Allen Stanford

You might think Daniel Bogar, Jason Green and Bernerd Young would consider themselves pretty lucky. Unlike some of their colleagues at the once-august Stanford Financial Group, they will not spend between three and 110 years in jail and will consequently not get their faces kicked in at a private prison in Texas.

You would be wrong. It seems that these former executives at R. Allen’s brokerage are victims twice over, first of the “perfect scam” and now of a miscarriage of administrative justice. Indeed, to focus on the collective $5.5 million bill the trio has to pay is to miss the really important point: It’s a dangerous precedent slippery slope etcetera. Read more »

Allen Stanford Has No Idea What You’re Talking About

“I didn’t run a Ponzi scheme, I didn’t defraud anybody, and there was never any intent to defraud anybody,” Mr. Stanford, wearing a green prison jumpsuit, told U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner before he was sentenced [to 110 years in prison]. [WSJ]

  • 14 Jun 2012 at 1:28 PM

Bernie Madoff Is Still The King

Though it looked like Sir Allen Stanford might dethrone him with a recommended sentence of 230 years… Read more »

  • 11 Jun 2012 at 2:56 PM

So Allen Stanford Might Be Going Away For A While

U.S. prosecutors have urged a judge to send convicted financier Allen Stanford to prison for 230 years, calling him a “ruthless predator” whose $7 billion Ponzi scheme was among the most egregious frauds ever undertaken. Such a sentence, the maximum recommended under federal sentencing guidelines, would be 80 years longer than Bernard Madoff got in 2009 for his Ponzi scheme, and according to prosecutors reflects Stanford’s place as “among the greediest, most selfish, and utterly remorseless criminals.” Stanford’s lawyers are seeking a prison term of 31 to 44 months for their client, which could result in his immediate release because he has already been in custody for three years, according to the government. [Reuters]

April 7, 2009: The then Sir Allen Stanford chokes back tears over being deprived of being named Forbes’ 405th richest person in the world as a result of the Ponzi charges (which he described as “baloney” and told a reporter using the dirty word, “If you say Ponzi to my face again, I will punch you in the mouth”). Read more »

Remember when alleged Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford was beaten so severely that he lost feeling in the right side of his face and landed in the hospital looking like that? His lawyers say his brain was “injured” as a result, that he has a “major depressive disorder,” is addicted to anti-anxiety drugs and is “not competent to stand trial.” At least one doctor agrees, having testified that Stanford “is not able to work effectively, rationally, with his attorneys to develop a defense against the charges.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Costa, however, isn’t buying it. Read more »

Last May, accused Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford’s lawyers asked that their clients be let out of prison for two reasons. 1) Keeping him there ahead of his trial, scheduled to start in January 2011, was unconstitutional and 2) he was getting this shit beat out of him, including one incident in which he was “so savagely beaten that he lost all feeling in the right side of his face and lost near-field vision in his right eye. The court decided not to let him out and he has again been roughed up a bit. Read more »

How can we get back to here?

Hey remember Allen Stanford? It’s been a while, hasn’t it? When we last checked in with the accused Ponzier, in December, a prison psychologist was arguing that if the guy wasn’t let out of jail ASAP, it was very likely he’d “a complete nervous breakdown.” Apparently that wasn’t a convincing argument for those who make the decisions as to whether or not people are just allowed to up and leave because he’s still there, asking to be freed. Stanford, who never recovered after the SEC robbed him of being listed as the 405th wealthiest person in the world by Forbes, said in a filing that he should be cut loose because 1) keeping him behind bars is unconstitutional 2) he’s been getting some serious shit kicked out of him.

In a filing on Tuesday with the federal court in Houston, lawyers for Stanford said their client had been “subjected to substantial and undeniable punishment,” including nearly a year of incarceration and both physical and psychological damage. This and the prospect of more than a year of further custody until and during his trial, which is scheduled to start in January 2011, violates his constitutional rights to due process, effective assistance of counsel, a speedy trial, and an absence of excessive bail, the lawyers said. “When Mr. Stanford surrendered to authorities, he was a healthy 59-year-old man,” Stanford’s Houston-based lawyer, Robert Bennett, wrote in a brief on which Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz consulted.

Read more »