Innocent investors who did not have a single clue on a slew of Ponzi scheme devised by the mastermind accountancy fraud, Bernard Madoff, who had been involved in a number of Ponzi scheme since his arrival in the Wall Street at the age of twenty back in the 1961, must pay back their profits, a Manhattan appeals court ruled in the cases filed by an Irving Picard, a court-appointed trustee who thus far had recovered an upsum of $14 billion, a relatively infinitesimal bits and pieces lost in some of the Ponzi schemes meaded out of Bernard Madoff.
In point of fact, according to Thursday’s ruling of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, a three judge-panel had upheld a lower court ruling that heard earlier this year that the investors, holding on to the “fictious” profits stemmed off Madoff’s Ponzi schemes, must not be entitled to the money which actually belonged to the initial investors or other customers who had lost their lives’ savings.
Appeals court allows investors to retain their original investments
More interestingly, latest appeals court verdict came forth months after Madoff’s plea to be released over the ground that he was dying, had been rejected earlier this year.
In factually, Madoff, 82, has been serving a 150-year sentence in the prison after pleading guilty to a raft of Ponzi schemes in 2009, though the exact numbers had yet to be specified due to a lack of substantial evidences in regulatory & auditory filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) between 1960s and 80s, while the schemes of Madoff, widely known as a theologist in accountancy who knew his way around the loopholes, had led to the losses of billions of dollars from tens of thousands of investors in the Wall Street.
Nonetheless, a few of Madoff’s customers and investors had actually made millions who appeared to have put up an army of lawyers in a bid to hang on to their profits, however, as beforementioned the three-judge panel had concluded that the investors who made a turnover in Madoff’s schemes had to pay back the profits.
Though, the investors were allowed to retain their original investments. However, questions remained on whether a million in profits in the 90s could cover up for the same in the ‘20s.