Authorities Charge Two More Sales Agents With Aiding $415 Million "Mini-Madoff"

Federal authorities unveiled criminal charges against additional former sales agents of convicted Ponzi schemer Nicholas Cosmo, accusing the ex-employees of soliciting investors whilst ignoring numerous tell-tale signs of fraud.  Brian Arias, 40, and Shamika Luciano, 31, were charged with several fraud counts, while additional charges were levied against existing defendants Anthony Ciccone, Diane Kaylor, and Jason Keryc.  Each of the fraud counts carries a maximum term of twenty years in prison.

Authorities arrested Cosmo in January 2009, charging him with operating a $415 million Ponzi scheme. According to authorities, Cosmo used his companies, Agape World Inc. and Agape Merchant Advance LLC (collectively, Agape), to solicit investors by promising high returns through purportedly making private bridge loans to commercial real estate companies and builders.  The scheme used a network of agents that received lucrative commissions in exchange for soliciting investors.  After pleading guilty in October 2010, Cosmo received a 25-year sentence in October 2011.  

After Cosmo was sentenced to prison, authorities began investigating the scheme's use of commissioned agents to attract investors.  This included an assortment of false claims made to lure investors, including the safety of an investment, the intended use of investor funds, and the attractive rate of return. Authorities soon zeroed in on alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by agents in 2008 despite learning that previous bridge loans made in 2007 were either in default or on extension.  Cosmo's sales agents were richly rewarded for their efforts; Cosmo paid more than $50 million in commissions during the scheme's existence.  

The sales commissions paid to both Arias and Luciano pale in comparison to their co-defendants.  While Arias earned approximately $1.7 million in commissions and Luciano received $275,000, their co-defendants Ciccone, Kaylor and Keryc allegedly received $10.7 million, $4.75 million, and $16 million, respectively. While irrelevant for charging purposes, the disparities in commissions would likely be a factor in any resulting sentences.

A copy of a prior civil enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the sales agents is below:

comp-pr2012-112 by jmaglich1

Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to $100 Million Ponzi Scheme

A Cincinnati man has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges that he masterminded a massive Ponzi scheme that took in at least $100 million from investors.  Glen Galemmo agreed to plead guilty to one count of money laundering and one count of wire fraud according to documents filed by federal prosecutors.  Each count carries a potential maximum prison sentence of twenty years, as well as a monetary penalty.  Galemmo's attorneys are seeking a sentence of 8 - 10 years, while prosecutors are seeking a lengthier term of 12.5 to 15 years.

Galemmo operated Queen City Investment Fund ("Queen City"), along with a dozen other investment entities.  Touting himself as an experienced trader, Galemmo promised lucrative returns to potential investors through investments in stocks, bonds, futures, and commodities.  Investors were provided with promotional materials indicating Queen City had enjoyed a streak of consistently above-average returns, including a return of nearly 20% in 2008 when the S&P 500 experienced a -38.49% loss. Potential investors were assured that Galemmo obtained annual audits of Queen City, and were provided with monthly statements showing steady returns.  In total, Galemmo raised at least $100 million from individuals, trusts, and even charitable organizations.

However, Galemmo's touted prowess as a savvy trader was pure fiction.  Galemmo was able to pay the promised outsized rates of return not through trading stocks and bonds, but from using incoming investor funds to pay existing investors - a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme.  Nor was the Queen Fund audited; rather, Galemmo simply listed the name of an audit firm that had not had a relationship with Galemmo or his fund since 2003.  Galemmo also created fictitious trading and account statements that were distributed to investors.  Investor funds were diverted by Galemmo for a variety of unauthorized uses, including the purchase of real estate, the payment of fictional interest and principal distributions, and even to operate other businesses such as entertainment complexes.  

As outlined in the criminal charging document, authorities are also seeking forfeiture of Galemmo's assets traceable to the fraud, including more than $1.7 million from bank accounts, the fund's former office building, two homes in Cincinnati and Florida, and five automobiles.  

A copy of the criminal charging document is below:

 

Glen Galemmo Information by jmaglich1

 

 

JP Morgan Reportedly Agrees to $2 Billion Fine For Madoff Role

“JPMorgan doesn’t have a chance in hell of not coming up with a big settlement...There were people at the bank who knew what was going on.” 

-Bernard Madoff, 2011

Banking giant JP Morgan Chase has reportedly reached an agreement with Justice Department officials to pay a $2 billion fine - and avoid pleading guilty to criminal charges - over allegations it failed to report suspicious activity in accounts held by convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff.  According to the New York Times, settlement talks between JP Morgan and federal prosecutors have resulted in an agreement in principle that not only calls for a fine of approximately $2 billion, but will also include a deferred prosecution agreement allowing JP Morgan to avoid criminal charges upon satisfaction of certain conditions.  An official announcement, which could come as early as this week, would mark the first time a DPA was used in a case against a major Wall Street bank.

