TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

SEC Probe Was Not Sufficient

ADVERTISEMENT

The Associated Press

Published: March 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - For years, there were red flags - so many they could have massed into a crimson blanket.

As with the Bernard Madoff case, the scandal surrounding billionaire R. Allen Stanford now seems obvious in hindsight. Yet Stanford managed to run his alleged scheme even while the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators had him on their radar screens and investigated his businesses. Stanford wasn't charged until mid-February.

From his tiny accounting firm's office near a North London fish-and-chips shop to certificates of deposit promising outsized returns sold by a bank in Antigua, ample warning signs over the years suggested Stanford's business wasn't what it seemed.

Yet it took until Feb. 17 for federal investigators to pull together the pieces.

It was then that the SEC accused Stanford in a civil lawsuit of a massive fraud. It said he peddled sham promises and funneled investors' money into real estate and other assets not easily turned into cash. FBI agents in Houston are running a parallel investigation.

Stanford, who was served legal papers by FBI agents, hasn't been charged with a crime. Last week, the FBI arrested Stanford chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt, accusing of her obstructing the SEC fraud investigation.

The SEC began investigating Stanford's businesses in October 2006 but was asked by another, unidentified federal agency to suspend its inquiry, an SEC official in Texas told news organizations last week.

"This was an active investigation throughout and it was going on for some time," said John Nester, an SEC spokesman in Washington.

He wouldn't confirm that the investigation began in October 2006 or identify the other agency. But he said there were complexities in the probe, such as issues of foreign jurisdiction and the SEC's cooperation with other federal agencies, including some with criminal authority.

The SEC is looking into Stanford's regulatory history to be able to respond to media inquiries about the background of the case but not as a review of the agency's handling of it, Nester said.

Coming after the Madoff scandal, the case of another politically connected financier accused of a global fraud has deepened doubts about the SEC's oversight of such cases.

And it has led some to wonder whether the SEC chose to fast-track its case against Stanford only after the uproar over its failure to detect the alleged Madoff fraud. SEC investigators began interviewing Stanford employees in January, just weeks after Madoff's arrest.

"This is another black day for the SEC, unfortunately," said James Cox, a Duke University law professor and securities law expert.

The lawsuit filed in 2006 by ex-Stanford employee Lawrence DeMaria was settled out of court. The lawsuit brought in January 2008 by two financial advisers at Stanford International Bank has entered arbitration proceedings. The bank claims that the advisers owe money it advanced to them.

Both Stanford's and Madoff's businesses had undergone investigations and inspections by the SEC and the predecessor of FINRA.

FINRA spokeswoman Nancy Condon said the two agencies' Stanford investigations ran parallel to each other, "and at some point, both of us became aware of each other." FINRA has said it lacked jurisdiction over Stanford's investment business run by the offshore bank because it wasn't a securities brokerage operating in the United States.

FINRA said in a statement in response to questions: "It became apparent early in our review that, as it was in 2007, our jurisdictional inability to reach certain aspects of the Stanford businesses and personnel likely would interfere with, if not stymie, our investigation. That, plus the breadth of the SEC's recent action, has led us to stay our investigation for the time being."

Though they aren't named in the SEC's complaint, regulators said Allen Stanford was helped in running the Antigua-based operation by his 81-year-old father, James, and by another resident of Mexia, Texas, described on the company Web site as an "active investor and cattle rancher."

But that man, O.Y. Goswick, 85, suffered a stroke in 2000 and hasn't been able to speak, his son said.

STANFORD CASE WARNING FLAGS

•A finding by regulators in June 2007 that R. Allen Stanford's company lacked enough capital to function properly as a securities brokerage firm. The company paid $20,000 to settle charges by the National Association of Securities Dealers without admitting or denying them.

•Stanford's businesses were inspected and investigated several times, starting in 2006 by the SEC and in 2004 by the NASD, the brokerage industry's self-policing group, now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA. NASD's scrutiny resulted in several disciplinary actions: the regulator fined his brokerage company four times, with penalties totaling $70,000, for violations that included misleading investors in sales materials about the risks of the CDs.

•A 2006 lawsuit by a former employee alleging that Stanford's company ran a Ponzi scheme.

•Two other ex-employees asserted in a suit in January 2008 that Stanford's Antigua bank, Stanford International Bank Ltd., sold CDs based on inflated returns and had destroyed documents.

•A board of directors that included Stanford's father, his college roommate and a family friend who remained on the board years after suffering a debilitating stroke.

•The Antigua-based accounting firm that audited the offshore bank was tiny and little known.

•A 1999 Treasury Department advisory that warned U.S. banks to scrutinize transactions involving Antigua. It said a new regulator in Antigua was essentially a captive of offshore banks it was meant to supervise. (The advisory was lifted in 2001.)

The Associated Press

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT