Madoff Newsflash: Bongiorno, Annette!

Posted by

Oh boy.  Here come the accomplices.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that after interviewing assistants at Bernard L Madoff Securities, investigators have learned that Annette Bongiorno, a 40 year-plus employee of the Ponzi King, had ordered up fake trade confirmations and historical price research on the stocks they pretended to have traded.

Anyone still think Bernie acted alone?

On Thursday, the guilty plea will come and we’ll find out exactly what it is he’s got to bargain with. Hopefully, the whereabouts of a big chunk of the stolen money so investors can get more back once the web is untangled.

Stay tuned, its gonna be an interesting week.

Full Story: Madoff Aide Orders Fake Tickets (WSJ subscription req)

Read Also:

Guide to Prison Gangs for Bernie Madoff

Ruth Madoff Wants to Keep the Secret Stash House

Tags: , ,

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers

Please see disclosures here.

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web
  1. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I am curious as to whether the fees paid to Madoff family attorneys and Sorkin’s fees could subsequently have to be returned to repay investors, if they are found (I’m not sure how they couldn’t be) to be the fruits of this criminal enterprise.

  2. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I am curious as to whether the fees paid to Madoff family attorneys and Sorkin’s fees could subsequently have to be returned to repay investors, if they are found (I’m not sure how they couldn’t be) to be the fruits of this criminal enterprise.

  3. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I am curious as to whether the fees paid to Madoff family attorneys and Sorkin’s fees could subsequently have to be returned to repay investors, if they are found (I’m not sure how they couldn’t be) to be the fruits of this criminal enterprise.

  4. Joshua M Brown commented on Mar 09

    @brian
    the one thing they will never take back are the legal fees

    never ever ever

  5. Joshua M Brown commented on Mar 09

    @brian
    the one thing they will never take back are the legal fees

    never ever ever

  6. Joshua M Brown commented on Mar 09

    @brian
    the one thing they will never take back are the legal fees

    never ever ever

  7. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I was pretty sure that is the case but it would make for a great debate. Kind of like applying the “Son of Sam law” to the case prior to a guilty verdict. Freeze the assets and force him to use a public defender. Too many arguments on both sides to list. Thanks for your response.

  8. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I was pretty sure that is the case but it would make for a great debate. Kind of like applying the “Son of Sam law” to the case prior to a guilty verdict. Freeze the assets and force him to use a public defender. Too many arguments on both sides to list. Thanks for your response.

  9. Brian Fleming commented on Mar 09

    I was pretty sure that is the case but it would make for a great debate. Kind of like applying the “Son of Sam law” to the case prior to a guilty verdict. Freeze the assets and force him to use a public defender. Too many arguments on both sides to list. Thanks for your response.

  13. bob commented on Jul 29

    How come Annette has not been required to spill the beans?

  14. bob commented on Jul 29

    How come Annette has not been required to spill the beans?

  15. bob commented on Jul 29

    How come Annette has not been required to spill the beans?

HowIInvestMyMoney