90 miles south of Dallas. Much like his home-state, everything about the man was Texas-sized.
Doug Birdsong, who used to workout with Stanford, recalled him as a muscular man, standing 6'5" and weighing about 330 pounds. "He was the biggest, he was the best, and he was the boss," Birdsong told "American Greed."
His early business ventures ended in failure. After losing a string of health clubs to bankruptcy in 1982 and racking up $13 million in personal debt, Stanford took a few more stabs at entrepreneurship before heading to the Caribbean, where he first entered banking.
He founded "Stanford International Bank" in 1991 on Antigua. It was there that he laid the foundation of his empire, becoming the island's largest employer.
He targeted wealthy Latin Americans worried about the stability of their governments, and it worked. Within three years, the bank's assets skyrocketed to $350 million.
One year later, he moved into the U.S. market, establishing Stanford Financial Group in Houston. The company became known for selling certificate of deposits (CDs). Synonymous with safety, CDs seemed like a smart choice for potential buyers. As Stanford's investors piled into these instruments, in less than a decade the group grew to $3 billion.
Unwitting investors, however, had no idea that Stanford's CDs were anything but safe.
A Scam from the Start
Yet suspicions rose in 2005 when SEC investigators began taking a hard look at Stanford Financial Group, specifically his Certificates of Deposit from Antigua. Three years later, when two whistleblowers came forward, the agency was handed hard proof of Stanford's fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Pelletier got the case from the SEC. He landed a huge break when Jim Davis - Stanford's right-hand man since the 1980's and the company's chief financial officer - agreed to talk in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Davis confessed that from his first day on the job, the company simply made up numbers and cooked the books. "That's what his job was as CFO, and he continued to do that from 1987 or '88 all the way until 2009," Pelletier said.
When they first started the business, Davis said Stanford could do whatever he wanted on Antigua. He had the island's chief banking regulator in his back pocket. In a bizarre twist, the two even sealed a bribery scheme deal by becoming "blood brothers," cutting their fingers to mix their blood, according to Davis.
A decade-and-a-half after Stanford Financial Group first opened its Houston headquarters, the SEC shut its U.S. operations down. In June 2009, Stanford was mired in charges of fraud, conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Throughout his trial, however, the former high-flying billionaire steadfastly maintained his innocence. He attempted to put the blame on Davis, but a jury did not buy his story. This March, he was found guilty on 13 counts, and later sentenced to more than a century in prison.
Investors Devastated by Economic Homicide
Many of the investors at the sentencing were satisfied, with Sandra Dorrell being one of them.
In 2005, after selling off an office furniture business, she invested her money in the Stanford Group's CDs. A single mother who was battling a rare, life-threatening condition called Caroli's disease, she had planned to use her investment to give her peace of mind and financial security as she endured medical treatment.
Instead, she lost every penny.
"To lose $1.3 million to someone that absolutely stole the money from me is just horrific," Dorrell told CNBC's "American Greed."
Fellow investor Cassie Wilkinson, who along with her husband lost six-figures to Stanford's treachery, agreed.
"The sentencing for crimes like this has become so big and so long that they're comparing it to economic homicide, and really, that's what it is," she said. "Someone murdered the life that I knew, that I worked hard for. We were not born with money; we earned every single penny," Wilkinson added.
For 62-year-old Stanford, a projected release date of 2105 is a life sentence -one that he deserves, according to many of his victims.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
The Allen Stanford Story Doesn't End With The Guilty Verdict
Thursday, March 15, 2012 Chattanoogan.com
Prominent local attorney, Lee Davis, offered several interesting comments on the Allen Stanford trial and the recent "guilty" verdicts handed down on 13 of 14 charges of criminal conduct. This sordid story does not end with these verdicts, not hardly.
A mere piker compared to Madoff,s roughly $68 billion Ponzi scheme, Stanford and his cronies fleeced investors around the globe for approximately $7 billion.
But far more damage lies beneath the surface of this oil spill of greed and avarice. Where were the federal regulators? Missing in action? Where were the Antiguan authorites? Bought and sold? Numerous complaints and reports given to various federal agencies, the SEC, FINRA and NASD, fell upon blind eyes and deaf ears. In fact, one of FINRA's district directors, Bernerd Young, became managing director of Compliance for the Stanford firm. Leroy King, former director of Antigua's Financial Regulatory Commission, stands indicted on many related charges, but has yet to be extradited.
Many doubt that Baldwin Spencer, Antigua's Prime Minister, will sign the extradition order. His vocal pledges of cooperation are at odds with his inability to act on the matter. As with the Madoff aftermath, various federal agencies are feuding and finger pointing, the victims are struggling to recover lost funds and wondering who, if anyone, cares about their rights and losses. This ain't cricket.
Prominent local attorney, Lee Davis, offered several interesting comments on the Allen Stanford trial and the recent "guilty" verdicts handed down on 13 of 14 charges of criminal conduct. This sordid story does not end with these verdicts, not hardly.
A mere piker compared to Madoff,s roughly $68 billion Ponzi scheme, Stanford and his cronies fleeced investors around the globe for approximately $7 billion.
But far more damage lies beneath the surface of this oil spill of greed and avarice. Where were the federal regulators? Missing in action? Where were the Antiguan authorites? Bought and sold? Numerous complaints and reports given to various federal agencies, the SEC, FINRA and NASD, fell upon blind eyes and deaf ears. In fact, one of FINRA's district directors, Bernerd Young, became managing director of Compliance for the Stanford firm. Leroy King, former director of Antigua's Financial Regulatory Commission, stands indicted on many related charges, but has yet to be extradited.
Many doubt that Baldwin Spencer, Antigua's Prime Minister, will sign the extradition order. His vocal pledges of cooperation are at odds with his inability to act on the matter. As with the Madoff aftermath, various federal agencies are feuding and finger pointing, the victims are struggling to recover lost funds and wondering who, if anyone, cares about their rights and losses. This ain't cricket.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
PM: King extradition a work in progress
ST JOHN'S, Antigua - Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, who also holds the External Affairs portfolio, is awaiting a response from Leroy King to determine how he will proceed with an extradition request from the United States government.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission charged King, former head of the Financial Services and Regulatory Commission (FSRC), with 21 counts relating to wire, mail and securities fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The charges relate to an alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme said to have been masterminded by R Allen Stanford.
High Court judge Mario Michel, last week, upheld a 2009 committal order for King to be extradited.
The ruling placed the matter in Spencer's hands, under his external affairs mandate.
Spencer said he has followed the steps in the Extradition Act by writing to King.
OBSERVER understands this was done last Friday. The law gives King 15 days to respond.
"There are some preliminary steps that have to be taken in that regard. The individual has to be written to, informing him that the courts have ruled in a particular way and that he should be given some time to respond to that.
"He may have reasons that he wishes to advance as to why he probably should not be extradited. According to the law that process has to take place.
"I have done the initial thing - that is to write to him indicating certain things and to request of him to respond. It's at that point I will have the opportunity to make the final determination," Spencer said.
The prime minister declined to comment on the Stanford trial, which began on January 24 and which has already heard testimony from witnesses, at home and abroad, about how the Texan exerted influence on those who should have been the gatekeepers.
Spencer was cautious, saying that he, like the rest of the world, is waiting to "see how things unfold."
"I am not in a position to make any judgment or assessment of the situation," he said.
Stanford, once the largest private sector employee in Antigua, was charged with 21 federal criminal counts. He pleaded not guilty to a revised 14-count indictment and said that if his company was involved in any illegal activity, it was the fault of his former chief financial officer, James Davis.
Davis, the prosecution's star witness, has pleaded guilty to three counts:
conspiracy to commit mail, wire and securities fraud; mail fraud; and conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission charged King, former head of the Financial Services and Regulatory Commission (FSRC), with 21 counts relating to wire, mail and securities fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The charges relate to an alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme said to have been masterminded by R Allen Stanford.
High Court judge Mario Michel, last week, upheld a 2009 committal order for King to be extradited.
The ruling placed the matter in Spencer's hands, under his external affairs mandate.
Spencer said he has followed the steps in the Extradition Act by writing to King.
OBSERVER understands this was done last Friday. The law gives King 15 days to respond.
"There are some preliminary steps that have to be taken in that regard. The individual has to be written to, informing him that the courts have ruled in a particular way and that he should be given some time to respond to that.
"He may have reasons that he wishes to advance as to why he probably should not be extradited. According to the law that process has to take place.
"I have done the initial thing - that is to write to him indicating certain things and to request of him to respond. It's at that point I will have the opportunity to make the final determination," Spencer said.
The prime minister declined to comment on the Stanford trial, which began on January 24 and which has already heard testimony from witnesses, at home and abroad, about how the Texan exerted influence on those who should have been the gatekeepers.
Spencer was cautious, saying that he, like the rest of the world, is waiting to "see how things unfold."
"I am not in a position to make any judgment or assessment of the situation," he said.
Stanford, once the largest private sector employee in Antigua, was charged with 21 federal criminal counts. He pleaded not guilty to a revised 14-count indictment and said that if his company was involved in any illegal activity, it was the fault of his former chief financial officer, James Davis.
Davis, the prosecution's star witness, has pleaded guilty to three counts:
conspiracy to commit mail, wire and securities fraud; mail fraud; and conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Regulator recalls Stanford's job offer
By Terri Langford
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The day after Paul Ashe took a post as a bank regulator in Antigua, R. Allen
Stanford called him with an offer for a job that would make him "a very
happy man" for the rest of his life, Ashe testified Thursday in Stanford's
fraud trial.
Ashe, supervisor of international banks for Antigua's Financial Services
Regulatory Commission, indicated he quickly ended the conversation with
Stanford in February 2008, did not know what job Stanford was proposing and
didn't follow up.
Later that year, Ashe participated in an examination of Stanford
International Bank in the Caribbean island nation and eventually came to
doubt the accuracy of its financial reports.
He also described panic among depositors in February 2009, when a U.S.
lawsuit against the bank's parent company, Houston-based Stanford Financial
Group, froze the assets of all Stanford properties.
"It was total chaos. The customers were screaming for their money," Ashe
told the jury in U.S. District Judge David Hittner's court.
Stanford, 61, a Mexia native, is accused of running a $7 billion investment
scam, largely through certificates of deposit issued by Stanford
International Bank.
Among the allegations are that investors were told the bank passed muster
from regulators and an independent auditor, and that an auditor and
regulator received bribes in exchange for those favourable reports.
Ashe said that he served during part of the tenure of the regulator accused
of taking bribes, Leroy King, former head of the Financial Services
Regulatory Commission.
Super Bowl tickets
Ashe testified he was unaware of under-the-table cash payments or gifts of
Super Bowl tickets King is accused of taking and said that Antiguan law
prohibits regulators from accepting gifts worth more than $50.
King is charged in a separate indictment, along with three Stanford
Financial officials, all to be tried later.
Ashe also described his own efforts to examine the bank in his official
capacity.
He said that after weeks of "hardball" from the bank resisting meetings with
regulators, a team of half a dozen met with bank officials in September
2008.
"We wanted to see how Stanford International Bank was actually making its
money," Ashe said. He said he was surprised by the paucity of documents
detailing oversight by the bank's board.
He also said he was concerned by loans from the bank to Stanford, which he
wasn't sure were supported by the cash reserves required under Antiguan law.
According to testimony by previous witnesses, the bank loaned Stanford
millions of dollars for his personal use and business ventures, even though
investors in the CDs were told their deposits were invested conservatively
and not used for such lending.
Fleet and estate
Jurors also got a description Thursday of Stanford's luxurious life, as a
personal assistant described his fleet of vessels and estate in St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
"He always liked having the best," said Kelly Taylor, who, along with her
then-husband, worked for Stanford for several years. At one point their
tasks included overseeing the $13 million renovation of the Sea Eagle, a
106-foot yacht Stanford purchased for $4 million and extended to 112 feet.
The two-year renovation in the Netherlands began in 2003, Taylor said. She
and her husband spent time there, and Stanford visited at least once to
inspect the progress.
Stanford's other vessels included a 180-foot rescue tug that Stanford bought
to support the Sea Eagle, a 55-foot "weekend boat," and a 30-foot fishing
boat, Taylor said.
Difficult boss
She described Stanford as a difficult boss, and said she and other employees
jokingly referred to their jobs as "stand by to stand by" because they
always were on call to respond to his often-changing demands.
She also detailed quirks including his insistence that dry cleaning be sent
from St. Croix to Florida or Texas, and that water be shipped in. She said
she once was tasked with finding koi of a certain size and colour to stock a pond for a cricket tournament in Antigua.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The day after Paul Ashe took a post as a bank regulator in Antigua, R. Allen
Stanford called him with an offer for a job that would make him "a very
happy man" for the rest of his life, Ashe testified Thursday in Stanford's
fraud trial.
Ashe, supervisor of international banks for Antigua's Financial Services
Regulatory Commission, indicated he quickly ended the conversation with
Stanford in February 2008, did not know what job Stanford was proposing and
didn't follow up.
Later that year, Ashe participated in an examination of Stanford
International Bank in the Caribbean island nation and eventually came to
doubt the accuracy of its financial reports.
He also described panic among depositors in February 2009, when a U.S.
lawsuit against the bank's parent company, Houston-based Stanford Financial
Group, froze the assets of all Stanford properties.
"It was total chaos. The customers were screaming for their money," Ashe
told the jury in U.S. District Judge David Hittner's court.
Stanford, 61, a Mexia native, is accused of running a $7 billion investment
scam, largely through certificates of deposit issued by Stanford
International Bank.
Among the allegations are that investors were told the bank passed muster
from regulators and an independent auditor, and that an auditor and
regulator received bribes in exchange for those favourable reports.
Ashe said that he served during part of the tenure of the regulator accused
of taking bribes, Leroy King, former head of the Financial Services
Regulatory Commission.
Super Bowl tickets
Ashe testified he was unaware of under-the-table cash payments or gifts of
Super Bowl tickets King is accused of taking and said that Antiguan law
prohibits regulators from accepting gifts worth more than $50.
King is charged in a separate indictment, along with three Stanford
Financial officials, all to be tried later.
Ashe also described his own efforts to examine the bank in his official
capacity.
He said that after weeks of "hardball" from the bank resisting meetings with
regulators, a team of half a dozen met with bank officials in September
2008.
"We wanted to see how Stanford International Bank was actually making its
money," Ashe said. He said he was surprised by the paucity of documents
detailing oversight by the bank's board.
He also said he was concerned by loans from the bank to Stanford, which he
wasn't sure were supported by the cash reserves required under Antiguan law.
According to testimony by previous witnesses, the bank loaned Stanford
millions of dollars for his personal use and business ventures, even though
investors in the CDs were told their deposits were invested conservatively
and not used for such lending.
Fleet and estate
Jurors also got a description Thursday of Stanford's luxurious life, as a
personal assistant described his fleet of vessels and estate in St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
"He always liked having the best," said Kelly Taylor, who, along with her
then-husband, worked for Stanford for several years. At one point their
tasks included overseeing the $13 million renovation of the Sea Eagle, a
106-foot yacht Stanford purchased for $4 million and extended to 112 feet.
The two-year renovation in the Netherlands began in 2003, Taylor said. She
and her husband spent time there, and Stanford visited at least once to
inspect the progress.
Stanford's other vessels included a 180-foot rescue tug that Stanford bought
to support the Sea Eagle, a 55-foot "weekend boat," and a 30-foot fishing
boat, Taylor said.
Difficult boss
She described Stanford as a difficult boss, and said she and other employees
jokingly referred to their jobs as "stand by to stand by" because they
always were on call to respond to his often-changing demands.
She also detailed quirks including his insistence that dry cleaning be sent
from St. Croix to Florida or Texas, and that water be shipped in. She said
she once was tasked with finding koi of a certain size and colour to stock a pond for a cricket tournament in Antigua.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
All Eyes on King
Tuesday, 07 February 2012 02:30 caribarena news Antigua News - police
Antigua St John's - Former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) Leroy King is awaiting the final decision from the minister of External Affairs on whether he will stand trial in the United States for mail, wire, and securities fraud, among other offences.
High Court judge Justice Mario Michel dismissed King's judicial review application on Monday and upheld former chief magistrate Ivan Walters'
decision to commit King to be extradited.
The court also denied King's application to have the former chief magistrate's committal order quashed.
King was jointly charged with four others in 2009, including investor R Allen Stanford, and indicted by a US grand jury in Texas.
Michel, during his hour-and-a-half long judgment, said there had been ample evidence before the former chief magistrate to establish a prima facie case for wire fraud.
He pointed to the evidence of former Stanford business partner and associate James Davis, US district attorney Greg Costa, and other documentary evidence.
The judge disagreed with submissions by King's attorney, Dane Hamilton QC, that the case against the former head of the FSRC was unsupported hearsay.
Michel instead agreed with arguments from Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP) Anthony Armstrong that there was independent evidence detailing King's participation in the alleged fraud.
King's involvement in the matter was evident, according to Michel, by King's own actions and words, in that he defended Stanford International Bank Limited (SIBL) in the face of mounting concerns from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Hamilton's claim that the US offences with which King is charged do not have similar offences in Antigua & Barbuda was also dismissed by the court.
Michel said wire fraud is equivalent to obtaining money by false pretence, and added that it is not the offence, but the conduct, that is equivalent.
He said the former chief magistrate did not err in finding that wire fraud and obtaining money by false pretence were extradition crimes.
Conspiracy to pervert the court of justice, as with the US charge, he said, is equivalent to perverting the course of justice in Antigua & Barbuda. Both offences have the same genus and have extra territorial application, Michel ruled. He said Walters' decision on these grounds could not be faulted.
Hamilton made application for bail on King's behalf on Monday, and his client was released on $500,000, with two sureties and a cash deposit of $110,000 required.
King has to report daily to the St John's Police Station, and must not leave his Marina Bay home unless he is accompanied by one of his two sureties.
These were the same terms originally set down by Walters when King first appeared before the court in June 2009.
King is to abide by these conditions until his surrender to US authorities, or further notice.
Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, as minister of External Affairs, will have the final say in relation to King being sent to the US to stand trial.
Antigua St John's - Former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) Leroy King is awaiting the final decision from the minister of External Affairs on whether he will stand trial in the United States for mail, wire, and securities fraud, among other offences.
High Court judge Justice Mario Michel dismissed King's judicial review application on Monday and upheld former chief magistrate Ivan Walters'
decision to commit King to be extradited.
The court also denied King's application to have the former chief magistrate's committal order quashed.
King was jointly charged with four others in 2009, including investor R Allen Stanford, and indicted by a US grand jury in Texas.
Michel, during his hour-and-a-half long judgment, said there had been ample evidence before the former chief magistrate to establish a prima facie case for wire fraud.
He pointed to the evidence of former Stanford business partner and associate James Davis, US district attorney Greg Costa, and other documentary evidence.
The judge disagreed with submissions by King's attorney, Dane Hamilton QC, that the case against the former head of the FSRC was unsupported hearsay.
Michel instead agreed with arguments from Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP) Anthony Armstrong that there was independent evidence detailing King's participation in the alleged fraud.
King's involvement in the matter was evident, according to Michel, by King's own actions and words, in that he defended Stanford International Bank Limited (SIBL) in the face of mounting concerns from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Hamilton's claim that the US offences with which King is charged do not have similar offences in Antigua & Barbuda was also dismissed by the court.
Michel said wire fraud is equivalent to obtaining money by false pretence, and added that it is not the offence, but the conduct, that is equivalent.
He said the former chief magistrate did not err in finding that wire fraud and obtaining money by false pretence were extradition crimes.
Conspiracy to pervert the court of justice, as with the US charge, he said, is equivalent to perverting the course of justice in Antigua & Barbuda. Both offences have the same genus and have extra territorial application, Michel ruled. He said Walters' decision on these grounds could not be faulted.
Hamilton made application for bail on King's behalf on Monday, and his client was released on $500,000, with two sureties and a cash deposit of $110,000 required.
King has to report daily to the St John's Police Station, and must not leave his Marina Bay home unless he is accompanied by one of his two sureties.
These were the same terms originally set down by Walters when King first appeared before the court in June 2009.
King is to abide by these conditions until his surrender to US authorities, or further notice.
Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, as minister of External Affairs, will have the final say in relation to King being sent to the US to stand trial.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Stanford Used Threats, Charm to Influence Antiguan Regulator
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Andrew Harris - Jan 31, 2012
An Antiguan judge who is also the island’s top banking regulator told the jury at R. Allen Stanford’s investment fraud trial that he repeatedly tried to influence the agency that oversaw his banking operations there.
Marian Althea Crick said she complained to Antiguan officials shortly after Stanford relocated his bank to the island until the financier was removed as a director of the agency that predated the Financial Services Regulatory Commission, where she is now chairman. She said it was “a clear conflict” to have the owner of a regulated entity participating in the agency that oversees the business.
“It reminded me of a saying we have at home,” Crick, a government witness, testified yesterday in federal court in Houston in the second week of the trial. “It was a classic case of the rat being put in charge of the cheese.”
Stanford, 61, who was indicted in June 2009, is charged with 14 counts including mail fraud, wire fraud and obstruction of a probe by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies the charges.
Crick testified that Antigua’s prime minister told her Stanford wanted her fired after she had a series of public and private disagreements with the financier in the 1990s. She said Stanford even briefly took control of her agency while she was out of the country in 1998, until she got Antigua’s Attorney General to reverse the decision on legal grounds.
Month-Long Trip
In 1999, Stanford paid for office space and placed several of his employees on the official committee tasked with conducting a formal review of Antigua’s international banks, Crick said. In 2001, she said, Stanford urged government officials to send her and an auditor examining Stanford International Bank Ltd. on a month-long trip so that a different auditor could complete the bank’s audit.
Stanford tried charm when threats failed, Crick said. Once, Stanford unsuccessfully tried to upgrade her economy flight to first class for a British banking conference. After another disagreement, when she informed Stanford forcefully that she “was not a yes person” and wouldn’t rubber-stamp his requests, she said, “He held my hand, and looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘You remind me so much of myself.’”
When Crick resigned from the regulatory commission in 2002, she was replaced by Leroy King, whom Stanford is accused of bribing with millions of dollars and tickets to the National Football League’s Super Bowl championship games. When King was accused of complicity in hiding Stanford’s alleged fraud in 2009, the agency removed him and put Crick back in charge.
Crick was scheduled to resume her testimony today.
An Antiguan judge who is also the island’s top banking regulator told the jury at R. Allen Stanford’s investment fraud trial that he repeatedly tried to influence the agency that oversaw his banking operations there.
Marian Althea Crick said she complained to Antiguan officials shortly after Stanford relocated his bank to the island until the financier was removed as a director of the agency that predated the Financial Services Regulatory Commission, where she is now chairman. She said it was “a clear conflict” to have the owner of a regulated entity participating in the agency that oversees the business.
“It reminded me of a saying we have at home,” Crick, a government witness, testified yesterday in federal court in Houston in the second week of the trial. “It was a classic case of the rat being put in charge of the cheese.”
Stanford, 61, who was indicted in June 2009, is charged with 14 counts including mail fraud, wire fraud and obstruction of a probe by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies the charges.
Crick testified that Antigua’s prime minister told her Stanford wanted her fired after she had a series of public and private disagreements with the financier in the 1990s. She said Stanford even briefly took control of her agency while she was out of the country in 1998, until she got Antigua’s Attorney General to reverse the decision on legal grounds.
Month-Long Trip
In 1999, Stanford paid for office space and placed several of his employees on the official committee tasked with conducting a formal review of Antigua’s international banks, Crick said. In 2001, she said, Stanford urged government officials to send her and an auditor examining Stanford International Bank Ltd. on a month-long trip so that a different auditor could complete the bank’s audit.
Stanford tried charm when threats failed, Crick said. Once, Stanford unsuccessfully tried to upgrade her economy flight to first class for a British banking conference. After another disagreement, when she informed Stanford forcefully that she “was not a yes person” and wouldn’t rubber-stamp his requests, she said, “He held my hand, and looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘You remind me so much of myself.’”
When Crick resigned from the regulatory commission in 2002, she was replaced by Leroy King, whom Stanford is accused of bribing with millions of dollars and tickets to the National Football League’s Super Bowl championship games. When King was accused of complicity in hiding Stanford’s alleged fraud in 2009, the agency removed him and put Crick back in charge.
Crick was scheduled to resume her testimony today.
Stanford swayed regulators
By Terri Langford
An Antiguan banking official told jurors Monday that R. Allen Stanford used his influence to manipulate the island nation's regulators and insert himself into the regulatory process.
"This would be a classic case of the rat being put in charge of the cheese," said Marian Althea Crick, who is board chairman of Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory Commission.
Crick, 59, described a series of run-ins with Stanford and his financial empire, beginning in 1998 when she was hired to be executive director of the commission's predecessor agency - which once included Stanford as a board member.
Crick said she often raised concerns about his position.
"It's a conflict of interest, inappropriate," Crick testified.
Stanford - whose businesses and charities in Antigua gave him such prominence that the nation knighted him - eventually was removed from the commission but still influenced regulators, she said.
In 2001, when the Antiguan regulator announced it was scheduling a review of the bank, Stanford contacted the agency and said he didn't want a certain auditor included in the review.
Immediately, that auditor and Crick were sent on a hastily arranged fact-finding mission about financial operations in other Caribbean countries, Crick said.
By 2002, Crick anticipated she would be fired and resigned. Her successor, Leroy King, is one of four people charged in a separate indictment from the one against Stanford.
King, accused of taking bribes to keep regulatory heat off Stanford's operations, is fighting extradition from Antigua. The other three defendants in that indictment were Stanford Group executives.
Crick returned to the Antiguan regulatory agency in 2009 after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued to force Stanford's operations into receivership and freeze its assets.
Other testimony Monday, as Stanford's trial entered its second week, concerned billions of bank assets in a mysterious portfolio known as Tier III.
Mark Collinsworth, an executive in the Memphis, Tenn., office of Stanford's international financial network, described to jurors a three-tier structure for the bank's investments.
Prosecutors allege that Stanford customers were led to believe the CDs were invested conservatively, but that the money really went into Stanford's risky business ventures and jet-setting lifestyle.
Collinsworth said he understood that Tier III contained conservative investments such as bonds and blue chip stocks, but that he had no personal knowledge of the portfolio.
He said Tier III accounted for $5.5 billion of the bank's investments in 2008, compared with about $1.5 billion for Tiers I and II combined. Tier 1 contained cash and liquid assets, he said, and Tier II contained more aggressive investments.
Collinsworth said under questioning by Stanford lawyer Ali Fazel that Stanford himself had little involvement with the Memphis office, visiting only twice in the 10 years Collinsworth worked there.
Collinsworth testified that his Memphis-based supervisor, Stanford's chief investment officer, Laura Holt, did not discuss Tier III with subordinates.
According to testimony last week, Holt once said she managed Stanford's entire portfolio. But as investigators closed in on the operation, she told associates she had no knowledge of certain investments.
Holt is one of the three executives indicted separately from Stanford and set for trial later.
Stanford's former chief financial officer, James Davis, pleaded guilty to three felony counts and will testify for the prosecution.
Collinsworth said Holt and Davis hired friends and relatives with little financial background for key positions in the office.
They included a close Davis friend with no experience in the Middle East, hired as an analyst on that region, and a Russian analyst, hired by Holt, who had been born there but left as a child and wasn't familiar with Russia's most profitable companies.
An Antiguan banking official told jurors Monday that R. Allen Stanford used his influence to manipulate the island nation's regulators and insert himself into the regulatory process.
"This would be a classic case of the rat being put in charge of the cheese," said Marian Althea Crick, who is board chairman of Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory Commission.
Crick, 59, described a series of run-ins with Stanford and his financial empire, beginning in 1998 when she was hired to be executive director of the commission's predecessor agency - which once included Stanford as a board member.
Crick said she often raised concerns about his position.
"It's a conflict of interest, inappropriate," Crick testified.
Stanford - whose businesses and charities in Antigua gave him such prominence that the nation knighted him - eventually was removed from the commission but still influenced regulators, she said.
In 2001, when the Antiguan regulator announced it was scheduling a review of the bank, Stanford contacted the agency and said he didn't want a certain auditor included in the review.
Immediately, that auditor and Crick were sent on a hastily arranged fact-finding mission about financial operations in other Caribbean countries, Crick said.
By 2002, Crick anticipated she would be fired and resigned. Her successor, Leroy King, is one of four people charged in a separate indictment from the one against Stanford.
King, accused of taking bribes to keep regulatory heat off Stanford's operations, is fighting extradition from Antigua. The other three defendants in that indictment were Stanford Group executives.
Crick returned to the Antiguan regulatory agency in 2009 after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued to force Stanford's operations into receivership and freeze its assets.
Other testimony Monday, as Stanford's trial entered its second week, concerned billions of bank assets in a mysterious portfolio known as Tier III.
Mark Collinsworth, an executive in the Memphis, Tenn., office of Stanford's international financial network, described to jurors a three-tier structure for the bank's investments.
Prosecutors allege that Stanford customers were led to believe the CDs were invested conservatively, but that the money really went into Stanford's risky business ventures and jet-setting lifestyle.
Collinsworth said he understood that Tier III contained conservative investments such as bonds and blue chip stocks, but that he had no personal knowledge of the portfolio.
He said Tier III accounted for $5.5 billion of the bank's investments in 2008, compared with about $1.5 billion for Tiers I and II combined. Tier 1 contained cash and liquid assets, he said, and Tier II contained more aggressive investments.
Collinsworth said under questioning by Stanford lawyer Ali Fazel that Stanford himself had little involvement with the Memphis office, visiting only twice in the 10 years Collinsworth worked there.
Collinsworth testified that his Memphis-based supervisor, Stanford's chief investment officer, Laura Holt, did not discuss Tier III with subordinates.
According to testimony last week, Holt once said she managed Stanford's entire portfolio. But as investigators closed in on the operation, she told associates she had no knowledge of certain investments.
Holt is one of the three executives indicted separately from Stanford and set for trial later.
Stanford's former chief financial officer, James Davis, pleaded guilty to three felony counts and will testify for the prosecution.
Collinsworth said Holt and Davis hired friends and relatives with little financial background for key positions in the office.
They included a close Davis friend with no experience in the Middle East, hired as an analyst on that region, and a Russian analyst, hired by Holt, who had been born there but left as a child and wasn't familiar with Russia's most profitable companies.
Friday, 16 December 2011
Leroy King Appeal Hearing Begins
By Martina Johnson - Friday, December 16th, 2011.
ST JOHN’S, Antigua – After waiting nearly a year for a court to hear his appeal against his extradition committal, lawyers for former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) Leroy King yesterday began oral arguments in the High Court.
King is wanted in the United States for his alleged role in the masterminding of the R Allen Stanford US $7 billion Ponzi Scheme.
Appearing before Justice Mario Michel, King’s lawyers Dane Hamilton QC and Dane R Hamilton argued two main points in support of the application for a writ of habeas corpus in a bid to get the court to quash the earlier decision of former Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters.
King, who was also the FSRC administrator, is accused of 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to obstruct the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) as an accomplice to Stanford’s alleged crimes.
The complaint accuses King of conducting sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank (SIBL), an offshore bank located in Antigua, in exchange for large sums of money and other bribes while he allegedly made sure that the SEC did not peruse the offshore bank’s investment records.
Hamilton QC contended that some of the crime(s) King is accused of are not crimes under the laws of Antigua & Barbuda and as such he has not committed any offence for which he can be extradited.
He also said if the offences existed under the laws of Antigua & Barbuda it must be stated, expressly, that they are extra-territorial as well.
The appellant’s counsel then questioned how it is that King is before the court for conspiracy to commit various types of fraud when no counterpart has been named.
The senior lawyer dismissed information in witness statements of other persons allegedly or admittedly implicated in the fraud and said they were nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay evidence.
Hamilton spent the entire day addressing the court on the aforementioned issues in addition to others and is expected to resume next Wednesday. After that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Anthony Armstrong would respond.
While the matter is ongoing, King would remain on $600,000 bail with strict orders not to leave his home without being accompanied by one of his sureties.
He must also continue to report to the police station nearest his home every day among other conditions.
ST JOHN’S, Antigua – After waiting nearly a year for a court to hear his appeal against his extradition committal, lawyers for former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) Leroy King yesterday began oral arguments in the High Court.
King is wanted in the United States for his alleged role in the masterminding of the R Allen Stanford US $7 billion Ponzi Scheme.
Appearing before Justice Mario Michel, King’s lawyers Dane Hamilton QC and Dane R Hamilton argued two main points in support of the application for a writ of habeas corpus in a bid to get the court to quash the earlier decision of former Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters.
King, who was also the FSRC administrator, is accused of 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to obstruct the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) as an accomplice to Stanford’s alleged crimes.
The complaint accuses King of conducting sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank (SIBL), an offshore bank located in Antigua, in exchange for large sums of money and other bribes while he allegedly made sure that the SEC did not peruse the offshore bank’s investment records.
Hamilton QC contended that some of the crime(s) King is accused of are not crimes under the laws of Antigua & Barbuda and as such he has not committed any offence for which he can be extradited.
He also said if the offences existed under the laws of Antigua & Barbuda it must be stated, expressly, that they are extra-territorial as well.
The appellant’s counsel then questioned how it is that King is before the court for conspiracy to commit various types of fraud when no counterpart has been named.
The senior lawyer dismissed information in witness statements of other persons allegedly or admittedly implicated in the fraud and said they were nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay evidence.
Hamilton spent the entire day addressing the court on the aforementioned issues in addition to others and is expected to resume next Wednesday. After that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Anthony Armstrong would respond.
While the matter is ongoing, King would remain on $600,000 bail with strict orders not to leave his home without being accompanied by one of his sureties.
He must also continue to report to the police station nearest his home every day among other conditions.
Monday, 21 November 2011
How Many Members does SVC Actually Represent?
One of the reasons Judge Godbey cited for denying the Motion to Intervene is that the Stanford Victims Coalition claims to represent 4,000 members in 50 countries.
As an investor who once joined the SVC forum, and hence became an SVC member, I have not been informed by the SVC I am no longer a member, yet have received no communications from the SVC for at least 18 months.
How many more of us are there who joined the SVC via it's forum but have been effectively dis-communicated?
If there are any other SVC members who have not received regular communications for some considerable time, please reply to this thread on the Stanford Victims Forum at: http://svg.creatuforo.com/ or post your name in the comments section here on the blog.
Please take the time to respond as it may be important.
Richard
H-A
Senior member
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:15 pm
Hi Richard
Like you I was an SVC member, and have not heard from them for a long time.
___________________________________________________________
Wisea:
Senior Member
Posted Nov 17, 2011
I also joined the SVC long time ago and I'm thinking seriously I'm still a member of it. Never have been informed the contrary by dear Angel
___________________________________________________________
The Admin Stanford International Victims Forum
Fri 18th Nov:
I also was a member of SVC. However I dont receive any newsletter since almost 2 years ago.
Anyway, there is an Email from Angela where she wrote she does not represent any longer the international victims...
Please do not forget that in the old Forum there was plenty of SPAM done by "registered members". Those members were never deleted, therefore the number of "registered members" in the old forum grow up until reach more than 4.000 "members". There you have the so called by Angela: "Representation of more than 4.000 victims"
We need to stop all this lies and manipulation!
__________________________________________________________
Maribeo
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
I was also a SVC member. When the forum was "desactivated" Angela stopped sending the bulletins by email or any information . Definitely I am clear she and SVC doesn't represent me. I also wrote to her a letter asking for answers, I am still waiting for a response. I have the feeling that we were useful for her original purposes and now we are disposables.
Maribeo
_________________________________________________________
WikiLeaks-Stanford
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:19 am
I can write the same. I did not receive any response from Angela, Mr. Little (suppose to keep the victims informed), nor Dr. Peter.
The old forum was shut down to keep most of the victim outside any discussion or information; in that way "they" can do whatever they want for their own benefit.
__________________________________________________________
gmrantigua
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:00 pm
Afternoon Everyone
Yes we are also in the same position. Joined at the very beginning but have received no communication for at least 18 months
Regards
GMR
_________________________________________________________
Victim
Junior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:45 am
Also a member of SVC but no newlsetters for around 18 months ..... and I had previously made a donation to the group towards an open letter in a USA newspaper.
I guess I am not surprised by Shaw's actions. I have learned a lot about human behaviour in the last few years.
___________________________________________________________
WENDYANNE
Senior member
Posts: 663
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:32 pm
Count me in, Angela decided a long time ago that she did not want me to know what she was doing.
And this is why we need signatures on the petition, to show we are not just one or two disgruntled victims (as Judge Godbey said) but that there are hundreds of us and that we have been ignored and disenfranchised by Angela and the committee.
___________________________________________________________
Stanfords Nemesis
Senior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011
Count me in, I also seen to be persona non grata. Have not received anything from SVC for nearly 2 years. Guess we were all taken for a ride by Angela to make up the numbers so she could “appear” to be representing many when in fact she represented few. Once on the committee her true motives came out and she sent the letter saying she would only represent the Americans. Why am I not surprised?
As an investor who once joined the SVC forum, and hence became an SVC member, I have not been informed by the SVC I am no longer a member, yet have received no communications from the SVC for at least 18 months.
How many more of us are there who joined the SVC via it's forum but have been effectively dis-communicated?
If there are any other SVC members who have not received regular communications for some considerable time, please reply to this thread on the Stanford Victims Forum at: http://svg.creatuforo.com/ or post your name in the comments section here on the blog.
Please take the time to respond as it may be important.
Richard
H-A
Senior member
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:15 pm
Hi Richard
Like you I was an SVC member, and have not heard from them for a long time.
___________________________________________________________
Wisea:
Senior Member
Posted Nov 17, 2011
I also joined the SVC long time ago and I'm thinking seriously I'm still a member of it. Never have been informed the contrary by dear Angel
___________________________________________________________
The Admin Stanford International Victims Forum
Fri 18th Nov:
I also was a member of SVC. However I dont receive any newsletter since almost 2 years ago.
Anyway, there is an Email from Angela where she wrote she does not represent any longer the international victims...
Please do not forget that in the old Forum there was plenty of SPAM done by "registered members". Those members were never deleted, therefore the number of "registered members" in the old forum grow up until reach more than 4.000 "members". There you have the so called by Angela: "Representation of more than 4.000 victims"
We need to stop all this lies and manipulation!
__________________________________________________________
Maribeo
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
I was also a SVC member. When the forum was "desactivated" Angela stopped sending the bulletins by email or any information . Definitely I am clear she and SVC doesn't represent me. I also wrote to her a letter asking for answers, I am still waiting for a response. I have the feeling that we were useful for her original purposes and now we are disposables.
Maribeo
_________________________________________________________
WikiLeaks-Stanford
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:19 am
I can write the same. I did not receive any response from Angela, Mr. Little (suppose to keep the victims informed), nor Dr. Peter.
The old forum was shut down to keep most of the victim outside any discussion or information; in that way "they" can do whatever they want for their own benefit.
__________________________________________________________
gmrantigua
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:00 pm
Afternoon Everyone
Yes we are also in the same position. Joined at the very beginning but have received no communication for at least 18 months
Regards
GMR
_________________________________________________________
Victim
Junior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:45 am
Also a member of SVC but no newlsetters for around 18 months ..... and I had previously made a donation to the group towards an open letter in a USA newspaper.
I guess I am not surprised by Shaw's actions. I have learned a lot about human behaviour in the last few years.
___________________________________________________________
WENDYANNE
Senior member
Posts: 663
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:32 pm
Count me in, Angela decided a long time ago that she did not want me to know what she was doing.
And this is why we need signatures on the petition, to show we are not just one or two disgruntled victims (as Judge Godbey said) but that there are hundreds of us and that we have been ignored and disenfranchised by Angela and the committee.
___________________________________________________________
Stanfords Nemesis
Senior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011
Count me in, I also seen to be persona non grata. Have not received anything from SVC for nearly 2 years. Guess we were all taken for a ride by Angela to make up the numbers so she could “appear” to be representing many when in fact she represented few. Once on the committee her true motives came out and she sent the letter saying she would only represent the Americans. Why am I not surprised?
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Stanford Investors Granted Discovery In Cort Lawsuit
Source: Caribarena
Antigua St John's - US District Court Judge David Godbey has granted the Official Stanford Investors Committee’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery for Cort & Cort and Cort & Associates,
in connection with the February lawsuit alleging the law firms received more than $1.1 M in fraudulently transferred Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) customer funds.
Judge Godbey said in the order that the Investors Committee has made a “preliminary showing for jurisdiction” for the allegations, and granted a four-month period for discovery.
“Dr Errol Cort’s deposition will be a critical component of the discovery Judge Godbey authorized today,” said Peter D Morgenstern, a lawyer serving on the Committee who also filed a class-action lawsuit against the government of Antigua & Barbuda in the same District Court in 2009.
He said, “Dr Cort’s law firm was literally on Stanford’s payroll for an extensive period of time, and the firm also served as the official agent for Stanford International Bank, while Dr Cort was the nation’s minister of Finance.
We are very pleased with Judge Godbey’s decision.”
Antigua St John's - US District Court Judge David Godbey has granted the Official Stanford Investors Committee’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery for Cort & Cort and Cort & Associates,
in connection with the February lawsuit alleging the law firms received more than $1.1 M in fraudulently transferred Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) customer funds.
Judge Godbey said in the order that the Investors Committee has made a “preliminary showing for jurisdiction” for the allegations, and granted a four-month period for discovery.
“Dr Errol Cort’s deposition will be a critical component of the discovery Judge Godbey authorized today,” said Peter D Morgenstern, a lawyer serving on the Committee who also filed a class-action lawsuit against the government of Antigua & Barbuda in the same District Court in 2009.
He said, “Dr Cort’s law firm was literally on Stanford’s payroll for an extensive period of time, and the firm also served as the official agent for Stanford International Bank, while Dr Cort was the nation’s minister of Finance.
We are very pleased with Judge Godbey’s decision.”
Friday, 16 September 2011
Swiss Bank Under Investigation
By MICHAEL ROTHFELD
The Justice Department is investigating whether French bank Société Générale SA helped facilitate Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme by ignoring suspicious transactions, people familiar with the matter said.
At issue is a Swiss bank account held by one of Mr. Stanford's companies at SG Private Banking (Suisse) SA, a Société Générale subsidiary, that was allegedly funded with investors' money and used to make payments into Mr. Stanford's personal accounts and for bribes to his Antiguan auditor. Prosecutors in the criminal probe are examining whether Société Générale failed to follow due diligence procedures or to ask questions about irregular banking activity, the people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Stanford, 61 years old, was accused by federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009 of fabricating high returns to lure investors around the world to buy about $7 billion worth of certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, the island where he was knighted.
"Sir Allen," as he was sometimes known, spent millions to travel by private jet, sponsor cricket matches, and buy real estate in the Caribbean and elsewhere. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy and obstruction in Texas.
In a court filing in Mr. Stanford's criminal case last year, federal prosecutors wrote that he "secretly funnelled more than $100 million of investors' money through his numbered Société Générale account in Switzerland to his personal bank accounts for the payment of bribes and lavish personal expenditures."
That the bank is a focus of prosecutors' interest hasn't previously been disclosed.
SG Private Banking (Suisse) "has received requests for documents and other information" related to Mr. Stanford from the Justice Department, a Société Générale spokesman said in a statement. He said the bank is cooperating but will not comment further because it is an on-going investigation.
R. Allen Stanford at the federal courthouse in Houston in April 2010.
If the Justice Department concludes that the bank turned a blind eye to potential criminal activity, that could be a basis for a prosecution under the federal anti-money laundering statute, the Bank Secrecy Act, or other conspiracy or fraud charges, lawyers not involved in the case said. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. However, defense lawyers say it would be highly unusual to criminally prosecute a bank for facilitating a fraud based on the failures of its employees to uncover it. "At that level, prosecutions are reserved for the bad actor, unless you are prepared to say that the bank has a systemic problem and is corrupt at its core," said Robert W. Ray, a white collar defense lawyer at Pryor Cashman LLP.
People familiar with the matter said the focus for prosecutors is trying Mr. Stanford and any action against the bank is likely to wait until after the proceedings involving Mr. Stanford are finished. His case has been on hold as aA judge is expected to determine in the coming months whether he is competent to stand trial.
The probe shows that after more than two years investigators are still trying to unravel the global fraud allegedly carried out by Mr. Stanford and his associates. Mr. Stanford's companies utilized accounts at several Swiss banks, according to court documents and people familiar with the matter.
The investor money that prosecutors allege was siphoned off by Mr. Stanford for bribes and other purposes through Société Générale related to an SG Private Banking account numbered 108731 in the name of Stanford Financial Group, a parent entity for the many Stanford companies. The Swiss account was allegedly funded with investor money transferred from Stanford International Bank accounts, according to the people familiar with the situation and records filed in court.
Prosecutors have said that 108731 was a "secret account" because it wasn't included in the Stanford corporate accounting system, and because only Mr. Stanford and his chief financial officer, James Davis, had access to it. The account was overseen by Blaise Friedli, an SG Private Banking executive vice president in Lausanne, Switzerland, who Mr. Stanford named to his company's "international advisory board," according to a corporate newsletter filed in court.
A former lawyer for Mr. Stanford, Dick DeGuerin, said at a 2009 hearing that 108731 was "not a secret bank account," and that records would show funds didn't go to Mr. Stanford, "but were used within the Stanford companies." Mr. Davis has pleaded guilty to criminal charges and is cooperating with authorities. Mr. Friedli didn't respond to requests for comment.
Some of the investor money in the 108731 account was used for allegedly illegal transactions, prosecutors have said in filings and in court. Mr. Stanford also used investor funds in the 108731 account as collateral for a $95 million loan Société Générale gave him around 2004, according to people familiar with the situation. Money from the loan was allegedly spent on bribes and transferred into Mr. Stanford's personal accounts, the people familiar with the matter said.
In December 2008, as his alleged scheme began to fall apart amid investor redemptions, Mr. Stanford's company authorized the bank to take the funds that were used as collateral out of the 108731 account to repay the loan, the people said.
Prosecutors are investigating whether Société Générale did proper due diligence on the loan to Mr. Stanford and how it was spent, and why the bank didn't identify or report that investor money was being used for suspicious transactions, the people said.
A lawyer for Mr. Stanford, Ali Fazel, declined to discuss the case or the Société Générale accounts, citing a gag order. "We disagree with the government's theory of the case and we are looking forward to the trial to be able to show that," Mr. Fazel said.
Mr. Davis regularly corresponded with Mr. Friedli, making written requests for wire transfers of millions of dollars to Mr. Stanford's personal accounts, and payments of up to $125,000 to the Antiguan auditor's accounts in London and the British Virgin Islands, court filings show. Prosecutors have said in court filings that the payments to the auditor were bribes.
A phone number for the auditor, CAS Hewlett & Co., has been disconnected. The owner of the company, Charles Hewlett, died in 2009.
The Justice Department is investigating whether French bank Société Générale SA helped facilitate Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme by ignoring suspicious transactions, people familiar with the matter said.
At issue is a Swiss bank account held by one of Mr. Stanford's companies at SG Private Banking (Suisse) SA, a Société Générale subsidiary, that was allegedly funded with investors' money and used to make payments into Mr. Stanford's personal accounts and for bribes to his Antiguan auditor. Prosecutors in the criminal probe are examining whether Société Générale failed to follow due diligence procedures or to ask questions about irregular banking activity, the people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Stanford, 61 years old, was accused by federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009 of fabricating high returns to lure investors around the world to buy about $7 billion worth of certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, the island where he was knighted.
"Sir Allen," as he was sometimes known, spent millions to travel by private jet, sponsor cricket matches, and buy real estate in the Caribbean and elsewhere. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy and obstruction in Texas.
In a court filing in Mr. Stanford's criminal case last year, federal prosecutors wrote that he "secretly funnelled more than $100 million of investors' money through his numbered Société Générale account in Switzerland to his personal bank accounts for the payment of bribes and lavish personal expenditures."
That the bank is a focus of prosecutors' interest hasn't previously been disclosed.
SG Private Banking (Suisse) "has received requests for documents and other information" related to Mr. Stanford from the Justice Department, a Société Générale spokesman said in a statement. He said the bank is cooperating but will not comment further because it is an on-going investigation.
R. Allen Stanford at the federal courthouse in Houston in April 2010.
If the Justice Department concludes that the bank turned a blind eye to potential criminal activity, that could be a basis for a prosecution under the federal anti-money laundering statute, the Bank Secrecy Act, or other conspiracy or fraud charges, lawyers not involved in the case said. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. However, defense lawyers say it would be highly unusual to criminally prosecute a bank for facilitating a fraud based on the failures of its employees to uncover it. "At that level, prosecutions are reserved for the bad actor, unless you are prepared to say that the bank has a systemic problem and is corrupt at its core," said Robert W. Ray, a white collar defense lawyer at Pryor Cashman LLP.
People familiar with the matter said the focus for prosecutors is trying Mr. Stanford and any action against the bank is likely to wait until after the proceedings involving Mr. Stanford are finished. His case has been on hold as aA judge is expected to determine in the coming months whether he is competent to stand trial.
The probe shows that after more than two years investigators are still trying to unravel the global fraud allegedly carried out by Mr. Stanford and his associates. Mr. Stanford's companies utilized accounts at several Swiss banks, according to court documents and people familiar with the matter.
The investor money that prosecutors allege was siphoned off by Mr. Stanford for bribes and other purposes through Société Générale related to an SG Private Banking account numbered 108731 in the name of Stanford Financial Group, a parent entity for the many Stanford companies. The Swiss account was allegedly funded with investor money transferred from Stanford International Bank accounts, according to the people familiar with the situation and records filed in court.
Prosecutors have said that 108731 was a "secret account" because it wasn't included in the Stanford corporate accounting system, and because only Mr. Stanford and his chief financial officer, James Davis, had access to it. The account was overseen by Blaise Friedli, an SG Private Banking executive vice president in Lausanne, Switzerland, who Mr. Stanford named to his company's "international advisory board," according to a corporate newsletter filed in court.
A former lawyer for Mr. Stanford, Dick DeGuerin, said at a 2009 hearing that 108731 was "not a secret bank account," and that records would show funds didn't go to Mr. Stanford, "but were used within the Stanford companies." Mr. Davis has pleaded guilty to criminal charges and is cooperating with authorities. Mr. Friedli didn't respond to requests for comment.
Some of the investor money in the 108731 account was used for allegedly illegal transactions, prosecutors have said in filings and in court. Mr. Stanford also used investor funds in the 108731 account as collateral for a $95 million loan Société Générale gave him around 2004, according to people familiar with the situation. Money from the loan was allegedly spent on bribes and transferred into Mr. Stanford's personal accounts, the people familiar with the matter said.
In December 2008, as his alleged scheme began to fall apart amid investor redemptions, Mr. Stanford's company authorized the bank to take the funds that were used as collateral out of the 108731 account to repay the loan, the people said.
Prosecutors are investigating whether Société Générale did proper due diligence on the loan to Mr. Stanford and how it was spent, and why the bank didn't identify or report that investor money was being used for suspicious transactions, the people said.
A lawyer for Mr. Stanford, Ali Fazel, declined to discuss the case or the Société Générale accounts, citing a gag order. "We disagree with the government's theory of the case and we are looking forward to the trial to be able to show that," Mr. Fazel said.
Mr. Davis regularly corresponded with Mr. Friedli, making written requests for wire transfers of millions of dollars to Mr. Stanford's personal accounts, and payments of up to $125,000 to the Antiguan auditor's accounts in London and the British Virgin Islands, court filings show. Prosecutors have said in court filings that the payments to the auditor were bribes.
A phone number for the auditor, CAS Hewlett & Co., has been disconnected. The owner of the company, Charles Hewlett, died in 2009.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Weston Calls for FSRC
This is an interesting article from the Caribarena. Note the highlighted sections where the minister is asking about the report into the FSRC!
Antigua St John's - Opposition Senator Lennox Weston spoke at length on Monday against the need for additional board members to be added to the Financial Regulatory Services Commission (FSRC), and called for the release of the controversial report into the Commission ordered following the R Allen Stanford debacle.
Weston told the Upper House, "The government is our government. It is our money that the government is spending, and the prime minister gave an undertaking to Parliament and to the nation that he would review the sector, and he would table the results, and let the chips fall where they may."
He said it now seemed that the UPP administration intends to keep the contents of the review away from the public.
"Now it seems as if, what is before us is indicating that the government intends to keep its review a secret. Whatever the review says... that we hear that is very bad, it intends to keep it a secret from the people of Antigua & Barbuda, although we are faced with all these pending charges, and all kinds of lawsuits against us ..."
Weston noted, however, that with Stanford investors intent on suing Antigua & Barbuda for its perceived role in the financier's workings, the government was leaving the door open for these investors to reveal information "piece by piece" in the American press, with Antigua & Barbuda lacking the means to defend its reputation.
"The Americans always say, get ahead of the news," Weston noted. "Get it out early, and move on. ... This is not a time when we can hide information. ... We can't control information by tabooing it. And this has been going on for way too long."
Weston, along with other opposition senators, cried down the government's proposal to increase the FSRC board from four members to seven, saying the bill did not adequately explain the need for this.
Subsequent government senators, including Joanne Massiah and Dr Edmond Mansoor, posited that this was a necessary move to allow the FSRC to handle its additional responsibility to regulate non-banking financial institutions including the credit unions.
Antigua St John's - Opposition Senator Lennox Weston spoke at length on Monday against the need for additional board members to be added to the Financial Regulatory Services Commission (FSRC), and called for the release of the controversial report into the Commission ordered following the R Allen Stanford debacle.
Weston told the Upper House, "The government is our government. It is our money that the government is spending, and the prime minister gave an undertaking to Parliament and to the nation that he would review the sector, and he would table the results, and let the chips fall where they may."
He said it now seemed that the UPP administration intends to keep the contents of the review away from the public.
"Now it seems as if, what is before us is indicating that the government intends to keep its review a secret. Whatever the review says... that we hear that is very bad, it intends to keep it a secret from the people of Antigua & Barbuda, although we are faced with all these pending charges, and all kinds of lawsuits against us ..."
Weston noted, however, that with Stanford investors intent on suing Antigua & Barbuda for its perceived role in the financier's workings, the government was leaving the door open for these investors to reveal information "piece by piece" in the American press, with Antigua & Barbuda lacking the means to defend its reputation.
"The Americans always say, get ahead of the news," Weston noted. "Get it out early, and move on. ... This is not a time when we can hide information. ... We can't control information by tabooing it. And this has been going on for way too long."
Weston, along with other opposition senators, cried down the government's proposal to increase the FSRC board from four members to seven, saying the bill did not adequately explain the need for this.
Subsequent government senators, including Joanne Massiah and Dr Edmond Mansoor, posited that this was a necessary move to allow the FSRC to handle its additional responsibility to regulate non-banking financial institutions including the credit unions.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
FSRC Report Sent to DPP
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has a copy of the report conducted into the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) following fraud charges against Texan investor Allen Stanford and an extradition request for former FSRC head Leroy King.
The contents of the report have so far been kept secret. However, it is expected that the report would shed some light on the FSRC's operations up to late 2008, before the US Securities Exchange Commission indicted Stanford and King to answer fraud and bribery charges in the United States on fraud charges laid by US authorities..
The US alleges that Stanford operated a massive Ponzi scheme, while King was lax in his supervision of the offshore Stanford International Bank.
The DPP will have to decide whether any criminal charges will be laid. In a statement on March 19, the Antiguan government said: "It is alleged that, by failing to properly regulate SIBL, Leroy King, the former Administrator of the FSRC, facilitated Stanford's Ponzi Scheme for personal gain."
King was sent home following the indictment. The government asserted that "There is neither now nor was there any collusion between Stanford and the Spencer administration."
An investigation was commissioned to identify any systemic failures or breaches in operational procedures within the FSRC and in its examinations of offshore financial institutions. It was conducted by a group of international experts, whose findings, according to the government, "were that Antigua & Barbuda's international finance laws and regulations, of themselves, could not be faulted."
King, who served as administrator and chief executive officer of the FSRC, has been accused by US authorities of accepting bribes from Stanford to falsify audits of the SIB. Both Stanford and King have protested their innocence.
While Stanford is in jail awaiting trial, King is awaiting the outcome of his extradition hearing
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Antiguans Were Allowed To Invest in SIB
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) John Benjamin has refused to discuss the contents of a recent report on its practices.
Senator Joanne Massiah said last week that an investigation had resulted in a report being passed to Cabinet.
Benjamin, when asked whether he had already seen the report, said "I have heard of it."
He added, “I will not discuss the report,” then admitted that he was aware of the Freedom of Information act.
No member of Cabinet has revealed the contents either, although Caribarena.com understands that there are details of some serious allegations.
Caribarena.com has also been reliably informed that a number of Antiguans and Barbudans were allowed to invest in the Stanford International Bank (SIB), although by law, nationals are not allowed to invest in offshore banks in their personal capacities.
An Antiguan national who wishes to invest in an offshore bank can do so by registering an International Business Corporation (IBC) outside the local jurisdiction.
This was designed so that offshore banks cannot compete with domestic banks.
The FSRC is responsible for regulating offshore banks like SIB.
Its former head, Leroy King, is accused of conspiring with R Allen Stanford, the sole owner of SIB, to defraud investors.
King is awaiting an extradition hearing after he was indicted with Stanford in what has been described as a massive Ponzi scheme.
Senator Joanne Massiah said last week that an investigation had resulted in a report being passed to Cabinet.
Benjamin, when asked whether he had already seen the report, said "I have heard of it."
He added, “I will not discuss the report,” then admitted that he was aware of the Freedom of Information act.
No member of Cabinet has revealed the contents either, although Caribarena.com understands that there are details of some serious allegations.
Caribarena.com has also been reliably informed that a number of Antiguans and Barbudans were allowed to invest in the Stanford International Bank (SIB), although by law, nationals are not allowed to invest in offshore banks in their personal capacities.
An Antiguan national who wishes to invest in an offshore bank can do so by registering an International Business Corporation (IBC) outside the local jurisdiction.
This was designed so that offshore banks cannot compete with domestic banks.
The FSRC is responsible for regulating offshore banks like SIB.
Its former head, Leroy King, is accused of conspiring with R Allen Stanford, the sole owner of SIB, to defraud investors.
King is awaiting an extradition hearing after he was indicted with Stanford in what has been described as a massive Ponzi scheme.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
DPP makes submissions in King case
Written by Tahna Weston (Antigua Sun)
The former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC), Leroy King, allegedly sought advice from Sir Allen Stanford’s legal counsel pertaining to questions being raised by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB).
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong made mention of the matter while making submissions in the extradition matter before Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters on Monday (25 Jan).
King has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to ignore wrongs in relation to the alleged Sir Allen Stanford $8 billion Ponzi scheme. He is facing ten counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct the SEC, and conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that King facilitated the Ponzi scheme by ensuring that the FSRC conducted sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank Limited’s (SIBL’s) books and records. They also allege that in exchange for bribes paid to him over several years, King made sure that the FSRC did not examine SIBL’s investment portfolio.
Armstrong said that King faxed letters which were in his handwriting to Maurice Alvarado, Stanford’s Financial Company’s (SFC) general legal counsel. The letters were faxed to Alvarado at the SFC Houston office. The correspondences sent to the legal counsel were letters from the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB) addressed to King regarding affiliate companies of the Bank of Antigua (BOA), which speaks to the supervision of SIBL and Stanford Trust Company Limited STCL).
Armstrong said that in one of the hand-written letters King writes, “My good friend" (referring to Alvarez.)
In another letter written to the attorney, he (King) again writes, “To America’s best and greatest attorney. Maurice, I am sending you two versions – one short and one long with a little more knockout punch. I prefer the shorter version, a little more subtle and diplomatic.” It was further quoted in that letter by King to Alvarez, “Any other idea? Must conclude tomorrow. Will send you a package to include the annual report for SIBL and STCL.
"I am sending a message to these guys that the institutions concerned are not run of the mill, they are great quality institutions and the numbers speak for themselves. Please do not bill me (laugh) Thanks a million, Lee (short for Leroy.)”
The DPP asked the court why King would be sending these letters from the ECCB concerning SIBL and STCL to his “good friend Maurice Alvarado” when he is refusing to disclose any information to the US regulatory body (the SEC).
On 23 Feb., 2007, King wrote to James Davis seeking further guidance as to how to respond to the ECCB’s request.
Armstrong also revealed that King wrote a letter to Davis under the header “Private and confidential” in which he asked “How can we fix this?”
The DPP told the court that Davis admitted to seeing certain monies being passed and when he (Davis) inquired about the sums, he was told that these were monies to be paid to King. Davis said the payments to King were done by cash.
Armstrong told the court that there are questions about cash deposits which were made to King’s account at Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. The DPP pointed out that there is evidence to support the claim made by Davis that Stanford would provide regular bribe payments to King in exchange of him turning a blind eye to the alleged Ponzi operation. According to Armstrong, this is evident from the cash deposits which were made to King’s accounts in Atlanta, Georgia at the two banks.
He said that between 2 Feb. 2005, to 2 Feb., 2009, there were regular cash deposits made to the Bank of America account from as much as US$15,000 to as little as US$1,800, whilst at his account at JP Morgan Chase there were similar regular cash deposits made from 9 Jan., 2003, to 4 Feb., 2009, from as high as US$9,700 to US$2,000.
The DPP told the court that an independent auditor conducted investigations into SIBL’s financial statements among other documents and determined that the large investments being alleged did not exist.
However, Armstrong said that King reported to the SEC officials that SIBL was solvent and a good quality institution which was fully compliant with the requisite offshore banking regulations.
The DPP quoted from the report of the auditor, senior managing partner Karyl Vancassel of FTI Consulting Incorporated. In it Vancassel outlined, “In its monthly report issued in Dec., 2008, SIBL claimed to have had 8.6 billion in total assets and spent 8.4 billion in investment portfolios. FTI’s analysis to date reveals that the value of all virtual non-cash assets listed on 31 Dec., 2008, SIBL’s balance sheet was substantially overstated.”
The auditors concluded that any third-party analysis of SIBL’s actual internal records, similar to the type that FTI conducted, would have indicated the vast majority of investments (listed in SIBL’s report) did not exist or were grossly overstated as of 30 Sept., 2008.
Armstrong also referred to the evidence of James Davis in which he stated that in the third week of January last year (2009) he (Davis) met Leroy King in Antigua and that he (King) appeared very stressed. Davis said at that time SIBL was facing increasing scrutiny from the SEC, and added that he (Davis), Sir Allen and Laura Pendgast had received subpoenas from the SEC.
According to Armstrong, King told Davis that he (King) had been contacted by the SEC and asked him (Davis) if “We are going to make it", to which Davis said he understood what King asked to mean whether the fraud that they had been engaged in was going to be exposed. Davis said he told King he thought they were going to be alright.
The DPP invited the court to consider that if King was not part of the conspiracy to defraud potential investors, then “who is he referring to as we and why would he be concerned if we are going to make it.” Davis said that King and Stanford were close friends.
Armstrong revealed that Stanford had handed to King an $8,000 Super Bowl ticket, which he said was part and parcel of the bribes. He added that was the comfort of being an active participant of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
King had a trading account with Charles Schwab and he later closed the account and withdrew the funds of $410,000 and $150,000.
Armstrong said that there was no written statement to support reasons why King took the money from trading account.
He admitted, though, the United States (US) government is not claiming that those proceeds are from any illegal activity.
Armstrong said that the monies, however, would have been subjected to forfeiture proceedings. He said King was given “notice of forfeiture” on the indictments that were filed in June, last year.
King’s attorney, Dane Hamilton QC, objected at this stage and told the court that there were no indictments (filed against King) at the time (when the monies were withdrawn).
Armstrong responded that King would have tried to minimise such consequence (forfeiture) in light of what was going on in Jan., 2009. He said an offence can be committed by an act of commission or omission.
According to Armstrong on 21 June, 2005, a correspondence was sent by King to Elizabeth Jacobs, deputy director of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), notifying her that any further investigations into SIBL was “totally unwarranted.”
“Why would he (King) say so if he was not investigating SIBL?” Armstrong inquired.
The former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC), Leroy King, allegedly sought advice from Sir Allen Stanford’s legal counsel pertaining to questions being raised by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB).
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong made mention of the matter while making submissions in the extradition matter before Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters on Monday (25 Jan).
King has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to ignore wrongs in relation to the alleged Sir Allen Stanford $8 billion Ponzi scheme. He is facing ten counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct the SEC, and conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that King facilitated the Ponzi scheme by ensuring that the FSRC conducted sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank Limited’s (SIBL’s) books and records. They also allege that in exchange for bribes paid to him over several years, King made sure that the FSRC did not examine SIBL’s investment portfolio.
Armstrong said that King faxed letters which were in his handwriting to Maurice Alvarado, Stanford’s Financial Company’s (SFC) general legal counsel. The letters were faxed to Alvarado at the SFC Houston office. The correspondences sent to the legal counsel were letters from the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB) addressed to King regarding affiliate companies of the Bank of Antigua (BOA), which speaks to the supervision of SIBL and Stanford Trust Company Limited STCL).
Armstrong said that in one of the hand-written letters King writes, “My good friend" (referring to Alvarez.)
In another letter written to the attorney, he (King) again writes, “To America’s best and greatest attorney. Maurice, I am sending you two versions – one short and one long with a little more knockout punch. I prefer the shorter version, a little more subtle and diplomatic.” It was further quoted in that letter by King to Alvarez, “Any other idea? Must conclude tomorrow. Will send you a package to include the annual report for SIBL and STCL.
"I am sending a message to these guys that the institutions concerned are not run of the mill, they are great quality institutions and the numbers speak for themselves. Please do not bill me (laugh) Thanks a million, Lee (short for Leroy.)”
The DPP asked the court why King would be sending these letters from the ECCB concerning SIBL and STCL to his “good friend Maurice Alvarado” when he is refusing to disclose any information to the US regulatory body (the SEC).
On 23 Feb., 2007, King wrote to James Davis seeking further guidance as to how to respond to the ECCB’s request.
Armstrong also revealed that King wrote a letter to Davis under the header “Private and confidential” in which he asked “How can we fix this?”
The DPP told the court that Davis admitted to seeing certain monies being passed and when he (Davis) inquired about the sums, he was told that these were monies to be paid to King. Davis said the payments to King were done by cash.
Armstrong told the court that there are questions about cash deposits which were made to King’s account at Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. The DPP pointed out that there is evidence to support the claim made by Davis that Stanford would provide regular bribe payments to King in exchange of him turning a blind eye to the alleged Ponzi operation. According to Armstrong, this is evident from the cash deposits which were made to King’s accounts in Atlanta, Georgia at the two banks.
He said that between 2 Feb. 2005, to 2 Feb., 2009, there were regular cash deposits made to the Bank of America account from as much as US$15,000 to as little as US$1,800, whilst at his account at JP Morgan Chase there were similar regular cash deposits made from 9 Jan., 2003, to 4 Feb., 2009, from as high as US$9,700 to US$2,000.
The DPP told the court that an independent auditor conducted investigations into SIBL’s financial statements among other documents and determined that the large investments being alleged did not exist.
However, Armstrong said that King reported to the SEC officials that SIBL was solvent and a good quality institution which was fully compliant with the requisite offshore banking regulations.
The DPP quoted from the report of the auditor, senior managing partner Karyl Vancassel of FTI Consulting Incorporated. In it Vancassel outlined, “In its monthly report issued in Dec., 2008, SIBL claimed to have had 8.6 billion in total assets and spent 8.4 billion in investment portfolios. FTI’s analysis to date reveals that the value of all virtual non-cash assets listed on 31 Dec., 2008, SIBL’s balance sheet was substantially overstated.”
The auditors concluded that any third-party analysis of SIBL’s actual internal records, similar to the type that FTI conducted, would have indicated the vast majority of investments (listed in SIBL’s report) did not exist or were grossly overstated as of 30 Sept., 2008.
Armstrong also referred to the evidence of James Davis in which he stated that in the third week of January last year (2009) he (Davis) met Leroy King in Antigua and that he (King) appeared very stressed. Davis said at that time SIBL was facing increasing scrutiny from the SEC, and added that he (Davis), Sir Allen and Laura Pendgast had received subpoenas from the SEC.
According to Armstrong, King told Davis that he (King) had been contacted by the SEC and asked him (Davis) if “We are going to make it", to which Davis said he understood what King asked to mean whether the fraud that they had been engaged in was going to be exposed. Davis said he told King he thought they were going to be alright.
The DPP invited the court to consider that if King was not part of the conspiracy to defraud potential investors, then “who is he referring to as we and why would he be concerned if we are going to make it.” Davis said that King and Stanford were close friends.
Armstrong revealed that Stanford had handed to King an $8,000 Super Bowl ticket, which he said was part and parcel of the bribes. He added that was the comfort of being an active participant of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
King had a trading account with Charles Schwab and he later closed the account and withdrew the funds of $410,000 and $150,000.
Armstrong said that there was no written statement to support reasons why King took the money from trading account.
He admitted, though, the United States (US) government is not claiming that those proceeds are from any illegal activity.
Armstrong said that the monies, however, would have been subjected to forfeiture proceedings. He said King was given “notice of forfeiture” on the indictments that were filed in June, last year.
King’s attorney, Dane Hamilton QC, objected at this stage and told the court that there were no indictments (filed against King) at the time (when the monies were withdrawn).
Armstrong responded that King would have tried to minimise such consequence (forfeiture) in light of what was going on in Jan., 2009. He said an offence can be committed by an act of commission or omission.
According to Armstrong on 21 June, 2005, a correspondence was sent by King to Elizabeth Jacobs, deputy director of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), notifying her that any further investigations into SIBL was “totally unwarranted.”
“Why would he (King) say so if he was not investigating SIBL?” Armstrong inquired.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
King to know extradition fate on March 25
By Observer News - Tuesday, January 26th, 2010
The former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) will know in two months if a magistrate will order his extradition.
If extradited, Leroy King will travel to the United States to face charges for his alleged involvement in a US $7 billion Ponzi scheme believed to have been orchestrated by investor Sir Allen Stanford.
King is accused of 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds and conspiracy to obstruct the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Yesterday, Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters heard submissions from Director of Pubic Prosecution Anthony Armstrong and King’s lawyer, Dane Hamilton, QC, before saying he would announce his decision on March 25.
Hamilton spent over an hour outlining his position to the court. He said his client should not be held accountable for the alleged fraud, as the Stanford International Bank Ltd (SIBL) “operated in an environment in which the laws were lax on how an offshore bank should operate.”
The attorney said King, as the FSRC administrator, did not have a direct hand in scrutinising the reports and balance sheets of the various offshore banks.
“He had never been the Supervisor of Banking,” Hamilton said. “He was never responsible for any examination of any account.”
The senior attorney also added that King was not involved in any cover-up with Stanford, as the charges suggest.
“It cannot be said and should not be said that Leroy King did not cooperate with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission),” Hamilton said, as he explained that his client offered to host a meeting between SIBL officials and American regulators after receiving correspondence from the SEC.
“Leroy King had gone beyond the remit of his office to cooperate with the SEC,” he added.
However Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong disagreed. He contended that King was, in fact, responsible for regulating the offshore banks.
He pushed his case, arguing that the timing in which King proceeded to withdraw funds from his US accounts was cause for concern. According to Armstrong, the withdrawal of money had to be viewed in the context of what was happening at the time.
He upheld a similar view when he noted a series of deposits that were made to Chase Morgan accounts and questioned the timing in which those sizeable deposits stopped in February of last year.
During the course of his submissions, the prosecutor contended that King and Stanford were very good friends and that he, from time to time, produced reports that indicated SIBL was solvent and in good standing.
Should the magistrate order King’s extradition, the former FSRC boss would have the opportunity to file an appeal in the High court.
King remains on house arrest and will continue to report to the St John’s Police Station twice daily, accompanied by one of his two sureties.
The former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) will know in two months if a magistrate will order his extradition.
If extradited, Leroy King will travel to the United States to face charges for his alleged involvement in a US $7 billion Ponzi scheme believed to have been orchestrated by investor Sir Allen Stanford.
King is accused of 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds and conspiracy to obstruct the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Yesterday, Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters heard submissions from Director of Pubic Prosecution Anthony Armstrong and King’s lawyer, Dane Hamilton, QC, before saying he would announce his decision on March 25.
Hamilton spent over an hour outlining his position to the court. He said his client should not be held accountable for the alleged fraud, as the Stanford International Bank Ltd (SIBL) “operated in an environment in which the laws were lax on how an offshore bank should operate.”
The attorney said King, as the FSRC administrator, did not have a direct hand in scrutinising the reports and balance sheets of the various offshore banks.
“He had never been the Supervisor of Banking,” Hamilton said. “He was never responsible for any examination of any account.”
The senior attorney also added that King was not involved in any cover-up with Stanford, as the charges suggest.
“It cannot be said and should not be said that Leroy King did not cooperate with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission),” Hamilton said, as he explained that his client offered to host a meeting between SIBL officials and American regulators after receiving correspondence from the SEC.
“Leroy King had gone beyond the remit of his office to cooperate with the SEC,” he added.
However Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong disagreed. He contended that King was, in fact, responsible for regulating the offshore banks.
He pushed his case, arguing that the timing in which King proceeded to withdraw funds from his US accounts was cause for concern. According to Armstrong, the withdrawal of money had to be viewed in the context of what was happening at the time.
He upheld a similar view when he noted a series of deposits that were made to Chase Morgan accounts and questioned the timing in which those sizeable deposits stopped in February of last year.
During the course of his submissions, the prosecutor contended that King and Stanford were very good friends and that he, from time to time, produced reports that indicated SIBL was solvent and in good standing.
Should the magistrate order King’s extradition, the former FSRC boss would have the opportunity to file an appeal in the High court.
King remains on house arrest and will continue to report to the St John’s Police Station twice daily, accompanied by one of his two sureties.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Leroy King extradition hearing set for January
Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters has set January 25 as the date for the start of extradition proceedings against former head of the Antigua and Barbuda's Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC), Leroy King. United States law enforcement authorities have requested King on charges of helping disgraced Texan billionaire, Sir Allen Stanford, cover up an alleged US$7 billion Ponzi scheme.
King, 63, has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with taking bribes to ignore wrong doing in relation to the alleged Ponzi scheme. He is facing 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct the SEC and conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds.
The SEC's complaint alleges that King facilitated the Ponzi scheme by ensuring that the FSRC conducted sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank Limited's books and records.
King, 63, has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with taking bribes to ignore wrong doing in relation to the alleged Ponzi scheme. He is facing 10 counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, seven counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct the SEC and conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds.
The SEC's complaint alleges that King facilitated the Ponzi scheme by ensuring that the FSRC conducted sham audits and examinations of Stanford International Bank Limited's books and records.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Friday, 18 December 2009
Allen Stanford’s Trial Set to Start in January 2011
Allen Stanford’s trial on allegations that he led a $7 billion fraud scheme will begin in January 2011 in Houston federal court, U.S. District Judge David Hittner ruled.
Stanford’s lawyer, Kent Schaffer, had asked Hittner not to begin the trial until the summer of 2011. He said if defense lawyers have to proceed without resources provided by Stanford’s insurance policies, it could take as long as two and a half years to properly prepare for trial.
“The criminal case is going to get underway and it’s going to go on schedule,” Hittner said. “That is a solid date.”
Hittner convened a hearing over a request by Stanford and his co-defendants for a preliminary injunction forcing Lloyd’s of London to advance them defense costs. Lloyd’s lawyer called Stanford and his three co-defendants to testify at today’s hearing to the truth of facts alleged in the indictment, the regulatory case complaint and the receiver’s forensic report into Stanford’s financial services empire.
Each of the defendants declined to take the stand, through his criminal attorney, on the basis of the constitutional right against self incrimination.
Hittner questioned why Lloyd’s would ask the defendants about the alleged criminal acts under oath, since they have already pleaded innocent.
“If they plead the fifth, we get an inference that the answer would be favorable to us,” said Barry Chasnoff, a lawyer for Lloyd’s, referring to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Waiting for Ruling
Stanford must wait to learn if Hittner will order Lloyd’s to fund his defense, under directors and officers policies which Chasnoff said are worth about $100 million. Hittner allowed Lloyd’s and the Stanford defendants to present evidence and argument on whether the underwriters may refuse to pay the defense lawyers.
Hittner today deferred ruling on a request by Stanford and three co-defendants for an injunction barring the underwriters from voiding the insurance because a colleague who pleaded guilty said there was criminal activity at Stanford Financial Group Co.
The Stanford defendants, whose assets have been frozen by a court order in a related case, say they can’t afford lawyers without the Lloyd’s proceeds.
Stanford and the other executives in June were indicted by a U.S. grand jury on charges they ran a Ponzi scheme based on the sale of certificates of deposit through Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Prosecution
Stanford deceived investors about the nature of the investments and their oversight, while using money taken from later depositors to repay earlier ones, prosecutors said.
The financier, along with Chief Investment Officer Laura Pendergest-Holt and two other company officials, have denied the allegations.
Stanford appeared today in court in wearing green prison clothing and a salt-and-pepper beard. He was not in leg irons and guards loosened one handcuff during the hearing. Stanford did not speak to but glanced often at family members packed into the first row of the gallery. Spectators included his mother and father, his fiancé, his adult daughter, and a former girlfriend and her two children with Stanford.
Stanford Financial Group Chief Financial Officer James M. Davis in August pleaded guilty to three felony counts. Based on admissions in his plea agreement, attorneys for Lloyd’s last month told Hittner they were no longer obligated to pay for the legal defense of the remaining executives.
Felony Counts
Stanford faces 21 felony counts as well as parallel civil claims by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which sued him in Dallas and obtained a court order there freezing his assets.
While a criminal defendant who lacks money for a lawyer may have an attorney appointed by the court, there is no such provision for civil lawsuits. The loss of Lloyd’s coverage could leave Stanford without the ability to pay for counsel in the SEC case.
The court, not the insurer, should decide whether one defendant’s guilty plea can invalidate coverage for them all, attorneys for the executives have argued in court filings.
“Underwriters unilaterally have acted as both the judge and jury by concluding that their insureds are guilty and thus not entitled to the contractual protections afforded by the policies -- including the right to have their defense funded by the very policies purchased to provide such protection,” Lee H. Shidlofsky, a lawyer for the executives, said in a Dec. 14 court filing.
Economic Risk
“While plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and ability to defend themselves are in danger, the risk for underwriters is strictly economic,” said the attorney, a partner at Visser Shidlofsky LLP in Austin, Texas.
Lloyd’s countered that it was within its rights to exclude coverage for criminal activities.
“The D&O policy makes clear that underwriters did not intend to insure a criminal enterprise,” Neel Lane, a lawyer for Lloyd’s, said in Dec. 15 filing.
Today Shidlofsky said that if Lloyd’s doesn’t pay the legal fees, “it’s going to fall on the taxpayers. That is a significant chunk of change to saddle taxpayers with.”
Stanford’s lawyer, Kent Schaffer, had asked Hittner not to begin the trial until the summer of 2011. He said if defense lawyers have to proceed without resources provided by Stanford’s insurance policies, it could take as long as two and a half years to properly prepare for trial.
“The criminal case is going to get underway and it’s going to go on schedule,” Hittner said. “That is a solid date.”
Hittner convened a hearing over a request by Stanford and his co-defendants for a preliminary injunction forcing Lloyd’s of London to advance them defense costs. Lloyd’s lawyer called Stanford and his three co-defendants to testify at today’s hearing to the truth of facts alleged in the indictment, the regulatory case complaint and the receiver’s forensic report into Stanford’s financial services empire.
Each of the defendants declined to take the stand, through his criminal attorney, on the basis of the constitutional right against self incrimination.
Hittner questioned why Lloyd’s would ask the defendants about the alleged criminal acts under oath, since they have already pleaded innocent.
“If they plead the fifth, we get an inference that the answer would be favorable to us,” said Barry Chasnoff, a lawyer for Lloyd’s, referring to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Waiting for Ruling
Stanford must wait to learn if Hittner will order Lloyd’s to fund his defense, under directors and officers policies which Chasnoff said are worth about $100 million. Hittner allowed Lloyd’s and the Stanford defendants to present evidence and argument on whether the underwriters may refuse to pay the defense lawyers.
Hittner today deferred ruling on a request by Stanford and three co-defendants for an injunction barring the underwriters from voiding the insurance because a colleague who pleaded guilty said there was criminal activity at Stanford Financial Group Co.
The Stanford defendants, whose assets have been frozen by a court order in a related case, say they can’t afford lawyers without the Lloyd’s proceeds.
Stanford and the other executives in June were indicted by a U.S. grand jury on charges they ran a Ponzi scheme based on the sale of certificates of deposit through Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Prosecution
Stanford deceived investors about the nature of the investments and their oversight, while using money taken from later depositors to repay earlier ones, prosecutors said.
The financier, along with Chief Investment Officer Laura Pendergest-Holt and two other company officials, have denied the allegations.
Stanford appeared today in court in wearing green prison clothing and a salt-and-pepper beard. He was not in leg irons and guards loosened one handcuff during the hearing. Stanford did not speak to but glanced often at family members packed into the first row of the gallery. Spectators included his mother and father, his fiancé, his adult daughter, and a former girlfriend and her two children with Stanford.
Stanford Financial Group Chief Financial Officer James M. Davis in August pleaded guilty to three felony counts. Based on admissions in his plea agreement, attorneys for Lloyd’s last month told Hittner they were no longer obligated to pay for the legal defense of the remaining executives.
Felony Counts
Stanford faces 21 felony counts as well as parallel civil claims by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which sued him in Dallas and obtained a court order there freezing his assets.
While a criminal defendant who lacks money for a lawyer may have an attorney appointed by the court, there is no such provision for civil lawsuits. The loss of Lloyd’s coverage could leave Stanford without the ability to pay for counsel in the SEC case.
The court, not the insurer, should decide whether one defendant’s guilty plea can invalidate coverage for them all, attorneys for the executives have argued in court filings.
“Underwriters unilaterally have acted as both the judge and jury by concluding that their insureds are guilty and thus not entitled to the contractual protections afforded by the policies -- including the right to have their defense funded by the very policies purchased to provide such protection,” Lee H. Shidlofsky, a lawyer for the executives, said in a Dec. 14 court filing.
Economic Risk
“While plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and ability to defend themselves are in danger, the risk for underwriters is strictly economic,” said the attorney, a partner at Visser Shidlofsky LLP in Austin, Texas.
Lloyd’s countered that it was within its rights to exclude coverage for criminal activities.
“The D&O policy makes clear that underwriters did not intend to insure a criminal enterprise,” Neel Lane, a lawyer for Lloyd’s, said in Dec. 15 filing.
Today Shidlofsky said that if Lloyd’s doesn’t pay the legal fees, “it’s going to fall on the taxpayers. That is a significant chunk of change to saddle taxpayers with.”