JP Morgan served as Madoff's primary banker for several decades, overseeing the flow of billions of dollars in and out of Madoff's accounts.  Despite the massive flow of money, virtually none of those funds were used to trade securities - an event that may have triggered obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") to file a suspicious activity report ("SAR") with federal regulators.  According to Irving Picard, the bankruptcy trustee appointed to oversee asset recovery efforts for Madoff victims, Madoff's use of his JP Morgan accounts to "wash" investor funds violated the bank's anti-money laundering guidelines.  In addition to providing banking services to Madoff's firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, JP Morgan also sold structured products tied to various BLMIS "feeder funds."  In total, JP Morgan's profits from its relationship with Madoff were nearly $500 million.

While the Justice Department's action will mark an important step in holding financial institutions accountable for failing to detect or prevent financial fraud, it comes as trustee Irving Picard is currently appealing his ability to hold the bank civilly liable for its role in Madoff's fraud.  The bank, along with other banks with ties to Madoff including HSBC and UBS, has successfully obtained dismissal of the suits from a New York district and appellate court in part based on the theory that Picard lacked legal standing to pursue claims other than clawback claims for return of principal and profit distributions.  This meant that Picard's lawsuit seeking nearly $20 billion against JP Morgan was, effectively, moot with the exception of approximately $425 million in clawback claims.  Earlier this year, Picard asked the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision and allow him to pursue the case against JP Morgan.  It is unknown whether the Supreme Court intends to take up the case.

One of the developments that seems to have spurred an agreement is the agreement by authorities not to insist that JP Morgan plead guilty to criminal charges.  The decision, which was reportedly a serious consideration by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, was likely prompted by the drastic consequences that could result.  Indeed, while the use of a deferred prosecution agreement has many of the same punitive effects as a guilty plea, the actual act of pleading guilty to a criminal charges can have significant effects on a company, and even potentially put the company out of business.  Under the DPA, JP Morgan will have to comply with certain conditions, including the likely appointment of an independent monitor to ensure compliance, in order to have the criminal charges ultimately dismissed.

While the exact details of the purported $2 billion fine remain unavailable, it is believed that at least a portion of the fine will be used to compensate Madoff victims, who to date hold more than $17 billion in approved claims against the BLMIS bankruptcy estate.  One of the determining factors will be the exact composition of the federal agencies included in the settlement.  In addition to the U.S. Attorney's office, JP Morgan has also been under investigation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") as well as a unit of the Treasury Department.  It has been reported that at least $1 billion of the fine will be added to the pool of assets set aside to compensate Madoff victims.  

A copy of Picard's lawsuit filed against JP Morgan is below:

 

Madoff Trustees 2011 Jpmorgan Suit by jmaglich1

Madoff Ponzi Scheme, Five Years Later

(This Article originally appeared on Forbes.com on December 9, 2013)

It was the first week of December, 2008, and Bernard Madoff's world was in turmoil. Financial juggernaut Lehman Brothers had just filed for bankruptcy protection in what would be the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, and financial markets were in a tailspin. Investors were making withdrawal requests from his investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS), at an increasing pace.

On Wednesday December 10th, with an appointment already scheduled with a top criminal defense lawyer, an argument arose between Madoff and his sons about the "premature" nature of bonuses he was planning to distribute that week. It escalated into Madoff's confession to his sons and wife, Ruth, that there was "absolutely nothing left" and that his decades-long business was nothing more than a "giant Ponzi scheme." While Madoff and his wife attended the firm's Christmas party that evening, the next day, December 11th 2008, is a day seared into the memory of many.  After a morning visit from the FBI, Madoff was arrested on suspicion of committing the largest Ponzi scheme in history.  BLMIS was subsequently swarmed by authorities, and the firm's assets were later frozen.  The world, as known by those connected to Bernard Madoff, was about to change.

Five years later, Madoff's Ponzi scheme remains the largest Ponzi scheme in history, taking tens of billions of dollars from thousands of victims and resulting in total losses of at least $17 billion. The numbers were truly staggering - indeed, the losses from the second, third, and fourth-largest Ponzi schemes collectively account for about 60% of the estimated cash losses in Madoff's scheme. While Charles Ponzi's namesake scheme had given the fraud its name back in the 1920's, Madoff's arrest quickly transformed "Ponzi scheme" into a household word. Investors began to question whether their financial advisor was "just another Madoff," and many would see their worst fears come true: the failure of BLMIS would mark the beginning of a multi-year period in which hundreds of Ponzi schemes were exposed.

Five years later, many questions remain unanswered. After Madoff's guilty plea and subsequent 150-year sentence, authorities sought to determine whether his claims that he acted alone were, in fact, accurate. The trustee appointed to oversee the liquidation of BLMIS, Irving Picard, has filed thousands of lawsuits seeking to increase the pot of money available to victims; to date, over $9 billion has been recovered.  Regulators have sought to enact sweeping reforms to ensure another Madoff could not escape detection for decades.  And Madoff's victims, after learning that some or all of their life savings had simply disappeared, have been forced to adapt to a new normal.

Recovery Efforts

On December 15, 2008, Irving Picard was appointed as the trustee tasked with sifting through the aftermath of BLMIS's shutdown and recouping assets for eventual distribution to victims. This began with winding down Madoff's business units, including a proprietary trading unit, broker dealer, and securities company.  After securing Madoff's assets, Picard embarked on the monumental task of reconstructing Madoff's operations to understand the depth of the fraud and pinpoint investor gains and losses.  After enacting a claims process for victims to submit their losses, Picard would ultimately approve approximately 2,500 claims while denying over 13,000 claims.

The majority of recovery efforts focused on "clawing back" funds from investors that were fortunate enough to receive distributions exceeding their principal investment.  Picard ultimately filed hundreds of these proceedings, better known as "clawback suits," seeking the return of billions of dollars in "false profits."  Thus far, Picard has recovered billions of dollars from the clawback lawsuits, including $5 billion alone from a suit filed against Jeffrey Picower, a longtime Madoff investor and acquaintance.  After Picower's death in late 2009, it was announced that his estate would return $5 billion to Picard and an additional $2.2 billion to federal authorities.  Many clawback suits remain pending.

In addition to clawback lawsuits, Picard also filed lawsuits against many of the financial institutions that did business with Madoff, including banking behemoths JP Morgan, HSBC, and UBS.  Unlike the clawback suits that sought the return of false profits and didn't typically involve allegations of complicity or knowledge of Madoff's fraud, Picard claimed that the named financial institutions were "willfully blind" to Madoff's fraud despite becoming aware of numerous associated red flags.  Picard sought $19 billion from JP Morgan alone, alleging the bank was "at the very center" of Madoff's fraud, had earned nearly half-a-billion dollars in fees, and had even quietly withdrawn over $250 million from Madoff's funds in late 2008 just before the scheme collapsed. However, a federal district court issued rulings prohibiting Picard from pursuing his claims, and a federal appellate court later agreed.  Picard has since asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.

To date, Picard has made three distributions totaling over $5.4 billion to victims with approved claims.  Additionally, over $4 billion remains available for future distributions after resolution of various legal appeals.  Federal authorities also recently announced that an additional sum of approximately $2.35 billion, representing the remainder of Picower's returned funds and other actions including forfeiture, would soon be available for victims.   While the recovery process may not have proceeded as quickly as some victims may have hoped, it appears very likely that their total recovery will be significant.

Criminal Investigation

Despite Madoff's insistence that he acted alone, authorities were convinced that others were complicit in assisting and prolonging his fraud.  In the ensuing investigation, authorities brought criminal charges against 15 individuals, including Madoff's inner circle, accountants, and traders.  Of these 15 individuals, nine have pleaded guilty to various charges and have agreed to assist the government in building cases against former co-workers.

Frank DiPascali, Madoff's top lieutenant and one of the longest serving BLMIS employees, has played a pivotal role in these efforts, as he faces a possible sentence that could exceed 100 years.  Last week, DiPascali served as the prosecution's star witness as he testified against five former co-workers accusing of knowingly aiding Madoff.  Those five have maintained their innocence and claimed that they, too, were duped by Madoff.  A verdict is not expected for several months.

The significance of the five-year anniversary of Madoff's fraud also carries criminal ramifications: many charges - including securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud - carry a five-year statute of limitations.  It is unknown whether any more individuals will be charged.

Regulatory Changes

In the wake of Madoff, a slew of reforms were proposed at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was criticized for missing several opportunities to discover Madoff's scheme.  This included greater transparency and coordination between regional offices, the creation of a central division to handle tips and market intelligence, a greater emphasis on encouraging whistleblowers to come forward, independent custody requirements, and improved fraud detection procedures.

Recently, the SEC adopted requirements that brokers holding investor assets file quarterly reports explaining how they maintain customer assets and detailing their compliance efforts. To understand the significant of these specific reforms, one need look no further than Madoff himself, who stated in a recent interview that his fraud was able to last so long because auditors failed to verify the existence of BLMIS assets at depository trusts.

These efforts have already begun to bear fruit.  Enforcement has become a priority, and in 2011 and 2012 the SEC filed a record number of enforcement actions against investment advisors and investment companies.  These efforts resulted in nearly $6 billion in court-ordered penalties and disgorgement.

Jordan Maglich is a Florida attorney whose practice focuses on securities and financial services litigation.  Follow him on Twitter at @Ponzitracker.

For a detailed account of Madoff's fraud, read Diana B. Henriques' book, The Wizard of Lies, available at Amazon.

Zeek Receiver Prepares Clawback Lawsuits Against Net Winners, Insiders

The court-appointed receiver tasked with recovering assets for victims of the $600 million ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme is seeking to move forward with lawsuits against scheme insiders and those "net winners" that profited from their investment.  The Receiver, Kenneth D. Bell, filed a motion (the "Motion") in a North Carolina federal court requesting court approval for procedures to sue six Zeek insiders and a group of "net winners" that profited by $1,000 or more from the scheme.  According to the timetable set forth, Bell expects to file the lawsuits immediately after a court order approving the motion.

The Motion proposes to file two separate lawsuits: one action against six Rex Venture Group ("RVG") insiders, and one action against the net winners receiving more than $1,000 in profits.  The six insiders, identified by the Receiver as Paul Burks, Dawn Wright-Olivares, Daniel Olivares, Roger Plyler, Alexandre de Brantes, and Darryle Douglas, are accused by the Receiver of having 

"developed and operated the fraud[,] breached their fiduciary duties and corporate obligations to RVG, converted and wasted corporate assets, were unjustly enriched and were the beneficiaries of fraudulent transfers from RVG."

The second action seeks to file claims against net winners who profited by more than $1,000.  However, due to the sheer amount of possible net winners, which the Receiver previously estimated as approximately 80,000 individuals, the Receiver seeks to file one action, rather than filing a flurry of individual lawsuits, asserting claims against both the eleven largest individual net winners (and their relevant spouses and/or entities, if applicable) and a class that would be comprised of the remaining net winners.  The Receiver identified the individual largest net winners as

  • Todd Disner, in his individual capacity and as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust;
  • Trudy Gilmond and Trudy Gilmond, LLC;
  • Jerry Napier;
  • Darren Miller;
  • Rhonda Gates;
  • David Sorrells;
  • Innovation Marketing, LLC;
  • Aaron and Shara Andrews;
  • Global Interner Formula, Inc.;
  • T. Lemont and Karen Silver;
  • Michael Van Leeuwe;
  • Durant Brockett; and
  • David and Mary Kettner

The Receiver's choice to bring one action against net winners has several advantages, including significant cost savings and the promotion of efficiency and judicial economy.  For example, the filing of a single case will provide enormous cost efficiencies as opposed to the filing of 1,000 individual lawsuits, which would mean an initial outlay of at least $400,000 based on a federal court filing fee of $400 and burden the Receiver with managing thousands of cases.  This same tactic was used in instituting the claims process, where the Receiver successfully obtained court approval to conduct an internet-based claims process rather than incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in postage alone to mail out proof of claim forms.  Additionally, by establishing a single action by which the Receiver may pursue claims against multiple defendants, the Receiver is theoretically able to pursue those net winners with less significant profits at a much less collective cost.  This may also serve to spur settlements among those net winners, as the cost of litigation could significantly outweigh expected legal fees.

A single case will also promote efficiency, and will allow the Receiver to obtain universal rulings applicable to the entire class of defendants rather than obtain hundreds or thousands of similar orders.  Indeed, the Receiver indicated that 

"The Court will benefit from avoiding numerous administrative motions and the inefficiency and confusion that will result from a hodgepodge of different extensions and response dates.  And, all the Defendants will benefit from the extensions of time and a simplified process."

As some will notice, several of the individually named "net winners" were involved with initial efforts to challenge the Receiver and SEC's authority in shutting down Zeek, claiming that "the SEC mislead (sic) the judge" in securing an emergency asset freeze, and even claiming that the SEC had admitted problems with the case (which were subsequently refuted here).  Despite reportedly raising tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in victim donations, Zteambiz sent out a "final posting" in November 2013 clarifying that "As you know the goal was to assist the people of Zeek Rewards, and provide relevant information relating to the Zeek Receivership."

The Receiver seeks to schedule an initial conference among the parties during the week of January 13 - 16, 2014, where plans for discovery and deadlines for motion practice can be established.

A copy of the Motion is below:

 

ZeekDoc169 Main (1)

 

 

A copy of the Proposed Order is below:

 

ZeekDoc169-1 (1)

 


A special thanks to ASDUpdates for providing the Motion and Order.