Allen Stanford Arrested and Charged with Fraud

[four_or_six]

haha, as I read this I am sat at work with a polo tucked in.

I think that's fair enough... if you wear a polo to work you can't walk round with it hanging out.

 

[howardj]

Yep, polo tucked-in is to hide a belly, tbh.

the tragedy is it only draws attention to it, much like a combover flags baldness.

 

[Langeveldt]

The most important thing is, why hasn't the ICL and/or the BCCI been blamed for the arrest of Mr Stanford?

Because everyone absolutely loves it

 

[Richard]

On another note. How long until Giles Clarke resigns? I'm surprised he's lasted this long. To put the ECB in the position he has is unforgiveable and he surely has to go?

I can't stand Giles Clarke and blame him for several of the bad things that've happened to English cricket of late (most damagingly, the sale of live home Test cricket exclusively to Sky Sports) but I don't think he can really be said to have put the ECB in this particular position.

 

[_Ed_]

the tragedy is it only draws attention to it, much like a combover flags baldness.

Very true.

 

[zaremba]

You seem to have forgotten the billions of unaccounted dollars?? Small clerical mistake perhaps??

You know they're unaccounted-for do you?

You know that he has no defence?

You've heard the evidence at his trial?

Oh no, that's right, silly me, I was forgetting that he hasn't had a trial yet.

There's a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You might sneer at this, but just wait till you or a close relative is accused of criminal wrongdoing and you will change your attitude.

And maybe the reason why he had not been charged as yet is because he was on the run.

No, they found him. And they were able to serve papers on him. But not for any criminal charges. This is a civil suit which is something rather different.


Don't get me wrong, I have no knowledge about whether he's guilty or innocent. But neither do you. The fact that someone has made an accusation does not make him guilty. I can't see why people find this hard to understand.

 

[fredfertang]

There may be a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty but in reality that now translates into a presumption that a person is guilty until proven innocent - see Part 11 Chapter 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

 

[fredfertang]

................... but of course US law may be different

 

[zaremba]

There may be a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty but in reality that now translates into a presumption that a person is guilty until proven innocent - see Part 11 Chapter 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Evidence of bad character?

I'm reminded of the great Private Eye cartoon, published soon after the conviction of Barry George, in which the judge asks the jury: "So, members of the Jury, how do you find the Defendant: Looks Guilty or Not Looks Guilty?"

 

[sirdj]

You know they're unaccounted-for do you?

According to the BBC the SEC has said that they are unaccounted for. Is the SEC in the habit of accusing people of a huge fraud when they have been innocent? Do you know of such a previous case?

You know that he has no defence?

You've heard the evidence at his trial?

Oh no, that's right, silly me, I was forgetting that he hasn't had a trial yet.

There's a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You might sneer at this, but just wait till you or a close relative is accused of criminal wrongdoing and you will change your attitude.

Firstly this is a web forum not a court of law.

Secondly I am amazed that your sympathies lie with the Douchebag and not with people who have lost their money.

If there has been no fraud then why is said douchebag not coming up with explanations. Why is he running around in Washington trying to get the politicians to get the heat off him?

Why are the investors being prevented from withdrawing their own money from the banks?

No, they found him. And they were able to serve papers on him. But not for any criminal charges. This is a civil suit which is something rather different.

If he was not on the run then why none of his offices were able to give details of his whereabouts. Have you ever heard of a CEO who's secretary does not know where he is?? How naive do you take me to be?
Yes he has been slapped with a civil suit, but would you like to put money on whether criminal charges are going to follow or not?

Don't get me wrong, I have no knowledge about whether he's guilty or innocent. But neither do you. The fact that someone has made an accusation does not make him guilty. I can't see why people find this hard to understand.

The accusations do not come from random people. Its coming from the SEC.
In legal terms he may be innocent unless proven guilty. We all understand that. We also understand that it is in the nature of human beings to have an opinion on a matter and the purpose of a forum is to discuss it.

 

[zaremba]

According to the BBC the SEC has said that they are unaccounted for. Is the SEC in the habit of accusing people of a huge fraud when they have been innocent? Do you know of such a previous case?

You mean a case where a government agency has made allegations against an individual which turn out, following a trial, to be groundless? Er yes. It happens every time someone is prosecuted and acquitted. This happens in c60% of jury trials in England and Wales, and I'd imagine similar levels of acquittals apply in other jurisdictions too.

Unless of course you live in, say, Stalin's Russia or Iran where the mere fact of being accused is enough evidence of your guilt to convict you. Perhaps that's the sort of society you'd be comfortable living in. You should be thankful that most of the civilised world operates legal systems a little more sophisticated and fair than that.

Secondly I am amazed that your sympathies lie with the Douchebag

I have no sympathy for him and I haven't said that I do. I haven't the faintest idea whether he's guilty or not. You seem to think that you know all the relevant facts, which shows an astonishing degree of perceptiveness on your part considering he's not even been tried yet.

You should hope that if you're ever falsely accused of a crime, the jury is made up of people with slightly more open minds than yours.

 

[Uppercut]

So handing out money left, right and centre for a bunch of Twenty20 games is good for cricket? It's freaking ridiculous.

You didn't answer my question. Met anyone who was there that thought it was bad for cricket?

 

[Langeveldt]

You know they're unaccounted-for do you?

You know that he has no defence?

You've heard the evidence at his trial?

Oh no, that's right, silly me, I was forgetting that he hasn't had a trial yet.

There's a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You might sneer at this, but just wait till you or a close relative is accused of criminal wrongdoing and you will change your attitude.



No, they found him. And they were able to serve papers on him. But not for any criminal charges. This is a civil suit which is something rather different.


Don't get me wrong, I have no knowledge about whether he's guilty or innocent. But neither do you. The fact that someone has made an accusation does not make him guilty. I can't see why people find this hard to understand.

Surely it boils down to, if he had nothing to hide, then why did he flee for nearly three days?

 

[zaremba]

Surely it boils down to, if he had nothing to hide, then why did he flee for nearly three days?

A very important question that no doubt he'll be asked at trial. Perhaps he was trying to avoid a media storm? It's not safe to draw conclusions at this stage.

Sorry to be boring about this, but over the years I've seen so many people character-assassinated by (a) the press (b) US prosecutors and their like and (c) ignorant members of the public who think they know it all because of some scraps of often false and/or incomplete information that they've been fed (see (a)) but in fact know very little.

It's just safer and better to hold fire till he admits his guilt or has his guilt proved.

 

[Uppercut]

A very important question that no doubt he'll be asked at trial. Perhaps he was trying to avoid a media storm? It's not safe to draw conclusions at this stage.

Sorry to be boring about this, but over the years I've seen so many people character-assassinated by (a) the press (b) US prosecutors and their like and (c) ignorant members of the public who think they know it all because of some scraps of often false and/or incomplete information that they've been fed (see (a)) but in fact know very little.

It's just safer and better to hold fire till he admits his guilt or has his guilt proved.

When someone ridiculously rich gets accused of something, there's generally something to it. You're putting yourself in deep, deep cow manure if you write a blog accusing a Texan billionaire of fraud with nothing to back it up.

 

[sirdj]

You mean a case where a government agency has made allegations against an individual which turn out, following a trial, to be groundless? Er yes. It happens every time someone is prosecuted and acquitted. This happens in c60% of jury trials in England and Wales, and I'd imagine similar levels of acquittals apply in other jurisdictions too.

An acquittal does not mean that the person was not actually guilty in the first case. It just means that the case was not proven to the extent that jurors or judges were convinced.
I don't think the SEC is going to run around after people accusing them of lying to investors and charge them with fraud when the amount we are speaking of is 9.5 billion.

Unless of course you live in, say, Stalin's Russia or Iran where the mere fact of being accused is enough evidence of your guilt to convict you. Perhaps that's the sort of society you'd be comfortable living in. You should be thankful that most of the civilised world operates legal systems a little more sophisticated and fair than that.

IMO the legal system in the so called civilised world leaves a lot to be desired. Innocence or guilt depends more on the money available at your disposal to hire the best lawyers rather than true right and wrong. Its the poor and the weak who always lose. You could choose to live with the illusion that this version of Law and Justice is better than Iran. I dont think there is that much of a difference. At least in Iran you know what can get you into trouble and therefore avoid it. In your so called civilised world whether you are screwed or not depends on who you are.

I have no sympathy for him and I haven't said that I do. I haven't the faintest idea whether he's guilty or not. You seem to think that you know all the relevant facts, which shows an astonishing degree of perceptiveness on your part considering he's not even been tried yet.

I know enough about said Douchebag to arrive at my conclusion about him. Are you in the habit of looking up detail FBI files of people before arriving at your decisions about them or do you sit on walls usually??

You should hope that if you're ever falsely accused of a crime, the jury is made up of people with slightly more open minds than yours.

Firstly I belong to a country where we don't have a jury system. Secondly I think a jury system sucks. Thirdly I don't have a closed mind on the matter. But Stanford is not talking hence he makes my decision for me.

 

[fredfertang]

Silence = Guilt sounds to me like a mind firmly closed

I would have thought that the only basis upon which Stanford might be advised to break his silence at the moment would be if he were absolutely "bang to rights" - if he believes he is innocent the most idiotic thing he could do is comment publicly in circumstances where he can't possibly know the detail of the case against him.

 

[Pothas]

ECB have just anounced that they have terminated all contracts with Stanford, this was inevitable anyway but at least this sorry affair is over without causing any real long term damage to English cricket. Shame the same can't be said for cricket in the West Indies.

 

[zaremba]

I don't think the SEC is going to run around after people accusing them of lying to investors and charge them with fraud when the amount we are speaking of is 9.5 billion.

Why even bother having a trial then? Ah, heck, the cops wouldn't accuse this person of a serious crime unless he was guilty, therefore he's guilty. Screw it, chuck him in prison then.

IMO the legal system in the so called civilised world leaves a lot to be desired. Innocence or guilt depends more on the money available at your disposal to hire the best lawyers rather than true right and wrong. Its the poor and the weak who always lose.

Well there's a grain of truth in this, in some civilised countries at least. Particularly as regards the disadvantage of the poor and weak.

In the UK (and, I think, Australia) there's a system of legal aid which means that the poorest and weakest defendant will have free access to the biggest and best defence lawyers in the country. This is an admirable system in which your concern simply holds no water at all (although if Government cut-backs in the legal aid budget continue, your concern might be more valid).

In the USA the system is different. However even there having money won't get you off if the evidence is stacked up against you: see eg Conrad Black and many others.

Are you in the habit of looking up detail FBI files of people before arriving at your decisions about them or do you sit on walls usually??

One of the stranger things you've written (from a pretty strong field). If by "do you sit on walls" you mean "do I try to keep an open mind about people's guilt or innocence unless they've had a fair trial", well the answer is yes.

Firstly I belong to a country where we don't have a jury system.

But if you're in Sydney as your profile suggests, you are in a country where, if you were accused of a serious crime, you would get tried by a jury. You should be glad of this. As I say, you should hope to God that if falsely accused the jurors trying you didn't take the view "well, the cops wouldn't have accused him unless he was guilty."

 

[Richard]

Hehe. We should have had more lawyers on CW ages ago, would've made things soooooo much more interesting.