Another one bites the dust. Stanford faces up to 20 years or longer if the Judge orders him to serve consecutively instead of concurrently. Move over Madoff, you may have a new cell mate.
This is fresh off the press.
Jury convicts Texas financier in $7 billion Ponzi scheme
Prosecutors called Stanford a con artist who lined his pockets with investors' money to fund a string of failed businesses, pay for a lavish lifestyle that included yachts and private jets, and bribe regulators to help him hide his scheme. Stanford's attorneys told jurors the financier was a visionary entrepreneur who made money for investors and conducted legitimate business deals.
Stanford, 61, who's been jailed since his indictment in 2009, will remain incarcerated until he is sentenced.
Department of Justice case below.
Three cheers! White collar crime is beginning to look a little less inviting.
THE CASE:
United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al. Court Docket Number: H-09-342
Background: On June 19, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas unsealed a 21-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury on June 18, 2009, against defendants Robert Allen Stanford, Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez, Mark Kuhrt, and Leroy King, charging each with one count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire and securities fraud (Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371); seven counts of wire fraud (Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1343); ten counts of mail fraud (Counts 9-18: 18 U.S.C.§ 1341), and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 21: 18 U.S.C. §1956(h)) stemming from a $7 billion investment fraud scheme. The indictment also charges Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and King with one count of conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation (Count 19: 18 U.S.C. §371) and one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation (Count 20: 18 U.S.C.§1505).
On June 16, 2010, Judge Hittner issued an order approving certain alternative notice procedures to be followed by the Government in alerting victims to future court proceedings relating to this case, as required by the Justice For All Act of 2004. The full text of the Court's Order is below.