There’s a tantalizing tidbit at the end of the NYT’s Stanford report today:
The current S.E.C. charges stem from an inquiry opened in October 2006 after a routine exam of Stanford Group, according to Stephen J. Korotash, an associate regional director of enforcement with the agency’s Fort Worth office.
He said the S.E.C. “stood down” on its investigation at the time at the request of another federal agency, which he declined to name, but resumed the inquiry in December 2008.
How many federal agencies have the ability to kill an SEC investigation? This sounds very much as though it’s either the FBI or the CIA. Either way, there might be all manner of drug connections we haven’t yet heard about — after all, Caribbean banks have long been used as centers for laundering drug money.
And what prompted the resumption of the inquiry in December? The exit of Thomas Sjoblom as Stanford’s lawyer didn’t happen until February, according to Bloomberg. Did the un-named federal agency decide to give the SEC the all-clear to restart its investigation at that point? All very odd.
Incidentally, I don’t believe the CNBC report that Stanford was in the US on Tuesday, trying to book a private jet to fly him to Antigua. Stanford’s a tax exile: he doesn’t spend more than 90 days a year in the US at the best of times. And he has his own fleet of private jets. So the chances that he would find himself on US soil, and in need of a jet, just as the SEC filed the case against him would seem to be slim indeed. If the SEC doesn’t know where he is, I reckon there’s really no chance he’s in the US.
I am so glad you called out CNBC on their dubious report that he couldn’t hire a jet to get out of the country. Spot on with you comment about him being a tax exile. The drug money link sounds very plausible. There’s something deeper here.Keep up the good work.
Your information sounds good,visit our site for the detail about
,
The world’s top luxury brands.sexy,gorgeous,fun.
for a woman,Exudes a fatal attraction
Noble,Elegant,Charming
all in there.
Stephen J. Korotash is a dirty lawyer in my opinion. Years ago when I was involved in a investment. The Fort Worth office of the SEC handled a case. To make a long story short they accused everyone of running a ponzi scheme when in fact they where victims of a bad investment ran by several criminals. Korotash it appears was intentionally using language to disparage the reputation of the investor’s. Why would a SEC lawyer do this? It was like he was trying to prove that the victim’s of the scheme where criminals. Stephen got it all wrong in his documentation that was posted online. It is interesting that Korotash no longers works for the SEC. I can tell you this there a lot of things in this case that were not answered. Google Dallas SEC receiver and connect the dots to the lawyer’s charging victim’s of a Ponzi enormous rates to collect there money back.