The many fruitless probes into Bernie Madoff

advertisement

Starting in 1992, federal regulators on many occasions examined various aspects of Bernard Madoff's business operations, but they never turned up the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme that led to Madoff's arrest last month. The history of regulatory failure in the Madoff scandal:

1992

Securities and Exchange Commission

Madoff's name comes up in a probe of Florida accountants who allegedly sold unregistered securities.

1999

SEC examiners review trading practices at Madoff's investment advisory firm.

2001

The SEC's Boston office receives information from securities industry executive Harry Markopolos raising questions about the steady stock market returns of Madoff's firm.

2004

The SEC looks into whether Madoff's firm engaged in improper trading practices.

2005

The SEC interviews Madoff and members of his family, finding no improper trading practices.

2005

An industry-based regulatory office finds no improper trading practices by Madoff's firm.

2005

SEC investigators meet with Markopolos, who alleges that Madoff's firm is "the world's largest Ponzi scheme."

2006

An SEC enforcement investigation finds that Madoff and one of his clients misled regulators. As a result, Madoff agrees to register as an investment adviser.

2007

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority examines Madoff's firm. No regulatory action results.

  • 1 Vote
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
0.7
{"commentId":4682524,"authorDomain":"fromano"}

.well it seems to me that 50 billion couldn't have vanished considering how many probes in to his practices by the sec has done over the years on him can only mean one thing PAYOFF In order to properly investigate what happen with the sce Their the problem they allowed him over the course of a few years to put the funds somewhere. I say skin him till he talks sorry if that plan bothers our libs out but that to much to misplace

{"commentId":4682524,"threadId":"461967","contentId":"2276625","authorDomain":"fromano"}
    Reply#1 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 10:06 AM EST
    {"commentId":4694761,"authorDomain":"doylewheeler"}

    yea I wonder how many federal regulators ended up retiring early with a few million bucks in their pocket.

    {"commentId":4694761,"threadId":"461967","contentId":"2276625","authorDomain":"doylewheeler"}
      Reply#2 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 10:44 PM EST
      {"commentId":4707804,"authorDomain":"fromano"}

      That seems about right it's hard to imagine having a million or two and not checking up on whats it doing. Many of the people said its their life savings

      {"commentId":4707804,"threadId":"461967","contentId":"2276625","authorDomain":"fromano"}
        #2.1 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 7:11 PM EST
        Reply
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"461967","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"461967","contentId":"2276625"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking