Obama returning cash from one accused Ponzi schemer, keeping money from bundler who helped another

Published: 12:49 PM 04/26/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller

President Barack Obama's re-election campaign plans to return campaign donations to alleged Ponzi-schemer Shervin Neman, but is keeping money from a bundler who helped convicted Ponzi-schemer R. Allen Stanford and other alleged financial criminals get tax breaks.

Neman is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and is accused of running a $7.54 million Ponzi scheme. According to public records, he gave the maximum allowable $35,800 to Obama's re-election campaign and another $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee.

 An unnamed Obama campaign official told Politico Wednesday that the president plans to return the money to Neman. "With 1.8 million donors thus far, we constantly review those contributions for issues," the unnamed Obama campaign official said. "In this particular case, we will be refunding the contributions and have placed the funds in escrow until a trusteeship or other appropriate place to return these funds is established given the interests of the investors."

Despite his rhetoric railing against them, Obama has a history of taking campaign contributions from alleged and convicted financial criminals - and people connected to them. The Obama campaign also has a history of returning money in some cases. For instance, the Obama campaign took money from people connected to former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's MF Global collapse. Obama actually removed bundler Ron Klein for his connections to Corzine's financial activity.

But, the campaign continues to remain silent when it comes to its U.S. Virgin Islands bundler Marjorie Rawls Roberts - who helps her wealthy clients navigate offshore tax loopholes in the territory. Roberts, who has pledged to raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama's 2012 campaign, has helped people like Stanford, who was convicted of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, and alleged financial criminals from the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation, with their applications for tax breaks.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse and Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt haven't returned The Daily Caller's numerous requests for comment on Roberts. Even so, her political toxicity may have reached critical mass in recent weeks as DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz canceled a scheduled fundraiser in the U.S. Virgin Islands at the last minute after TheDC revealed the bundler's ties to convicted and alleged financial criminals.

A Message from Our Criminal Government: "We Got to Get Paid"

March 18, 2012, 1:29 pm
www.freedomsphoenix.com


On March 6th, Robert Stanford was convicted in a Houston federal court on 13
out of 14 counts of fraud.

The jury decision was delivered three years after Stanford defrauded 30,000
investors in 113 countries in a Ponzi scheme involving $7 billion in
fraudulent high-interest certificates at the Stanford International Bank
located in Antigua.

The corporate media has accurately reported Stanford's use of the
fraudulently obtained money (e.g., purchasing mansions, jets, yachts,
million dollar condominiums). However, the corporate controlled media
conspicuously failed to report that much of the stolen money went to bribing
corrupt members of congress on both sides of the aisle as well as their
parent political parties. The illegally obtained money was given to the
likes of Barack Obama, William Nelson, John McCain, John Boehner, Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The mainstream media also failed to mention that both the Republican and
Democratic political parties accepted this fraudulently obtained money as
well. The court-appointed receiver tasked with returning the money to
Stanford investors obtained a federal court order last June against five
Democratic and Republican campaigns. Yet, despite the court order, the
leadership of both parties has still not returned the money! The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received nearly a million dollars. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has accepted almost a
quarter of a million dollars of Stanford's ill-gotten gains. The Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee have received almost $200,000 of the stolen
money. The Republican National Committee $130,000, and the National
Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has accepted $83,345." These facts
indict the entire Democratic and Republican apparatus and they are
unquestionably participants in a criminal enterprise system which is
benefitting from the theft of investor monies in the same fashion as did
ex-New Jersey Governor and Goldman Sachs executive, John Corzine, when he
stole tens of millions of dollars from MF Global investors.

Obama, politicians decline to return Stanford money

By Murray Waas
Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:40pm EST

(Reuters) - National fundraising committees for the Democratic and
Republican parties, President Barack Obama, and other major politicians have declined to return campaign donations totaling $1.8 million from Houston financier R. Allen Stanford, now on trial for allegedly masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

The court-appointed receiver charged with returning money to Stanford
investors obtained a federal court order last June against five Democratic
and Republican campaigns. But they haven't returned the money. The
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received $950,500; the National
Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), $238,500; the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, $200,000; the Republican National
Committee $128,500, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
$83,345.

The contributions to the campaign committees and candidates were given by
Stanford himself, Stanford executives, and a political action committee
associated with the financier.

The receiver, Ralph Janvey, is also trying to claw back money Stanford
donated to individual politicians. The list of his recipients reads like a
who's who of Washington, including President Obama - who received $4,600
from Stanford in his 2008 election campaign - Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas),
the chairman of the NRCC, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of
the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Janvey is seeking
these funds informally, and has not filed lawsuits.

Money has already been returned by House Speaker John Boehner, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain, among others. But the
roughly $154,000 recovered from elected officials is a fraction of the $1.8
million still outstanding.

The $4,600 Janvey is seeking from the Obama campaign reflects only direct
contributions from Allen Stanford himself. The total may be as high $31,000
when Stanford's contributions to Obama's other campaign committees are
included, along with money from senior Stanford executives, and the Stanford Financial Group's now defunct PAC, according to campaign finance records and an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"ROBS THE STORE"

The Obama campaign donated the $4,600 contribution to charity on February
18, 2009, just days after Stanford's alleged fraud came to light. The Obama
campaign officially has no comment on the matter, but a source familiar with the campaign's thinking told Reuters that it does not intend to return the money to the receiver or Stanford investors.

Kevin Sadler, lead counsel for the Stanford receivership, condemned the
failure by the Obama campaign to turn over the contributions to the
receiver. He said "the money was never theirs to begin with," so they have
no more right to the money than an ordinary person who was given it from "a
guy who goes into a Seven Eleven and robs the store."

Stanford is on trial for allegedly bilking $7 billion from investors, the
second-largest Ponzi scheme in the nation's history. He has denied any
wrongdoing or taking money from investors.

In his opening statement, assistant U.S. attorney Greg Costa, alleged: "Some people trusted Mr. Stanford with their entire life savings... He stole from them so he could live the lavish lifestyle of a billionaire."

Stanford's attorney Robert Scardino, in his opening, acknowledged that
billions of dollars from Stanford's bank had gone missing, but said that
Stanford knew nothing about it, and the money had been taken by a Stanford
deputy.

The receiver first wrote to the Obama campaign five days after it gave the
money to charity in 2009, asking that it instead be returned to investors.

"If you have already donated such amounts to charity, we request you
consider donating an equal amount to the Receivership," Janvey wrote back on February 23, 2009. "By returning such amounts to the Receivership Estate, you will help reduce the losses suffered by victims of the alleged fraud."

The national campaign committees are working though the court system. They
have appealed a federal judge's order to return the money to a higher court, which has not yet decided whether to consider the matter.

There is scant legal precedent when it comes to clawing back such campaign
contributions. That's because it is often difficult to prove in court that a campaign committee took money that was clearly illicit and therefore must
return it to the victims of an alleged fraud, according to Meredith McGehee, the policy director for the non-profit Campaign Legal Center.

"If there is a clear trail, they can be forced to give the money back," she
said, noting that in cases like Stanford -- where yachts, homes and other
assets have been successfully claimed by the receiver - donations could be
fair game as well. That contrasts with a case like the 2002 telecom
accounting scandal at WorldCom, where there was fraud but also legitimate
business that can cloud the source of campaign donations.

Aside from the courts, McGehee said, another check on the system is that
candidates have to face "the court of public opinion if they are given and
then keep stolen money."

This is not the first Obama campaign contribution to have recently come into question. Last Monday, Obama's reelection campaign returned more than
$200,000 in campaign contributions it had received from the American
brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who has been in trouble with the law.
Juan Jose Rojas Cardona jumped bail in the U.S. in 1994 after being charged
with drug trafficking and fraud, according to the New York Times. The
campaign said it did not know the background of the Cardona brothers when it accepted the contribution.

Stanford spent considerable sums on lobbying and on donating to members of
Congress. According to former U.S. State Department and federal law
enforcement officials, the goal was to prevent passage of legislation and
enactment of regulations that would have strengthened money laundering laws
relating to offshore banking, which would have hampered his ability to
conduct his own allegedly illicit offshore business haven on the Caribbean
island of Antigua, where the Stanford International Bank was headquartered.

As a U.S. Senator from Illinois, Obama was one of three senators who in
February 2007, along with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and then Sen. Norm
Coleman (R-Minn.), sponsored their own version of offshore banking
legislation.

A senior official of the NRSC, which raised funds for Republican house
members and candidates, said that the committee had attempted to settle the
receiver's demands but its offer was rejected.

According to this person, who declined to be identified, the NRSC offered to return the entire $83,345 Stanford donated and about seventy percent of the receiver's legal fees. However, the receiver was adamant that the
reimbursement should include 100 percent of his legal fees.

After that demand, the NRSC appealed the lower court's decision. Repeated
calls and emails to the other committees were not returned.

The receiver hasn't sued individual politicians for reimbursement, but has
been trying to persuade them to refund donations voluntarily, with mixed
success.

Sessions received $10,000 in campaign contributions from Stanford, the
largest amount among members of Congress who have yet to refund
contributions to the Stanford receiver. Sessions received an additional
$31,000 from other Stanford executives and the Stanford Financial Group's
Political Action Committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


Torrie Miller, a spokesperson for Sessions, said in an email that Sessions
would not give $10,000 to the Stanford receiver, because Sessions had
already "donated to charity" the dollar amount of all contributions from
individuals charged in the case.

Stanford gave widely to members of Congress from Texas, his home state and
the location of many of his brokerage offices. According to the receiver's
report, Cornyn, who is chairman of the NRSC, received $6,000 from Stanford - money that Cornyn has not yet returned to the receiver.

TRIP TO ANTIGUA

In late 2004, Stanford paid for a three-day "financial services industry
fact-finding" trip for Cornyn and his wife to Antigua and Barbuda, according to congressional financial disclosure statements.

A spokesman for Cornyn, Mark Gosnell, said in a statement: "Sen. Cornyn
donated $4,000 received from Allen Stanford to Big Brothers Big Sisters of
America," a 100 year-old national children's charity.

A number of the individual campaign committees of current and former members of Congress received about $154,000 in contributions from Stanford that have yet to be returned, based on the receiver's last accounting in January, information provided to Reuters by the receiver and from interviews with members of congress and their staffs.

Among those who have turned over money to the receiver are Boehner, who
received $5,000 from Stanford; Reid, who received $8,000; and McCain's
presidential campaign committee, which was given $2,300.

Of those who have paid the receiver, former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's
presidential campaign and senatorial campaign received and returned the
highest amount of funds-- $27,500. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), gave
back the second largest amount, $14,000. Calls to Boehner, Reid, Dodd,
McCain and Shelby were not returned.

Federal District Court Judge David Godbey, who ruled in favor of the
receiver in June, said the campaign committees "will endure no greater
hardship than that suffered by other innocent victims of the Stanford
Defendants' Ponzi scheme who must do the same." He added that while they may be innocent beneficiaries of Stanford's largesse, "they are not entitled to special treatment."

Many of Stanford's alleged American victims were middle class-retirees, like Stan Kaufman, a retired Philadelphia school teacher, and his wife, Linda, who lost their entire half million dollar retirement fund. Stan Kaufman recalled in an interview that he was lured to invest by a salesman who assured him that Stanford's bank was heavily regulated and all of his
deposits assured.

"They stole everything," said Kaufman. "We worked hard our whole lives. Even while teaching a full day, I always worked a second job. We now have to watch every penny. We have taken thriftiness to a new level."

It is unclear that there is much money left over for the allegedly bilked
investors. Last Monday, prosecutors introduced evidence that Stanford in
late 2008 assured his most successful brokers that they had nothing to worry about because the Stanford International Bank "was sitting on $5.1 billion."
A top aide, however, emailed him around the same time to say that they only
had about $173 million on hand.

Davis, Stanford's former deputy and the bank's former chief financial
officer, has testified that by December 2008, the bank's reserves were a
mere $88 million.

Stanford's donations still stain lawmakers' hands

American Lawmakers Hypocrisy

These so-called lawmakers should make sure their hands are clean before coming to the table. It would appear that in this situation they all forget to wash.

They should be putting their own house in order before making demands on SIPC and making sure that they - and every other US politician who benefited from Stanford's generosity (with the money he stole from his victims) - pay back the stolen funds.

Could it be that these US politicians think that if they can get SIPC paid out (mostly to the American victims) the whole situation will die down and the pressure will be off them to do the right thing? Because let's face it not one of these "lawmakers" gives a fig about the International Victims whose stolen money they so readily took and now refuse to return, and not one of these politicians have mentioned that apart from the 4,000 US victims, there are another 20,000+ International victims who they do not fight for.

Then again, the International Victims can't be counted on to vote for them, so why should these political hypocrites bother about spending the International Victims stolen money while they sit on their fat backsides in Washington??


By LOREN STEFFY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Published 07:31 p.m., Thursday, December 8, 2011

In the battle over insurance coverage for investors who lost money in the collapse of Stanford Financial's U.S. brokerage, it's difficult to know who's on investors' side.

Recently, 27 lawmakers sent a letter to the Securities Investor Protection Corp., which is funded by the brokerage industry and overseen by the government, demanding that SIPC cover investors for their losses. SIPC granted similar coverage to clients of Bernard Madoff and the recently bankrupted commodities trader MF Global.

The 23 Republicans and four Democrats threatened to convene hearings in Washington next week if SIPC didn't act.

That, apparently, is easier than living up to their own shortcomings.

Seven of the lawmakers who signed the letter received campaign contributions from Stanford. Only two - Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, and Rep. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. - returned the money. Five others - Republicans Pete Sessions of Dallas, Lamar Smith of San Antonio and Vern Buchanan and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, as well as Democrat Steve Cohen of Tennessee - owe Stanford's estate money, according to the court-appointed receiver in the company's bankruptcy.

The firm's namesake, R. Allen Stanford, liked to spread cash around Washington. The receiver has been trying to recover political donations for almost two years. About $1.8 million remains outstanding, and only about $142,000, has been returned.

Even more disturbing, five committees of the two political parties - the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee - have refused to return a combined $1.6 million.

In other words, while lawmakers are quick to call on the brokerage industry to insure the losses of Stanford's investors, they are far less willing to demand the same of themselves or their political parties.

Many of the elected officials who received campaign contributions from Stanford - including both Texas senators and Sessions - donated them to charity. That, however, doesn't let the politicians off the hook.

If Stanford was a fraud as the government contends, then the money is stolen. Donating stolen money doesn't eliminate the potential theft. Even if no theft is proved, the receiver is operating under a court order to recover money on behalf of investors, and donating it doesn't absolve lawmakers of the court's order.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is charged with overseeing SIPC, ordered the fund to pay investors in June. So far, it hasn't. As recently as last week, SIPC's chairman sent a letter to one member of Congress saying SIPC disagrees with the SEC's decision.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., had been trying to arrange some sort of settlement between the SEC and SIPC. Those efforts apparently fell through.

"The SEC needs to take definite action before the end of the year, and I'm afraid that's going to mean suing SIPC," he told SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro.

The SEC, of course, is making up for past mistakes. Having bungled earlier investigations into Stanford, it then took more than two years to reach a decision on SIPC coverage.

It may be getting tough now, but suing SIPC means investors, who have been strung along for almost three years, must wait even longer to find out if their losses are covered. Sadly, in this case, that's progress.

PAAWS Appeal for Donations to save Animal Sanctuary

Dear friends of PAAWS,                                                                                        September 2011

We hope you can take the time to read this mail and hopefully reply by return to the big question we ask below. PAAWS future depends on it.
Your answers will be presented at our emergency meeting on Sunday October 2nd at the Hideout at 3:30 p.m.

The big question is :
Do you feel there is continued need for a no kill shelter (PAAWS) in Antigua?

PAAWS are heading for a crisis. Our appeals for help in October last year when our numbers rose to 60, and again in February this year were answered by a few wonderful caring individuals, but sadly not nearly enough to give PAAWS a future. The past has shown that the shelter cannot cope without one paid helper, and even though we have just stopped taking in animals for now, we cannot see our way clear of homing the 32 we have at present, any time soon. This is the first year in PAAWS 16 years of life that we are just not homing enough of our rescues, and donations and memberships are way down. We have helped close to 1000 animals during our 7 years at the Parham shelter, it would be heartbreaking if we could not continue. We have funds for only eight more weeks

Cedar, July 2011 Cedar September 2011

PAAWS faces an avalanche of calls about abandoned, abused and neglected animals; our dwindling resources restrict our ability to respond.

Some members of the PAAWS management board are doing all they can to volunteer their own time and resources. Sadly this is not enough. After 16 years of continued efforts and development we pray that we can keep our heads above water in this turbulent sea of decline.

What will YOUR decision be: We CONTINUE or We CLOSE.

PAAWS REALLY WANTS TO CONTINUE CARING FOR THESE POOR CREATURES, BUT CAN ONLY DO THIS WITH THE REGULAR HELP OF A CARING COMMUNITY.

R.S.V.P. nedden@candw.ag Tel :Nora or Bill Nedden at 268 460 3667. MEMBERSHIP FORM SENT SEPARATELY


Please us send your decision.
Donations or membership fees by check payable to PAAWS,
Box 1839, St John’s, Antigua. Can also be dropped off at the shelter, or our head office at the Hideout.


Kindest regards,
PAAWS Management Committee.

Membership Application Email GBP

Both parties scheme for Ponzi cash

By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Post

The fundraising arms for Democratic and Republican members of Congress don’t agree on much, except when it comes to all the big donations they’ve gotten over the years from jailed financier R. Allen Stanford.

In recent days, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and other party organizations appealed a court order to return more than $1.7 million combined they received that were tied to Mr. Stanford’s alleged multibillion-dollar bilking of thousands of investors. He’s in jail awaiting trial on charges of running a Ponzi scheme while a court-appointed receiver tries to recoup money for investors.

The appeals come a month after a federal judge in Texas ordered the organizations to return the money. But in a recent court filing, attorneys for the DSCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which owe more than $1.2 million combined, asked for a stay before having to turn over the money. They want to post bond or a letter of credit pending an appeal.

Meanwhile, in a separate set of court papers, attorneys for the NRCC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and Republican National Committee filed a notice to appeal the ruling, too.

“After thoroughly reviewing the court’s decision and the relevant law, and in light of an important change in the precedent on which the court relied, we believe we have an excellent chance of success,” said Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the RNC.

The combined legal efforts of the political parties show the lengths political committees mdash; Democrat and Republican alike — will go to protect party coffers with control of Congress and the White House up for grabs in 2012.

“Stanford aimed most of his campaign contributions to congressional leaders and party bosses, and eventually started giving heavily to presidential candidates as well, which coincided with the weakening of offshore disclosure and tax regulations that directly benefited Stanford’s shady business,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the D.C.-based watchdog group Public Citizen.

“Like other campaign contributions tainted by scandal, candidates and the party committees should try to show that they personally have not been influenced by the money and turn Stanford contributions over to charity,” he said.

Federal law allows campaign committees to part with donations in several ways. They can return contributions, donate them to charity or send the money to the U.S. Treasury.

But Ralph Janvey, receiver in the Stanford case, wants the money returned to investors. In addition to taking the major-party fundraising committees to court, the receiver previously sent letters to dozens of other politicians who received Stanford money over the years. More than a year later, he’s still waiting.

According to the most recent accounting last month, politicians have returned $132,500, with nearly $1.8 million still not yet returned, though most of that is still in the hands of the party fundraising groups fighting in court.

Aside from the political committees, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, appears to be the biggest beneficiary of Stanford cash among those who have yet to return donations. The Rangel Victory Fund received $25,000 from Mr. Stanford, his associates and businesses, money that Mr. Janvey says is directly tied to the Ponzi scheme.

Other beneficiaries include the New Jersey Democratic State Committee and Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, with $10,000 each. Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, received $6,600.

Phone and email messages left with the members of Congress were not returned, nor was a message left with the New Jersey Democratic State Committee.

Among dozens of politicians who have returned the contributions are Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, who sent back $14,000; former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, who returned $27,500 from his presidential and Senate campaigns; and Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who returned $8,000.

In court documents, attorneys for the major-party committees put forth several arguments for why they should be allowed to keep the contributions, including arguing that the lawsuits seeking the return of the money weren’t filed on time.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey disagreed, noting in a 61-page ruling that the committees “fail to create a fact issue concerning the Ponzi scheme’s existence or the contributions’ source and make no attempt to show that the contributions were made in exchange for consideration of reasonably equivalent value.”

The judge ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to return $1,037,347; the NRCC, $260,291; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $218,273; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241.

Kevin Sadler, attorney for Mr. Janvey, said in an email that the ruling represented an important victory for the receivership and thousands of victims of the Ponzi scheme.

“As important as this decision is, there remain hundreds of other defendants, individuals, companies and organizations, which, like these political committees, received hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds diverted by Allen Stanford and his fraud scheme,” Mr. Sadler said.

“Such funds rightfully belong only to the receiver, whose duty it is to recover these funds and use them to compensate the victims of the Stanford fraud.”

Mr. Stanford’s trial recently was postponed from September to January. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of bilking investors of about $7 billion.

National Political Committees Must Return Stanford Donations

Source:Bloomberg
Five Democratic and Republican national political committees must return more than $1.7 million in contributions received from indicted financier R. Allen Stanford to his court-appointed receiver, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas today awarded final judgment in favor of receiver Ralph Janvey, who is marshalling assets to repay investors allegedly swindled of more than $7 billion through what the government claims was a Stanford-directed Ponzi scheme.

“Courts adhere to the principle that equality is equity in dealing with the aftermath of an imploded Ponzi scheme,” Godbey wrote in a 61-page ruling. “In disgorging the Stanford defendants’ contributions, the political committees will endure no greater hardship than that suffered by other innocent victims of the Stanford defendants’ Ponzi scheme who must do the same.”

Godbey ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Inc. to return $1,037,347; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Inc., $218,273; the National Republican Congressional Committee, $260,291; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241. The sums represent the donations the groups got from Stanford plus prejudgment interest, according to Godbey’s order.

Stanford, 61, denies all wrongdoing in connection with civil and criminal allegations that that he defrauded investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit sold by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

‘Important Victory’

“This ruling represents an important victory for the Stanford receivership and the thousands of victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme,” Kevin Sadler, lead attorney for Janvey, said in an e-mail today. “Unfortunately, the political committees waged a costly campaign to thwart the receiver’s efforts to recover the monies they received from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The receiver will be filing appropriate papers with the court to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and expenses he was forced to incur in this case.”

Mark Shank, a lawyer for the Republican committees, didn’t immediately return voice or e-mail messages seeking comment on today’s ruling.

“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are weighing our options,’’ Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail.

The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09cv298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

Affected investor - Stanford International Bank Case SEC v. Stanford International Bank, 09-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

On the 17th of February, 2009 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Allen Stanford and his finance boss Jame M. Davis of having installed a Ponzi scheme in the enterprises controlled by them, including the bank of Antigua.

Many innocent people trusted the Government of United States and its regulatory institutions.

They invested with a brokerage that was regulated by the SEC, and whose brokers were members of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) and SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation). The SEC and FINRA allowed such a Brokerage Firm to operate in USA.

After almost two years there is no yet a solution but many news related with the negligence of SEC and FINRA, the internal corruption in the SEC and the “institutional influences” from US-government agency which allowed Allen Stanford to build his Ponzi scheme.

It is quite evident that the SEC and FINRA are responsible for prosecuting fraud and wrongdoing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feds probe banker Allen Stanford's ties to Congress

The Ponzi scheme was able to continue for so long due to “institutional influences” within the SEC.

As Feds Closed In, Stanford Boosted Efforts To Buy Influence...



"John Cornyn: In November 2004, right after the election, Texas Sen. John Cornyn traveled to Antigua on Stanford's. The purpose of the trip, which cost over $7,000? To investigate the financial industry. Too bad he didn't seem to notice anything."


Senator Bill Nelson from Florida received $6,100 from Allen Stanford.
Stanford got approval to create the first company of its kind in Miami: a foreign trust office that could bypass regulators
Florida's top financial regulator and several lawmakers want an investigation of the state's agreement with banker Allen Stanford to operate a Miami office -- with no government scrutiny.

The ties between indicted banker Allen Stanford and members of Congress -- including millions in contributions and weekends in five-star Caribbean resorts -- are now the subject of a sweeping federal investigation.

One of Congress' most powerful members, Pete Sessions sent an Email to Allen Stanford on Feb. 17.
``I love you and believe in you,'' said the e-mail sent ``If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail,'' it said, signed ``Pete.''

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received $950,000 from Allen Stanford and his affiliated companies.
The National Republican Congressional Committee follows with $238,500 from Allen Stanford and his affiliated companies.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee received $202,000 from Allen Stanford and his affiliated companies.
The Republican National Committee got $128,500 from Allen Stanford and his affiliated companies.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee took $83,345 from Allen Stanford and his affiliated companies.

