Comments on: Severe Fraud Punishment – Government Improvement Series

By: Car Insurance Guy

Car Insurance Guy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:28:38 +0000

Answer: It’s not fair, and the Maddoffs shouldn’t own anything at this point.

By: DDFD @ DivorcedDadFrugalDad

DDFD @ DivorcedDadFrugalDad — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:24:38 +0000

They had the best weasely lawyers and accountants money can buy– I am sure there are assets hidden everywhere . . .

People are being foreclosed upon because of his crimes and his family still live lives in the lap of luxury– disgusting!

By: AJC @ 7million7years

AJC @ 7million7years — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:02:08 +0000

The laws in Australia make it very simple:

1. Put ALL of your personal (non-business) assets into your wife’s name … in the event of a divorce it makes NO difference how your assets are structured.

2. Put ALL of your business (non-personal) assets into a company name (e.g. equivalent of an LLC, S-, or C-corp) … that’s all that you can lose if your business/investments go broke

3. Sign as many personal guarantees (in YOUR name only) because you should have a ZERO net worth … no need to declare bankruptcy because nobody will bother you when they find out that there’s nothing to get and you then make a ‘generous’ offer to pay, say, 10 cents in the dollar.

Scummy, but it works

By: phil

phil — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:34:43 +0000

Wow, that it full of vitriol with a dash of vengeance. Yes, I see your point, but if you believe that there is innocence, whether his wife, or the investors, just remember that you can’t rely on somebody to watch out for your actions: it is up to you!

By: Best Savings Account Girl

Best Savings Account Girl — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:38:09 +0000

I’m with you on this – being that she was the closest person to him – she must have known about the ponzi scheme all along and every asset should be taken away. Unless, however, she worked herself and had a job – outside of her husband’s business then that would be different.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:13:25 +0000

If someone is willing to sacrifice herself for someone else, couldn’t that person just steal and then give everything to another person and then turn him/herself in? In this case, shouldn’t the money be returned?

By: Vikas Bhatia

Vikas Bhatia — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:08:40 +0000

Nine relationships huh? I thought there was a website that claims everyone in the world is related within six. Does this mean that everyone (including the emperor) is doomed whenever someone tries something bad?

Joking aside though, I totally agree. We just need to let everyone know that fraud is a big “no-no” and that you will pay big if something goes wrong. Otherwise, we will always hear about these scams over and over and over again because there are always new and clever ways to be deceitful.

By: Rebekah

Rebekah — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:58:07 +0000

It’s called democracy. I’m not guilty for anyone’s crimes buy my own. It’s not fair to hold the family responsible, unless you can prove involvement. Guilty by association isn’t good enough.

By: Money Beagle

Money Beagle — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:37:32 +0000

I couldn’t agree more!