TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Was SECer Now Running Madoff Case Involved in Failed Earlier Inquiry?

The SEC is deep in the midst of beating itself up over its failure over many years to catch Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Just yesterday, agency chair Mary Schapiro told Congress in a letter that "there needs to be a full accounting, both of Mr. Madoff's activities and why we did not detect the fraud, which we regret."

But is it in danger of making the same mistakes the second time around as the first?

The SEC's civil case against Madoff, hurriedly filed in December 2008 after Madoff allegedly confessed to his lawyer, is being conducted out of the agency's New York regional office, where Madoff's business was based. But it was the New York office that conducted the 2006 inquiry into Madoff that famously came up dry. That inquiry, which found only a few technical violations and recommended that Madoff register as an investment adviser, is now itself one focus of the investigation by the SEC's inspector general into how the agency failed to catch Madoff.

According to one former SEC enforcement veteran, in other cases where the agency opened a second investigation after a regional office was found to have slipped up the first time around, the second probe has sometimes been run out of the Washington headquarters, to ensure that it retains public confidence. That wasn't done here.

Asked about the matter by TPMmuckraker, an SEC spokesman declined to comment.

But there may be even less distance between the two Madoff investigations.

The current case is being led by Andrew Calamari, the Associate Regional Director for the New York office, who last month publicly called the Madoff case "a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions." Calamari's name is listed prominently on the agency's civil complaint.

But Calamari appears tied to the ill-fated 2006 effort. Doria Bachenheimer, an Assistant Regional Director in the New York office "reviewed and approved" the decision to close that inquiry, according to a "Case Closing Recommendation" document obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

And an organizational chart produced by the agency in 2006, and obtained by TPMmuckraker, indicates that Calamari is Bachenheimer's supervisor. That reading of the chart was confirmed to TPMmucraker by the ex-SECer.

It's not clear that Calamari played any active role in the failed 2006 inquiry. But at the very least, the fact that he supervised the staffer who wrongly approved closing it -- and the fact that there's no evidence he raised red flags about her work -- might suggest he's not the ideal person to handle the followup, especially given the high public profile the case has taken on.

Calamari referred an inquiry from TPMmuckraker to the SEC's press office, which again declined to comment.



16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I know it's shallow but his name is Calamari? Srsly?

Must have been a tough in grade school.

user-pic

Correction: Must have been tough in grade school.

user-pic

What is Srsly? Is Srsly, from grade school?

user-pic

FYI for those who might not know, "Calamari" means "squid" in Italian (and for those who didn't know that the calamari they've been eating all these years was squid!).

user-pic

I don't think people understand the level of arrogance at the SEC offices in NY.

user-pic

If a 50 billion dollar scam that had been scrutinized several times over the years flew under their radar, it's reasonable to wonder what else the SEC has missed. I mean if they blew one that big then what good have they been at all?

user-pic

Don't disagree, but overall I'm getting pretty tired of the SEC being blamed for this whole thing. In Las Vegas, when someone wins consistently, the casino isn't curious whether they're cheating. They KNOW they're cheating. The casino just wants to know HOW they're cheating.
Whether you're a charity, a movie star or whoever, if you're getting the kind of returns Madoff was giving, over and over again, and you don't smell a rat...then you shouldn't be investing at all. Your money should be in CDs. These people brought it on themselves through greed and yes, the government should've been playing some kind of law-enforcement role, but at the end of the day we're each responsible for our own money.

user-pic

Thats a very good point. If something seems too good to be true it usually is.

user-pic

But..... the SEC ran the casino. They had access, in theory anyway, to the big picture.

Consistent returns are not necessarily a problem. The problem is that so many people apparently "put all their nest eggs in one basket". Those people can be faulted for imprudent investing.

Why are consistent returns not a problem? Because, the story goes, sometimes the manager makes up the difference and then in better years the manager makes back the previous years underwriting. To many people this is plausible.

user-pic

Madoff's fund or company that he used as the vehicle for taking money in and then buying securities with that money had to register all such transactions with the SEC and have a license for such business. I do not think it was ever licensed nor did it make any buys or sells of any securities. If that is so then the SEC has no jurisdiction over what it did.
If you buy or sell something, with your own money or with someone else's money, the SEC has nothing to do with it unless it is a valid security that is bought and/or sold. A ponzi scheme does not buy or sell any securities and so cannot be regulated or even investigated by the SEC unless there are some actual securities involved.
That means that if the people who gave Madoff their money and did not get a security document in exchange really bought nothing and the SEC has no business looking into the situation.
The Justice Department should be the agency overseeing criminal activities and not a regulatory agency without jusrisdiction.

user-pic

That doesn't make any sense at all. The SEC has jurisdiction whenever securities are allegedly bought or sold period. Madoff was claiming security purchases and traded that always came out ahead in the double digits month after month. And when it comes to fraud, especially in the case of Ponzi schemes, the SEC absolutely does have jurisdiction to investigate whether a money manager legally made the trades that were claimed in returns.

And when tipped off to the SEC by Markoupoulas year after year that, look, this guy is claiming to make these buys and sells of securities when there was no record of any purchase or sale ever being made in the records of transactions of said security, it becomes as simple as connecting dot one to dot two. It's clear someone on the inside of the SEC was complicit in getting all Madoff complaints and investigations dropped and prevented any real oversight. There's far more to this than has been uncovered yet.

user-pic

"the staffer who wrongly approved closing it"

Given the detailed complaint and the allegations in the complaint (as noted in Zachary's post from December), I have to agree that the staff seems to have been unaware of the complain when they merely noted that Madoff should have been registered and let it go at that.

Does anyone have SEC docs showing what the actual investigators were told to look for? If they were told to look for a Ponzi scheme, that's one thing. If they were told to check on Madoff to see that he was in compliance with standards, that's another thing.

If the latter, then the actual investigators did the right thing, but were given very bad and possibly criminally wrong (conspiracy) directions. If the former, they totally screwed up, criminally or just from incompetence. But it they were told to look for a Ponzi scheme, then the supervisor on reviewing their results should have had a red flag moment. So Calamari, or his boss, looks like a sitting duck here.

Let's narrow this down!

Who was told to look for what (in re 2006)? Easy. Has Congress asked this yet?


user-pic

Right - we need the case opening report. As an aside, did any one else catch the blurb about Lori Richards being at the Shana Madoff wedding. Her being that close could have made it seem to other lower level staffers that they shouldn't look too hard. Just sayin....when people recuse....underlings take note!!!

user-pic

"told the committee she recused herself from the Madoff probe"

Unclear grammar. Which probe, 2006 or the current one? If 2006 it should have been "she had recused herself". If she recused herself now, so what!

user-pic

I bet the SEC during the bush years were asked to "back off" on many potential investigations.

Maybe that is why that SEC General Counsel guy "almost invoked" executive privilege.

user-pic

There is no way the SEC didn't know about this... 50 billion $. The footage from Wednesday's hearing is priceless: http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/02/madoff-hearings-ackerman-hands-sec-lawyer-his-ass.html

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address