Kenneth Rijock

Kenneth Rijock

Friday, July 24, 2015

WILL PONZI SCHEMER ALLEN STANFORD'S 110-YEAR SENTENCE BE AFFIRMED BY THE 5TH CIRCUIT ?


Those observers who have been following Allen Stanford's $7bn Stanford International Bank Ponzi scheme, with the resulting 110 year sentence imposes upon him, are anxiously awaiting an opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is handling Stanford's criminal appeal. The appellant's reply brief was filed back in March, but the Court has not yet made it ruling on the sentence and conviction.

Though Stanford requested oral argument, and the US Government advised none was necessary, the Court has not assigned the appeal to the oral argument calendar, and since three-quarters of Federal criminal appeals are decided without hearing oral argument, it is probable that it will not be approved. Stanford admittedly has an uphill battle in his case, as statistically only around 5% of these appeals are reversed.

If his conviction & sentence are affirmed, Stanford's release date will remain April 17, 2105, ninety years from now. He is presently serving his sentence at USP Coleman, in Florida. I know that is is little consolation to those investors who lost everything, due to Stanford's massive fraud, but he will not live to the age of 155, to be released back into the community.



1 comment:

  1. As far as oral argument goes, Stanford can take it or leave it. His appeal is solid and will be difficult for the government to overcome. Especially with the 5th Circuit COA, extraterritoriality is a huge issue with international ramifications. The D.C Circuit Court already ruled in the SEC v. SIPC case on July 18th, 2014, that the customers owning the foreign CDs from SIB in Antigua, are customers of SIB only and not of any U.S. bank or investment firm. In other words, the SEC had no jurisdiction and no authority outside the U.S. Their filing a complaint against someone who had, up until the 2/17/2009 seizure of assets, no customer complaint filed against him (admitted in court by the SEC) was illegal. This has been affirmed by other court proceedings directly related to Stanford. The DOJ quietly dropped the securities fraud (Ponzi scheme) charge against Stanford in a defense-prompted action and in the superseding indictment before trial, there was no securities fraud charge, the whole basis of the SEC complaint that was filed against Stanford. The trial relied heavily on the statements and declarations of Karyl Van Tassel with FTI Consulting at the time, now under investigation for her part in her questionable declarations and attestations regarding the solvency of Stanford businesses...as well as the admitted fraud, liar and thief, Davis, who would have admitted to the Kennedy assassination to avoid 30 years prison time. As a result of his deal with the prosecution, he got to keep the many millions he embezzled and spent a little time in a "club fed" prison where he got to play golf. Karyl Van Tassel's declarations weren't her own and those charts and spreadsheets? From none other than the Receiver's law firm, Baker Botts. The Texas Bar Association and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (John Gill) have both contacted Stanford in prison and both are conducting investigations. There are two issues here: the botched trial and Stanford's innocence. The many Constitutional violations that occurred in the 2012 trial are enough to turn the conviction upside down but the enormity of a government agency that willfully and illegally extended their reach to the shores of a foreign country is insurmountable. Aside from that, there are many former depositors and employees of Stanford who now know where to place the blame for the destruction of a multi-billion dollar business empire spanning three continents and their resulting financial losses. These losses did not occur until AFTER the seizure of Stanford assets and the dismantling of the businesses which the Receiver was bound by court mandate to preserve and not touch until a final determination was made in the Stanford trial and appeals. These former depositors have read every Stanford motion, as well as the government replies to those motions, in Judge Godbey's court in Dallas (the civil penalty of 12.6 billion) as well as the appeal in the 5th Circuit COA. They know that Stanford's freedom and civil action against the SEC (and others) are their only chance for full recovery of their losses. I work with these people all the time. Stanford has civil attorneys (on a contingency basis, they are so certain of the outcome) who are keeping in the background until the 5th Circuit hands down an acquittal and then they will spring into action. Stanford's former attorneys (Scardino, Fazel and DeGuerin) have all read the appeal and know the outcome. The Receiver also sees the handwriting on the wall and has involved himself in a furious whirlwind of litigation to distract all eyes away from the grandaddy criminal court decision of them all.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.