Talk:Bernie Madoff/Archive 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source: Wikipedia.de
 * I agree, the translation does sound bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.43 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Limited liability company (LLC)
Madoff founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960.

The first state to enact a law authorizing limited liability companies was Wyoming in 1977, and New York did not have this until 1994. Does anyone have the full name of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities from the 1960s (with a reliable source)? Most likely, it was incorporated (Inc.), or something similar. Ncepts (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible Criminal Complicit Involvement by the SEC
As I read this, and based on other information I've gathered, I find it impossible to believe that Madoff was able to get away with this Ponzi Scam without some kind of "man on the inside" at the SEC. If there is any information available that might "flesh out" this question, I think it should be included to satisfy the demands of readability. At minimum, there should be at least some mention of the absence of such information, as I think the enormous scale of the fraud demands it.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D0C3:A1BF:6BE8:5199 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is completely unsourced speculation. Furthermore, an absence of information about a conspiracy is not notable. There are an infinite number of possible criminal conspiracies that someone could have engaged in, but we have no information indicating they did. Kim.mason (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff is a Stockbroker?
Since when is Bernie Madoff a stockbroker as is described in the opening summary of this article, and never ever mentioned again in the article. Does anyone know what a stockbroker is or does? Bernie Madoff was a marketmaker. It was even a significant part of his business at the end, if only in volume. It was also how and why he became head of Nasdaq. This needs to be changed so it is not so misleading. Bernard Madoff never was a stockbroker according to any information in this article and never operated a stock brokerage firm. I will change the opening to denote that Madoff was a market maker by profession, not a stockbroker, which is ridiculous.Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Upon further investigation, one of the books used as a reference in the article title, "What Goes Up: The Uncensored History of Modern Wall Street as Told by the Bankers, Brokers, CEOs, and Scoundrels Who Made It Happen," on page 188 has Bernie Madoff himself describe his start as a market maker NOT a stockbroker. There is no mention of stockbrokering in his comments... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff → Bernie Madoff – "Bernie Madoff" gets about 1.3 million Google hits, "Bernard Madoff" gets 768k. "Bernie" also gets more news hits than "Bernard" (44k vs 35k). A similar ratio is found in books. (40k vs 34k) Lovesaver (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   22:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose just doesn't seem significantly more to move when the 43% of financial sources are better quality than then 57% of tabloid sources 29,800 slightly more in books. It's a question of register. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The more reliable sources use "Bernard." And it is consistent with related concepts such as Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securites, LLC and U.S. v. Bernard L. Madoff. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Even if we accept that the two options are close in results, its clear one edges out the other. Most high quality sources will often use both the legal name of a person and their nickname - Bernard once at the start, and Bernie the rest of the time, for example. If you compare what they use strictly in titles though, "Bernie" is much more common in books, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.  So the case for what to title this article should be based on what is primarily used in the titles of reliable sources. -- Netoholic @  20:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move per Netoholic.  ONR  (talk)  19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose move Bernie Madoff already redirects to the article. The article has been here for 10 years with the same name (I know, I started the article) and hasn't had a problem with people getting confused on who is the subject of the article.  WP:COMMONNAME definitely does *not* require a name change. So what would changing the name accomplish?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its more correct. Inertia is not an argument.  Even Britannica gets it right - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernie-Madoff . -- Netoholic @  20:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "more correct"? not according to WP:COMMONNAME. Bernard Madoff is his legal name, "Bernie" is a nickname that has become commonly used by the public since his conviction, but Bernard is also commonly used. Bernie Madoff redirects here. I'll ask again: So what would changing the name accomplish? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bernie" is not a nickname, its a MOS:HYPOCORISM or diminutive form. Its the exact same as someone going by Bill or Tom or Johnny. This person is more commonly referred to as "Bernie" per the abundant evidence I've given above and we have no requirement to use his legal name as the title of the page (only the lead sentence per MOS:HYPOCORISM).  The whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is to communicate the standard that we should, in fact, title articles based on what they are commonly-called, and Naming conventions (people) reinforces that when it comes to biographical articles. Your arguments absolutely fail considering we use it in the title of many articles about Bernie (given name) people such as Bernie Sanders. -- Netoholic @  05:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, which I thought still mattered here at Wikipedia Red   Slash  02:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per interest. --Quiz shows 21:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. "Bernie" is more common than "Bernard" even in the higher caliber sources (for example, Google Books vs ).--Cúchullain t/ c  13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. LM2000 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are not on friendly terms with the subject of the article therefore we should use the more distant name which is the name at birth. In my opinion this is an exceptionally frivolous move suggestion. WP:COMMONNAME is being abused here and thus can be ignored. Why? There is minimal distinction between "Bernie" and "Bernard". These aren't intrinsically different names. Rather they are variations on the same name. Note an example given at WP:COMMONNAME. "Bill", in "Bill Clinton", is very different from "William Jefferson", in "William Jefferson Clinton". Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the common name. I don't loathe this current title because it's not truly obscure, but it seems clear that to the general public he is Bernie. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't loathe this current title because it's not truly obscure" It is not to any degree "obscure". A reader makes a mental calculation between "Bernard" and "Bernie". This occurs automatically. These are not two distinct terms. Thus WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable. (You are saying "This is the common name.") Other arguments can apply. But the argument that the suggested move is somehow supported by WP:COMMONNAME is in my opinion an invalid argument. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be a hypocorism but it's still a different form of his name and a different title. I don't see how COMMONNAME does not apply in that case. Otherwise no diminuitive would ever be used in a title. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:COMMONNAME is a core part of our policy on article titles, and I'm shocked to see so many users willing to ignore it in this instance.  Calidum   03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Calidum—there is nothing wrong with having a preference. But COMMONNAME is not a reason for preferring "Bernie". COMMONNAME discusses choices that are real choices. When faced with William Jefferson Clinton and Bill Clinton we are to choose the common name. The difference between our two names under consideration is slight, and there is no clear dominance of one form over the other. You are grasping at straws in claiming that COMMONNAME supports your preference. "Bernie" is just a diminutive and affectionate version of "Bernard". One calls someone named "Bernard" "Bernie" when one wants to express affection. But the name remains "Bernard". Looking at Google Ngrams for "Bernie Madoff" and "Bernard Madoff" shows no use of the "Bernie" form. The Google Ngram Viewer surveys printed material up to 2008. It shows plenty of instances of "Bernard Madoff" prior to 2008, the year of the scandal. But it shows no instances of "Bernie Madoff" prior to 2008. This suggests to me that the sources using "Bernie" after the scandal are using that affectionate appellation ironically—and we should not follow suit. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Lepricavark (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021
The website for Source #22 does not exist anymore. Here is a Wayback Machine link to that article: https://web.archive.org/web/20200724191721/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-madoff/madoff-pleads-guilty-is-jailed-for-65-billion-fraud-idUSTRE52A5JK20090313 DodomaAstatine (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021
Markopolos determined that it wasn't legitimate (wrong word is used). Added semi-colon for grammatical clarity.

At least as early as 2001, Harry Markopolos discovered that for Madoff's strategy to be illegitimate;Italic text he would have had to buy more options on the Chicago Board Options Exchange than actually existed. Additionally, at least one hedge-fund manager, Suzanne Murphy, revealed that she balked at investing with Madoff because she did not believe there was enough volume to support his purported trading activity.2600:1700:2DF0:33D0:140D:6A1D:1357:EFD6 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yours actually isn't right. Note the "for" in the original sentence. I've reworded it to make this clearer. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 07:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In quotations, we can't change "is" to "was"
e.g. the sentencing judge was quoted saying that the absence of character references "is telling." but somebody just changed it to "was telling". No, no, no. We can't change words within quotes. There are probably 3-4 instances of this now. After the rush to edit is done in a few hours I'll go back and change these, but please don't do it anymore. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smallbones, changes to quotes should never be done. A quote is a quote and so long as it is accurate to the source, it should remain verbatim. If there is a misspelling, you can insert "[sic]" to indicate that the quote has a misspelling. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021
Correct the grammar in the Mechanics of the Fraud section.

Change this: "According to the SEC indictment against Annette Bongiorno and Joann Crupi, two back office workers who worked for Madoff, they created false trading reports based on the returns that Madoff ordered for each customer."

To this: "According to an SEC indictment, office workers Annette Bongiorno and Joann Crupi created false trading reports based on the returns that Madoff ordered for each customer." Daniel.w.dunn (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Madoff's last days
The WSJ has just published an exclusive article describing Madoff's last days on their marketwatch.com site with appears to be new information. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Madoff - unit of measure of financial fraud
New metric for sizing financial fraud. 1 Madoff equals approximately $20B. Compare this to the current estimate for Sam Bankman-Fried's alleged fraud which comes out at around 40 Madoffs. 71.84.87.71 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Death
Could the event of his death be categorised separately so that people for whom this is an important fact be able to find it conveniently 84.203.16.27 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)