It is clear the Ponzi scheme was able to continue for so long due to “institutional influences”


Click here to read the complete list of US-politicians who received money from Allen Stanford.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Washington, D.C.) - U.S. Sen. David Vitter today reacted to the report released by the Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed the agency was aware of fraud committed by Texas financier Allen Stanford and did not pursue an investigation.

"The depth of the failure at the SEC in the Stanford investigation is unbelievable,” said Vitter. “There were four examinations in 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2004, and in each case examiners concluded that Stanford's CDs were likely a Ponzi scheme. Yet the SEC did absolutely nothing while Stanford fleeced investors for roughly $8 billion. What is clear from the report is that the debt the SEC owes the Stanford victims is enormous."

In August of 2009 Vitter hosted a U.S. Senate Banking Committee field hearing on the Stanford case in Baton Rouge. At that time, it was determined that the original IG report was insufficient, which led Vitter, along with Sen. Richard Shelby, to request a more complete report from the SEC on the investigation. Vitter will meet with David Kotz, inspector general of the SEC and author of the report, later this week.

Vitter serves on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and has been actively working on this issue to help bring relief to the victims of this scheme.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC's corruption allowed Stanford's fraud.


The Securities and Exchange Commission knew that Allen Stanford was involved in a Ponzi scheme as far back as 1997, according to a report released Friday by SEC Inspector General David Kotz.

The 159-page report said the scheme was able to continue for so long due to “institutional influences” within the SEC, and the agency’s desire to chase after slam-dunk cases.

"In the Madoff case, we saw the Commission's depth of incompetency, now, in the Stanford case, we see that not only is the SEC incompetent, it is also appears to be corrupt,"

Read more here...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOJ Halted SEC's Investigation Into Stanford Financial


“For over a decade, the US government, including the DOJ (Department of Justice), the Treasury and the SEC had solid evidence of Robert Allen Stanford’s alleged criminal activities and investors were never warned. Whether Robert Allen Stanford is guilty or not, the reality is that our entire life’s savings is lost and these victims relied on information from the US government agencies when making the decision to invest with Stanford Group.
These agencies did not disclose critical information that would have prevented us from losing our life’s savings.”

“The entire world is watching how the American judicial and financial regulatory system will handle the debilitating losses of victims of massive fraud like the Stanford case. These victims have been denied help by the US government and are now facing a long road to an extremely limited recovery.“

Read more here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorable phrases to never forget


The 159-page of SEC Inspector General David Kotz's report said the scheme was able to continue for so long due to "institutional influences" within the SEC, and the agency's desire to chase after slam-dunk cases.


“The depth of the failure at the SEC in the Stanford investigation is unbelievable,” said U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La.


“The one thing that is clear from the inspector general David Kotz's report is that the debt the SEC owes the Stanford victims is enormous,” said U.S. Sen. David Vitter.


Rose Romero (director of the SEC's Fort Worth regional office): "we did not think there were any American investors so it really did not concern us".


“I urge the SEC to act swiftly in correcting these wrongs, so these families whose retirement and savings were stolen as a result of greed and government failure can begin rebuilding their lives,” U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon said.


“Keep an eye on these people [Stanford] because it looks like a Ponzi scheme to me, and some day it’s going to blow up,” said a retiring assistant district administrator for the Fort Worth examination program in 1997 to the branch chief.


Simon, the Florida banking director who approved the agreement, says he should have banned the office from handling money.
Art Simon, now admits he made a mistake.


Several lawyers said much of the responsibility rests with Simon. ”In this case, he was responsible for having an effective system of enforcement,” said Jeffrey Sonn, a Fort Lauderdale securities attorney. “The state didn’t do the kind of reviews it needed to do.”


“As God is my witness,” Stanford said, “there is no Ponzi scheme, there was no intentional fraud.”
The company "had far more assets, solid assets, cash and other assets that could cover all our liabilities worldwide."


``I love you and believe in you,'' said the e-mail sent ``If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail,'' it said, signed ``Pete Sessions.''

MORE QUESTIONABLE ADVICE - FROM COVISAL TO LATIN AMERICAN INVESTORS

The self-proclaimed ‘Leader’ of COVISAL, Jaime R. Escalona, continues to issue very questionable advice to Latin American Stanford investors.

Not only has he been requesting further ‘donations,’ now a questionnaire to register with Covisal has been issued to Latin American investors. This questionnaire requests extensive private and confidential information from Stanford victims, including; the amount of their investment; the objective of their investment, whether it was a retirement fund, family life savings, education fund, or to guarantee business loans, etc; bank details; credit card details; account statements; and even certain PIN numbers are requested.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions whether all this information is absolutely necessary to join a victim’s support group, and consider carefully what risks investors may face from the trust placed in Covisal if this information is misused, or otherwise falls into the wrong hands.

Furthermore, Covisal continues to advise investors to fill-out their own FTCA claim forms, without acknowledging the risks of such claims being incomplete; being submitted too late; or being otherwise ineligible. Please refer to some of the earlier posts for more detail of the risks involved in ‘self-filing.’ The amount of case-law and precedents that need to be understood is immense, and easy to confuse; you can easily imagine the potential for filing an incomplete or ineligible claim if your first language is not English.

We understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal has even advised his followers that there is no urgency, to submit FTCA claims, as this is will be a class-action that all investors can join-in later. Anyone spouting such blatant misinformation should not be trusted further.

Should there be litigation, which will most likely become a class-action, ONLY those investors who have registered valid claims will be included. This is an action against the US Government under the FTCA, where the rules for eligibility are very different to other class-actions, and if the reason you give for the negligence of the SEC is significantly different to the rest of the class, your claim may not even be admissible into the class action. In which case you may have to go to court separately and litigate your claim on your own, at your own expense. Furthermore if you do not already have a contract with an attorney, such as the one we have negotiated with Kachroo Legal services for a 15% contingency, you may have to pay whatever the judge awards to the lead attorney, which could be as high as 25% contingency fees. In the past some attorneys have demanded as high as 32% contingency fees from Stanford investors who chose not to pay a retainer. Please be reminded our attorney has already offered to accept clients who are experiencing extreme hardship and can not afford to pay a retainer.

Finally, we understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal continues to claim our attorney only has only been practicing for 6 years, when she actually has 22 years of experience , some of it highly relevant; has never lost a case; and is the most highly rated for her qualifications and experience. Anyone wishing to compare the rating of our attorney with any of the other Stanford attorneys should refer to the following link and draw their own conclusions:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/02142-ma-gaytri-kachroo-1356107.html and her CV can be found here: http://www.kachroolegal.com/docs/dr_kachroo_cv.pdf

Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud, have only a few days left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission; for their negligence in not acting against Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme.

The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.

The Stanford International Victims Group have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, place of residence, or the Stanford entity in which they made their investments.

Any Stanford investors, who have not yet decided whether to join this action, should contact their own attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass. who already have experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors.
Email: info@kachroolegal.com

ARE CERTAIN ADVISORS OF STANFORD BANK VICTIMS LINING THEIR OWN POCKETS?

Over the weekend one of the self-appointed and so called ‘leaders’ of a group of Stanford victims issued yet another request for ‘donations’ from the victims. It is regrettable there will always be those who prey on the weak and needy, continually asking for money from victims who have already given all they can afford to give, and for what? What exactly have these individuals achieved with all the donations they have received over the last two years? What have all the donations been spent on, and why do some individuals continue to keep asking for more, when they can show nothing constructive for all the money they have collected?

The Stanford International Victims Group does not condone requests for donations by any of these individuals. Please discard any correspondence you receive from them asking for money.

The team behind this campaign has worked tirelessly, and without any need to request donations from any of the victims, and have done so for the benefit of all the Stanford investors.

The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for full recovery of losses sustained by all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality or place of abode. All valid claims must be submitted correctly and timely before the 16th February 2011 deadline when the Statute of Limitations expires.

Please consult an attorney to submit your claims. Although the forms look straightforward enough, there is a plethora of case-law awaiting the unwary. Please ensure that the attorney you engage is willing to take your claim forward, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and has experience of submitting FTCA claims.

Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International investors Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors. Email:info@kachroolegal.com

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU SEND MONEY TO!

It has been brought to my attention - again - that there are people (non professional people) who are using what has happened to us as an excuse to solicit money from the victims.

I would urge all members of this forum NOT to send money to people who profess to be helping you while begging for contributions from you, unless they are professionals (such as lawyers), doing a professional job.

There are several people who work non stop on trying to help each and every victim of the Stanford fraud on a daily basis. David Brent, Patron1, Was Cool Calm Investor, Wendyanne, plus several more that work behind the scenes, and we do it without asking or accepting a penny from any victim. Our costs are the use of a computer and perhaps a few phone calls - basically it costs us nothing. We get information out to as many victims as possible, offer help and advice, keep everyone informed via the forum and the blog, get publicity and news to as many people as possible, speak to reporters, write to MP's and Senators, write to the Committee and the lawyers and we have never asked - or would accept a cent from victims who have already lost so much.

Unfortunately this is not the case with everyone that professes to be "helping" the victims and certain people have and still are asking for contributions from you all. This has to stop. You, the victims have to ask yourself why they are asking for money and exactly what they are doing with your hard earned cash? It is disgraceful that some people see this tragedy as an opportunity to exploit and cash in on what has happened to us all.

I urge all of you to throw any letters or emails asking for money that you receive from anyone on the forum (or from anywhere else) in the trash. There is no need for you to pay people who are genuine in their desire to help and there is no need for you to be paying for someone to set up a home business living off of your donations while basically doing and achieving nothing. All those who have sent money in the past need to be asking the question "what has my money been spent on, what has this person done to help me, what has this person EVER achieved that has not been done for free through the forum and the blog?

I hope you will all listen to me. If the donations stop then these leeches will disappear and you will then know who is truly helping you and who is using you for their own personal gain.

Feds probe banker Allen Stanford's ties to Congress

The Ponzi scheme was able to continue for so long due to “institutional influences” within the SEC.

As Feds Closed In, Stanford Boosted Efforts To Buy Influence...

Read more:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/12/27/v-fullstory/1399470/feds-probe-banker-allen-stanfords.html

Political contributions from Mr. Stanford and his affiliated companies. For which purpose?

$950,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
$238,500 National Republican Congressional Committee
$202,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
$128,500 Republican National Committee
$ 83,345 National Republican Senatorial Committee
$ 25,000 Rangel Victory Fund
$ 16,000 Friends of Chris Dodd
$ 14,000 Shelby for US Senate
$ 11,500 Chris Dodd for President
$ 10,000 New Jersey Democractic State Committee
$ 10,000 Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX)
$ 8,000 Friends for Harry Reid
$ 6,600 Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
$ 6,100 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
$ 5,000 Americans for a Republic Majority PAC
$ 5,000 Friends of John Boehner
$ 5,000 Friends of Jay Rockefeller
$ 5,000 Delegate Donna Christensen (D-USVI)
$ 5,000 Representative Charles Gonzalez (D-TX)
$ 5,000 KPAC (affiliated with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas)
$ 5,000 Lone Star Fund
$ 5,000 Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)
$ 5,000 Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS)
$ 4,600 Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (presidential campaign)
$ 4,550 Representative Dan Maffei (D-NY)
$ 4,000 Arcuri for Congress
$ 4,000 Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
$ 4,000 Representative Richard Neel (D-MA)
$ 4,000 Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
$ 3,300 Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)
$ 3,300 Pete Olson for Congress
$ 3,000 Representative James E. Clyburn (D-SC)
$ 3,000 Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
$ 3,000 ERICPAC
$ 3,000 Leadership PAC 2006
$ 3,000 Alexander for Senate 2014, Inc.
$ 3,000 Mel Watt for Congress
$ 2,550 Representative Eric Massa (D-NY)
$ 2,550 Representative Mike McMahon (D-NY)
$ 2,500 Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
$ 2,500 Freedom Fund
$ 2,500 Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
$ 2,500 Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
$ 2,500 Senator Mary Landreiu (D-LA)
$ 2,500 Representative John Lewis (D-GA)
$ 2,500 Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
$ 2,500 National Leadership PAC
$ 2,500 Friends of Mark Warner
$ 2,500 Representative Adam Putnam (R-FL)
$ 2,500 Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR)
$ 2,500 Former Senator John Sunnunu (R-NH)
$ 2,500 Representative John Tanner (D-TN)
$ 2,500 Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
$ 2,500 Collins for Senator
$ 2,500 Campaign Account of Robert Wexler
$ 2,300 Minnick for Congress
$ 2,300 Representative John Boccieri (D-OH)
$ 2,300 Representative Deborah Halvorson (D-IL)
$ 2,300 Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
$ 2,300 Olson-Texas Victory Committee
$ 2,300 Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS)
$ 2,100 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
$ 2,000 Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)
$ 2,000 Neugebauer Congressional Committee
$ 2,000 Lloyd Doggett for Congress
$ 2,000 People for Patty Murray
$ 2,000 Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
$ 2,000 Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
$ 2,000 Reprentative Kevin Brady (R-TX)
$ 2,000 Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
$ 2,000 Representative Dave Camp (R-MI)
$ 2,000 LEADPAC
$ 2,000 Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
$ 2,000 Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX)
$ 2,000 Representative Patrick Tiberi (R-OH)
$ 2,000 Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ)
$ 1,500 Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX)
$ 1,500 Representative Peter King (R-NY)
$ 1,500 Representative Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
$ 1,500 David Scott for Congress
$ 1,500 Charles Boustany Jr. MD for Congress
$ 1,000 Representative Joe Barton (R-TX)
$ 1,000 Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
$ 1,000 Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
$ 1,000 Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
$ 1,000 Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)
$ 1,000 Former Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
$ 1,000 Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)
$ 1,000 Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX)
$ 1,000 Freedom Funds - Mike Crapo, Honorary Chairman
$ 1,000 Barney Frank for Congress Committee
$ 1,000 Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
$ 1,000 Marsha Blackburn for Congress
$ 500 Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)

Allen Stanford's Investors Want Alleged Swindler's Political Donations Returned

Democratic and Republican lawyers are scrambling this week to figure out how to contend with an unusual lawsuit filed by the Texas official tasked with recovering money spent by Allen Stanford, the alleged mastermind of an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.

More than $1.6 million from Stanford and his businesses went to fund Democratic and Republican Congressional campaigns between 2000 and 2008, and now the investors want the political parties to give that cash back, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

The suit could be an important one to watch, because of a recent spate of alleged swindlers who also happen to be prolific political donors. Most notable was Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein, convicted last month in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. He and his law firm had parceled out more than $600,000 to politicians in the past five years.

The case against the party committees is also notable because it is built, in part, on an unusual rationale -- the contention that Stanford didn't actually get anything in return for his contributions. Under a quirk of the law, if the lawyers for the political parties can't show that he did receive some tangible benefit, they may have to come up with the money. And it's a point they'll have a hard time contesting, since they can't exactly argue that he bought influence with his money.

Ralph S Janvey, the lawyer who filed the case in Dallas Tuesday, said he began requesting the money in writing a year ago and continued making written requests until earlier this month. The party committees "have ignored these requests, and, as a result, the Receiver has been forced to file this lawsuit seeking the return of the funds," Janvey wrote.

Overall, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received the largest share of the Stanford money -- $950,500 – according to the Texas lawsuit. The National Republican Congressional Committee received $238,500, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee got $200,000, the Republican National Committee took in $128,500, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee received $83,345.

Lawyers and press aides for several of the political committees initially told ABC News they thought the case would be dismissed right away, and they saw little chance they would have to give the money back.

"The money's been spent. It's not going to be returned," one party official said, speaking on the condition he not be named because the litigation is pending.

But after spending more time reviewing the situation, several campaign finance lawyers told ABC News that this could actually be a far more tricky case than it initially seemed.

Under election laws, there are only a small handful of legal reasons a political committee would be forced to return contributions. They would have to refund money if it came from a corporation, came from a foreign source, or was funneled through an illegal straw donor arrangement, said Lawrence M. Noble, a former chief counsel to the Federal Election Commission.

"On the other hand, if the receiver has an independent legal basis for getting the money back, I don't think the party committees would be treated any differently than any other recipient of Stanford funds, whether it is a charity or a business," Noble said

And that, potentially, is where the trouble starts for the Democratic and Republican committees, said Jan Baran, a Washington election lawyer.

There's a separate set of laws covering something called a "fraudulent conveyance," Baran said. Victims of swindling are entitled to recover any goods that were obtained with their swindled money. If the money was donated or given away rather than used to obtain something tangible, the victim can ask for the money back rather than tangible items. Any charity or other third party that has received money from a swindler may then be compelled to return that money to the person from whom it was originally obtained.

Hence one of the key arguments in Janvey's court filing -- that the political parties to which Stanford donated did not provide anything tangible in exchange for the allegedly swindled funds. They are more like charities that have been given swindled money and must return it.

Just because Janvey's legal argument "is unprecedented, that doesn't mean it will be unsuccessful," Trevor Potter, the campaign lawyer who represented Sen. John McCain during his presidential bid, said in an interview.

Lawyers for the five party committees involved in the case either declined to comment or did not respond to emails and phone calls. They can't argue that Stanford's donations bought him influence, but they are known to be checking if the money got him any tangible perks, like access to a concert or a sporting event or an exclusive gala at one of the party conventions.

Baran, who used to represent Republican congressional committees, said he suspects the party lawyers will try to reach a settlement with Janvey, rather than risk seeing this case resolved by a judge.

"I think Stanford's [alleged] victims are going to get some of the money, if not all of it," Baran said.

Stanford, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, is awaiting trial

Lawyer sues to recover Allen Stanford's donations to congressional fundraisers

Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, who is in charge of recovering assets from the empire of alleged Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford, sued the congressional fundraising committees on Friday to recover money that could be returned to investors.

Janvey first requested in Feb. 2009 that more than $1.8 million in campaign donations be returned to the estate. The largest beneficiaries of Stanford's largess were the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($950,500); the National Republican Congressional Committee ($238,500); the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($200,000); the Republican National Committee ($128,500); and the National Republican Senatorial Committee ($83,345). According to Janvey, who is represented in the matter by Kevin M. Sadler and Timothy S. Durst of Baker Botts, the committees have "ignored" his requests to return the funds.

Two of the Republican committees are led by Texans: the NRCC, by Rep. Pete Sessions of Dallas, and the NRSC, by Sen. John Cornyn. An NRCC official previously told The Dallas Morning News that the group has no plans to return the money. Sessions' NRCC struggled to raise money in 2009, although it reported raising $4.5 million in January. Even with improved fundraising prospects in 2010, it's hard to imagine the NRCC unilaterally disgorging the Stanford donations since its rival, the DCCC, hasn't agreed to give back the money, either.

There have been a lot of questions about what kind of favors Stanford sought in return for his generous donations. Interestingly, the attorneys argue the answer is nothing: "The Committee defendants did not furnish any consideration whatsoever for the funds they received from Stanford, Davis and the Stanford Financial Group," the complaint states. "Consequently, they have no legitimate right to retain the funds, and the Receiver is entitled to the return of all such funds."

Politicians Slow To Repay Tainted Donations

Financier Allen Stanford steps off a prison transport bus at the federal courthouse for a hearing Sept. 15

Billionaire investor Allen Stanford was one of the biggest players in the financial meltdown.
His empire collapsed a year ago this week, and he's now awaiting trial on fraud charges.
Meanwhile, a court-appointed lawyer is trying to recover $1.8 million in campaign contributions that Stanford and his executives made with clients' money.
If the name Allen Stanford jogs your memory at all, it might be because he got the government of Antigua to dub him Sir Allen Stanford.
Or because he threw millions of dollars into his passion for the game of cricket.
Or because of an interview he did in June 2008 on CNBC, in which he responded to the question: Is it fun being a billionaire?
"Well, ah — yes, yes. I have to say it's fun being a billionaire. But it's hard work. But it's hard work," Stanford said.
Whether Stanford would call making campaign contributions hard work or fun, he made a lot of them.
Stanford and his two top executives dropped nearly $2 million in Washington, D.C. The money went to five party committees, three presidential campaigns and 82 members of Congress.
A judge has appointed what's called a "receiver" to recover whatever he can for investors — including that campaign money.
Kevin Sadler, a lawyer representing the receiver, says the Stanford operation used political money as a tool. It was "a business organization that from the outside appeared to be a legitimate business and was doing many things to give an appearance of legitimacy, one of which was to provide political contributions."
The fact is politicians don't like to let go of money they've raised. The receiver sent letters last March asking for refunds.
Out of the $1.8 million, a bit less than $89,000 came back.
Top 10 Unreturned Political Contributions (Ranked By Size of Contribution)
Amount Source
$950,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
$238,500 National Republican Congressional Committee
$202,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
$128,500 Republican National Committee
$83,345 National Republican Senatorial Committee
$25,000 Rangel Victory Fund
$10,000 New Jersey Democratic State Committee
$10,000 Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
$6,600 Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
$6,100 Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Complete List
Source: Stanford Financial Group Receivership
Now a second round of letters has gone out. It tells the politicians that the money was "diverted from the thousands of innocent investors that have been defrauded by the Stanford Ponzi scheme."
There's no threat to file suit, but Sadler says that's not off the table.
"The money needs to be returned, and where it's cost-justified to do so, then certainly going to court is very much an option," he says.
That leaves one question: Who's holding all of this Stanford money?
In first place is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with $950,000 — almost half the total. Nobody at the committee responded to NPR's request for comment.
The National Republican Congressional Committee ranks No. 2 with $238,500. Its spokesman said they had no comment.
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has the most Stanford money of any lawmaker: $35,800. His office didn't respond to NPR's request for comment.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), with $10,000, is in second place for individual lawmakers who didn't return their cash.
There is precedent for politicians giving back tainted contributions. Deciding to do so can be as much political as legal.
"I think what ultimately will happen will depend on whether the story has legs or not," says Larry Noble, a campaign finance lawyer and former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission.
Noble says politicians look at the pain threshold where the money is no longer worth the fight.
"The larger the amount of money, the higher the pain threshold," he says.
But it seems when it comes to holding onto Allen Stanford's money, the pain hasn't come anywhere near the threshold. At least, not yet.

Most lawmakers haven't returned donations from disgraced Texas banker Allen Stanford

By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – Most lawmakers haven't returned donations from disgraced Texas banker R. Allen Stanford despite pleadings from a federal receiver who is trying to get the money back for defrauded investors.

Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey is sending new letters this week demanding the funds from about 70 members of Congress, as well as the fundraising committees for Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. Janvey is seeking more than $1.8 million in contributions from Stanford, his top corporate lieutenants and employees of his offshore bank and affiliated financial services companies.

"The funds used to make these contributions came directly from defrauded investors," said Kristie Blumenschein, a spokeswoman for Janvey. "Such payments were fraudulent transfers, and the receiver has requested that the funds be returned to the receivership estate as soon as possible."

Janvey first asked for the money in February 2009. But only about $88,000 has been returned to Janvey, who was appointed to recover Stanford's far-flung assets and return as much money as possible to investors.

Stanford; his former chief financial officer, James M. Davis; and his former chief investment officer, Laura Pendergest-Holt, were indicted in June for their roles in what the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission called a $7 billion Ponzi scheme involving high-interest certificates of deposit. Stanford International Bank Ltd. was based in Antigua.

Over the years, Stanford's robust lobbying team in Washington tried to weaken efforts to crack down on money laundering through offshore banks. Many of Stanford's top allies in Congress were Texans, including Rep. Pete Sessions of Dallas, who sent a sympathetic e-mail to Stanford the day he was charged.

If the lawmakers don't return the funds, Janvey could try to sue them to recover the money, said Phillip L. Stern, a Chicago securities attorney who previously worked as an enforcement attorney for the SEC.

"Ultimately, if they say no, he has to go to court," Stern said. "At which point these people would be able to argue that the receiver does not have the authority to recapture those funds."

Some lawmakers said last year they would donate Stanford's funds to charity, but most haven't even done that. Only about 15 of the 70 lawmakers on Janvey's list made any contributions from their campaign accounts to charities in 2009, according to CQ Moneyline, which tracks federal campaign donations.

And in most cases, their charitable contributions were less than the amount they received from Stanford.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hasn't returned $950,000 it received from Stanford and his employees over the years. The National Republican Congressional Committee, chaired by Sessions, didn't return $238,500. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hasn't returned $202,000.

A spokesman for the Democratic Senate committee didn't return a message Wednesday seeking comment. An official with Sessions' committee said the group has no plans to return the funds.

Texas lawmakers who haven't returned Stanford contributions to their personal campaigns or political action committees include Sessions, who has said he donated a $2,000 Stanford contribution to charity; Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is running for governor; Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio; Republican Sen. John Cornyn; Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land; and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands.