AC360 Monday 8p

There are growing questions about the ferry crew's actions. The latest on the South Korean ferry disaster live on AC360.
March 12th, 2009
05:23 PM ET

Full Madoff court transcript

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. 09 CR 213 (DC)
BERNARD L. MADOFF

Defendant.

Before:
HON. DENNY CHIN,
District Judge
APPEARANCES:

LEV L. DASSIN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
MARC O. LITT
LISA BARONI
Assistant United States Attorneys

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
BY: IRA LEE SORKIN
DANIEL J. HORWITZ
NICOLE P. DE BELLO
MAURO M. WOLFE

ALSO PRESENT: STEVEN GARFINKEL, FBI
KEITH KELLY, FBI
JULIA SCHULTE HANISH, USDOJ, FBI
THEODORE V. CACIOPPI, FBI

(Case called)
MR. LITT: Marc Litt for the United States. With meat counsel table are Lisa Baroni, an Assistant U.S. Attorney,
and four FBI agents: Steven Garfinkel, Keith Kelly, Julia
Hanish, and Ted Cacioppi. Good morning, your Honor.

MR. SORKIN: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of
the defendant Bernard L. Madoff, the law firm of Dickstein
Shapiro LLP. Mr. Madoff is sitting to my left. To my right is
Daniel Horwitz of my firm. To Mr. Madoff's left is Mauro Wolfe
from my firm, and to Mr. Wolfe's left is Nicole De Bello from
my firm. Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning.
Mr. Sorkin, your client is still prepared to plead
guilty today as we discussed on Tuesday?

MR. SORKIN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, if you would stand, please,
and the deputy clerk will administer the oath.
(Defendant sworn)

MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, before you begin the
allocution, we have provided the government and the court
reporter with a copy of the allocution that Mr. Madoff will
read, and we have a copy if the Court wishes to see it as well.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. SORKIN: May I hand it up?

THE COURT: Yes.This statement is intended to cover all 11 counts?

MR. SORKIN: Yes, your Honor. After your Honor goes
through, he will give a statement which we believe will cover
all the elements. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, do you understand that you are
now under oath and that if you answer my questions falsely,
your untrue answers may later be used against you in another
prosecution for perjury or making false statements?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Try to keep your voice up so that I can hear you, please.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, your Honor.

MR. SORKIN: Can we get some water, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LITT: I would note that the defendant has not yet been arraigned on the information.

THE COURT: All right. That's true. Technically, we did the first part of it. We never did the final part. Let me just ask the final question.
Mr. Madoff, the other day you waived indictment and you consented to being charged by an information of the government, correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And how do you now plead to the information, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: Before I accept the plea I will conduct the allocution.
Would you state your full name for the record, please?

THE DEFENDANT: Bernard L. Madoff.

THE COURT: On Tuesday you told me your age and
educational background. We talked a little bit about your
medical condition. Has your medical condition changed since
Tuesday?

THE DEFENDANT: No, it has not.

THE COURT: In the past 24 hours, have you taken any drugs, medicine, or pills, or have you drunk any alcohol?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Is your mind clear today?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: And are you feeling all right today under the circumstances?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do either counsel have any doubt as to Mr.
Madoff's competence to plead at this time?

MR. LITT: The government does not.

MR. SORKIN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Madoff, as I understand it, you
wish to plead guilty today to all 11 counts of the information,
is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is correct.

THE COURT: Have you had a full opportunity to discuss
your case with Mr. Sorkin and to discuss the consequences of
pleading guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: You told me on Tuesday that you were
satisfied with Mr. Sorkin and his representation of you. Are
you still satisfied?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: On the basis of Mr. Madoff's responses to my questions and my observations of his demeanor, I find that
he is fully competent to enter an informed plea at this time.
Now, Mr. Madoff, before I accept any plea from you I
am going to ask you some additional questions that are intended to satisfy me that you wish to plead guilty because you are
guilty and that you fully understand the consequences of your
plea. If you do not understand any of my questions, please ask
me or Mr. Sorkin to explain. I am going to describe to you certain rights that you have under the Constitution and laws of the United States. You will be giving up these rights if you plead guilty, so please
listen carefully.
Under the Constitution and laws of the United States,
you have a right to a speedy and public trial by a jury on the
charges against you which are contained in the information. If
there were a trial, you would be presumed innocent and the
government would be required to prove your guilt by competent
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You would not have to
prove that you were innocent if you were to go to trial.
If there were a trial, you would have the right to be
represented by an attorney. And if you could not afford one,
an attorney would be provided for you free of cost.
If there were a trial, you would have a right to see
and hear all the witnesses against you and your attorney couldcross-examine them. You would have a right to have your
attorney object to the government's evidence and to offer
evidence on your own behalf if you so desired, and you would
have the right to have subpoenas issued or other process used
to compel witnesses to testify in your defense.
If there were a trial, you would have the right to
testify if you wanted to, but no one could force you to testify
if you did not want to. Furthermore, no inference or
suggestion of guilt could be drawn if you chose not to testify
at trial.
Mr. Madoff, do you understand each and every one of
these rights?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty
today you are giving up each and every one of these rights, you
are waiving these rights, and you will have no trial?

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right
even now to refuse to plead guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: You do not have to enter a plea of guilty if you do not want to, for any reason.Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, did you receive a copy of the information?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: And as we discussed on Tuesday and as we
discussed a moment ago, do you understand that you have waived
your right to be charged by an indictment, which is issued by a
grand jury, and you have consented to being charged by the
information which is issued by the prosecutor?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And did you waive that right voluntarily and knowingly?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, I am going to review the counts with
you. As we said, the information contains 11 counts.
Count One charges securities fraud.
Count Two charges investment adviser fraud.
Count Three charges mail fraud.
Count Four charges wire fraud.
Count Five charges international money laundering to promote fraud in the sale of securities.
Count Six charges international money laundering to conceal the proceeds of fraud in the sale of securities.
Count Seven charges money laundering.
Count Eight charges making false statements.
Count Nine charges perjury.
Count Ten charges making a false filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And Count Eleven charges theft from an employee benefit plan.
Do you understand that those are the charges against you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: I'll ask the government to advise the defendant of the elements of the crimes.

MR. LITT: Yes, your Honor. With respect to Count
One, securities fraud –

THE COURT: Hold on one second.
Mr. Madoff, you can be seated. Pour yourself some water.

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.

MR. LITT: With respect to Count One, securities fraud, in order to prove the crime of securities fraud, the government must establish each of the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that in connection with the purchase or sale of
a security, the defendant did any one or more of the following:
(1) employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or (2)
made an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state
a material fact which made what was said under the
circumstances misleading; or (3) engaged in an act, practice,
or course of business that operated or would operate as a fraud
or deceit upon a purchaser or seller.
Second, that the defendant acted knowingly, willfully,
and with the intent to defraud;
And, third, that the defendant knowingly used or
caused to be used any means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or the use of the mails in
furtherance of the fraudulent conduct.
With respect to investment adviser fraud, the
government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all
four of the following elements: First, that the defendant was
an investment adviser; second, that the defendant either (A)
employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud clients and
prospective clients; (B) engaged in a transaction, practice, or
course of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon
those clients and prospective clients; or (C) engaged in an
act, practice, and course of business that was fraudulent,
deceptive, and manipulative.
Third, that the defendant devised or participated in
such alleged device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or engaged
in such alleged transaction, practice, or course of business,
knowingly, willfully, and with intent to defraud.
And, fourth, that the defendant employed such alleged
device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or engaged in such
alleged transaction, practice, or course of business by use of
the mails or other instrumentality of interstate commerce.
In order to prove the crime of mail fraud, the
government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the
following four elements:
First, that at or about the time alleged in the
indictment there was a scheme or artifice to defraud in order
to obtain property or money by false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises;
Second, that the false or fraudulent statements and
representations concerned material facts;
Third, that the defendant knowingly and willfully
devised or participated in the scheme or artifice to defraud
with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with specific
intent to defraud;
And, fourth, that the United States Mails were used in
furtherance of the scheme as specified in the information.
In order to prove the crime of wire fraud
government must establish the following four essential
elements:
First, that at or about the time alleged in the
information there was a scheme or artifice to defraud in order
to obtain property or money by false and fraudulent pretenses,representations, or promises;
Second, that the false or fraudulent statements and
representations concerned material facts;
Third, that the defendant knowingly and willfully
devised or participated in the scheme or artifice to defraud
with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with specific
intent to defraud
And, fourth, that interstate or foreign wire facilities were used
in furtherance of the scheme to defraud as
specified in the information.
In order to prove the crime of unlawful transportation
of funds or monetary instruments with the intent to promote the
carrying on of specified unlawful activity, in violation of
Section 1956(a)(2)(A), the government must establish beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the following elements:
First, that the defendant transported a monetary
instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or
through a place outside the United States, or to a place in the
United States from or through a place outside the United
States;
And, second, that the defendant did so with the intent
to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.
In order to prove the crime of unlawful transportation
of funds or monetary instruments to conceal and disguise the
proceeds of specified unlawful activity, the government must
establish beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following:
First, that the defendant transported a monetary
instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or
through a place outside the United States, or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United
States; And, second, that the defendant did so with the
knowledge that the monetary instrument or funds involved
represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;
And, third, that the defendant did so with knowledge
that the transportation was designed in whole or in part to
conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or
control of the proceeds of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire
fraud, and theft from an employee benefit plan.
In order to prove the crime of engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity in violation of Section 1957, the government must
establish the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant engaged or attempted to
engage in a monetary transaction in or affecting interstate commerce;Second, that the monetary transaction involved
criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000;
Third, that the property was derived from specified
unlawful activity; in this case, from securities fraud, mail
fraud, wire fraud, or theft from a pension benefit plan;
Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly; that is,
with knowledge that the transaction involved proceeds of a
criminal offense;
And, fifth, that the transaction took place in the
United States or that the defendant is a United States person.
In order to prove the crime of making false statements
to the SEC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, the government must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant made a statement or
representation;
Second, that the statement or representation was
material;
Third, that the statement or representation was false,
fictitious or fraudulent;
Fourth, that the false, fictitious or fraudulent
statement was made knowingly or willfully;
And, fifth, that the statement or representation was
made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the government of
the United States.
To prove the crime of perjury the government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following:
First, that the defendant took an oath to testify
truly before the Securities and Exchange Commission, a body
authorized by law to administer oaths;
Second, that the defendant made false statements as to
matters about which the defendant testified under oath as set
forth in the information;
Third, that the matters as to which it is charged that
the defendant made false statements were material to the issues under inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission;
And, fourth, that such false statements were willfully
made.To prove the offense of making a false filing with the
SEC the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following:
First, that the defendant was required to file an
application, report, or document with the SEC under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
thereunder;
Second, that the application, report, or document
filed with the SEC contained false or misleading statements;
Third, that the false or misleading statements were
material;
And, fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully.
To prove the offense of theft from an employee pension
benefit plan the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt the following elements:
First, that the defendant abstracted or converted to
his own use or the use of others the monies, funds, securities,premiums, credits, property, or other assets of an employee
welfare benefit plan;
Second, that the funds abstracted or converted from –
excuse me, that the fund abstracted or converted from was an
employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the
statute;
And, third, that the defendant acted knowingly and
willfully.

THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Madoff, would you rise again, please.
Mr. Madoff, do you understand that if you were to go
to trial the government would have to prove all of those
elements beyond a reasonable doubt?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now I am going to review with you the
maximum possible penalties for the crimes in question.
Count One charging securities fraud carries a maximum
sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of the
greatest of $5 million, or twice the gross gain or twice the
gross loss, a mandatory special assessment of $100, and a
maximum term of supervised release of three years.
In fact, each count carries a mandatory special
assessment of $100, so I am not going to repeat that for each
of the 11 counts.
Count Two charges investment adviser fraud. It
carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment, a
maximum fine of the greatest of $10,000, or twice the gross
gain or twice the gross loss, and a maximum term of supervised
release of three years.
Count Three, the mail fraud count, charges a maximum
sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of the
greatest of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or twice the
gross loss, and a maximum term of supervised release of three
years.
In fact, all 11 counts carry the same maximum term of
supervised release of three years, so I won't repeat that
either.
I'm up to Count Four, the wire fraud count. That
carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, a maximum
fine of the greatest of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or
twice the gross loss.
Count Five, the international money laundering count,
the first of those counts, carries a maximum sentence of 20
years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of the greatest of

$500,000, twice the value of the funds involved, or twice the
gross gain to any person or twice the pecuniary loss to any
person other than yourself.
Count Six, the second international money laundering
count, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, a
maximum fine of the greatest of $500,000, or twice the value of
the funds involved or twice the gross gain or twice the
pecuniary loss.
Count Seven, a money laundering count, charges a
maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of
the greatest of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or twice the
pecuniary loss.

Count Eight, which charges making false statements,
carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment, a
maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or twice the
pecuniary loss.
Count Nine charges perjury. It carries a maximum
sentence of five years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of the
greatest of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or twice the
pecuniary loss.
Count Ten charges making a false filing with the SEC.
It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, a
maximum fine of the greatest of $5 million, or twice the gross
gain or twice the pecuniary loss.
Finally, Count Eleven, which charges theft from an

employee benefit plan, carries a maximum sentence of five
years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of the greatest of
$250,000, or twice the gross gain or twice the pecuniary loss.
Do you understand that those are the possible maximum
sentences?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now, taking all the counts together, do
you understand that the total maximum sentence of incarceration
that you face is 150 years' imprisonment?

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: In addition, do you understand that as
part of your sentence I can order restitution to any person or
entity injured as a result of your criminal conduct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I would just note that
restitution is mandatory, not discretionary.

THE COURT: I will order restitution if it's
mandatory.
You understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: I mentioned supervised release. By that I
mean that you would be subject to monitoring when you were
released from prison under terms and conditions that could lead
to reimprisonment without a jury trial if you were to violate
them. And if you were to violate the terms of your supervised

release you could be sent back to prison for the entire term of
your supervised release.
Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you a citizen of the United States?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do you understand that as a result of your
guilty plea you may lose certain valuable civil rights, such as
the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right
to serve on a jury, and the right to possess any kind of
firearm?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now, have you talked to Mr. Sorkin about
the federal sentencing guidelines?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Do you understand that the guidelines are
now advisory only and that they are no longer mandatory?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Nonetheless, before I can sentence you I
still have to determine what your sentencing range is under the
guidelines. I can't do that until after the probation
department prepares a presentence report and you, your lawyer,
and the government have had a chance to review the report and
to make any objections.Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And even after I decide what your
guideline range is, I still have the authority in appropriate
circumstances to impose a sentence that is above or below the guideline range.
Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand that parole has been
abolished in the federal system and, thus, you would not be
released from prison any earlier on parole?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if your attorneys
or anyone else has attempted to predict what your sentence will
be that the prediction could be wrong?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And that is because no one, not your
attorney, not the government, can or should make any promises
to you as to what your sentence will be as your sentence cannot
be decided until after the presentence report is completed, I
have ruled on any objections, and I have decided whether there
is any basis to go above or below the guideline range.
Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Finally, do you understand that even if
your sentence turns out to be different from what your attorney
or anyone else has told you it might be, or even if your
sentence turns out to be different from what you expect, you
will still be bound to your guilty plea and you will not be
allowed to withdraw your plea of guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty
you may be giving up or waiving certain aspects of your right
to appeal?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: The government provided your lawyers with
a letter, dated March 10, 2009, which we call a Pimentel
letter?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you review that with your lawyers?

THE DEFENDANT: I did.

THE COURT: And that Pimentel letter explains that
your guideline sentence is 150 years.
Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: That's the government's calculation.
That's the government's position and you and your lawyers will
have the opportunity to comment on that.
Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And do you understand also that this
calculation that's set forth in the government's letter is not
binding on the Court?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Has anyone offered you any inducements or threatened you or forced you to plead guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Sorkin, do you know of any valid
defense that would prevail at trial, or do you know any reason
why your client should not be permitted to plead guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: I do not, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, tell me what you did.

MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, may I make one,
respectfully - according to the Pimentel letter, we agree that
while the maximum statutory penalty in terms of imprisonment is 150 years, the guideline range - and this can be found on page
6 of the Pimentel letter - is life imprisonment. The criminal
history category I yields a sentencing range of life
imprisonment.

THE COURT: I understand. But the government goes on further to take the position that when a count does not permit
life, then you look at the statutory maximum. That's the
government's position.

