Subscribe  |  Login  
 

Best to go low tech

Wednesday, November 04, 2009 
Comments: 2
I used old gear so that The Ponzi would go undetected. You see, if I had used the latest computers, someone working in the office would have found that no data existed on all the stock trades that supposedly took place.

So low tech kept the whole thing running smoothly. Kind of ironic when everyone tells you that you have to install all the latest gadgets to make a few bucks!

Of course I relied on the ITguys that I paid and hired to keep shtumm.

Mcmahon,one of my project managers, now says...

"I immediately recognized there was massive institutional chaos in the way the place was managed. No one found value in participating in project management meetings or in writing things down. There was no documentation."

By the way, McMahon was a bit of a smartass and lasted less than a year at the firm.

Name 
Surname 
Email Address 
Contact Nr.  
Comment 
max 250words
 Register me for the newsletter 
 I accept the terms & conditions of the site 
5275 Bernie Madoff  [ Sunday, December 06, 2009 | 3:11:29 PM ]
Russell,

My fraud was based on the greed and stupidity of my clients. And if it hadn't been for the fall-out from the sub prime fiasco, I would have probably escaped detection. The instability of the capitalist system wrecked a decent Ponzi.

The more you think about it, the more you realize that I was misguided rather than "guilty" in the strict judicial sense.
5240 Russell Andrew  [ Thursday, December 03, 2009 | 10:16:46 AM ]
The pathetic thing about the justice system, is that they wont use this gold mine of information you can provide on how to protect against fraud. As you said, a simple accounting trick could have caught out the scheme long ago.

Whilst the law regards differing lengths of sentences to represent an appropriate responses to crime, and at a superficial level they are, much more nuanced information could be gained through purposive investigation and implemented through legislation. Disposal of criminals also neglects the psychologically deterministic nature of crime, mens rea, the guilty mind doctrine, indeed, should be called faulty mind, as Mitchel and Associates psychological research point out in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.