Talk:Frank DiPascali

Another source
Here is a long article on DiPascali, I just don't have time right now to go through it and extract any new information for this article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ag7..rlaGZLw&refer=home Neutron (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Private banker?
This source says he is one: .--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it says he is married to one. Neutron (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A thousand pardons. You are right. 'Cerebral malfunction'.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He certainly should not be included in the category "American businesspeople" - he is a plain and simple fraudster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.62.26 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not been charged with any wrongdoing as of yet. Do not add this. Vicenarian  (T · C) 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPascali going down
"Ex-Madoff CFO DiPascali to Be Charged, Plead Guilty, U.S. Says". More details will follow on Monday after the arraignment. He apparently cut a plea deal and agreed to cooperate with the investigation. So expect more arrests. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and photo
Is there enough info to make an info box? Does a mugshot exist?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to dig up a photo. I think I remember the Madoff pic coming from DOJ. I'll find the editor who uploaded that pic tomorrow. I'm off to bed, so I hope somebody can dig in the meantime. Here are a couple of search results but no photo.

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No copyright violations please
I hope everybody realizes that you can't just copy a sentence verbatim from a news report - it's a copyright violation. The particular sentence I changed (in the personal section) had a reference to his children - I doubt that his children are particularly relevant to his notability, so why not leave them out?

As far as info boxes and photos. I'm not particularly a fan of infoboxes - they have their uses, but .... When we have so little info, it just looks like a repetition of the article. Also despite their wild popularity there is no policy or even style guideline that says that they must be included, as far as I know.

Mugshot. There's a big to-do about mugshots at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons, but I think that here it would be appropriate even according to proposed policies. We should look for other photos as well - they might be better. The objection to mug-shots is that they are not NPOV, they tend to degrade the subject. Smallbones (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we even have a mugshot? I see no reference in the edit history to one being added and/or removed.  But if one were available, and it were an official mugshot released by the FBI, I guess it would be in the public domain as a U.S. Government Work.  (Though that would need to be confirmed by the person who obtains and uploads the mugshot.)  I agree that it would be appropriate under the proposed guideline, due partly to the fact that the judge denied bail and he is incarcerated.  (But I do not think that should be a requirement anyway -- why isn't the fact that he has pleaded guilty enough to justify publishing a mugshot if no other public domain photo is available?  Whether someone is incarcerated can change from day to day (and it may in this case), and is not directly related to guilt -- a person can be in detention awaiting trial or a plea, or they can be out after pleading guilty or even after being sentenced.)  I also notice that the criteria mention the mugshot's appearance and how it is edited, so we would actually need to see the photo first.  As for obtaining another photo, it's going to be tough -- isn't any other photo on the Internet going to be copyrighted?  He isn't exactly available for new photos at the moment.  Neutron (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Do we even have one (yet).", is what I meant. Also, I referred to a mugshot because there is little chance of finding something else. I would much prefer any other photo as a mug is not exactly NPOV. But this is person is exceptionally private. Wikipedia doesn't even have a birth date.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not notice the thread above this one before writing my comment. Ignore what I wrote about whether a mugshot (or any other photo) is available.  My point is, if a mugshot is available and is the only public domain photo available, I don't see a problem with it in light of the fact that Mr. DiPascali has formally admitted guilt.   Neutron (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I do agree with you. Coincidentally, I was watching a show on Ted Bundy today and visited his Wiki article after. The infobox pic is a mugshot. Below is another pic of him waving. I downloaded the pic and cropped the waving hand out so I could swap it into the infobox. But, when I went to Wikicommons to upload it as a derivative, the software said the photo doesn't exist. So I gave up.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm not trying to compare Bundy to DiPascali. I was just trying to illustrate my dislike for mugshots.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, Ted Bundy has six different photos of him (counting the double-mugshot in the infobox as one), and I notice that one of the photos in the body of the article is a completely different mugshot. Maybe the 1980 mugshot should go in the infobox; if nothing else, it is of higher quality.  Of course, if the issue is "BLP", Bundy no longer satisfies the "L" part.  I don't really have a problem with the use of the mugshots in the Bundy article anyway (though maybe it should be just one, not two), but I would have a problem with it in the DiPascali article if another photo were available.  But if a mugshot is the only one available of someone who has pleaded guilty to serious crimes, I say let's use it.  Neutron (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed on the proper use here of a possible mug shot (that we don't have!) and the need to look for other photos. The only thing close to a good photo online is at http://twinkle_toes_engineering.home.comcast.net/~twinkle_toes_engineering/ponzi_frank_dipascali.jpg which is sourced to the Vanity Fair article on Madoff, and almost certainly copyrighted. I've had lots of bad experiences here with the image police and doubt that I could get it by on grounds of fair use. I got this via a google image search and that's the only way that I know of (short of bribing an FBI agent) to get a DOJ photo when it comes out. There is a fuzzy-fuzzy foto related to a fishing tournament DiPascali won in NJ in 2007 and got $50,000 for, but also almost certainly copyrighted. The fishing tournament is probably more interesting than the photo, but there's very little citable info and it's sort of non-notable. Smallbones (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on money
Probably ORish but if anybody has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them:
 * 1) Can't we mention somehow that the proposed $170 billion fine is just a hoot, e.g.
 * 2) DiPascali couldn't come up with the $2.5 million bail that he was expected to get out on. It was to be secured by the $400,000 equity in his brother-in-law's house.

Smallbones (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would need to explain a little more clearly what you would want to say. On (1), unless a reliable source has expressed an opinion on the amount of the proposed forfeiture (not exactly the same as a fine), we can't.  On (2), I'm not sure what you mean by he "couldn't come up with" the $2.5 million.  It was going to come from other sources, probably because the prosecutors would not accept his property as bail, since they are trying to "forfeit" it at the same time.  In other words, part of the deal seems to have been, come up with the security from property other than your own, because our position is that "your" property is ill-gotten gains.  Or to put it another way, the government would not let him get out on bail provided by the victims of his crimes.  But I don't see how any of this goes in the article, unless it is published somewhere.  Neutron (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The $170 billion is a big fat ugly joke simply because nobody could ever pay it, not even Warren Buffett and Bill Gates together could pay it. The seizure of all of his property is interesting, does that mean that he can't even pay his lawyer?  Is there a cite for this?  Lawyers have a bizarre way of dealing with money, fine somebody $170 billion, but leave enough to pay the other lawyer, but make his relatives put up their house for bail.  And more than likely DiPascali was living paycheck-to-paycheck and didn't have two nickels to rub together.  Smallbones (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How he did it
The statement to which DiPascali pled guilty has detailed information about the mechanics of the scam. Now we know how it really worked. It's worth reading. Madoff investment scandal should be updated from that. --John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence
Frank should have been sentenced by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hole in the article
There's a big hole in the article, as currently written. It fails to tell us why six years transpired between his guilty plea and his scheduled sentencing hearing. I'm going to write something to fill in the details. DiPascali was a witness in the trial of the Madoff Five, who could also use an article, but I'm not going to write that one anytime soon.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)