Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bernie Madoff's Victims (So Far)

HSBC "has emerged as one the largest victims of Bernard Madoff’s alleged fraud with potential exposure of about $1bn to the investment manager’s collapsed venture...HSBC’s exposure stemmed from loans it provided to institutional clients, mainly hedge funds of funds, that wanted to invest with Mr Madoff. HSBC’s direct exposure is believed to be about $1bn in loans provided to clients who invested some $500m of their own funds in Mr Madoff’s venture. Under the typical terms of these deals, if the US authorities recover any funds from Mr Madoff, HSBC will be paid first, with its clients suffering the first tranche of losses." (FT:)


Man Group’s RMF division has about $350m invested in funds which outsourced their management to Madoff securities, although this is a tiny fraction of the division’s $25bn of assets. (FT)

Tremont Capital. Fund of funds. More than $1bn invested. (FT)


Pioneer Investments, an arm of Italy’s UniCredit, had “substantially all” of $835m invested with Madoff. (FT)

Maxam Capital Management LLC. Combined loss of $280 million. "I'm wiped out," said Sandra Manzke, Maxam's founder and chairman. The Darien, Conn., fund of hedge funds will have to close as a result of the losses, she said. (WSJ)


Fairfield Greenwich Group. Bloomberg: The biggest loser may be Walter Noel’s Fairfield Greenwich Group, whose $7.3 billion Fairfield Sentry Ltd. invested with Madoff’s eponymous firm, three people familiar with the matter said... Fairfield Sentry has a record of more than 15 years with an annual return of 4 to 6 percentage points above benchmark interest rates, according to a marketing document dated this month that was prepared by Zurich-based NPB New Private Bank Ltd. On an absolute basis, returns exceeded 10 percent every year from 1991 through 2000. Since then, they ranged from 6.4 percent to 9.8 percent...The strategy is a “split-strike conversion,” where the investment manager buys shares of large U.S. companies and enters into options contracts to limit the risk, the document says.

Fix Asset Management. Bloomberg: Fix Asset Management, which had an account worth at least $400 million with Madoff Investments. The firm said it’s checking with lawyers about the holdings. “We are very shocked,” John Fix, the son of founder Charles Fix, said by phone from Greece. “We put in redemptions in the past few months and got our money back no problem. We are just so surprised about all this.”


Kingate Management Ltd. Bloomberg says $2.8 billion Kingate Global Fund Ltd. invested with Madoff.

Santander. WSJ: The eurozone's largest bank by market value, said its clients had an exposure of €2.33 billion ($3.1 billion) to Madoff's investment funds, mainly through its Optimal Strategic US Equity fund. More than €2 billion belongs to institutional investors and international clients of its private-banking business, which provides services to wealthy individuals, it said. The remaining €320 million belongs to private-banking customers in Spain, where Santander is based.


Thyssen Family. Source sends the following: Thybo Investments grew out of a family office for Thyssen. They have been in fund of funds it seems since 1989. Thybo International is a "proper" fund of fund but it's newer share class G invests only in one manager - and i'm 99% sure it's Madoff as the returns are almost the same. Some more info. The fund started in Jan 2007. Ernst & Young. Luxembourg are the auditors. UBS Luxembourg is the administrator. Thybo states on their webpage: "Our track record incorporates audited financial statements at both a composite firm-wide and individual portfolios level."


Ira Roth's family. WSJ: Ira Roth, a New Jersey resident, who says his family has about $1 million invested through Mr. Madoff's firm, is "in a state of panic." He said his 86-year-old mother-in-law has been living on the investments' returns, and he has been using the funds to pay college tuition.

Sterling Equities. Fund controlled by Fred Wilpon, co-owner of the NY Mets, confirms it had money with Madoff.

Stephen Abbott, a San Francisco lawyer. WSJ: [Abbott] and two siblings had several hundred thousand dollars invested with Mr. Madoff. They inherited the trust from their father, who had befriended Mr. Madoff years ago. Performance remained steady through the current bear market, he said. "People were floored," he says. "We were making money in this lousy market." He says he is concerned about recovering the money but "you have to get philosophical about this stuff. It could be worse; we still have our health."

Palm Beach Country Club. Source: CNBC's David Faber


Lawrence Velvel, "69, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, said he and a friend may have lost millions of dollars between them (AP). "This is a major disaster for a lot of people," Velvel said in a telephone interview from his Andover, Mass., office. "You work all your life, you finally manage to save up something, and somebody who's entrusted with it, it turns out suddenly he's a crook. Lots of people are getting fully or partially wiped out." Velvel said he wants to know where government regulators, as well as accountants and others at Madoff's company, were when the money was being lost." (AP)

Loeb Family. Source: CNBC's David Faber

J. Ezra Merkin. GMAC LLC Chairman. WSJ: Mr. Merkin, the chairman of former General Motors Corp. financing arm GMAC, is also a money manager at Ascot Partners LLC in New York. Ascot, which had $1.8 billion under management as of Sept. 30, had substantially all of its assets invested with Mr. Madoff, according to a letter to Mr. Merkin sent to clients Thursday night. Mr. Merkin said as one of the largest investors in Ascot, he believed he had personally "suffered major losses from this catastrophe."


Norman Braman. Former Philadelphia Eagles owner

Leonard Feinstein, co-founder of retailer Bed Bath & Beyond. (WSJ)

Mort Zuckerman. Mr. Zuckerman, the chairman of real-estate firm Boston Properties and owner of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, had significant exposure through a fund that invested substantially all of its assets with Mr. Madoff (WSJ)


Richard Spring. WSJ: A Boca Raton resident and former securities analyst, says he had about $11 million -- or 95% of his net worth -- invested with Mr. Madoff. "That's how much I believed in him," Mr. Spring said.

Elie Wiesel's Foundation For Humanity. Total assets of about $10 million.

Members of half-a-dozen country clubs: WSJ: "Mr. Madoff tapped social networks in Dallas, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis. In Minnesota, he attracted investors from Hillcrest Golf Club of St. Paul and Oak Ridge Country Club in Hopkins, investors say. One of them estimated that investors from the two clubs may have invested more than $100 million combined. One of the largest clusters of Madoff investors was in Florida, where losses could be substantial. Mr. Madoff relied on a network of friends, family and business colleagues to attract investors. According to investors and agents, some of these agents were paid commissions for harvesting investors. Others had separate, lucrative business relationships with Mr. Madoff. "If you were eating lunch at the club or golfing, everyone was always talking about how Madoff was making them all this money," one investor says. "Everyone wanted to sign up." Jeff Fischer, a top divorce attorney in Palm Beach, says many of his clients were also Mr. Madoff's clients. "Every big divorce that came through my office had portfolio positions with Madoff," he says. Two of his investors said that among his clients, Mr. Madoff was considered a money-management legend; they would joke that if Mr. Madoff was a fraud, he'd take down half the world with him."

Bramdean Alternatives in the U.K. 9% of portfolio.


Banque Benedict Hentsch, Geneva-based private bank, $47.5 million.

Nomura and Neue Privat Bank. "Marketed access to Fairfield Sentry Ltd., a fund overseen by Mr. Madoff and sold through Fairfield Greenwich. The shares offered by Neue Privat and Nomura were leveraged three times -- meaning $3 of borrowed money was added to every $1 of capital invested in order to magnify returns, greatly increasing the potential losses for those investors." (WSJ)

Unicredit. The Italian firm had unspecified amount with Madoff via its Dublin-based Pioneer alt-asset group. (MarketWatch)

Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Unspecified (Newsday).


Robert Lappin Foundation in Massachusetts closed its doors today and is citing relationship to Maddoff fund. $8MM foundation plus personal holdings. Foundation supported Jewish organizations throughout North Shore of Massachusetts. (source: Jewish Journal)

Wunderkinder Foundation, a Steven Spielberg charity. In the past the foundation "appears to have invested a significant portion of its assets with Mr. Madoff, based on regulatory filings. In 2006, the Madoff firm accounted for roughly 70% of the foundation's interest and dividend income, according to regulatory filings. A representative of Mr. Spielberg confirmed that the foundation has suffered losses on its investments with the Madoff firm. He said he didn't know the size of the losses and couldn't comment further, including on whether Mr. Spielberg had any of his own money invested with the Madoff firm." WSJ

BNP Paribas. "BNP Paribas's exposure, the extent of which is not clear, may stem from BNP's lending relationship with a fund of funds that was a big Madoff client, said people familiar with the matter. A BNP spokeswoman declined to comment." WSJ: BNP, France's largest bank by market value, said it could lose as much as 350 million euros as a result of the alleged fraud. The bank said it has no investment of its own in the hedge funds managed by Bernard Madoff Investment Services. BNP Paribas, however, said it is exposed to these funds through its trading business and lending to hedge funds that had invested in Madoff's funds.

Ira Rennert. Vicky Ward of Vanity Fair, said on CNBC."Heavily, heavily invested."


Englebardt family of Los Angeles. (Reader)

Swiss private bank Reichmuth & Co. "said its clients had an exposure of some 385 million Swiss francs to Madoff funds. The bank said Reichmuth Matterhorn, a fund that invests in other hedge funds, faced a potential loss of about 8.6% on its exposure to Madoff. That amount represented about 3.5% of the 11 billion Swiss Francs Reichmuth & Co. has under management, the bank said." (WSJ)

Union Bancaire Privee. UBP spokesman said the bank's clients have "limited" losses related to Madoff, but wouldn't be more specific or comment further. (WSJ)


EIM Group, the European investment manager with about $11 billion in assets, had a number of non-U.S. investors into funds overseen by Mr. Madoff, according to people familiar with the matter. Overall, EIM assets at risk are less than 2% of what it manages, which means losses could top $200 million. (WSJ).

UBS: ""Very limited" direct exposure to the Madoff funds...But the Zurich-based bank's wealth-management arm helped clients in Europe and possibly elsewhere invest with Mr. Madoff, according to investment professionals in Europe who spoke with some of these clients. UBS is currently reviewing its clients' exposure to Mr. Madoff's funds, according to the person familiar with the matter. The person said the funds weren't on UBS's list of "recommended" investments for its U.S. clients, but that they may have been among the firm's suggested investments for overseas clients." (WSJ)

Stephen A. Fine, president of Biltrite Corp. (Reader)

Avram and Carol Goldberg, former owners of the Stop & Shop supermarket chain (Reader)


Helfman family of Miami. (Reader)

Saul Katz, co-owner of the New York Mets.

Irwin Kellner, of Port Washington. (Reader)

Carl and Ruth Shapiro, donors to Brandeis University, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The Boston Globe reported on Saturday that the Shapiro family foundation lost almost half its money, or about $145 million.



Fairfield County, Connecticut. Bloomberg: First Selectman Ken Flatto and other elected officials in Fairfield, Connecticut, thought the 58,000- person town’s pension fund was holding up well amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The 18 percent decline in total assets since the end of June looked smart compared with the 31 percent plunge in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, and total assets of $286 million left a cushion over the $270 million of estimated liabilities. Flatto’s mood darkened yesterday when he heard Bernard Madoff, a Wall Street executive who oversaw $42 million of the assets, had been arrested and charged with fraud. “We classified this on our portfolio as one of the more conservative investments,” Flatto said in an interview. “You rely on your experts and your managers to be honest.”

Various Boston families: The Boston Globe.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
1,155 Posts
You would think some victim in there would have the connections to just have the guy whacked.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,450 Posts
Yeah, some is left. How much and whether it is recoverable is another matter.

Much smaller scale example of the same sort of thing happened here in East Texas, with a commodity trader named Hudgens. Mr. H goes to jail (Federal joint), on a plea, his operation is in the hands of a receiver, who has made his near-final report to the Court. Looks like the victims are fairly lucky, around 1/3 of the "investments" recovered and to be distributed. That is bad - but it could have been a lot worse. I didn't have anything with hiom, but I know some people who did and they took a beating.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,340 Posts
The Great Crash: 1929
by John Kenneth Galbraith

Has some great stories of the financial frauds that occurred in the 1920's.

The problem seems to be that in good times as long as some person or company produces, nobody bothers to check the books and background of how the profits are obtained.

When bad times hit, then people start to get suspicious and these schemes, most of which seem to have started out honest, get into big losses, then a coverup, then fall apart. In the crash of 1929 and the aftermath this happened over a period of about 3 years. The finale was the suicide of Ivar Kreuger in 1932. He'd kept a vast number of companies world-wide, financial ventures and international loans afloat for several years on a string of loans from people and companies that trusted his reputation. Finally the losses got to the point where he couldn't pretend to be solvent and Kreuger killed himself in Paris in 1932. With the end of Kreuger, Toll and Co. the Great Depression hit bottom.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
I guess you really can't trust anyone no matter their reputation. I understand this guy got angry whenever somebody would ask him to explain how his hedge fund made money and had such consistent returns.
It must have been his reputation as former head of NASDAQ that let him get away with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
How can this be? Current conservative ideology maintains that the super rich are super smart, which is why they are super rich and deserve their super wealth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Madoff was a big time Democrat and contributor to various Democrat campaigns.

I don't maintain that the super rich are super smart, but I don't think they got to be rich by being stupid, either. Anyone can be conned. For example, Ben, you and I have both been paying into the world's largest Ponzi Scheme from the moment of our first paycheck. The difference between you and me is that I wouldn't defend it or criticize people for getting out of it if they had the chance. See, you've been conned by a false, collectivist ideology.

I certainly don't buy into the liberal notion that the rich are merely "winners of life's lottery" and owe their success to mere chance or situations outside of their control.

And BRussell, what exactly makes these people or entities "greedy bastards"? You mean if you were presented with an opportunity to invest in something that had some of the biggest financial names in the country behind it and it had been in operation for 25 years and promised big returns...you'd turn it down because you'd consider yourself too "greedy"?

If you'll look into this situation, you'd see that this scandal is hitting various charities these investors supported very hard. "Greedy Bastards" who are the life's blood of charity organizations?

God, how I despise knee-jerk, economic, class-driven schadenfruede.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
And BRussell, what exactly makes these people or entities "greedy bastards"? You mean if you were presented with an opportunity to invest in something that had some of the biggest financial names in the country behind it and it had been in operation for 25 years and promised big returns...you'd turn it down because you'd consider yourself too "greedy"?

If you'll look into this situation, you'd see that this scandal is hitting various charities these investors supported very hard. "Greedy Bastards" who are the life's blood of charity organizations?

God, how I despise knee-jerk, economic, class-driven schadenfruede.

This isn't about "Class-warfare". Many of these people knew it was a ponzie-scheme and many who didn't know it, knew these rates of return were "to good to be true". They got greedy.

I'm all for the rich making an honest buck and living the good-life CC, I admire them and look for the day when I can join them, but I'm not going to sit back and see these people, with tens of millions, look for incredible returns, unrealistic ones that is, and think they can get away scot-free.

Btw, I don't know if you saw it, but the SEC has said that these greedy-bastards will most likely have their losses covered. WTF? I mean I lost 12K in Enron and no one covered my losses, even though the loss was criminal like what happened in the Madorf scam.


Greedy bastards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
Madoff was a big time Democrat and contributor to various Democrat campaigns.

I certainly don't buy into the liberal notion that the rich are merely "winners of life's lottery" and owe their success to mere chance or situations outside of their control.
Then how do you explain Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both becoming president?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,340 Posts
How can this be? Current conservative ideology maintains that the super rich are super smart, which is why they are super rich and deserve their super wealth.
I fear that Ben has been infected by the Mauserboy syndrome. Its symptoms are sincere postings of outrageously silly and obviously, stupendously incorrect statements.

I wonder if Ben gives all his Social Security check to the bum on the corner to invest for him?

Ben, my dear fellow, there are plenty of super smart people who aren't rich and may simply not have a talent for or interest in devoting themselves to making money. But if you play the odds you're likely to be better off putting your money on a super rich person who's demonstrated a talent for making money. Your financial adviser who lives in the cardboard box in the alley hasn't done too well by investing in Ripple or instant win lottery tickets, has he?

As for your other preferred method of investing, giving it all to the government? I'm sure those Wall Streeters, Big 3 executives and UAW bosses appreciate it but so far it doesn't look like its working out for you, does it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Then how do you explain Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both becoming president?
Simple.

Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

And BRussell, you said that many of these people knew it was a ponzi scheme?

A ponzi scheme means that you are never going to get your initial big investment back. The books are cooked and the "profits" you make are just token gestures made with other suckers' money to make it look like you are earning a profit.

Ponzi schemes like this fall apart when too many of the investors ask for their money back simultaneously.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY "knows" something is a ponzi scheme and invests in it. These people were the victim of a crime.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Simple.

Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

And BRussell, you said that many of these people knew it was a ponzi scheme?

A ponzi scheme means that you are never going to get your initial big investment back. The books are cooked and the "profits" you make are just token gestures made with other suckers' money to make it look like you are earning a profit.

Ponzi schemes like this fall apart when too many of the investors ask for their money back simultaneously.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY "knows" something is a ponzi scheme and invests in it. These people were the victim of a crime.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
I fear that Ben has been infected by the Mauserboy syndrome. Its symptoms are sincere postings of outrageously silly and obviously, stupendously incorrect statements.

I wonder if Ben gives all his Social Security check to the bum on the corner to invest for him?

Ben, my dear fellow, there are plenty of super smart people who aren't rich and may simply not have a talent for or interest in devoting themselves to making money. But if you play the odds you're likely to be better off putting your money on a super rich person who's demonstrated a talent for making money. Your financial adviser who lives in the cardboard box in the alley hasn't done too well by investing in Ripple or instant win lottery tickets, has he?

As for your other preferred method of investing, giving it all to the government? I'm sure those Wall Streeters, Big 3 executives and UAW bosses appreciate it but so far it doesn't look like its working out for you, does it?
A talent for making money? You mean like Barney Madoff? Or how about Ken Lay? Bernie Ebbers? Lots of people on Wall Street had a talent for making money. The president of General Motors has a talent for it as well, too bad he hasn't much talent for running an auto manufacturing company. Our very own President, George W. Bush, sadly, does not have much talent for making money. He was very good at loosing investors money tho, in fact he made a career of it.

What none of these people have is a talent for creating wealth. Anyone unscrupulous enough can make money, we reserve room in some places especially for them which we call prison cells. People who go along with them for the ride,( and the money) are called accomplices and co conspiritors. They often end up in those special places we reserve for crooks, ie. prison cells.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,340 Posts
Actually GW just had bad timing. He tried to set up a major oil company and the market didn't cooperate, the price of oil falling like a rock. He was extremely successful with the Texas Rangers, but, in what should have been a tip-off for us, used mostly government money and eminent domain to build their new stadium.

GM and Chrysler are special cases, a culture of corporate brain death. Unless there's the equivalent of a bloody revolution it happens to most big bureaucratic organizations in time, thanks to the good old Peter principle. Plus my theory is that the office politicians and scam artists are much better at clawing their way up the corporate ladder than the person who just concentrates on doing a really good job. This effect is by far the most pronounced in Government which doesn't go bankrupt like businesses do.

The agency I worked for, NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command), developed a bad case over some 20 years. When I started work there the USAF was flying jets developed by NAVAIR. By the time I retired, and my fairwell address was a classic, correctly predicting the organizations demise, NAVAIR couldn't even successfully develop aircraft for the Navy.

As for the others, like Madoff, most of those folks you denegrate started out by making lots of money when times were good. As soon as things start to lag, then their inner scam artist took control and instead of gracefully admitting the facts and going out of business they cooked the books and pretended everything was OK. And in lots of those cases the supposed government watchdog bureaucracies, like the SEC, were being run by people who scammed and politicked their way into executive positions by paying more attention to political priorities than to just doing their jobs.

I realize that this is hard for you to comprehend, Ben, since your financial adviser thinks that everything is going OK when there's room at the homeless shelter and you've just dropped $5 in his hat for a bottle of the finest Mad Dog.


OPINION: BUSINESS WORLD DECEMBER 16, 2008, 11:46 P.M. ET
Put Madoff In Charge of Social Security
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

Where was the SEC? Such is the plaint lofted in the wake of the Bernie Madoff scandal.
Huh?

When has the Securities and Exchange Commission ever found a fraud except by reading about it in the newspapers? Anyway, who said the agency was supposed to prevent investors from losing money or relieve them of having to perform due diligence?
Mr. Madoff's many honorable and accomplished clients chose to deal with their man outside the institutional checks that come from, say, a heavily regulated bank or a highly transparent mutual fund, perhaps one whose parent is also publicly traded and doubly subject to the checks of a watchful stock market. That was their choice.
It is common to wax nostalgic for a time when a man's word was his bond, business was done on a handshake, etc. This is poppycock. It has always been a client's job to sort out the dealer who could be trusted from the one who couldn't. Personal connections may give comfort, but are no substitute for true institutional checks or true experience of a man's character, which many of Mr. Madoff's clients seemed not to have.
Instead, they went on "reputation," which is to say they acquired their faith in Mr. Madoff more or less the way people acquire their faith in global warming and many other things, from people equally as ignorant as they.
What makes the Madoff story interesting, though not evidence of systematic failure of the regulatory or legal system, is that Mr. Madoff and some of his clients had dealt on a basis of trust for more than a generation. True Ponzi schemes, in which early investors are paid a "return" out of funds deposited by later investors, tend to falter at the first market downturn. Waning investor enthusiasm dries up new funds required to pay off earlier investors. The scheme collapses.
In all likelihood, Mr. Madoff was not running a pure Ponzi scheme, but had real assets. He was operating a blind pool, in which investors had no real idea what they owned or how it was performing, relying on Mr. Madoff who reported metronomic returns, brooked no nosiness into his methods, and seemed always willing to pay off investors who wanted to withdraw their money.
He may have been casual from the start about what money he used to pay withdrawals. It is almost inconceivable, though, that he could have built a true Ponzi scheme to a height of $50 billion, in which there were never any real assets, just his superhuman 40-year juggling act to ensure new investors were recruited as needed to provide funds to meet withdrawal requests from earlier investors.
If so, he is a genius who should immediately be put in charge of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
It was Mr. Madoff himself who apparently applied the word "Ponzi" to his crime, in his distraught confession to his sons. His "$50 billion" in reputed losses also appear to be little more than hearsay, his own tremulous characterization of the long-running disaster he'd wrought.
More likely, his firm devolved into a Ponzi scheme only when serious losses hit and he decided not to level with investors but to gamble on a resurrection. The hoped-for rebound, as they frequently do, failed to materialize. His losses grew. Then came a flood of redemption requests amid the current credit crisis. Mr. Madoff's jig was up.
His decision-making at this crossroads probably wasn't helped by the fact that, in the early 2000s, just as the long bull run was ending, the press began asking questions about the improbable consistency of his reported returns -- making it an awkward moment to stop reporting consistent returns.
Conscious of his standing in the community and seeing jail beckoning, all he could think to do was double down.
There are costs and benefits to everything, including the cumbersome apparatus of firms that subject themselves to intrusive monitoring and conform to standards of transparency. Mr. Madoff's clients chose to avoid those costs. For that matter, they chose to forgo lower but safer returns, as many rich people do, by entrusting their fortunes to T-bills.
The herding automatons of the media can never encounter lawbreaking in the financial markets without concluding that it demonstrates the necessity of more laws against lawbreaking. Congress, now in the process of convincing itself it should run the auto industry, no doubt will see in Mr. Madoff proof that Congress is needed to manage rich people's money and ordinary people's too. Then we'll all be in the same position as Mr. Madoff's clients.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top