SEC Chairman Says Agency Failed to Probe Madoff

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

SEC chairman says agency failed to probe Madoff
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:37 PM EST
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox said Tuesday his agency repeatedly failed for at least a decade to pursue allegations of wrongdoing by Wall Street figure Bernard L. Madoff, the alleged perpetrator of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

Cox ordered a probe by the SEC's inspector general, saying the agency's staff had never brought the Madoff matter to the attention of commissioners.

Since the SEC staff never recommended that the commission open a formal investigation, subpoena power was not used to obtain information and the staff relied on information voluntarily produced by Madoff and his firm. "I am gravely concerned by the apparent multiple failures over at least a decade to thoroughly investigate these allegations or at any point to seek formal authority to pursue them," Cox said in a statement.

In a forceful condemnation of the SEC staff, Cox said there had been credible and specific allegations regarding Madoff's financial wrongdoing going back to at least 1999.

Read more: http://myembarq.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9545HR80%4...

[truthisfreedom]

1. Same way they failed to probe bush at arbusto.

The SEC isn't protecting the citizens of the United States. Under bushco, there are no protections at all... just a crime syndicate run amok.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. They failed to probe anyone. I am beginning to wonder if Madoff is being designated the fall

guy for all the rest of the people who scammed money, because he is Jewish and because most of his contributions went to Democrats. The current SEC seems to have no will to look for any other investment fraudsters besides him, and I know that a lot more than $50 billion has been lost in some black hole. We would not be in our mess over just 50 billion. Enron took out more than that and it did not sink the economy.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. We KNOW that..The question is WHY???

[stillcool]

4. No shit.

[KSinTX]

5. I get the impression

That Bernie started off with a viable plan to market his funds. He believed the hype he generated from his heady NASDAQ days and believed he could sustain it. What he lost were the keen minds that surrounded him in those days and he, personally, didn't have the smarts to continue the gains. I don't think he ever started off meaning to scam his own but when the resources started to run dry, hubris took over.

The funds-of-funds that moved into his bridge fund accounts did so to capitalize on his consistent gains. Heck, everyone else was losing big money. Right, wrong or indifferent, these guys thought he was dealing insider style and, believing that they were benefiting from the lawlessness of insider trading, found out they were simply victims of a high-stakes Ponzi. I am torn between glee at their fall and sorrow at the losses suffered by hard workers who saved over a lifetime.

[aquart]

6. No. Really You don't say.

Getting right out in front there with the obvious, ain't he?