MR. SORKIN: I just want to make sure Mr. Madoff
understood that. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Technically, the guideline range is life,
but none of the counts in question carries a sentence that can go up to life. The top is 20 years. According to the
government, in that circumstance then the guideline range is
the maximum and the government's position is that the guideline
range is 150 years. Again, I don't know whether Mr. Sorkin
agrees or disagrees, but we will deal with that before
sentencing.

MR. SORKIN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, would you tell me what you
did, please.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.
Your Honor, for many years up until my arrest on
December 11, 2008, I operated a Ponzi scheme through the
investment advisory side of my business, Bernard L. Madoff
Securities LLC, which was located here in Manhattan, New York,
at 885 Third Avenue. I am actually grateful for this
opportunity to publicly speak about my crimes, for which I am
so deeply sorry and ashamed. As I engaged in my fraud, I knew
what I was doing wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the
Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be
able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme.
However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible, and
as the years went by I realized that my arrest and this day
would inevitably come. I am painfully aware that I have deeply hurt many, many people, including the members of my family, my closest friends, business associates, and the thousands of
clients who gave me their money. I cannot adequately express
how sorry I am for what I have done. I am here today to accept
responsibility for my crimes by pleading guilty and, with this
plea allocution, explain the means by which I carried out and
concealed my fraud.
The essence of my scheme was that I represented to
clients and prospective clients who wished to open investment
advisory and individual trading accounts with me that I would
invest their money in shares of common stock, options, and
other securities of large well-known corporations, and upon
request, would return to them their profits and principal.
Those representations were false for many years. Up until I
was arrested on December 11, 2008, I never invested these funds in the securities, as I had promised. Instead, those funds
were deposited in a bank account at Chase Manhattan Bank. When clients wished to receive the profits they believed they had
earned with me or to redeem their principal, I used the money
in the Chase Manhattan bank account that belonged to them or other clients to pay the requested funds. The victims of my
scheme included individuals, charitable organizations, trusts,
pension funds, and hedge funds. Among other means, I obtained their funds through interstate wire transfers they sent from
financial institutions located outside New York State to the
bank account of my investment advisory business, located in
Manhattan, New York, and through mailings delivered by the
United States Postal Service and private interstate carriers to
my firm here in Manhattan.
I want to emphasize today that while my investment
advisory business, the vehicle of my wrongdoing, was part of my
firm, Bernard L. Madoff Securities, the other businesses my
firm engaged in, proprietary trading and market making, were
legitimate, profitable, and successful in all respects. Those
businesses were managed by my brother and two sons.
To the best of my recollection, my fraud began in the
early 1990s. At that time, the country was in a recession and
this posed a problem for investments in the securities markets.
Nevertheless, I had received investment commitments from
certain institutional clients and understood that those
clients, like all professional investors, expected to see their
investments out-perform the market. While I never promised a
specific rate of return to my client, I felt compelled to
satisfy my clients' expectations, at any cost. I therefore
claimed that I employed an investment strategy I had developed,called the split strike conversion strategy, to falsely give
the appearance to clients that I had achieved the results I
believed they expected.
Through the split strike conversion strategy I promised to clients and prospective clients that client funds
would be invested in a basket of common stocks within the
Standard & Poors 100 index, a collection of the 100 largest
publicly-traded companies in terms of their market
capitalization. I promised that I would select a basket of
stocks that would closely mimic the price movements of the
Standard & Poors 100 index. I promised that I would
opportunistically time those purchases and would be out of the market intermittently, investing client funds during these
periods in United States Government-issued securities, such as
United States Treasury bills. In addition, I promised that as
part of the split strike conversion strategy, I would hedge the
investments I made in the basket of common stocks by using
client funds to buy and sell option contracts related to those
stocks, thereby limiting potential client losses caused by
unpredictable changes in stock prices. In fact, I never made
those investments I promised clients, who believed they were
invested with me in the split strike conversion strategy.
To conceal my fraud, I misrepresented to clients,
employees, and others that I purchased securities for clients
in overseas markets. Indeed, when the United States Securities and Exchange Commission asked me to testify as part of an
investigation they were conducting about my investment advisory business, I knowingly gave false testimony under oath to the
staff of the SEC on May 19, 2006 that I executed trades of
common stock on behalf of my investment advisory clients and
that I purchased and sold the equities that were part of my
investment strategy in European markets. In that session with
the SEC, which took place here in Manhattan, New York, I also
knowingly gave false testimony under oath that I had executed options contracts on behalf of my investment advisory clients and that my firm had custody of the assets managed on behalf of my investment advisory clients.
To further cover up the fact that I had not executed
trades on behalf of my investment advisory clients, I knowingly
caused false trading confirmations and client account
statements that reflected the bogus transactions and positions to be created and sent to clients purportedly involved in the
split strike conversion strategy, as well as other individual
clients I defrauded who believed they had invested in
securities through me. The clients receiving trade
confirmations and account statements had no way of knowing by reviewing these documents that I had never engaged in
transactions represented on the statements and confirmations.
I knew those false statements and account statements would be and were sent to clients through the U.S. Mails from my office
here in Manhattan.
Another way that I concealed my fraud was through the
filing of false and misleading certified annual reports and
financial statements - excuse me. Another way that I
concealed my fraud was through the filing of false and
misleading certified audit reports and financial statements
with the SEC. I knew that these audit reports and financial
statements were false and that they would also be sent to
clients. These reports, which were prepared here in the
Southern District of New York, among other things, falsely
reflected my firm's liabilities as a result of my intentional
failure to purchase securities on behalf of my advisory
clients.
Similarly, when I recently caused my firm in 2006 to
register as an investment adviser with the SEC, I subsequently
filed with the SEC a document called the form ADV uniform
application for investment adviser registration. On this form
I intentionally and falsely certified under penalty of perjury
that Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities had custody of my advisory clients' securities. That was not true, and I knew it
when I completed and filed the form with the SEC, which I did
from my office on the 17th floor of 885 Third Avenue, here in
Manhattan.
In more recent years, I used yet another method to
conceal my fraud. I wired money between the United States and the United Kingdom to make it appear as though there were
actual securities transactions executed on behalf of my
investment advisory clients. Specifically, I had money
advisory business to the London bank account of Madoff
Securities International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation
that was an affiliate of my business in New York. Madoff
Securities International Limited was principally engaged in
proprietary trading and was a legitimate, honestly run and
operated business. Nevertheless, to support my false statement that I purchased and sold securities for my investment advisoryclients in European markets, I caused money from the bank
account of my fraudulent advisory business, located here in
Manhattan, to be wire transferred to the London bank account of Madoff Securities International Limited.
There were also times in recent years when I had
money, which had originated in the New York Chase Manhattan
bank account of my investment advisory business, transferred
from the London bank account of Madoff Securities International Limited to the Bank of New York operating bank account of my firm's legitimate proprietary and market making business. That
Bank of New York account was located in New York. I did this
as a way of ensuring that the expenses associated with the
operation of the fraudulent investment advisory business would
not be paid from the operations of the legitimate proprietary
trading and market making businesses.
In connection with the purported trades, I caused the
fraudulent investment advisory side of my business to charge
the investment advisory clients four cents per share as a
commission. At times in the last few years, these commissions were transferred from Chase Manhattan bank account of the fraudulent investment advisory side of my firm to the account
at Bank of New York, which was the operating account for the
legitimate side of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the
proprietary trading and market making side of my firm. I did
this to ensure that the expenses associated with the operation of my fraudulent investment advisory business would not be paid from the operations of the legitimate proprietary trading and
market making business. It is my belief that the salaries and
bonuses of the personnel involved in the operation of the
legitimate side of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities were funded by the operations of the firm's successful proprietary
trading and market making businesses.
Your Honor, I hope I have conveyed with some
particularity in my own words the crimes I committed and the
means by which I committed them. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Madoff.

Mr. Sorkin, I don't think there was mention of an
employee benefit plan.

MR. SORKIN: The pension fund was mentioned, your
Honor.

THE COURT: What page that?

MR. SORKIN: I think it's page 2. If you look at the
top, the victim - I'm quoting - the victims of my scheme
included individuals, charitable organizations, trusts, pension
funds, and hedge funds.

THE COURT: I see.
And those pension funds include employee welfare
benefit plans?

MR. SORKIN: Yes, your Honor.
Is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Madoff, you can be seated for a
moment.
Does the government believe that Mr. Madoff's
admissions cover the elements of the crimes of each count?

MR. LITT: Yes, your Honor. The government does not
entirely agree with all of the defendant's description of his
conduct. However, the government does believe that his
allocution does cover each of the elements of the charged
offenses.

THE COURT: Would you summarize what the government's evidence would be if the defendant were to go to trial?

MR. LITT: Yes.
Had this case proceeded to trial, the government would
have proven through testimony and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the facts set forth in the criminal information.
In summary, the government would have proven the
following: The defendant operated a massive Ponzi scheme
through his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,beginning at least as early as the 1980s. Over the decades
working from his New York City office and elsewhere, Madoff
solicited and caused others to solicit prospective clients to
open accounts with his company. His clients included
individuals, charitable organizations, trusts, pension funds,
and hedge funds, among others, and those clients were also his victims.
Madoff told those clients that he would invest their
funds in publicly-traded securities, options, and treasury
bills. In fact, over the life of his scheme Madoff did not buy
stocks or options as he had promised. Instead, Madoff used
client funds to pay other clients who sought to redeem their
investments, and used so-called commission revenue generated by
charging clients four cents per share for shares that he never,
in fact, purchased to generate revenue for his firm. At times,
his firm would have been unable to operate but for the cash
generated from this Ponzi scheme. Madoff repeatedly lied to
clients in person, on telephone calls, and through mailings,
including account statements and confirmations of purchases and sales of securities that he mailed through the U.S. Postal
Service.
Some investors sent checks to Madoff through the
mails, others wired money to Madoff, and many of those wires
came from outside New York State into the Southern District of New York. Madoff also caused hundreds of millions of dollars
of client funds to be wired overseas to accounts in London.
Some of that money was sent back to his firm and used to pay its expenses. Other money was sent back and forth between New York and London to give the false impression that he was
actually buying and selling securities in European markets
when, in fact, he was not.
Madoff also used some of the money funneled through
London to support his lavish lifestyle. Madoff also used other
means of deception to hide his scheme. He lied when he told
clients that he was purchasing securities on their behalf.
He also lied to regulators, including the SEC. He
filed false and fraudulent certified financial statements with
the SEC that failed to disclose his fraud scheme, failed to
disclose his liabilities to the victims of his Ponzi scheme,
and contained false certifications that the audited statements
had been prepared in accordance with generally-accepted
auditing standards and principles.
Mr. Madoff lied in a form that he was required to file
with the SEC as an investment adviser, claiming that his
company had custody of client securities when, in fact, he had
not purchased any securities for those clients.
He also lied at least seven separate times in an SEC
deposition in 2006.
At the end, Madoff told his clients that he was
holding nearly $65 billion in securities on behalf of those
clients. In fact, he had only a small fraction of that amount.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Madoff, please stand.
When you did the things you told me you did in your
statement, did you know that what you were doing was wrong and illegal?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count One of the information, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Two of the information, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Three,
guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Four, guilty or not guilty?

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Five, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Six, guilty
or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Seven,

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you plead to Count Eight, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you plead to Count Nine, guilty or
not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: How do you now plead to Count Ten, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: And finally, how do you now plead to Count Eleven, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you do the things that you are charged with doing in all 11 counts of the information?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: And are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily and of your own free will?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Madoff, you may be seated.
Based on what I have heard, I am inclined to accept
Mr. Madoff's guilty plea.
As I stated the other day, the government received a
number of e-mails from victims objecting to any plea bargain or any plea deal. As it is clear that there is no plea bargain or
plea deal, there is no basis for these objections. At this
time, nonetheless, if there is any victim who signed our
sign-in sheet who wishes to be heard on the question of whether I should accept Mr. Madoff's guilty plea, you can have a chance to speak now. We have a list.
Mr. Nierenberg, do you want to speak?

MR. NIERENBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right, sir. Come to the microphone.
And remember that today is not the sentencing. Victims will
have a chance to speak at sentencing. Go ahead.

MR. NIERENBERG: I am one of the many victims of
Madoff's egregious crimes. I don't know whether you had a
chance to turn around and look at the victims –

THE COURT: Mr. Nierenberg, Mr. Nierenberg –

MR. NIERENBERG: I just wanted to –

THE COURT: Remain at the podium, please.

MR. NIERENBERG: All right. I know that the
operation - Madoff's operation was massive, that he didn't
commit these crimes alone, and I don't understand why
conspiracy is not a part of one of his pleas. Just to produce
the reams of documents that were received and the elaborate
data that went into them must have required an army of people to produce. And we all know that Madoff wasn't around a lot at his operation. There were other people that were there who
handled it when he was gone. I –

THE COURT: I gather your point is that I should
reject the plea because the government has not charged
conspiracy?

MR. NIERENBERG: No. The question is - I'm not
suggesting that you reject the plea. What I'm suggesting is
that there's an additional crime that was committed that wasn't included in the plea that needs to be considered.

THE COURT: All right. What I want to hear from now
are victims who object to my accepting the plea.

MR. NIERENBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Do you object to my accepting the plea?

MR. NIERENBERG: No, I don't.

THE COURT: Well, thank you, then. You can have your seat.

MR. NIERENBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Mark Labianca? No. Brian Felsen? Mr. Felsen, do you want to be heard?

MR. FELSEN: I would like to be heard, but I do not
object to the plea.

THE COURT: All right. If you want to be heard with
respect to sentencing, we will make sure we have procedures to give victims an opportunity to be heard at sentencing.

MR. FELSEN: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Bennett Goldwait? I can't quite read the handwriting.

MR. GOLDWORTH: Goldworth. No thank you.

THE COURT: Ronnie Sue and Dominic Ambrosino, do you
wish to be heard?

MS. AMBROSINO: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Come forward, please. And say
your name again when you get to the microphone.

MS. AMBROSINO: My name is Ronnie Sue Ambrosino, and I
would object to the plea - I just need to find a spot. I have
taken a lot of notes. Judge, I believe that you have the
opportunity today to find out information as to where the money is and to find out who else may be involved in this crime. And
if that plea is accepted without those two pieces of
information, then I do object. If you can ascertain that you
can get those two pieces of information, I would love to see
this man, who admits that he lied under oath in May of 2006 and sat here and took an oath today - I would like to see him guilty.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. AMBROSINO: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Maureen Aebel? Go ahead.

MS. AEBEL: Judge Chin, I would like to present you
with a different scenario that our country could witness if you
reject Mr. Madoff's plea. If we go to trial, we will show our
people in this struggling country and the world, who looks to
us as the global moral leader, that we hold all people
accountable. If we go to trial, we can show all our world that
all crimes, all crimes, including crimes of greed, can be
dissected, ruled upon, and punished. And we can demonstrate that we are a country that can learn from our mistakes, and we will be then able to reexamine and improve the mechanisms that exist for our protection that have failed so completely. If we
go to trial, we have more of a chance to comprehend the global scope of this horrendous crime. At trial we can hear and bear
witness to the pain that Mr. Madoff has inflicted on the young,
the old, and the infirmed. No man, no matter who he knows or
who he is able to influence, is above the law. Thank you,
Judge Chin.

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. That is it with
respect to the victims who signed up on the acceptance of the plea. Does the government or the defense want to respond to
anything? Does the government want to respond to anything?

MR. LITT: May I just have a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LITT: I think the only thing the government would
say is that the government's investigation continues. It is
continuing. A lot of resources and effort are being expended,
both to find assets and to find anyone else who may be
responsible for this fraud.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Sorkin?

MR. SORKIN: Nothing at this time, your Honor. Thank
you.

THE COURT: First of all, I appreciate the comments
from the victims. With respect to Ms. Ambrosino's comments
about where the money is, as the government has just said, it
is continuing its investigation, and this guilty plea certainly
does not preclude the government from proceeding.
With respect to Ms. Aebel's comment about how a trial
would show the world that we hold all people accountable, I
believe that these proceedings will do the same thing.
Mr. Madoff, please stand. I am accepting the plea.
Mr. Madoff, because you acknowledge that you are guilty as
charged in Counts One through Eleven of the information,
because you know your rights and are waiving them, because your plea is entered knowingly and voluntarily and is supported by
an independent basis in fact for each of the elements of the 11 offenses, I accept your guilty plea and adjudge you guilty on
Counts One through Eleven of the information. You can be
seated.
Mr. Madoff, the probation department will prepare a
presentence report to assist me in sentencing you. You will be
interviewed by the probation department, and it is important
that you give the probation officer truthful and accurate
information, for the report is important in my decision as to
what your sentence will be. You and your attorney have a right and will have an opportunity to review the report, to challenge
or comment upon it and to speak on your behalf before
sentencing.
Sentencing is set for June 16th at 1:30 p.m.
Turning to bail, is the government requesting that I
remand Mr. Madoff pending sentencing?

MR. LITT: Yes. The government moves for remand at
this time pursuant to 18 USC 3143, which puts the burden on the defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that he can
be trusted to appear for future court appearances.
The defendant has now pled guilty and been found
guilty of 11 - or does the Court wish to hear argument now
or –

THE COURT: Well, let me ask Mr. Sorkin whether he
opposes remand.

MR. SORKIN: We do, your Honor, and I'd like to be
heard on that point.

THE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Sorkin.

MR. SORKIN: Thank you, your Honor. May I go to the
podium, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, wherever you would like.

MR. SORKIN: Thank you. Thank you, your Honor. Your
Honor, let me take just a little bit of while, because I want
to review the history of the bail as it related to this case.

THE COURT: Yes. The government provided me with the
transcripts and the letter briefs, and I've reviewed them too.

MR. SORKIN: I'm not going to go through every one of
them, but I think it's important that I list the chronology and
how we got to this point today.

THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine.

MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, this case started when
Mr. Madoff on December 10th confessed his wrongdoing to his two sons, knowing full well that his two sons were going to turn
him in. He didn't run. He didn't attempt to flee at that
time. When he was arrested by the FBI the next morning, he
confessed to the FBI.
He appeared on December 11th before Magistrate Judge
Eaton, and a personal recognizance bond of ten million dollars
was signed by Mr. Madoff and his wife. There were three
additional cosigners that were required, and it was secured by
Mr. Madoff's residence in Manhattan. Surrender of Mr. Madoff's travel documents took place, and his travel was restricted to
the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of Connecticut.
The Pretrial Services at the time, your Honor, did not
recommend in its initial recommendation that Mr. Madoff be
remanded, and I add additionally that the government had no
difference and no objection with any of the conditions that
were imposed on December 11th. That was before Magistrate
Judge Eaton.
On December 17th, your Honor, before another
magistrate judge, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, Mr. Madoff –
and it was ratcheted up - was placed on home detention in his apartment with electronic ankle bracelet monitoring. He was
permitted to travel only to his attorney's offices and to the
court. A curfew of 7:00 p.m. through 9:00 a.m. was imposed,
and this was done in addition to the entry of confession of
judgments with respect to his wife's properties on Montauk, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, a surrender of Mrs. Madoff's
passport and a reduction of the number of cosigners on the bond from four to two. This, too, your Honor, was consented to by
the government. Indeed, I believe it was done by stipulation
without argument before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.
On December 19th, again, on consent of the government, a ten million dollar personal recognizance bond was signed byMr. Madoff, his wife, and his brother, secured by confessions
of judgment on his wife's properties in Montauk, in New York,
and Palm Beach. The passports of both Mrs. Madoff had already been surrendered, and other than scheduled court appearances, Mr. Madoff was confined to his home 24 hours a day. He was no longer permitted to visit his counsel. And they had, in
addition to the 24-hour-a-day confinement, an electronic
monitoring device, which is still attached to his ankle.
At his wife's own expense –

THE COURT: Would the audience please remain quiet.
Go ahead.

MR. SORKIN: Because Mr. Madoff's assets were all
frozen, but his wife's were not, although she later voluntarily
committed to a freeze of her assets under certain restrictions.
So with the government's consent, Mrs. Madoff's own assets,
which were not frozen by Judge Stanton or any judge in this
court - she agreed to pay a security firm acceptable to the
government to provide the following services to prevent harm or flight.
And with these unfrozen assets, not objected to by the
government, Mr. Madoff has round-the-clock monitoring at his
building 24 hours a day, including video monitoring of all of
his apartment, doors, communications devices, and services
permitting security to send a direct signal from an observation
post to the FBI in the event of even the suspicion of harm or
flight. This is known as a panic button. There are additional
guards available on request, if necessary, to prevent flight or
harm, both inflicted by Mr. Madoff - I'm dealing with the
danger to the community issue - and also harm to Mr. Madoff.
On January 12th, your Honor - and again, this was by
consent of the government. On January 12th, Magistrate Judge
Ronald Ellis imposed additional restrictions. This was
briefed, as your Honor well knows. It was argued by Magistrate Judge Ellis. And on that date, Magistrate Judge Ellis
incorporated the restrictions set forth in the order of Judge
Stanton, who has jurisdiction over the SEC matter, including
restrictions on the transfer of all property whatsoever
wherever located in the possession or under the control of
Mr. Madoff. And that was part of the SEC consent under the TRO and also the consent under the preliminary injunction, which
Mr. Madoff consented to. Magistrate Judge Ellis incorporated
these restrictions to a voluntary restraint agreement, which
the government agreed to, involving Mrs. Madoff's assets and
restricted the transfer of all assets owned by her voluntarily,
your Honor.
Additionally, Magistrate Judge Ellis directed the
compilation of an inventory of all valuable portable items in
the Manhattan home, which is to be checked once every two weeks
by government-approved security, who are also required to
inspect all outgoing mail.
The government appealed Magistrate Judge Ellis'
ruling, and before District Judge Lawrence McKenna on January
16th, 2009, argument was held. The matter was briefed, and
Judge McKenna added additional conditions: One, a compilation
of any inventory of all valuable portable items in the homes in
Montauk, Palm Beach, as well as any property owned by
Mrs. Madoff in a small residence in France.
I quote, which your Honor, I'm sure, has read, from
Judge McKenna's statement in court after hearing argument and
seeing papers, that, quote - and this is from Judge McKenna –
I think the chances of Mr. Madoff fleeing at this point are as
close to nil as you can get in any bail package, period,
unquote.
Now, nothing has changed, your Honor, and I agree it
has changed substantially in terms of the plea. And I agree
with Mr. Litt that the burden is upon us to show by clear and
convincing evidence that Mr. Madoff is neither a flight risk
nor a risk to the community.
As far as we are aware, your Honor, Pretrial Services
has not found that Mr. Madoff has been negligent or careless in
complying with all of the bail conditions. There has been no
incident at all, as far as we are aware, that has been conveyed
to us by Pretrial or the government that Mr. Madoff has
attempted at any time to flee or certainly, which the
government conceded before Magistrate Judge Ellis and Judge
McKenna, posed any risk of harm. The argument before Judge
Ellis and Judge McKenna was the risk of harm was in the
financial world, that he would dissipate assets. That was
taken care of, your Honor, respectfully, by Magistrate Judge
Ellis and by Judge McKenna. All mail going out, all packages
going out are inspected by the security firm approved by the
government.
I respectfully submit, your Honor, that the change has
been the media attention and the increased and, in many cases,
justifiable anger by people who claim they lost money, but the
Bail Reform Act doesn't deal with those two issues. I do not
believe, your Honor, that the precedent set in this court where
such individuals as Rigas in the Adelphia case, Ebbers in the
WorldCom case, Messrs. Skilling and Lay - Mr. Lay passed away
before sentencing - all of whom were facing substantial years
in prison, Rigas and Ebbers in this court, Mr. Skilling in
Texas. All were released on bail pending sentence. All went
to trial but did not plead guilty, and all, your Honor, as far
as I am aware, never once confessed at the get-go to the
wrongdoing that you heard Mr. Madoff confess to today.
So I would respectfully submit, your Honor, that there
is no chance that Mr. Madoff will certainly be a risk to the
community, a danger to the community. And his risk of
flight - and I agree with Judge McKenna - is virtually nil
with all of the restrictions that have been imposed on him. So
I respectfully request that his bail be continued.
I would also add, your Honor - again, I refer to the
Bail Reform Act as not being relevant on those two other
issues. What is also relevant, your Honor, is that Mr. Madoff
is going to have the opportunity, I am sure, if the government
and the defense can come to some agreement, to review literally
thousands of thousands of documents which the trustee and the
government have been reviewing to discover where this
forfeiture number comes from. And we've been able to
communicate with him in his apartment, and I think that is a
factor that your Honor should consider, even though that is not
my argument with respect to the Bail Reform Act. I think we
have met all the conditions under the act.
So by clear and convincing evidence, I don't think he
is a risk of either danger to the community, flight, and I
would respectfully request that his bail be continued. Thank
you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't need to hear from the government.
It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, please.
Now, I have a number of people who signed in who
wanted to be heard on the issue of bail, and I think you should
only be heard if you object to remand.
Adriane Biondo? Mr. Ross? Helen Chaitman?

MS. CHAITMAN: No objection.

THE COURT: Donald Schupak?

MR. SCHUPAK: I do not object.

THE COURT: Mark Labianca?

MR. LABIANCA: I do not object.

THE COURT: Sharon Lissauer?
As Mr. Madoff has pled guilty, he is no longer
entitled to the presumption of innocence. The exposure is
great, 150 years in prison. In light of Mr. Madoff's age, he
has an incentive to flee, he has the means to flee, and thus,
he presents a risk of flight. Bail is revoked, and the
defendant is remanded.

MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, would your Honor consider,
respectfully, a stay so that we might appeal your Honor's bail
decision? We intend to do it expeditiously.

THE COURT: The request for a stay is denied.

MR. SORKIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Sentencing, as I said, is set for June
16th, 1:30 p.m. Some of the victims may wonder why do we need
so much time. Well, the probation department has to prepare a presentence report. By law, the defendant is entitled to 35
days to review the presentence report before sentencing. We
also have to give the parties an opportunity to submit written
materials.Mr. Madoff, I will see you at sentencing. We are
adjourned.


Filed under: 360º Follow • Crime & Punishment
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. Suzanne

    Savage...

    March 12, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
  2. ace

    Does this mean he's in holding at Riker's? Awaiting sentancing? Good. I hope they don't give him special accomodations

    March 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm |
  3. Annie Kate

    My it takes a lot to plead guilty to all charges. I seriously doubt Madoff's expression of remorse and I hope the judge sentences him to the maximum sentence available and to the maximum fines available. While the court will probably never see the fines just like the victims will probably never see their money again, I don't think Madoff should receive any breaks at all on this – he could have stopped that Ponzi scheme during the 18 years he ran it; he didn't and he sucked more people into a scheme that he knew would only destroy their investment funds and savings.

    March 12, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
  4. Sherry, N. Calif.

    This is not a very nice thing to say about someone but I feel I have too. Bernie Madoff you are a Maggott of the worst kind. I hope you rott in jail. I hope that others who helped you will be found and judged accordingly along with you.

    Judgement is good with discernment.

    March 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  5. Vince Smith, York PA

    Idiot.

    Did he plead guilty to Count Four? It doesn't quote him saying anything. Unless the Judge asked them simultaneously..

    March 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  6. Arachnae

    Good lord, can't you hide the bulk of this behind a 'cut'?

    March 12, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  7. Joe G. (Illinois)

    Integrity; Morals; And Value of Life matter.. Not just the Economy (What goes in your pocket book!) So go ahead “Judge others”.. But add to that “The Greater Good” that is so much valued in the Government’s way of doing things..

    March 12, 2009 at 5:50 pm |