By: KATIE MARASCO, ESQ
As facts come to light regarding the political connections of the men who ran the alleged multi-billion dollar ponzi schemes, it makes one wonder what the SEC was doing during their audits of these businesses. It’s being said that the SEC began investing Allen Stanford’s businesses in October of 2006, though the SEC won’t confirm. Billionaire Stanford has contributed financially to campaigns of U.S. law makers as well as public works, not to mention being a business owner all over the world including Antigua where many of his sketchy business transactions originated. Stanford was fined multiple times over the past few years for offenses including misleading investors and for being without enough capital to function as a securities brokerage firm. The fines were paid and it begs the question, what further attention was paid?
Bernard Madoff, once a high powered figure on Wall Street and former Chairman of the Nasdaq stock Market, has been charged with defrauding $50 million from investors. Not far behind news of the scandal making national and international publications the SEC moved forward with the case against Allen Stanford. If the SEC had suspicions about Stanford why did they not act sooner? Was there political influence involved or is this just a case of poor oversight? And if the SEC had acted sooner would the investors, now potentially out millions of dollars, have been saved some of their misfortune?



New Posts
-
Lawsuit over Matisse’s “Nu au Coussin bleu à côté d’une cheminée”
21 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Landmark Tax Decision: “Donating” House to Fire Department on Condition They Burn It Not Deductible
21 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
School Lunch Police Reject Homemade Lunches
2 days ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Recent Recalls: Consumer Products
2 days ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Frequently Asked Legal Questions: Lemon Law
3 days ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Lawsuit over Matisse’s “Nu au Coussin bleu à côté d’une cheminée”
Facebook Fans
Popular Posts
- Is a Captain Legally Obligated to Stay Aboard His Ship After a Crash? (41507 views)
- Pfizer Recalls Birth Control Pills (380 views)
- Pair Denied Entry into the United States Due to Tweets (346 views)
- California Police Officer Shot And Killed By Fellow Officers (277 views)
- Partying Pictures on Facebook Lead to Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits (265 views)
Topics
Attorney Marketing (4)
Automobile Accidents (47)
Aviation Accidents/Disasters (25)
Bankruptcy Law (45)
Brain Injury / Brain Trauma (47)
Business Law (86)
CA suits (47)
Catastrophic Injury (84)
Celebrity (39)
Class Actions (72)
Constitutional (103)
Corporate & Securities Law (24)
Criminal Law (232)
Current Events (322)
Dangerous Products / Defective Products (162)
Divorce (15)
Dog Bites (11)
DoOver (30)
Drugs (22)
Drunk Driving (49)
DUI (51)
Dumb or Weird Laws (25)
DWI (45)
Education (13)
En Español (7)
Entertainment Law (13)
Estate Planning (31)
Family Law (66)
Federal (158)
Frequently Asked Questions (12)
General (381)
Historical Cases (6)
How-To's (24)
immigration (12)
Immigration Law (40)
Intellectual Property (19)
Labor & Employment Law (54)
Landlord – Tenant (15)
Law Enforcement (6)
LawSmart (3)
Lead Counsel (712)
Lead Counsel Guest Attorneys (114)
Lead Counsel Corner (989)
Lead Counsel News (311)
Legal Trends (96)
Litigation (133)
Medical Malpractice (52)
OUI (13)
Personal Injury (180)
Press Releases (25)
Prisons (4)
Privacy (32)
Products Liability (78)
Recall (135)
Slip and Fall / Trip and Fall (39)
Spinal Cord Injury (31)
Sports (7)
Tax Law (17)
Torts (36)
Unfair Insurance Practices / Insurance Bad Faith (12)
Workers' Compensation (22)
Wrongful Death (91)







