Showing posts with label Fraud History - Ponzi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fraud History - Ponzi. Show all posts

Friday, August 2, 2013

Chasing Madoff - the movie

     Long-time readers of this site know that I like to recommend books and movies every now and then.  In this spirit, I highly recommend the movie "Chasing Madoff."  It is the story of Harry Markopolous who spent 10 years trying to convince anyone who would listen that Bernie Madoff was running the largest Ponzi scheme in history. 

    It is a frustrating story in that Markopolous' warnings fell on so many deaf ears for many years.  The SEC, the supposed "guardians" of the American financial system failed miserably. 

     But, it is a good story in that Markopolous was eventually vindicated.  His story of persistence and the desire to do right is inspiring.

    This movie is based on Markopolous' book, which was reviewed earlier on this site and is also highly recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Madoff


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Chasing Madoff: The Movie

Finally had a chance to see this movie.  Great flick - highly recommended.  I've posted previously about Harry Markopolous who is the proverbial "real American hero" for going after Madoff with the tenacity he did (which was often a thankless job). 

Check it out if you have the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Madoff


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Victims of Alan Stanford

Unfortunately, there is not very much compensation for the victims of Alan Stanford's massive pyramid/Ponzi scheme:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-stanford-ponzi-claims-idUSBRE90B01Q20130112


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

Have a great and fraud-free day.

 


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Notable Ponzi Schemes

Back to posting after a few days off.

Courtesy of CNBC and their excellent show, "American Greed," here are some examples of notorious Ponzi schemes.  Note the similarities as to how the schemes are conducted.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41722418?__source=msn|mostwanted|&par=msn


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

Have a great and fraud-free day.

 


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Another Sentencing in the Allen Stanford case

Yet another bit of fallout from the former financial wizard.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2012%20September/120913%20Pendergest-Holt.html


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

 

Have a great and fraud-free day.

 


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Sentencing in Related R. Stanford Case

Although R. Allen Stanford is sentenced, the fallout from his conviction still resonates.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2012%20September/120913%20Pendergest-Holt.html


NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

 

Have a great and fraud-free day.

 


 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Thursday, August 4, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi XV

We've seen the rise and fall of Charles Ponzi, the 20th century's first great, well-known con artist who achieved a kind of immortality with his name now forever linked to the name of a scheme linked with fraud and deceipt.  So intertwined is his name with fraud that his name is mentioned in countless Federal and State lawsuits and criminal prosecutions and is self-defining.

     Note one thing I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread - Ponzi already had a criminal past when he began his fraud scheme.  This goes also to what I said at the beginning - fraud schemes and con artists, no matter how elaborate or "charming" (as Hollywood would have it), are criminals at heart.  They seek to defraud people.  Their methods and means may be more "polite" than holding up someone with a gun or beating a person for his money, but the results are the same - a person loses his money through dishonest means.

     Ponzi's scheme had all the hallmarks of a "get rich quick" idea that appealed to the baser instincts of human nature.  While it seems lucridous to believe that people fell for it, keep in mind that Ponzi schemes are alive and well today.  If Ponzi could come back from the dead, he would look at Enron and other modern-day frauds and feel right at home.

     Ponzi would be the first to say that human nature does not change and people like Ponzi would always be around to take advantage of it.

    In his own way, therefore, Ponzi was indeed "great."

Have a great and fraud free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

------------>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi XIV

Let's look at the ultimate fate of Charles Ponzi, once again courtesy of Wikipedia:


In two federal indictments, Ponzi was charged with 86 counts of mail fraud. At the urging of his wife, on November 1, 1920, Ponzi pleaded guilty to a single count before Judge Clarence Hale, who declared before sentencing, "Here was a man with all the duties of seeking large money. He concocted a scheme which, on his counsel's admission, did defraud men and women. It will not do to have the world understand that such a scheme as that can be carried out ... without receiving substantial punishment." He was sentenced to five years in federal prison.[7]
He was released after three and a half years and was almost immediately indicted on 22 Massachusetts state charges of larceny.[1] This came as a surprise to Ponzi; he thought he had a deal calling for the state to drop any charges against him if he pleaded guilty to the federal charges. He sued, claiming that as a federal prisoner he could not be tried by the state. The case, Ponzi v. Fessenden, made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. On the 27th of March, 1922, the Supreme Court ruled that plea bargains on federal charges have no standing regarding state charges. It also ruled that Ponzi was not facing double jeopardy because Massachusetts was charging him with larceny while the federal government charged him with mail fraud (even though the charges implicated the same criminal operation).
In October 1922, he was tried on the first ten larceny counts. Since he was insolvent, Ponzi served as his own attorney and, being as persuasive as he had been to investors, the jury found him not guilty on all charges. He was tried a second time on five of the remaining charges, and the jury deadlocked. Ponzi was found guilty at a third trial, and was sentenced to an additional seven to nine years in prison as "a common and notorious thief." [7]
After word got out that Ponzi had never obtained American citizenship (despite having lived in the United States for most of the time since 1903), federal officials initiated efforts to have him deported as an undesirable alien in 1922.[8]
Ponzi was released on bail as he appealed the state conviction. He went to the Springfield neighborhood of Jacksonville, Florida and launched the Charpon Land Syndicate ("Charpon" is an amalgam of his name), offering investors in September 1925 tiny tracts of land, some under water, and promising 200 percent returns in 60 days.[1] In reality, it was a scam that sold swampland in Columbia County.[9] Ponzi was indicted by a Duval County grand jury in February 1926 and charged with violating Florida trust and securities laws. A jury found him guilty on the securities charges, and the judge sentenced him to a year in the Florida State Prison. Ponzi appealed his conviction and was freed after posting a $1,500 bond.
Ponzi traveled to Tampa,[9] where he shaved his head, grew a moustache, and tried to flee the country as a crewman on a merchant ship bound for Italy. The ship, however, made one last American port call; he was caught in New Orleans and sent back to Massachusetts to serve out his prison term.[1] Ponzi served seven more years in prison.
In the meantime, government investigators tried to trace Ponzi's convoluted accounts to figure out how much money he had taken and where it had gone. They never managed to untangle it and could conclude only that millions had gone through his hands.
Ponzi was released in 1934. With the release came an immediate order to have him deported to Italy. He asked for a full pardon from Governor Joseph B. Ely. However, on July 13, Ely turned the appeal down.[10] His charismatic confidence had faded, and when he left the prison gates, he was met by an angry crowd. He told reporters before he left, "I went looking for trouble, and I found it."
Rose stayed behind and later divorced him in 1937,[11] as she did not want to leave Boston. Rose, who later remarried, eventually became the bookkeeper for the New Cocoanut Grove Inc, the parent company of Boston's Cocoanut Grove nightclub.[3][12][13]
In Italy, Ponzi jumped from scheme to scheme, but little came of them. He eventually got a job in Brazil as an agent for Ala Littoria, the Italian state airline.[2] During World War II, however, Brazil sided with the Allies, and the airline's operation in the country was shut down. During that time, Ponzi also wrote his autobiography.[14]

[edit]

Ponzi spent the last years of his life in poverty, working occasionally as a translator. His health suffered. A heart attack in 1941 left him considerably weakened. His eyesight began failing, and by 1948, he was almost completely blind. A brain hemorrhage paralyzed his right leg and arm. He died in a charity hospital in Rio de Janeiro, the Hospital São Francisco de Assis of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro on January 18, 1949.[2]

We will conclude our discussion of Charles Ponzi tommorrow.

http://www.tauskvega.com

-------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi XIII

We will be wrapping up our conversations about Charles Ponzi.  Ponzi created the classic, well, Ponzi scheme.

It had all the elements:

1.  The Benefit - the investor is lured by promises of amazing, but not completely unrealistic, returns.  This is the classic "hook."

2.  The setup - a believable explanation as to how money will be made.  In Ponzi's case, it was the postal marker  scheme.  It was believable and acceptable.

3.  Initial Credibility - the person running the scheme has to have the credibility and charisma to pull it off.  Ponzi had these qualities.

4.   Initial investors paid off.  Ponzi's initial investors were paid off, and were, of course, very happy.

5.  Communicated success.  These initial investors told other investors and.......so it goes.

Read through Ponzi's history again in the previous posts.  We can see how these elements emerged and were applied.


As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

-------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Monday, August 1, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi XII

Well, we saw the fate of Charles Ponzi.  Please note I mentioned at the beginning of this series of posts that Ponzi was not the first person to actually do a "Ponzi Scheme," but his name is forever linked with the scheme and the victims that followed.  Why was Ponzi so unlucky (or lucky since he has achieved a type of immortality) to achieve this dubious distinction?

     Ponzi lived during the beginning of the age of mass communication - namely that of radio.  The 1920's, when Ponzi was operating, was the birth radio technology.  Much like the net and various apps and smartphones today, radio had the possibility to change the world because, for the first time in human history, allow people to be connected instantaneously.  It was a new technology and was just barely beginning to be exploited.  Also, it was a form of mass communication technology that was, more or less, available to all Americans.

    Like any new technology, the uses of this technology when it starts is always questionable.  People are always asking "just how viable is this technology and will it last?"  Try looking at the history of 8-track tapes and Betamax for recent examples of technology failure.

   Radio, however, was an invention at the right place and at the right time.  And, a story like Ponzi's was almost created for this new medium.  Ponzi's scheme could be written in newspapers for instant distribution and read aloud on radio for instant transmission.  Millions of people could suddenly be aware of this vast scheme and the incredible numbers of people who were defrauded.

    Radio was in the right place at the right time, but Ponzi was in the opposite situation if he wanted to be forgotten by history.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

--------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Saturday, July 30, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi XI

Well, once again courtesy of Wikipedia, let's look at the fate of Charles Ponzi:


Ponzi's rapid rise naturally drew suspicion. However, when a Boston financial writer suggested there was no way Ponzi could legally deliver such high returns in a short period of time, Ponzi sued for libel and won $500,000 in damages. As libel law in those days placed the burden of proof on the writer and the paper, this effectively neutralised any serious probes into his dealings for some time.
Nonetheless, there were still signs of his eventual ruin. Joseph Daniels, a Boston furniture dealer who had given Ponzi furniture which he could not afford to pay for, sued Ponzi to cash in on the gold rush. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, but it did start people asking how Ponzi could have gone from being penniless to being a millionaire in so short a time. There was a run on the Securities Exchange Company, as some investors decided to pull out. Ponzi paid them and the run stopped. On July 24, 1920, the Boston Post printed a favorable article on Ponzi and his scheme that brought in investors faster than ever. At that time, Ponzi was making $250,000 a day. Ponzi's good fortune was increased by the fact that just below this favorable article, which seemed to imply that Ponzi was indeed returning 50% return on investment after only 45 days, was a bank advertisement that stated that the bank was paying 5% returns annually. The next business day after this article was published, Ponzi arrived at his office to find thousands of Bostonians waiting to give him their money.
Despite this reprieve, Post acting publisher Richard Grozier and city editor Eddie Dunn were suspicious and assigned investigative reporters to check Ponzi out. He was also under investigation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and on the day the Post printed its article, Ponzi met with state officials. He managed to divert the officials from checking his books by offering to stop taking money during the investigation, a fortunate choice, as proper records were not being kept. Ponzi's offer temporarily calmed the suspicions of the state officials.

[edit]Collapse of the scheme

By this time, Ponzi was seeking another deal to get him out of trouble, but time was running out. On July 26, the Post started a series of articles that asked hard questions about the operation of Ponzi's money machine. The Post contacted Clarence Barron, the financial analyst who published the Barron's financial paper, to examine Ponzi's scheme. Barron observed that though Ponzi was offering fantastic returns on investments, Ponzi himself was not investing with his own company.
Barron then noted that to cover the investments made with the Securities Exchange Company, 160 million postal reply coupons would have to be in circulation. However, only about 27,000 actually were. The United States Post Office stated that postal reply coupons were not being bought in quantity at home or abroad. The gross profit margin in percent on buying and selling each IRC was colossal, but the overhead required to handle the purchase and redemption of these items, which were of extremely low cost and were sold individually, would have exceeded the gross profit.
The stories caused a panic run on the Securities Exchange Company. Ponzi paid out $2 million in three days to a wild crowd outside his office. He canvassed the crowd, passed out coffee and donuts, and cheerfully told them they had nothing to worry about. Many changed their minds and left their money with him. However, this attracted the attention of Daniel Gallagher, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. Gallagher commissioned Edwin Pride to audit the Securities Exchange Company's books—an effort made difficult by the fact his bookkeeping system consisted merely of index cards with investors' names.
In the meantime, Ponzi had hired a publicity agent, William McMasters. However, McMasters quickly became suspicious of Ponzi's endless talk of postal reply coupons, as well as the ongoing investigation against him. He later described Ponzi as a "financial idiot" who did not seem to know how to add.
The dénouement for Ponzi began in late July, when McMasters found several highly incriminating documents that indicated Ponzi was merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. He went to his former employer with this information. The paper offered him $5,000 for his story. On August 2, 1920, McMasters wrote an article for the Post declaring Ponzi hopelessly insolvent. The article claimed that while Ponzi claimed $7 million in liquid funds, he was actually at least $2 million in debt. With interest factored in, McMasters wrote, Ponzi was as much as $4.5 million in the red. The story touched off a massive run, and Ponzi paid off in one day. He then sped up plans to build a massive conglomerate that would engage in banking and import-export operations.
However, trouble came from an unexpected quarter—Massachusetts Bank Commissioner Joseph Allen. An initial investigation into Ponzi's banking practices found nothing illegal, but Allen was afraid that if massive withdrawals exhausted Ponzi's reserves, it would bring Boston's banking system to its knees. When Allen found out a large number of Ponzi-controlled accounts had received more than $250,000 in loans, he ordered two bank examiners to keep an eye on Ponzi's accounts. On August 9, they reported that enough investors had cashed their checks on Ponzi's main account there that it was almost certainly overdrawn. Allen then ordered Hanover Trust not to pay out any more checks from Ponzi's main account. He also orchestrated an involuntary bankruptcy filing by several small Ponzi investors. The move forced Massachusetts Attorney General J. Weston Allen to release a statement that there was little to support Ponzi's claims of large-scale dealings in postal coupons. State officials then invited Ponzi note holders to come to the Massachusetts State House to furnish their names and addresses for the purpose of the investigation. On the same day, Ponzi received a preview of Pride's audit, which revealed Ponzi was at least $7 million in debt.
On August 11, it all came crashing down for Ponzi. First, the Post came out with a front-page story about his activities in Montreal 13 years earlier—including his forgery conviction and his role at Zarossi's scandal-ridden bank. That afternoon, Bank Commissioner Allen seized Hanover Trust after finding numerous irregularities in its books. Although the commissioner did not know it, this move foiled Ponzi's last-ditch plan to "borrow" funds from the bank vaults after all other efforts to obtain funds failed.
With reports that he was due to be arrested any day, Ponzi surrendered to federal authorities on August 12 and was charged with mail fraud for sending letters to his marks telling them their notes had matured.[6] He was originally released on $25,000 bail, but after the Post released the results of the audit, the bail bondsman withdrew the bail due to concerns he might be a flight risk.
The news brought down five other banks in addition to Hanover Trust. His investors were practically wiped out, receiving less than 30 cents on the dollar. The Post won a Pulitzer Prizein 1921 for its exposure of Ponzi's fraud.

[edit]
As always, have a great and fraud-free day

http:/www.tauskvega.com

-------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi X

Last post, we were talking about the two essential elements that give away a Ponzi scheme (or, for that matter, a pyramid scheme, but that is for another post).  These two elements are:

1.  The fraudster is making a great deal of money in a very short amount of time; and,
2.  The fraudster cannot convincingly explain how such monies are being made.

      As with Charles Ponzi, these elements are met.

     Charles Ponzi was making a great deal of money, for his investors and for himself.  Further, these monies were being made in a short amount of time, literally overnight.

    Second, when asked how he made these monies, Ponzi could not convincingly describe how he was doing so.

     This is the hallmark of most frauds and we will be seeing this theme time and again.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

----------------->>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi IX

So, we are now beginning to learn how Charles Ponzi was eventually caught.

     As we stated in the last post, Ponzi was making money literally hand-over-fist in overnight deals that seemed to stagger the imagination.  Short of finding a gold or platinum mine (which Ponzi obviously did not do) or winning the lottery (which once again did not happen), people naturally become suspicious when someone starts making obscene amounts of money in a hurry.

    This was the first "clue" that Charles Ponzi was up to something and, further, it was this marker that first started attracting (unwanted) attention to Ponzi.  He clearly could not keep this up forever.

     However, the fact that Ponzi was making all sorts of money in a short time was only the first marker.  The second marker, and the more telling one, which repeats itself in both pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes (and as we have seen, there is a difference), is that the fraudster has a hard time describing how he is making the money.  This is the "Achilles heel" which strikes pyramid and Ponzi schemes time and again, and Ponzi was no exception.
 
    So, we have the case of Ponzi attracting attention for making so much money so fast and not being able to explain how he did it.

   More tommorrow.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

----------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi VIII

For my readers - sorry.  I did not post last night and I noticed I posted part VII twice, although there were two topics.

Well, let's move forward and, once again thanx to Wikipedia, talk about how Charles Ponzi's fortunes, especially his literal "overnight success," started people asking questions:


Ponzi's rapid rise naturally drew suspicion. However, when a Boston financial writer suggested there was no way Ponzi could legally deliver such high returns in a short period of time, Ponzi sued for libel and won $500,000 in damages. As libel law in those days placed the burden of proof on the writer and the paper, this effectively neutralised any serious probes into his dealings for some time.
Nonetheless, there were still signs of his eventual ruin. Joseph Daniels, a Boston furniture dealer who had given Ponzi furniture which he could not afford to pay for, sued Ponzi to cash in on the gold rush. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, but it did start people asking how Ponzi could have gone from being penniless to being a millionaire in so short a time. There was a run on the Securities Exchange Company, as some investors decided to pull out. Ponzi paid them and the run stopped. On July 24, 1920, the Boston Post printed a favorable article on Ponzi and his scheme that brought in investors faster than ever. At that time, Ponzi was making $250,000 a day. Ponzi's good fortune was increased by the fact that just below this favorable article, which seemed to imply that Ponzi was indeed returning 50% return on investment after only 45 days, was a bank advertisement that stated that the bank was paying 5% returns annually. The next business day after this article was published, Ponzi arrived at his office to find thousands of Bostonians waiting to give him their money.
Despite this reprieve, Post acting publisher Richard Grozier and city editor Eddie Dunn were suspicious and assigned investigative reporters to check Ponzi out. He was also under investigation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and on the day the Post printed its article, Ponzi met with state officials. He managed to divert the officials from checking his books by offering to stop taking money during the investigation, a fortunate choice, as proper records were not being kept. Ponzi's offer temporarily calmed the suspicions of the state officials.

Keep in mind this was before the massive government regulation of today.  People were skeptical even back then - how could someone get so rich so fast?

The story continues.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

--------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Saturday, July 23, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi VII

Now, here is the essence of Ponzi's scheme - remember, Ponzi was supposed to be buying coupons.  He was supposed to send his Italian contacts U.S. dollars and the Italian contacts were supposed to exchange the dollars for Italian lira, buy postal coupons and send them back to Ponzi.  Ponzi was supposed to cash in the coupons for stamps and sell the stamps at a discount to large firms and give Ponzi's investors their return.

     But, this is not what happened.  Ponzi was not buying any coupons.  Ponzi was using new investors money to pay previous investors.  Of course, with any scheme like this, Ponzi had to add new investors to keep running his scheme.  If too many people demand their returns or even their original investment back at once, then the whole thing collapses.

    This is the essence of the get-rich-quick idea that attracts investors.

    Tommorrow we will discuss how Ponzi was caught.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

--------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Friday, July 22, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi VI

Sorry for not posting yesterday, distracted by work as usual.

     OK - let's view the Ponzi scheme when it is reduced to its most basic element - the "get rich quick" scheme.  This is the essence of every Ponzi scheme - a person is promised unusually large returns on his investments - 200% - 300%, incredible returns.

     This was the essence of what Charles Ponzi was able to offer his investors.  They stood to make an incredible rate of return on their investments.  Most investment counselors will tell a prospective client that a return of 10% per year is a great return.  Imagine, then if you are told you could double your investment in a matter of weeks, if not days.

    The "secret" to this, of course, is no secret at all.  Ponzi discovered the most basic "rip off" in terms of fraud - you pay off the people who invest with the funds of other investors.  This is the classic "Ponzi" scheme.

    Now that we have defined a "Ponzi" scheme, let's continue to look at Ponzi's life in the next post and then we will talk about the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a Pyramid scheme.  Although similar, they do have necessary differences.

   As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi IV

Finally, today, once again with the help of Wikipedia, let's examine the actual fraud perpetuated by Ponzi:


After Ponzi's release from prison, he made his way back to Boston. There he met Rose Maria Gnecco, a stenographer, whom he asked to marry. Though Ponzi did not tell Gnecco about his years in jail, his mother sent Gnecco a letter telling her of Ponzi's past. Nonetheless, she married him in 1918. For the next few months, he worked at a number of businesses, including his father-in-law's grocery, before hitting upon an idea to sell advertising in a large business listing to be sent to various businesses. Ponzi was unable to sell this idea to businesses, and his company failed soon after.
A few weeks later, Ponzi received a letter in the mail from a company in Spain asking about the catalog. Inside the envelope was an international reply coupon (IRC), something which he had never seen before. He asked about it and found a weakness in the system which would, in theory, allow him to make money.
The purpose of the postal reply coupon was to allow someone in one country to send it to a correspondent in another country, who could use it to pay the postage of a reply. IRCs were priced at the cost of postage in the country of purchase, but could be exchanged for stamps to cover the cost of postage in the country where redeemed; if these values were different, there was a potential profit. Inflation after World War I had greatly decreased the cost of postage in Italy expressed in U.S. dollars, so that an IRC could be bought cheaply in Italy and exchanged for U.S. stamps of higher value, which could then be sold. Ponzi claimed that the net profit on these transactions, after expenses and exchange rates, was in excess of 400%. This was a form of arbitrage, or profiting by buying an asset at a lower price in one market and immediately selling it in a market where the price is higher, which is not illegal.
Seeing an opportunity, Ponzi quit his translator's job to set his scheme in motion. He borrowed money and sent it back to relatives in Italy with instructions to buy postal coupons and send them to him. However, when he tried to redeem them, he ran into an avalanche of red tape.
Undaunted, Ponzi went to several of his friends in Boston and promised that he would double their investment in 90 days. The great returns available from postal reply coupons, he explained to them, made such incredible profits easy. Some people invested and were paid off as promised, receiving $750 interest on initial investments of $1,250.
Soon afterward, Ponzi started his own company, the "Securities Exchange Company,"[4] to promote the scheme. He set up shop in a building on School Street. Word spread, and investments came in at an ever-increasing rate. Ponzi hired agents and paid them generous commissions for every dollar they brought in. By February 1920, Ponzi's total take was US$5,000, (approximately US$54,000 in 2008 dollars). By March, he had made $30,000 ($328,000 in 2008 terms). A frenzy was building, and Ponzi began to hire agents to take in money from all over New England and New Jersey. At that time, investors were being paid impressive rates, encouraging yet others to invest. By May 1920, he had made $420,000 ($4.59 million in 2008 terms).
He began depositing the money in the Hanover Trust Bank of Boston (a small bank on Hanover Street in the mostly Italian North End), in the hope that once his account was large enough he could impose his will on the bank or even be made its president; he did, in fact, buy a controlling interest in the bank (through himself and several friends) after depositing $3 million. By July 1920, he had made millions. People were mortgaging their homes and investing their life savings. Most did not take their profits, but reinvested.
Ponzi was bringing in cash at a fantastic rate, but the simplest financial analysis would have shown that the operation was running at a large loss. As long as money kept flowing in, existing investors could be paid with the new money. In fact, new money was the only way Ponzi had to pay off those investors, as he made no effort to generate legitimate profits.[5]
Ponzi lived luxuriously: he bought a mansion in Lexington, Massachusetts, with air conditioning and a heated swimming pool, and he maintained accounts in several banks across New England besides Hanover Trust. He also brought his mother from Italy in a first-class stateroom on an ocean liner. She died soon afterward.

We'll do a step-by-step analysis beginning tommorrow.

http://www.tauskvega.com

As always, have a great and fraud free day

----------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi II

Let's continue with our conversation regarding Charles Ponzi.  I suppose before we talk about Charles Ponzi, we need to define what is a "Ponzi Scheme."

Well, let's turn to Wikipedia again:


"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregisteredsecurities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.
The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi[1] who became notorious for using the technique in early 1920. Ponzi did not invent the scheme (for example Charles Dickens' 1857 novel Little Dorrit described such a scheme decades before Ponzi was born), but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Ponzi's original scheme was based on the arbitrage ofinternational reply coupons for postage stamps; however, he soon diverted investors' money to support payments to earlier investors and himself."

    In other words, in a Ponzi scheme, the only real money that is "earned" by the investment pool is by people investing in the pool.

   Charles Ponzi's life was as interesting as the scheme that bears his name, however.  We will explore his life in the next post.

As always, have a great and fraud free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

-------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Great Charles Ponzi

At this point I should probably admit something - I really enjoy reading about fraud and fraudsters and the schemes they concoct.  Fraud is, after all, a form of a confidence crime, or a "con job" in the contemporary vernacular.  The person who creates a fraud scheme is a confidence man or, of course, a "con man."  As the name suggests, to be a con man, you have to gain the confidence of your victim.  You have to gain their trust and belief that you are working for their best interests while, at the same time, you are screwing them out of their hard earned money.

     Only certain people can be con men.  It takes a great deal of self belief and self confidence, not to mention a type of sociopathic and psychopathic personality, to be able to pull off a con job.  A con man has to stay one step ahead of his mark to achieve his goals and then, move onto the next one.  It is not an easy job.

     Make no mistake about it - although I admire the work and the schemes of con artists, the people who pull off these schemes are criminals, pure and simple.  They are stealing other people's money.  Instead of using a gun or other physical force, the con man uses his wits.  While this can be romanticized (and often is, witness movies like "The Sting" for an example of how Hollywood sometimes views this sort of thing), there is no denying that just like any other crime, there are victims.  Conjobs do not leave "victimless" crimes - just ask the former workers of Enron.

    But, like anyone who admires a good backstory, it is always interesting to look into cons and con jobs and find out more about them.

    And, for the next topic, we will take a break from talking about different types of frauds and talk about the person who ran a fraud scheme so grand and enormous in scope that today his name is synonymous with its imitators.

     I am referring to Charles Ponzi and the immortal "Ponzi Scheme."  Charles Ponzi and the crime that will forever bear his name is the subject of our discussions for the next posts.

As always, have a great and fraud-free day.

http://www.tauskvega.com

------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk