Email this page to a friend

Open Letter To Members of the House Financial Services Subcommittee investigating the Bernard Madoff Fraud Allegations and Financial Markets Regulation

Mark A. Goldman                                                                       Dated: 2/8/09


I spent several hours listening to the hearing conducted on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 by the House Financial Services Subcommittee charged with investigating the Bernard Madoff Fraud Allegations and Financial Markets Regulation. 

The first testimony was given by Harry Markopolis, Independent Financial Fraud Investigator and Analyst, who testified that beginning in 2001 and on a number of other occasions in the years following he presented the SEC with detailed information, in effect handing them the Madoff fraud case on a silver platter.  His testimony was specific and so credible that no one on the committee, Democrat or Republican, had anything but praise for his work.  That praise was justified.   It was quite clear to all, that Madoff could have and should have been stopped in his tracks in early 2001.  Here's the link to Markopolis' testimony:

Following his testimony, a panel consisting of various divisions of the SEC, including at least one SEC attorney and other regulatory agency representatives, was assembled to offer testimony in their own defense as to what happened to allow the Madoff fraud to continue for so long. 

The panel was derided and ridiculed with little mercy by the oversight committee when panel members failed to offer any useful information or credible defense, claiming that legal investigations now ongoing precluded them from speaking freely. 

Subcommittee members made it clear how disgusted and incredulous they were that it was possible for the SEC to be so incompetent, even to the point of malfeasance, for allowing Madoff to continue his fraud for all those years when the evidence was handed to them on a silver platter several times over a number of years.  

Madoff finally ended the scam himself when he came forward to admit his crimes.  Prior to that, he apparently was just too big a fish to investigate or challenge by the people who had oversight responsibilities.

To the members of the Committee, I offer you the following links which I hope will help you understand how it is possible for people who are charged with oversight responsibility, (even in the face of their solemn oath and duty), to look the other way when they are confronted with the fraud, lies, and deceit of people who are considered so powerful that they are above the law or beyond the wheels of justice, even when the case against the criminals are handed to them on a silver platter.  These links, with all due respect, ought to be invaluable to you.


Return to Commentaries