Pimps Arrested in Spain for 'Barcoding' Women

Police in Spain arrested 22 alleged pimps who purportedly tattooed women with bar codes as a sign of ownership and used violence to force them into prostitution.  Police are calling the gang the "bar code pimps." Officers freed one 19-year-old woman who had been beaten, held against her will and tattooed with a bar code and an amount of money — €2,000 ($2,650) — which investigators believe was the debt the gang wished to extort before releasing her. The woman had also been whipped, chained to a radiator and had her hair and eyebrows shaved off, according to an Interior Ministry statement.All those arrested were of Romanian nationality and had forced the women to hand over part of their earnings, the statement said. The women were tattooed on their wrists if they tried to escape, the statement said. Police also seized guns and ammunition. It was not immediately clear when the raids took place. Police seized €140,000 ($185,388) in cash, which had been hidden in a false ceiling, a large amount of gold jewelry and five vehicles, three of which were described as luxury cars. The gang was made up of two separate groups, referred to as "clans" in the statement, each dedicated to controlling prostitution along fixed stretches of a street in downtown Madrid. One of the alleged ringleaders who was identified only by the initials "I.T." is wanted by authorities in Romania for crimes linked to prostitution, the statement said. The women were controlled at all times to ensure "money was taken off them immediately," the statement said.   Sex is a multibillion-dollar industry in Spain, with colorfully lit brothels staffed mainly by poor immigrant women from Latin America, Africa and eastern Europe lining highways throughout the country. Prostitution falls in legal limbo: it is not regulated, although pimping is a crime. The northeastern city of Barcelona plans to introduce regional legislation in coming weeks banning prostitution on urban streets.


The banker was left for dead by a lone gunman as he returned to his home in Canary Wharf on Tuesday evening. Scotland Yard detectives are investigating the attempted assassination, which Mr Gorbuntsov’s lawyer believes was a retaliation attack after the banker gave evidence in a 2009 attempted murder case. Mr Gorbuntsov, who fled to London because of his fear of reprisals, had recently submitted new evidence to Russian police about the attempted murder of Alexander Antonov, another Russian banker. The case was closed three years ago when three Chechen men were jailed for attempted murder. But police have never discovered who organised the attempted hit. Officers re-opened the case on March 2 this year after Mr Gorbuntsov submitted his new testimony.


A former Russian banker is in a critical condition in hospital after he was shot several times in east London. German Gorbuntsov was shot by a man armed with a sub-machine gun as he entered a block of flats in Byng Street, Isle of Dogs, on Tuesday. Aleksander Nekrassov, a former Kremlin advisor, told the BBC that Mr Gorbuntsov was a "key witness" in the case of a murder attempt on another Russian banker, Alexander Antonov, in Moscow in 2009. He said: "It looks like a contract hit to be honest because a sub-machine gun is not really a weapon that would be used by some amateur"


FOREIGN nationals not entitled to free treatment are said to owe Swansea Bay's ABM University Health Board more than £130,000 — the second highest figure in Wales. According to figures obtained by the Welsh Conservatives, only Cardiff and Vale UHB is owed more, at just over £200,000. ​ Darren Millar AM The Welsh Government has now said it is looking at further measures to help health boards recoup their costs. Figures obtained by the Tories following a Freedom of Information request show the money owed to the NHS in Wales more than doubled between 2008 and 2011. Of the £380,000 that was unpaid, at least £199,311 is still outstanding to Wales's seven health boards, while a minimum of £185,700 was written off after bosses exhausted efforts to be reimbursed. Shadow Health Minister Darren Millar AM expressed concern at the figures, arguing the Welsh NHS was in no position to be owing substantial sums of money. He said: "There are strict guidelines in place for explaining details of charges to patients who are required to pay. "The Welsh Government should look carefully at how well these rules are followed. "Any money written off by the NHS is regrettable when budgets are being squeezed so hard. The big rise evident in these figures is of great concern." The figures show that, in 2008/09, £70,815 had not been paid back. In 2010/11 that had increased to £257,713. And the Tories also claim there was been a downward trend in the rate of collecting money owed, down from 71 per cent in 2008/09 to 43 per cent in 2010/11. Some treatments, such as medical emergencies at A&E or compulsory psychiatric care, remain free of charge for everyone in Wales — regardless of where they are from or how long they have lived in the country. Other procedures, which include non-life-threatening outpatient care, are supposed to be paid for by non-EU residents. But the process and guidelines are far from straightforward as some countries have signed healthcare agreements with the UK. This makes its citizens exempt from some charges. ABM officials could not be contacted for comment. A Welsh Government spokesman said: "All visitors to Wales requiring NHS treatment are assessed as to their eligibility for free NHS treatment. "All treatment received in an accident and emergency department is free to all. "We have issued clear guidance to NHS organisations which states that they should recover the cost of caring for overseas patients who are not entitled to free care. "We are looking at what further measures can be introduced to support NHS organisations recover costs."

 

If the negative development in the Spanish housing market continues, it can – worst case – lead to renewed concern over that the Spanish state will need outside help – or even go bankrupt. Banks might face several hundred billion Euros in losses on the Spanish real estate market. This will mean a recapitalization of the Spanish banks – capital that can only come from the Spanish state. Now there is nothing new in that; but what is interesting is the free admission of a need to nationalize the Spanish banks. If you glace at the graph you will see the Danish housing market has dropped between 22% and 30% from the top – time and actual drop depending on market segment. As Danske Bank is roughly half the Danish finance sector it is hard to escape the conclusion that Danske Bank is in at least as big trouble as the banks in one of the more notorious frivolous and irresponsible economies in Europe. Danske Bank will presumably peg their flag to the difference in unemployment figure (Spain hovers around 20%). True as that may be; but unemployment figures are notoriously difficult to compare between countries. Not only do criteria differ; but the criteria differs over time – according to political convenience. It is kind of discussing distress on board the Titanic: “It’s only your end that is under water! I’m fine!!” That is the nearest to a Freudian slip admission of life threatening financial distress we can expect from Danske Bank. But it is time to bust a few myths before they come too much of age – and be established as “truths” – and draw some conclusions. 1)    Looking at the graph again prices on condominiums/flats/apartments had begun to drop way before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Two years in fact. That was more due to a temporary rise in interest rates that made the calculations of monthly payments  – even to the least lunatic bank manager – clearly unrealistic. 2)    Generally sales were falling from mid 2007 – I trust the reader is can see through the regular seasonal variation to distinguish the trend. 3)    The collapse of Lehman Brothers and the perhaps inept handling of the resulting Credit Default Swap disaster had indeed nothing to do with the much deeper issue of banking irresponsibility and incompetence. Alan Greenspan has been quoted for saying that what surprised him was that banks had not taken preventive measures in their own interest. The forces of the free market self-regulating controls do NOT apply in the financial sector. 4)    The next major meltdown – which clearly is underway (Spain will not be able to meet the budget target agreed upon by Rajoy) – will in essence have nothing to do with the Greek debacle. Greece was/is – all things considered – handled more effectively than the collapse of Lehman Brother. To be fair: There was more advance warning and the cacophony of idiotic optimism had been quenched by German lack of sentimentality. 5)    You can see the lack of linkage to the Greek situation by the fact that the Danish and Spanish drop in housing prices (and lack of trade) is simultaneous. Danish banks were not exposed to Greek sovereign debt to ANY appreciable extend. Furthermore Denmark has a reasonably healthy export which is more than can be said about Spain. Still a near similar and at least simultaneous price drop in Denmark and Spain points to a factor nobody has wished to mention: The banks of both countries are to all intents and purposes deceased and with no future without state ownership.

 

Treasury sources said the Government has agreed to deliver the certainty that the industry has been demanding over who will pay the £30bn bill for dismantling old platforms. Current tax relief of between 50pc and 75pc of rig decommissioning costs will be locked in through a financial contract signed between companies and the Exchequer, George Osborne is expected to reveal in the Budget. The contract will remove the risk of future governments lowering or even scrapping relief limits in an attempt to gather more tax, giving the industry permanent guarantees over the cost of winding down old infrastructure. Independent estimates suggest that certainty over decommissioning tax relief would lead to the recovery of 1.7bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent that would otherwise be left in the ground. Mike Tholen, of industry body Oil & Gas UK, said: “The additional recovery of the UK’s oil and gas would drive growth by securing highly skilled jobs, supporting energy security and driving additional capital investment, in our view, to the tune of tens of billions of pounds.”

 

A Midlands woman who was given PIP breast implants that ruptured has recouped the full cost of the surgery from her credit card company. She said Lloyds TSB refunded her £3,700 on the grounds that she was sold faulty goods. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) said the move should offer a "ray of hope" to other patients with PIP implants. The woman, a hairdresser in her 40s from the Midlands who does not want to be identified, underwent a breast enlargement operation in 2008. She discovered she had been given PIP implants last September when she found a lump and went to a breast cancer clinic. "I was quite worried, but I was told it was just a rupture of my implants. It was only later I realised there was a health risk. I was really quite poorly with it," she said. The woman had the implants removed on the NHS in October, and contacted a firm of solicitors to see if she could get her money back. Because the company that performed the surgery had gone into administration, she was advised to check if she paid by credit card. Having discovered that she did use plastic to pay for the procedure, she applied to Lloyds TSB for a refund and received the money in full three months later. The woman said the credit card company were "wonderful" and stressed that she only had to fill in one form to get the reimbursement. "If I had gone through the solicitors they would have taken a sizeable part of it. Women need to be aware they can easily do it themselves," she said. Fazel Fatah, a consultant plastic surgeon and president of BAAPS, said: "We're delighted that at least a proportion of women who chose this method of payment should now have recourse to securing reimbursement for what are clearly defective, substandard goods." Around 40,000 women in the UK received implants manufactured by the now-closed French company Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP), mostly in private UK clinics. The implants were filled with non-medical grade silicone intended for use in mattresses. Lloyds TSB said it could not comment on the woman's individual case. But a spokeswoman for the bank said: "One of the advantages of using a credit card to pay for goods and services is that consumers can make a Section 75 claim if there has been a misrepresentation or breach of contract, providing the cost is above £100 and less than £30,000. Every Section 75 claim is different and each one will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

 

A Goldman Sachs director in London has resigned after publishing a devastating open letter accusing senior staff of being "morally bankrupt" and bent on extracting maximum fees from clients by offloading unsuitable investment products. Greg Smith, who has left his post as executive director of the firm's equity derivatives business in Europe, claimed that chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and president Gary Cohn have "lost hold of the firm's culture on their watch". He added that "this decline in the firm's moral fibre represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival".. Smith's charges, which were swiftly denied by the bank, were published in Wednesday's New York Times and raised questions about the firm's relationship with existing clients, whom Smith claimed were referred to as "muppets". Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer and his party's former Treasury spokesman in the Lords, said the matter raised questions about any relationship between the UK government and Goldman. Smith, who joined Goldman as a summer intern and worked at the firm for 12 years, first in New York and then in London, claimed managing directors made their remarks about "muppets" in internal email. "I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off them." Selected as one of 10 people, out of a firm of 30,000, to appear in a Goldman recruiting video which is played on college campuses around the world, Smith has hired and mentored new recruits and managed a summer intern programme for the bank. "I knew it was time to leave when I realised I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work," he wrote. He said junior analysts are absorbing a culture in which the most important question is "how much money did we make off the client?", and that hearing talk of "muppets," "ripping eyeballs out" and "getting paid" will not turn them into "model citizens". "Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an axe murderer) you will be promoted to a position of influence." In response, Goldman Sachs denied that Smith was giving an accurate view of life at the company. "We disagree with the views expressed, which we don't think reflect the way we run our business. In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves," the bank said. Fast-track to promotion Smith claims to have advised the five largest US asset managers, Middle East and Asian sovereign wealth funds, and the world's two largest hedge funds. His letter did not name them, but Bloomberg ranks Man Group and Bridgewater Associates as the biggest hedge funds. The LibDem peer Oakeshott said: "We know in the City that Goldmans help themselves before their clients. Now here's the proof. Greg Smith says you get promoted there if you make enough money for the firm and you are not an axe murderer - and the people of Greece and the rest of the eurozone are paying the price after Goldmans cooked their books and Greece joined the euro at an unsustainably high exchange rate. Until this culture is stamped out, Goldmans are not fit and proper to receive a penny of British taxpayers' money or advise our government in any way." Goldman is among the gilt-edged market makers which help to facilitate trading in UK government bonds. Smith claims the fast-track to a Goldman promotion involves persuading clients to invest in stocks or other products "that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit"; getting clients to trade "whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman" – referred to internally as "hunting elephants" and securing a job trading "any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym". Goldman has lost the "secret sauce" that allowed it to endure for 143 years and is at risk of losing its clients' trust, wrote Smith: "Goldman Sachs is one of the world's largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act in this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for."

 

The government has launched an investigation into an allegation of attempted fraud against the welfare-to-work company A4e. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said it had been made aware of an allegation of attempted fraud in relation to a mandatory work activity contract with the firm, which is already facing a police investigation in relation to previous allegations. A statement said: "As a result of this new allegation, DWP has immediately commenced its own independent audit of all our commercial relationships with A4e. "We have required A4e to make available all documentation which our auditors may require and provide full access to interview any A4e employees. This is separate from the independent review of internal controls which A4e has previously announced. "The chief executive of A4e was informed of this at a meeting with a senior DWP official earlier today. "We have made it absolutely clear to A4e that we take this matter very seriously, and that if, at any point during the audit or thereafter, we find evidence of systemic fraud in DWP's contracts with A4e, we will not hesitate to immediately terminate our commercial relationship." A4e said: "The board has made consistently clear in all previous statements that we take any allegations of fraudulent or otherwise illegal activity extremely seriously. There is absolutely no place for this type of misconduct at A4e. "We obviously acknowledge the concerns raised by DWP, and we welcome and will co-operate fully with their planned investigations. "A4e has more than 3,500 staff and operates out of 200 offices in the UK. From December 2005 to date, nine cases relating to A4e have been referred to the Department of Work and Pensions to review claims submissions. "Of these nine referrals, one, dating back to May 2008, resulted in the prosecution of an individual member of A4e staff, which was widely reported at the time. "Another is the case now being handled by Thames Valley police. In each of the remaining, closed cases, the DWP's view was that these were not incidences of malpractice. "The board has asked White & Case LLP to lead an independent and thorough review of A4e's controls and procedures. That process will be carried out concurrently, and all findings will be provided to DWP."

 

A MONTH after Sir Fred Goodwin was stripped of his title for leaving Royal Bank of Scotland shredded, another erstwhile knight of the financial-services realm has been put in his place—this time a jail cell. Allen Stanford faces decades behind bars after being convicted of a $7 billion fraud that snared investors in 113 countries, from Latin America to Libya. When in 2008 the sky fell in on Bernard Madoff, the only fraudster to have taken investors for more, the Texas-born Mr Stanford was still swaggering. He had done so much for Antigua, the Caribbean island where he based his empire, that it made him a Sir. He took to the airwaves to tut-tut rivals who had been felled by subprime mortgages. His star rose further when he sponsored an international cricket tournament. He was said to be worth over $2 billion. He certainly lived like he was. Within a few months, however, the authorities had swooped in, closing his Antigua-based bank and his brokerage operations. Prosecutors accused him of flogging bogus certificates of deposit and raiding the bank, siphoning deposits to a Swiss account used to finance his passion for yachts, jets and islands. His lawyers tried to have him declared incompetent to stand trial, saying a prison beating had led to loss of memory and an addiction to anti-anxiety drugs. When that ruse failed, they argued in court that he had been his group’s visionary, uninvolved in its day-to-day running, even as they claimed the businesses had been viable until they were “disembowelled” upon being seized. Countering this narrative was damning evidence from the prosecution’s star witness, Mr Stanford’s former chief financial officer, who testified that he and his boss had falsified documents and that the firm had presented hypothetical returns as the real thing in client pitches. Others said that, for all his public bravado, he had been aware of a hole in the accounts. When another colleague suggested he raise more money to plug this, he reportedly said: “I’ll go to the Libyans. They love me.” Victims cheered the verdict, but their victory is hollow. Three years on, they are yet to receive a penny from the court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey. Of the $216m he had recovered by late last year, more than half had been eaten up by legal and other fees. His team reckons that total recoverable assets may be a mere $500m, or 7% of the account balances shown at the time of Mr Stanford’s arrest (though that could increase if lawsuits seeking $600m from Stanford brokers, customers who extracted more than they paid in and political organisations that received donations from Mr Stanford succeed). Investors also bemoan the hefty cost of litigating jurisdictional issues. Mr Janvey is locked in a fight over how to divide up the estate with a separate receiver in Antigua, who has control over the fraudster’s bank accounts in Switzerland and Britain. America’s Securities and Exchange Commission has backed the victims’ cause, taking the unprecedented step of suing the Securities Investor Protection Corporation after the congressionally-chartered group balked at paying them up to $500,000 each in compensation (on the ground that Stanford’s operations were based offshore). Too little, too late, scream the SEC’s critics. Its district office in Fort Worth, Texas, first concluded that the Caribbean kingpin’s businesses were a Ponzi scheme in 1997, only to be ignored then and several times subsequently by enforcement staff. This story has only one true villain, but many others come out looking bad.

 

One of the most poorly kept secrets in Wall Street’s empire of fraud was that credit default swaps were never anything but pretend-insurance. The credit default swap market is a $60+ trillion paper Ponzi-scheme. The Wall Street crime syndicate claiming to “back” this insurance have nothing more than a few $billion of liquidity apiece. It is a fact of arithmetic that these fraud-factories never intended to honour these contracts. Given the magnitude of this fraud and the audacity of the perpetrators, this alone is reason enough to abolish the Wall Street fraud-factories, abolish the credit default swaps market, and (indeed) to abolish the entire derivatives market – so that the banksters cannot perpetrate a similar crime again in the future. Indeed, credit default swaps were banned in th U.S. for many decades, based upon anti-gambling statutes. However the CDS fraud itself only scratches the surface on the monstrous evil behind this scheme. As I have written about frequently in the past, the CDS fraud is a tool which the banksters have used to perpetrate an even greater crime: the sabotage and/or destruction of most of Europe’s debt markets. Here is how this particular Wall Street scam operates. First of all the banksters pile on massive shorting with respect to the credit default swaps of a particular European debt-market. This drives the prices of credit default swaps sky-high. Meanwhile, the banksters’ accomplices in the mainstream media then all perform their best impersonation of Chicken Little: “the sky is falling on Greece’s economy.” At this point the third partner of this illegitimate tag-team chimes in: the ratings agencies. Based on nothing more than changes in credit default swap prices and media rhetoric, the ratings agencies downgrade the debt of these Euro markets – immediately driving interest rates higher. This significantly raises the interest payments on these debtor economies, instantly making those economies less solvent. This is then followed by another shorting operation in the credit default swap market, more media rhetoric, and more bogus “downgrades”. And thus the perfect vicious-circle of crime is established. Through the fraudulent manipulation of Europe’s debt markets, Wall Street’s economic terrorists have been able to drive Greek interest rates as much as 50 times higher than U.S. interest rates, despite the fact that the U.S. economy is more fundamentally insolvent than that of Greece. Now we have what should be the final nail in the coffin of what has been the largest single scam in the history of humanity: proof that this entire market is nothing but a gigantic fraud. Last week, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association issued a ruling that the 70+% write-downs on Greece’s entire national debt did not constitute a “default event”, and thus the fraud-factories who wrote up the insurance on that debt don’t have to honour their contracts. Understand that it has been universally acknowledged by everyone: the Greek government, Greece’s creditors, the European Central Bank, and other European nations that without some “deal” that Greece would have engaged in an involuntary, 100% default within days. As an attempt to mitigate that cataclysmic event, Greece’s creditors engaged in a negotiated, voluntary default with Greece’s government, where creditors accepted an immediate 53% reduction on the principal owing to them. Including the interest accrued, these write-downs amounted to as much as 75% for some creditors, and an average write-down of approximately 70%. Now here is the law. If there had been an involuntary 100% default on Greece’s debt, even the unscrupulous ISDA could not avoid paying out on this supposed “insurance”, at which point the entire $60+ trillion Ponzi-scheme would come crashing down, and along with it all of the Wall Street banks, and along with it the entire derivatives market (and the world would live happily ever after). However, in the Western legal system, when losses occur in some financial transaction and one or more parties seek to rely upon the terms of the contract for some form of indemnification there exists a Duty to Mitigate. What this means is that (in this case) if one or more of Greece’s creditors wants to collect on the “insurance” they (thought they had) purchased on their Greek debt that they had a legal duty to attempt to minimize the magnitude of Greece’s default. This is exactly what these creditors did, and once they had done so they were entitled to rely upon the insurance they had purchased. For the ISDA to issue an entirely perverse ruling that no “default” had occurred could only be based upon one of two conclusions on their part: a) That no default event had occurred because the “haircut” was less than 100%. b) That no default event had occurred because the default was voluntary. With respect to (a), as I have just finished explaining above insured parties have a Duty to Mitigate and because of this, 100% losses of this nature are rarely if ever seen. Even apart from mitigating damages, rational/intelligent parties will always seek to negotiate some compromise rather than allow a market to experience a messy collapse which benefits no one. For the ISDA to adopt this interpretation essentially means there could never be any pay-outs on this insurance, ever. With respect to (b), for precisely the same reasons all “default events” will ultimately end up as voluntary, negotiated arrangements. So (again, as above) if the ISDA were to adopt this interpretation it would essentially mean that there would never/could never be any pay-outs on this insurance. A proverbial “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” form of insurance. And totally fraudulent. Understand that such a perverse interpretation of standard business practices could only be legally valid if it were explicitly codified in these contracts. We can assume that none of this has been explicitly detailed in these contracts, or there would have been no need for the ISDA to issue a “ruling” over an entirely straightforward, negotiated debt-default. One can only gaze in wonder at the colossal naivety/stupidity of the parties purchasing this “insurance”. It ranks as one level of folly to enter Wall Street’s private, crooked casino (i.e. the derivatives market) to place a bet. However, it ranks many levels higher on this scale of idiocy to place a bet in this crooked casino, when the banksters running the casino simply tell you that they “will explain to you later if/when you win the bet.” Allowing bets to be placed (more than $60 trillion in total), and then allowing the banksters taking the bets to define when they lose, after all the bets have been placed, is not even a subtle scam. It is a clumsy fraud perpetrated by a group of Oligarchs who yet again have demonstrated their complete contempt for an apparently antiquated doctrine known as the Rule of Law. This brings us to the best part: the ISDA is run by the very same Wall Street fraud-factories holding the vast majority of these bets. The losers (i.e. the insurors of this debt) are claiming the exclusive/sacrosanct right to define when they have lost the bet – irrespective of how perverse/outrageous their “definitions” appear. Understand how absurd this fraud has become. If Greece’s creditors had simply allowed Greece’s government to go under, triggering a 100% default – and payment on all of the fraudulent CDS contracts – this same ISDA would be claiming that they weren’t required to pay out on their insurance because of the refusal of the creditors to mitigate their losses. Heads I win. Tails you lose. None of the fraud-factories ever pays out on this make-believe insurance. Sadly however, the economic terrorism which Wall Street has been perpetrating against Europe for over two years lives on, as does this entirely fraudulent market. With this massive fraud now open and totally exposed, we can add (with certainty) yet another group of “accomplices” in allegiance with the Wall Street banksters: the traitorous governments of our Western nations who are blatantly turning their backs while these banksters rape-and-pillage the economies of Europe. Western governments can no longer pretend to represent enlightened, progressive “democracies”. The descent into Fascism in the West is nearly complete. Our governments are now nothing more than a network of crime syndicates, working wholly and exclusively against the best interests of their own people, and on behalf of a totally unprincipled cabal of Oligarchs. This latest outrage in the Greek CDS market; this latest, blatant violation of the Rule of Law can be looked at as nothing less than a neon sign proclaiming the guilt of the bankers involved, the failure of any/all “regulators”, and the complicity of our own governments. A very dark day for democracy. Written By Jeff Nielson From Bullion Bulls Canada Jeff Nielson is from Canada and is a writer/editor for Bullion Bulls Canada www.bullionbullscanada.com. He has a personal background in law and economics. Bullion Bulls  Canada provides general macro-economic and political commentary,  since  the precious metals markets are among the most complex (and  misunderstood) in the world. Bullion Bulls Canada also provides basic coverage of Canadian precious metals mining companies. Canada is the global leader in mining exploration, and Canadian-listed mining companies (on the Toronto Stock Exchange and Venture Exchange) are responsible for the majority of the world’s most-promising discoveries.

