A Simple Plan: How Allen Stanford Stole $7 Billion

This is part two of a four-part series on the crimes of global financier Allen Stanford. For part one of the series, click here.

If Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford manages to live to 169 years old, he may see the world as a free man again.

As far as Ponzi schemes go, Stanford's was massive. To put it in perspective, the fraud's namesake, Charles Ponzi, ran a con in 1920 that cost investors around $20 million -- or roughly $225 million in today's dollars. That's small potatoes. In the late 1990s, a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme failure in Albania led to riots and lawlessness across the country. More recently, Petters Group Worldwide founder Tom Petters had a good run with his $3.7 billion fraud that unraveled in 2008.

And Stanford's rake? A cool $7 billion. That puts him right up there with the much-despised Bernie Madoff as one of the worst financial felons of all time.

A simple plan
For such a staggeringly large fraud, Stanford's scam itself wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It was actually dead simple. Promise high returns on a no-risk investment. Justify the rates with a plausible story. Create fake financial reports to hide the fraud. Rinse, repeat.

Through the various U.S. and global affiliates of Stanford Financial Group, Stanford's legions marketed certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank, the group's Antigua-based bank and the seat of the fraud. Stanford CDs offered the promised-land combination of rock-solid security and above-market returns. To supercharge sales, Stanford Financial lured investment advisors with big books of business by paying 1% commissions based on the face value of their CD sales.

Stanford Financial marketing materials claimed that the investors' CDs were backed by safe, secure investments. The bank was supposedly able to pay out above-market rates because it was in a low-tax haven and maintained minimal overhead. With help from James Davis, Stanford's college roommate, and others, Stanford backed up these claims with fudged financial statements.

But where did investors' money actually end up? According to the Department of Justice's indictment of Stanford, about 9% of the $8 billion in assets was in cash and highly liquid investments. Another 10% was invested with private equity and other managers outside of Stanford International Bank. The rest, however, was reported as part of the "Tier III" assets that were managed directly by Stanford and Davis. Around $3.2 billion of that was sunk into what the government termed "artificially valued real estate" and another $1.6 billion consisted of loans to Sir Allen Stanford. As for the rest of the $2 billion-plus supposedly in the Tier III assets, well, it's unclear exactly where that ended up.

An offshore drilling
If there was any twist of genius in Stanford's execution, it was planting the heart of his international fraud in lightly regulated Antigua. Leroy King, the former head of Antigua and Barbuda's Financial Services Regulatory Commission, may have been of particular help in keeping Stanford International Bank out of hot water by turning a blind eye to management's misdeeds. He is currently fighting extradition to the U.S. over bribery accusations.

However, it's a wonder that bribery was even necessary.

Stanford was so powerful and well regarded that when Antigua wanted to reform its banking laws in the 1990s it put him in the driver's seat. When the new rules were written, Stanford was named to the very regulatory body charged with overseeing his bank. By 2004, the Antiguan government had loans outstanding from Stanford Financial to the tune of $87 million and it had helped bankroll a new hospital complex for the island. More broadly, Stanford's presence in Antigua was singlehandedly changing the economic trajectory of the small island.

Then there was cricket -- the Stanford Cricket Ground, the Stanford Superstars, and, of course, the millionaire-maker Stanford Super Series.

It wasn't just Antigua that was on the receiving end of Stanford's funny money. In the 10 years prior to being indicted, Stanford spent $7 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions in the U.S. as he sought to ply members of Congress and loosen U.S. regulation of offshore banks. Senators John McCain and Chris Dodd were among the top recipients of Stanford's largesse.

In fact, so sold were American politicians on Stanford that then-President George W. Bush sent a letter to Stanford Financial Group that praised the company's efforts: "To protect their future well-being and that of their families, it is important for individuals to give careful thought to strengthening their financial security. By providing investment and wealth management services, companies like yours are helping more Americans build a solid foundation for the future."

We know now that what Stanford was actually doing was the exact opposite -- he was cheating American families and robbing them of their financial future. In fact, while Madoff's massive fraud largely targeted wealthy individuals and institutions, Stanford's scheme preyed on many less-well-off, working-class families and retirees. And it was all possible through an unbelievable failure by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. To continue with part three of the series, click here.

Fool contributor Matt Koppenheffer does not have a financial interest in any of the companies mentioned. You can check out what Matt is keeping an eye on by visiting his CAPS portfolio, or you can follow Matt on Twitter @KoppTheFool or Facebook. The Fool's disclosure policy prefers dividends over a sharp stick in the eye.

Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (30)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 09, 2012, at 8:29 AM, iviewit wrote:

    Lame reporting on this story, should have looked up in Google Iviewit + Stanford + Proskauer Rose and you would have uncovered the Real Stanford Story.

    How did you miss this story and what about the CIVIL ACTIONS against PROSKAUER AND CHADBORNE and for the whole 9 Billion Loss.

    ABA Journal - Law News Now

    Stanford Investors Sue Proskauer, Chadbourne and Ex-Partner Sjoblom in Texas State Court

    Posted Jan 5, 2012 11:45 AM CST

    By Debra Cassens Weiss

    Mexican plaintiffs who invested with accused Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford have filed three nearly identical lawsuits in Texas state court against lawyer Thomas Sjoblom and two law firms where he previously worked.

    The suits, which seek class-action status, claim Sjoblom aided and abetted the fraud by obstructing an SEC investigation of Stanford’s operations, the Courthouse News Service reports. He worked at Chadbourne & Parke through August 2006, when he joined Proskauer Rose, according to the plaintiffs. He resigned from Proskauer in 2009. Both law firms are named as defendants.

    Courthouse News quotes from a complaint alleging that Sjoblom spent “four years delaying and obstructing the SEC's investigation of Stanford by lying to the SEC, telling the SEC that he himself had checked Stanford out and that it was not a Ponzi scheme, advising Stanford to hide documents from the SEC, and even omitting to disclose the existence of the formal SEC investigation in audit response letters at Stanford's request.”

    Proskauer Rose issued this statement to the ABA Journal: "The suits filed against the firm in Texas state court are copycats of a suit filed two years ago, which was dismissed in September 2010 by the federal district court in Texas. We are confident that these suits are baseless and will be dismissed as well."

    Former coverage: “Stanford Investors Sue 2nd Law Firm, Ex-GC; Proskauer Partner Withdraws” “US Claims Misleading Statements by ‘Attorney A’; Is Proskauer Lawyer at Risk?”

  • Report this Comment On July 10, 2012, at 9:36 AM, ryanalexanderson wrote:

    iviewit wrote:

    Lame reporting on this story, should have looked up in Google Iviewit + Stanford + Proskauer Rose

    Lame reporting, because he should have googled "Iviewit", iviewit?

    Lame reporting because he didn't mention that there was a lawyer accomplice?

    Yeah. Thanks for sharing.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1935309, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/23/2016 2:25:06 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 1 day ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,145.71 -16.64 -0.09%
S&P 500 2,141.16 -0.18 -0.01%
NASD 5,257.40 15.57 0.30%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes