Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (105804)	1/17/2009 10:36:35 AM
From: Buckey	Respond to of 122087

Very true

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (105804)	1/17/2009 3:34:51 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

My take on all this is that we've not had enough Ponzi scheme litigation in the courts to settle law for them. For example, what if my $1M check to Madoff cleared the day he was arrested and is still sitting in his account. A sigh of relief? No. It appears my money is now subject to being dispersed among all the other victims, creditors, attorneys, etc. Is that fair? Worse, say I was a fund of funds guy who gave money to Madoff who suddenly became suspicious. Maybe a friend in the business advised me to get out. Maybe it was my intuition. Maybe I just came across too many red flags to feel comfortable. So I call Madoff and ask the guy some hard questions. He can't/won't answer them. Alarm bells are now ringing all over the place in my head. Though I can't prove anything, I now have a darn good feeling the guy is a scammer so I slowly divest. Now the SEC comes along and says "hey, what made you get out." If I tell the truth -- about my conversation with Madoff -- I'm screwed. I've acted on inside information. I also failed to report a crime in progress. What's the point of doing due diligence for scams if you subject yourself to this when the blissfully ignorant who achieve the same end result do not? My suggestion: anyone who blows the whistle on a scam is automatically granted immunity from prosecution provided he was never an active, as opposed to passive, participant in it. - Jeff