Aaron M. Sprecher/Bloomberg News

 

 

It was a vindication for the U.S. government, which closed down Stanford's financial empire in February 2009 but had failed for years to address signs that the business was built on air. The Stanford case was the biggest investment fraud since Bernard Madoff's.

Stanford was found guilty on 13 counts of a 14-count criminal indictment, including fraud, conspiracy and obstructing an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He was found not guilty on one count of wire fraud. The charges carry a possible prison sentence of nearly 20 years.

As Stanford, 61, was led out of the courtroom after the verdict, he touched his fist to his heart and looked at the bench where his mother and two daughters sat. He has been jailed since his June 2009 arrest.

"We're disappointed in the outcome," said Stanford's defense attorney Ali Fazel. "We do expect an appeal." He said he expects sentencing in several months.

The verdict came less than a day after the Houston federal jury said it could not reach a decision, and U.S. District Judge David Hittner instructed jurors to keep deliberating.

Still, the verdict may prove only a moral victory for Stanford's victims. Most have received none of the money back they invested in Stanford's certificates of deposit.

"For all the investors I think there is a sense of relief that they weren't just fools," said Cassie Wilkinson, a Houston investor in Stanford funds who attended the six-week trial. "There was a jury of 12 people who found the same thing - that we were just conned."

Stanford's unraveling was one of the most closely watched fraud cases since Madoff's. Madoff, 73, pleaded guilty in 2009 to orchestrating what prosecutors have called a $64.8 billion Ponzi scheme. He is serving a 150-year prison sentence.

The guilty verdict did not end the case. The jury of eight men and four women, including a pawn shop operator and a retired hairdresser, returned to the courtroom on Tuesday afternoon to consider the government's demand that more than $300 million in assets tied to Stanford be forfeited.

The money, which has been frozen, is held in more than 30 bank accounts in Geneva, the United Kingdom and Canada in the names of Stanford and other entities, according to the government. Stanford, wearing a navy blue suit, also was back in the courtroom to hear the testimony in the forfeiture case.

"Every single dollar that the U.S. is seeking to forfeit is CD depositor money that stems from Mr. Stanford's crimes and belongs to the victims of his crimes," prosecutor Andrew Warren said in opening statements.

'PERSONAL ATM'

Stanford's personal fortune was once valued at $2.2 billion.

At trial, prosecutors told how he repeatedly raided the bank he owned in Antigua, Stanford International Bank, using it as his "personal ATM."

He bought a castle in Florida for one of his girlfriends and his oldest daughter lived in a million-dollar condominium in Houston. He wore custom-made suits, lived in luxury homes and on a yacht in the Caribbean and bankrolled a $20 million prize for an international cricket tournament.

The government's star witness, former Stanford aide James Davis, testified that he and Stanford faked documents and made up financial reports to calm investors and fool regulators. They funneled millions of dollars from Stanford International Bank to a secret Swiss bank account that Stanford tapped for his personal use, Davis testified.

Davis, 63, has pleaded guilty to three criminal counts.

Stanford's lawyers portrayed their client as a visionary who was not involved in his firm's daily activities. They blamed Davis for any fraud and argued that Stanford's businesses were viable until the government shut down Stanford Financial Group in Houston in February 2009. Left with no money, Stanford was declared indigent by the court and his defense was paid for with public funds.

Wendell Odom, a criminal defense attorney in Houston who observed much of the trial, said Stanford's attorneys did a good job of discrediting Davis by getting him to admit to being a liar. But they failed to develop an alternative theme for the jury. "There was just too much evidence," he said.

BRAIN INJURY

While in jail awaiting trial, Stanford was beaten by another inmate, leaving him with a brain injury and broken bones in his face. He then became addicted to an anti-anxiety medication. His lawyers argued that those events caused him to lose his memory, making him incompetent to stand trial.

After eight months at a prison hospital in North Carolina, he was deemed competent to stand trial. Before his trial began on January 23, Stanford's lawyers said their client wanted to tell his story to the jury, raising the possibility that he would take the stand. Ultimately, he did not testify.

Stanford grew up in Mexia, Texas. He studied finance at Baylor University, where Davis, who later become chief financial officer of Stanford Financial Group, was his roommate.

In the 1980s, Stanford bought up real estate in Houston with his father, later selling it at a profit. In 1986, he opened an offshore bank on the Caribbean island of Montserrat and, after banking regulations there tightened, he moved his operation to Antigua.

The bank specialized in aggressively selling certificates of deposit to wealthy people, his former employees testified at the trial. They targeted clients in Latin America, especially Venezuela, and oil company workers with fat pensions who lived along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

In Antigua, he became a philanthropist and sponsor of cricket, the national sport, and was known as "Sir Allen" after being knighted there in 2006. By 2008, Stanford made No. 205 on Forbes magazine's list of the wealthiest Americans.

But questions surfaced about how Stanford International Bank's CDs could persistently pay above market rates. By February 2009, investors were trying to withdraw their money and, on February 17 of that year, the government descended on his headquarters in Houston and shut it down.

Antigua stripped him of his knighthood and seized his local assets.


A former Morgan Stanley banker recently described his weekend food-ordering ritual at the height of the recession. While pulling Saturday hours, for example, he'd log onto the bank's account on Seamless, the online food-ordering service, and redeem his meal allowance--plus a few allowances from phantom coworkers who weren't actually in the office, allowing him to eat well above his pay grade. Sure, someone could have cross-checked actual office attendence with the online orders, but is such effort worth the investment bank's time? "If people weren't around, it was totally acceptable to take their allowance, and pool it together when you ordered," the banker recalls. "Almost every weekend I was at the office, I'd have a $90 dinner of steak, lobster, mac & cheese, and calamari." Until several years ago, corporate giants like Morgan Stanley made up roughly 85% of Seamless's customer base. That figure has now tipped in favor of individual consumers, but enterprise clients still represent a significant (and growing) part of the New York-based company's revenue--companies offer Seamless as a benefit to those who typically work long or late hours. But for employees of these roughly 3,500 corporate Seamless customers, the benefit represents a huge opportunity to game the system. And no one has worked the system for financial gain better than Wall Street hustlers. "Abuse of the system was rampant," recalls another former Morgan Stanley staffer. "I added up how much I ordered in my first year: It was more than $3,000 of food." Here's how it works. Typically, junior professionals are allotted about $25 per meal at the office. But there are tricks to leverage this cash on Seamless. If employees want to order dinner, for example, they have to stay until 8 p.m. "But you could still order for a 7 p.m. delivery at 6 p.m., then call the restaurant directly and tell them to bring it right away," one employee says. "So I'd finish work around 6:30 p.m., hit the company gym, and then grab my sushi--spicy tuna rolls--on the way out." A Seamless Scam How Gordon Gekko Orders On Seamless 1// Top Seamless Fiend According to Seamless' statistics, the highest ordering corporate user placed more than 2,600 orders in 2011, or more than 7 meals per day. 2// Top Cuisine By Industry Employees Investment Bankers: Sushi; Educators: Pizza 3// Top Ordering Patterns Corporate dinner-orders in New York's Financial District peak at 8 p.m. In Midtown, corporate orders peak at 7 p.m. Corporate dinner-orders are higher, on average, from 4-5 p.m. and lower between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. Ordering groceries on Seamless was--and likely still is--another practice. (Representatives at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have not responded to requests for comment.) One employee, who lived by Morgan Stanley's Midtown offices, would even remote into her office computer from her apartment, place an order on Seamless, and then call the restaurant and change the delivery address to her apartment. The lobster-loving Morgan Stanley banker's take on that old switcheroo? "Classic." Another trick: Since employees aren't allowed to order beer or alcohol on the system, it's not uncommon to pool money together, place a large order for random items, then call the store and request that they bring beer instead. "We definitely get a lot of random orders," says Seamless CEO Jonathan Zabusky. "Once in a while, I'll sit on the customer-care desk, just to get a feel on the pulse of what's going on. You see these orders come through, and you're like, 'Why are 20 rolls of toilet paper going to 200 Vesey Street [the World Financial Center]? What the hell?'" One former employee at Morgan Stanley said he wasn't sure how pervasive the "switch-for-beer order" was at the investment bank, but said he personally pulled the move several times. "Wow, I feel so lame now because when I'd order from Seamless, I'd just get dinner," says one former Goldman Sachs employee. "I never heard of anyone else pulling a fast one [like that], but that doesn't mean it never happened." The daily Seamless stipend is considered sacred for employees, and any abuse of the system appears generally overlooked by higher-ups. When Lehman Brothers went under, for instance, Morgan Stanley lowered the Seamless limit from $30 to $25, much to the anger of workers. "People went nuts," recalls a former employee. "Every so often there were these fireside chats with [Morgan Stanley CEO] John Mack 'Da Knife' and a collection of analysts. One of the women on the call asked Mack to raise the limit to $30 again. Mack, not really having paid much attention to expenses, was surprised to hear it had been reduced. Concerned, he asked her why she needed $30 instead of just $25. She said that with the new reduction, 'I can't order my Perrier anymore.'" The next day, as legend has it, there was an entire case of Perrier on her desk--courtesy of John Mack. "What a baller," an employee says. Zabusky is sure abuse exists on Seamless, but says it's not likely that widespread. "I think it's pretty funny," the Seamless chief chuckles. "I mean, I know it probably frustrates a CFO at Goldman, who is giving these guys $25 to order while they work on deals, and they're ordering toilet paper and jars of mayonnaise and all this other stuff. But in the overall scope, it's probably pretty small." Small as the abuses might be in terms of Seamless's bottom line, there's no doubt it has a big impact on the morale of employees, who seem to take pride in manipulating money one way or another. According to Seamless's statistics, for example, the highest ordering corporate user placed more than 2,600 orders in 2011. "There's nothing grosser or more magnificent than eating $25 of delivered Taco Bell under the fluorescent, sober lights of an office building," says one employee. "Do you have any idea how much baja sauce you can get for that money?"

 former Internal Revenue Service agent whose tax preparation business catered to a wealthy clientele is accused of ordering at least two former customers killed as they prepared to testify against him on fraud charges. Federal prosecutors say the targets were key witnesses against Steven Martinez, 50, who was charged last year with stealing $11 million by preparing bogus tax returns for his customers. 0 Comments Weigh InCorrections? Personal Post Martinez’s limousine driver — Norman Russell Thellmann, 64 — was charged Monday with conspiracy to tamper with witnesses. Prosecutors allege he was ordered to deliver money to a hit man who was promised $100,000 for the two killings. Martinez did not enter a plea during his initial court appearance Monday on a charge of witness tampering. A federal magistrate judge ordered him held without bail. “I find it almost impossible to believe,” said David Demergian, his attorney. Martinez, an IRS agent from 1988 to 1992, faces a pretrial hearing March 19 on federal fraud charges and was free on bail until his arrest last week. An FBI agent’s affidavit says Martinez gave a former employee documents on four people about two weeks ago, including photos of one target from the wealthy suburb of Rancho Santa Fe and another target’s condominium in the upscale La Jolla area of San Diego. Martinez recommended the former employee use two different pistols for the killings and get a silencer, according to the affidavit. The former employee contacted the FBI, which recorded a meeting Thursday in which Martinez allegedly gave additional instructions like how to break into the La Jolla condominium. The targets were identified as 86-year-old Monique Siegel of La Jolla and Marianne Harmon of Rancho Santa Fe. The fraud complaint alleges that Martinez told customers to deposit their taxes into one of his bank accounts, promising to forward the money to state and federal authorities. He stated lower income on their tax returns without telling them, allowing him to pocket $11 million. The complaint identifies victims only by their initials. One “M.H.” had an income of $20.7 million in 2006 but Martinez filed a tax return for $2.1 million. One “M.S.” earned $200,046 in 2006 but Martinez’s return reported $32,900. Another customer who earned $12.2 million in 2005 reported income at $1.6 million, according to the complaint. The same customer earned $11 million in 2006, also reported as $1.6 million. Demergian, his attorney, said the fraud case was “certainly very defensible.” “He had a very dedicated loyal clientele,” Demergian said. “He was very successful.” Thellmann, who was arrested Friday night, told the FBI that Martinez sold him a limousine about three years ago and hired him as a chauffeur. He said Martinez told him to give $40,000 to a person who would call him with code. Thellmann denied he knew the money was to pay a hitman. FBI agents found $42,400 cash in a cereal box at his home.


Two men have been convicted of involvement in the UK's largest Ponzi fraud, which saw hundreds of people – among them the former cricketer Darren Gough and the actor Frances de la Tour – lose £115m. John Anderson, 46, and Kenneth Peacock, 43 were found guilty of unauthorised regulated activity at Southwark crown court in London on Monday, but were cleared of one count each of fraud. The jury is still deliberating over allegations that they deceived investors. The scheme's mastermind, Kautilya Pruthi, 41, of Wandsworth, London, has pleaded guilty to the fraud and is due to be sentenced later this week. Ponzi frauds – which take their name from the Italian conman Charles Ponzi, who was particularly fond of employing the scheme – use cash from new investors to pay returns to existing investors and depend on a constant stream of new investors to fund the payouts. The court heard that Gough and the actor and singer Jerome Flynn are each thought to have lost up to £1m in the fraud, which also duped De la Tour. Victims handed over their cash to Pruthi, who promised them safe investments with returns of up to 13%. Instead, he spent their money on entertaining women, paying his daughter's private school fees and chartering helicopters. He also bought a private jet and built a car collection that included three Bentleys, a Lamborghini, two Ferraris, two Mercedes, a Rolls Royce, a Jaguar and a Maserati. "Mr Pruthi is believed to be the UKs most successful Ponzi fraudster," said David Aaronberg QC, prosecuting. "He obtained some £38m from investors and caused contractual losses of over £115m." Aaronberg added: "He enjoyed the company of women and was generous in the payments he made to a number of female friends, for whom he bought cars as presents, in total giving them £373,149." Indian-born Pruthi came to the UK in 2004 having been deported to his homeland after serving a sentence for faking documents in the US. Jurors heard that on coming to the country, Pruthi was quickly able to pose as "a wealthy individual". After setting up his company, Business Consulting International, said Aaronberg, Pruthi accepted deposits and "orchestrated a large-scale and sophisticated collective investment scheme". He would send personally tailored emails claiming he could offer up to 13% returns on 12-month investments because the scheme was available to a limited clientele. But in reality, said the prosecutor, he was "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Pruthi, who was not registered with or authorised by the FSA, admitted four counts of obtaining money transfers by deception, one of participating in a fraudulent business, one of unauthorised regulated activity and one count of converting and removing criminal property. Peacock, of West Hampstead, north London, and Anderson, of Surrey, are alleged to have acted as "aggregators" who pooled funds from third parties and then passed them on to Pruthi, who had duped them into the fraud at the outset. Eventually the scheme collapsed as there were not enough new investors to bring in the money needed to keep the old investors happy. "The scale of this scheme was vast and the losses were immense; several investors lost their homes, others have been declared bankrupt," said Aaronberg. "The monies which Pruthi received were generally not invested anywhere, neither in the UK nor abroad." According to the prosecution, of the £38,631,792 Pruthi obtained, £28m was used to pay back other investors, while £10m was siphoned off for Pruthi's "lavish lifestyle".

 

The judge in R. Allen Stanford’s fraud trial ordered the jury to return to deliberations after the panel sent a note saying it couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict in its fourth day of reviewing the evidence. The eight men and four women on the jury told U.S. District Judge David Hittner in Houston yesterday they were “unable to reach a verdict on each of the 14 counts,” the judge said, reading their note to attorneys for both sides. Enlarge image R. Allen Stanford, accused of leading a $7 billion investment fraud scheme, gestures as he exits the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in Houston, Texas. Photographer: F. Carter Smith/Bloomberg Hittner instructed jurors to “continue your deliberations in this case,” telling them the trial has been costly in terms of both time and money, that the lawyers were unlikely going to be able to put on a better trial and that another jury was unlikely to be more conscientious. “It is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so, without surrendering your conscientious opinion,’” Hittner told them. Stanford, 61, is accused of leading a $7 billion international fraud scheme involving the sale of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. He faces as long as 20 years in prison if found guilty of the most severe charges, mail fraud and wire fraud. The financier maintains he is not guilty. After the jury returned to deliberations, lead prosecutor Gregg Costa told the judge the jury’s note could be construed as meaning it couldn’t agree on any one of the 14 counts against Stanford or upon all of the counts. ‘We’ll See’ While acknowledging the possibility of having to accept a partial verdict, Hitter said, “We’ll see what comes out next.” When Hittner instructed the jurors to “take all the time you may feel necessary” to reach a verdict, one of the jurors grimaced. The jury left for the day yesterday after being told to resume deliberations. Jury selection in the case began Jan. 23 and the panel heard five weeks of evidence. The government presented testimony at from investors who bought the allegedly fraudulent CDs as well as from the executives who helped sell them. The witnesses included government officials and former Stanford Group Co. Chief Financial Officer James M. Davis, who pleaded guilty to fraud-related charges in 2009 and testified for five days against Stanford. Davis, whose relationship with Stanford traces back to when they were Baylor University roommates, told the jury he knew the boss was committing fraud and didn’t stop it. The defense presented former Stanford employees who said they saw no evidence of fraud at the company. Some offered testimony in support of the defense’s contention that Stanford was an absentee visionary who left the details of running his operation to Davis. Stanford didn’t testify during the trial.

The liquidators of Aurora Empowerment Systems, which is accused of asset-stripping bankrupt Pamodzi Gold, will lay charges of fraud this week against Nelson Mandela’s grandson Zondwa, and Ahmed Amod, an attorney for the company. The liquidators are also said to be planning to lay charges this week against Aurora chairman Khulubuse Zuma and possibly other directors under section 424 of the Companies Act, under which directors can be held personally liable for company debts. The charges follow a threat by the liquidators to lay charges of perjury against Thulani Ngubane, a director of Aurora, after he gave evidence at an inquiry.


The "bad bank" parts of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley paid £2.15bn back to the taxpayer last year. But that still leaves the banks, which were merged as UK Asset Resolution (UKAR), with an outstanding £46.6bn owed to the Treasury. "Our aim is to repay all that debt – to repay it and make a profit for the taxpayer," said Richard Banks, the chief executive. "We are well on course to do that having met or exceeded all our financial targets in the last year." UKAR – which no longer does any new business but still holds more than 700,000 of what were deemed to be the most risky home loans in Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley after they were nationalised – made a profit of £1.1bn in 2011 up from £444m. It also paid £688m to the Government in interest, fees and corporation tax last year. In August, the Treasury raised the interest rate on part of its loans from 1.5 per cent above base rate to 5 per cent above, which will increase the interest paid in a full year by £250m. Mr Banks said it was acceptable that the mortgage lender was "paying a more commercial rate of interest". Mr Banks added that he still expected to have paid back the vast majority of the taxpayer loans within 10 to 12 years. UKFI, the body that holds the taxpayer stakes in the bailed-out and nationalised banks, this week said it expects the Treasury ultimately to receive between £95bn and £97bn from the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money and the run-off of the two "bad banks". That is against the total of £64bn of taxpayer money pumped into them. Mr Banks said he was also pleased the number of customers who have missed three months' mortgage payments or more had fallen 14 per cent in the last year to 33,216. He said: "Obviously low interest rates are a good thing for my customers and this business. But they are all facing increases in the cost of living which puts pressure on their ability to make mortgage payments." Mr Banks also revealed that he is now in a position to sell on portfolios of mortgages to banks or other financial institutions. But he said: "We have received plenty of approaches but none which we would regard as sensible. Someone who is offering us 50p in the pound doesn't make sense when we are meant to be maximising the return to the taxpayer." Northern Rock was nationalised in February 2008. Bradford and Bingley was carved up in September that year, with Santander buying the branch network and savings business and the mortgage book being nationalised.