Maine Woman Receives 80-Year Sentence For $4.7 Million Ponzi Scheme

In what is likely the stiffest sentence for a female Ponzi schemer, a Maine woman was sentenced to serve eighty years in prison for her role in a $4.7 million Ponzi scheme.  Karen Bowie, 61, received the sentence after being convicted at a week-long trial in Austin, Texas of property theft.  While Bowie was not charged with masterminding the scheme, authorities accused her of playing a focal role in promoting the scheme, in which she received over $2 million that was diverted from investors.  While Bowie would be eligible for parole due to her conviction on state crimes, the sentence will likely be a life sentence.

Bowie was part of Titan Wealth Management, LLC ("Titan"), which was in the business of recommending European mid-term notes ("MTN's") to clients.  Potential investors were told that the notes were low risk and offered outstanding short-term returns ranging from 10% to 50%.  Additionally, Titan's owner, Thomas Lester Irby, told investors that Titan would receive no fees or compensation from selling the notes, and in the event of emergency, Irby could easily liquidate a $10 million MTN that he personally owned.  Irby and Titan would eventually raise over $3 million from more than 30 investors.

However, investor funds were not pooled to purchase MTN's or even any interest in MTN's.  Instead, millions of dollars in investor funds were used to pay putative MTN 'profits', as well as diverted for Irby's personal benefit.  Bowie, who did not deal directly with investors but instead directed Irby to make false representations, also received nearly $2 million without providing any apparent consideration.  Irby was sentenced in 2010 to 24 years in prison after being charged with money laundering.

Bowie's 80-year sentence should serve as a stark reminder of the perils of proceeding to trial rather than accepting a guilty plea. The severity of Bowie's sentence is not only grossly disproportional to the relatively meager amount of funds involved, but is also easily one of the highest handed down to a Ponzi schemer - man or woman. (While women have been convicted of operating Ponzi schemes, they are handily outnumbered by men.)  Indeed, the 30-year sentence handed down to a Florida woman for orchestrating a $100 million Ponzi scheme pales in comparison to Bowie's sentence.  Other examples of women being sentenced for Ponzi schemes are herehereherehere, and here.

Could Rothstein Victims Recover 100% of Losses? Trustee Thinks 'Holy Grail' Outcome Likely

 

This is likely the first major Ponzi scheme case where payouts may fully compensate creditors holding general unsecured claims for their losses.

 

- Herbert Stettin, court-appointed bankruptcy trustee

As 2009 drew to a close, hundreds, if not thousands, of lives had been upended in Ft. Lauderdale, where Scott Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme - the largest in Florida history - imploded in grand fashion. In addition to the numerous victims that lost some, if not all, of their life savings, the scheme's disclosure resulted in the overnight shuttering of Rothstein's once thriving 70-lawyer law firm, Rothstein Rosenfelt Adler. When news broke, Rothstein was across the globe, having fled as his scheme unraveled with $15 million in cash and luxury watches as an escape plan. Many investors braced themselves for the worst, expecting that Rothstein had squandered away the entirety of funds entrusted to him.

Fortunately, they could not have been further from the truth. Three years later, in what could accurately be described as the 'holy grail' in the newly-emergent cottage industry of court-appointed receiverships and bankruptcies tasked with gathering assets for victims of Ponzi schemes, they can likely expect to receive 100% of their approved losses. Herbert Stettin, appointed in November 2009 as the bankruptcy trustee to recover funds for Rothstein's victims, announced in his final liquidation plan that he expected that "payouts may fully compensate creditors holding general unsecured claims for their losses."

A 100% recovery, or even anything close, would represent a remarkable and unprecedented feat in Ponzi scheme litigation. To put the feat in context, the Internal Revenue Service, in promulgating guidance for those victimized by Ponzi schemes, implicitly estimates that victims recover less than 5% of their losses on average. Indeed, recoveries thus far in the 40% range by the Bernard Madoff bankruptcy trustee and the Arthur Nadel receiver have been hailed as extraordinary. A closer look at the liquidation plan reveals that Stettin's blockbuster recovery is not only largely predicated on a familiar third-party's contribution, but could actually be much larger.

Proposed Settlement With Alleged Co-Conspirator TD Bank

Buried deep in the 300-page disclosure statement and 200-page liquidation plan detailing Stettin's efforts is a proposed $72.45 million settlement between Stettin and TD Bank. TD Bank, as those connected with Rothstein's scheme are keenly aware, is alleged to have played a key role in the scheme by serving as the scheme's banker, and at least one of its employees allegedly provided substantial assistance to Rothstein. This included falsification of bank documents, impersonation of investors and bank officials, and the general aura of the association with a banking powerhouse such as TD Bank.

While some may initially balk at what seems to be a pittance compared to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, a closer look shows that Stettin's successful recovery is owed in large part not only to this settlement, but also to the large sums already paid out in ancillary litigation. Indeed, TD Bank has already been on the losing end of several investor lawsuits to the tune of $237 million. As part of the liquidation plan, Stettin proposes that those parties that have already recovered from TD Bank be barred from sharing in the distribution process until total claims paid out reach 95% of losses. This has the key effect of diminishing the applicable claims, and essentially operates as if Stettin had already satisfied those claims using available funds.

In light of its continuing exposure, TD Bank's settlement with Stettin is contingent on the entry of what is known as a 'bar order', which would permanently enjoin any current, contemplated, or future lawsuits against the bank based on Rothstein's scheme. While some involved in ongoing lawsuits have voiced their opposition to a bar order, a compelling argument in favor of the bar order is that the $72.45 million would be distributed to all of the affected investors - rather than those fortunate enough to be parties to the current investor lawsuits. Such an argument especially rings true in Ponzi scheme litigation, and TD Bank has explicitly indicated that it will not consummate the settlement if a bar order is not included.

With Money On Hand And Future Inflows, Total Recovery Could Be Even Higher...

Presently, Stettin indicated that he had received total claims filed in the amount of $461,078,446.36. Of that amount, Stettin has filed a variety of objections designed to reduce or eliminate a portion of those claims, and eventually expects those efforts to decrease the total claims for a majority of the creditor classes to approximately $141 million. Stettin has approximately $79.2 million in cash on hand, which, combined with the $72.45 million TD Bank settlement, would allow 100% payment of the estimated claim total of $141 million. Additionally, Stettin is pursuing numerous clawback lawsuits against investors fortunate enough to profit from their investment, with future recoveries belonging to the bankruptcy estate. Finally, as detailed in a previous Ponzitracker article, Stettin is embroiled in a dispute with the U.S. government over entitlement to an estimated $50 million in forfeited funds.

...With One Unlikely Beneficiary.

Ironically, the party that stands to benefit the most on the success of Stettin's ongoing recovery efforts is TD Bank. In the Liquidation Plan, TD Bank stands to collect on a $132.5 million claim in the event that the allowed classes with higher payment priorities are paid in full. This number reflects the current total of settlements and jury verdicts rendered thus far against the bank, of which a majority constituted various investors' claimed Rothstein losses. Specifically, the bank settled for $170 million with one group of investors, while a federal grand jury handed down a $67 million award last year. However, of the resulting $237 million total, $35 million of the jury award constituted punitive damages - and not investor losses. Thus, deducting that $35 million portion and the $72.45 million settlement with Stettin yields a $132.5 million claim.

Under Rule 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Stettin is set to receive 3% of all payouts to investors. With the above outcome, one would be hard-pressed to argue.

The proposed liquidation plan will now be submitted to the Bankruptcy Court for examination and approval.

A copy of the Disclosure Statement is here.

A copy of the Final Liquidation Plan is here.

Previous Ponzitracker coverage of the Rothstein scheme is here.

Previous Rothstein coverage by Paul Brinkmann of the South Florida Business Journal is here.

Guilty Plea in $50 Million Real Estate Ponzi Scheme

A New Jersey man pled guilty to orchestrating a real estate Ponzi scheme that took in more than $50 million from over 200 victims.  David Connolly, 51, agreed to plead guilty to one count of securities fraud and one count of money laundering.  In return for his plea, the government agreed to drop the remaining thirteen charges in the 15-count indictment originally returned by a federal grand jury in May 2012. The securities fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of twenty years, while the money laundering charge has a maximum term of ten years.  

Connolly was originally charged back in May 2012 by both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  According to authorities, Connolly began forming separate investment vehicles in 1996 to be used for separate offerings of securities to investors, who were told that the proceeds would be used to acquire and manager one or more rental apartment buildings in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.  For each offering, Connolly drafted an offering prospectus that was provided to investors and detailed the "shares" each would receive in return for their investment.  In total, Connolly raised more than $50 million from over 200 investors.

According to authorities, the operation turned criminal sometime in 2006, when Connolly fraudulently induced investors to purchase interests in certain investment vehicles by making material misrepresentations concerning the use and segregation of investor funds.  For example, while Connolly represented that the proceeds of an offering would be used solely to purchase the specific properties identified in the offering prospectus, this was inaccurate.  Instead, on numerous occasions Connolly used funds from one offering to purchase properties that were the subject of a different offering.  Additionally, Connolly used investor funds to make purported cash flow dividends from the performance of the properties tied to each offering, a classic hallmark of a Ponzi scheme.  Investor funds were also used to make improper payments totaling $2 million to Connolly, as well as refinance properties and other unauthorized uses.  When the scheme unraveled in 2009, the properties owned by the investment vehicles were forced into foreclosure, thus eliminating all investor interests.

Connolly is scheduled to be sentenced June 4, 2013, and faces up to thirty years in prison for the securities fraud and money laundering charges.  As part of his plea agreement, Connolly also agreed to forfeit nearly $10 million.   

A copy of the SEC lawsuit is here.

California Man Pleads Guilty to $80 Million Ponzi Scheme, Agrees to 16-Year Sentence

A California man admitted he masterminded a massive Ponzi scheme that brought in more than $80 million from 300 investors.  Anthony Vassallo, 33, entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors in which he agreed to plead guilty to a single count of wire fraud.  While wire fraud carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison, prosecutors agreed to recommend a 16-year sentence. 

Vassallo and others operated Equity Investment, Management and Trading Inc ("EIMT") from April 2006 to March 2009, telling investors he had developed a computer program that could yield 36% annual returns by successfully 'timing' the stock market.  Investors were assured that their funds were safe from any risk of loss, and were provided fabricated investment information and forged brokerage and bank documents as proof of the scheme's success.  Eventually, over 300 investors, including friends and family, would entrust more than $80 million to Vassallo.

However, of the little trading EIMT did engage in, Vassallo suffered extensive losses, and hid these losses from investors by employing the use of "dummy screens."  Instead, in classic Ponzi fashion, he used funds from new investors to make regular dividend payments to existing investors who thought their investment was performing as advertised. By March 2009, the scheme had collapsed.

Vassallo's co-conspirator, Kenneth Kenitzer, has already pled guilty, and is awaiting sentencing.  Vassallo is scheduled to be sentenced May 3, 2012, and also faces criminal fines and mandatory restitution.

The case also featured an attempt at 'vigilante' justice when several investors were confronted by several of Vassallo's associates at gupoint who identified themselves as federal agents and demanded over $378,000.  The men, who brandished fake identification, bullet-proof vests, and radio earpieces, threatened at least one of the investor's families.  Michael David Sanders, along with three accomplices, was later charged with conspiracy, impersonating a federal agent, and attempted extortion.  The four were sentenced Friday, with each receiving probation.

Two Prominent Law Firms Sued For Roles in Stanford and Shapiro Ponzi Schemes

In two separate lawsuits filed last week, court-appointed lawyers overseeing the fall-out from Allen Stanford's $6 billion Ponzi scheme and Nevin Shapiro's $930 million Ponzi scheme alleged that each scheme was assisted by lawyers at two prominent national law firms.  Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver for Stanford's scheme, sued Proskauer Rose LLP and one of its attorneys for aiding and abetting Stanford's scheme.  Joel Tabas, the trustee for Shapiro's failed Capitol Investments USA, sued Shook, Hardy & Bacon ("SH&B") and one of its lawyers for providing legal assistance to Shapiro's scheme.  Each of the suits is seeking unspecified damages. 

Shapiro was accused of running a Ponzi scheme that raised nearly $1 billion from investors who thought they were investing in a highly-profitable grocery wholesaling business.  After pleading guilty to securities fraud, Shapiro was sentenced to a twenty-year prison term.  One of Shapiro's high-school friends, Marc Levinson, became an attorney at prominent Miami firm SH&B, where he soon began advising Shapiro on various issues.  According to Tabas, the firm "aided and abetted" Shapiro's violation of numerous federal securities laws, even after an internal memo circulated by the firm in December 2006 concluded that Shapiro was likely violating federal securities laws.  Tabas has recovered over $35 million for investors thus far.

As outlined in Janvey's lawsuit, attorney Thomas Sjoblom had spent twenty years at the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") before working in private practice where Stanford became one of this clients.  During his tenure at prominent law firms Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose, Sjoblum is accused of falsely stating to investors that he had personally confirmed that Stanford Financial was not a Ponzi scheme.  Additionally, Janvey alleges that Sjoblum thwarted the SEC's investigation of Stanford by instructing Stanford to hide documents, relaying misinformation to Stanford's auditors, and misleading the SEC. Janvey is preparing to make his first distribution to victims in the upcoming months. 

Owing partly to the existence of extensive malpractice insurance, law firms have increasingly found themselves as a target of charges that they assisted or failed to discover a client's perpetration of a Ponzi scheme.  This has resulted in recent high-profile settlements and jury awards involving several prominent firms, including:

  • Quarles & Brady LLP's and Greenberg Traurig $77.5 million settlement for their role in the $900 million Mortgages Ltd. Ponzi scheme; and
  • Holland & Knight LLP's $25 million settlement with the receiver for Arthur Nadel's $400 million Ponzi scheme.

 Both firms have denied wrongdoing.  

A copy of the SHB Lawsuit is here