Peter J. Henning, a professor at Wayne State Law School, occasionally writes as a guest blogger for The Deal Professor. Mr. Henning specializes in issues related to white-collar crime and is a former editor of the White Collar Crime Law Prof Blog. Here are Professor Henning’s comments on the possible forfeiture of Ruth Madoff’s assets.
Lawyers for Bernard L. Madoff, the alleged Ponzi scheme operator, have asked that assets worth almost $70 million be exempt from his case because they are actually owned by his wife, Ruth, and have no connection to the fraud. While numerous victims were destroyed financially by the multibillion-dollar scheme, if Mr. Madoff’s legal team gets their way, Ms. Madoff would be allowed to keep the apartment in New York’s Upper East Side, $45 million of municipal bonds, and $17 million in cash held at Wachovia bank.
This has to be a better joke than any ever told by Henny Youngman.
The assets appear to be in Ms. Madoff’s name, and in a legal filing, Mr. Madoff’s lawyers claim that the money is distinct from the Ponzi scheme that prosecutors say he operated for years before confessing in December 2008.
However, simply putting assets into another person’s name, or giving them as a gift, does not necessarily shield them when they are the proceeds of criminal activity.
The government has not yet filed a complete set of criminal charges against Mr. Madoff, and the current deadline for seeking an indictment is March 11. Federal prosecutors can pursue criminal asset forfeiture under a range of statutes that could authorize the seizure of the assets claimed by Ms. Madoff if they are considered to be the product of his crimes.
Criminal asset forfeiture is a fairly recent phenomenon, first adopted as part of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, known as RICO, which was enacted in 1970. While that law was designed to reach criminal organizations like the Mafia, its terms are much broader and can be used in a wide variety of cases. For example, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was convicted under RICO for taking bribes.
One provision of RICO, Section 1963(a)(3), allows prosecutors to seek the forfeiture of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity” engaged in by the defendant. Among the crimes that can constitute the “racketeering activity” in violation of RICO is mail and wire fraud.
It would be fairly easy to charge Mr. Madoff with a RICO violation under Section 1962(c), which requires proof that he conducted an enterprise, like his investment advisory business, through a pattern of mail and wire fraud. The mailing of falsified account statements and the receipt of customer wire transfers over the years that he operated the Ponzi scheme would establish a RICO violation in fairly short order.
If he were convicted under RICO, the government could then seek the forfeiture of all proceeds of his criminal activity. One might think that giving the property away or putting it in his wife’s name might insulate Mr. Madoff from the forfeiture provision, but that is not necessarily the case.
The power of the criminal asset forfeiture provision is through the “relation back” doctrine. Under Section 1963(c), all “right, title, and interest” in property that is traceable to the RICO violation “vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section.” In other words, when the crime took place, the government immediately became the owner of any property that was the product of the mail and wire fraud scheme. It appears that Mr. Madoff’s entire investment advisory business was a scam, so any money derived from that operation would be subject to forfeiture.
The “relation back” doctrine prevents a defendant from simply transferring legal ownership of property acquired through the criminal activity. Thus, if the Upper East Side apartment where he currently resides came from money generated by the Ponzi scheme, then it belongs to the government as of the moment the crime occurred.
The key issue is tracing the proceeds of the fraud to determine what is subject to the “relation back” principle. Mr. Madoff operated two firms, one the investment advisory business that defrauded so many investors, the other a brokerage business that, to all outward appearances, was legitimate. But to the extent proceeds from the Ponzi scheme were used to fund or expand the brokerage business, then that operation would itself be subject to forfeiture because the government owns the proceeds from the crime, including any business acquired or expanded with tainted money.
To argue that the assets in Ms. Madoff’s name are in fact separate, it will be necessary for her to show they were acquired by untainted money. That may be difficult to prove because the records from Mr. Madoff’s investment advisory business do not appear to be very clear. If the government is able to show the brokerage operation was supported by the Ponzi scheme, then money taken from that business may not be immune to forfeiture.
The fact that Ms. Madoff did not know the money she received from him was the proceeds of unlawful activity — a point the government may well contest — would not insulate the property and accounts in her name. Under the asset forfeiture laws, ignorance of the source of the tainted money is not a defense. Instead, the only basis to resist a criminal asset forfeiture claim to property traceable to the crime is if the purported owner acquired the interest before any criminal activity generated the proceeds, or if the person is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property.
Given that the government believes Mr. Madoff operated his Ponzi scheme for a number of years, perhaps as far back as the 1970s, it will be difficult for Ms. Madoff to show she acquired the assets before the fraud began. To qualify as a “purchaser,” a gift from one spouse to another, or even the sharing of marital assets, would not be sufficient to insulate the assets: One must furnish actual value in an arm’s-length exchange.
Even if Ms. Madoff amassed her fortune by using the household money provided by Mr. Madoff, if that money is traceable to his fraud, then it would not be shielded from an asset forfeiture order.
Another weapon in the government’s forfeiture arsenal is the power to take what are known as “substitute assets.” If there is a forfeiture order but the government cannot find enough money or assets traceable to the crime, then it can take other assets owned by the defendant even if they are unconnected to the criminal activity. The assets could be perfectly legitimate, but criminal asset forfeiture is a punishment so anything else held by a defendant can be used to comply with a forfeiture order.
The courts are divided on whether the “relation back” doctrine applies to substitute assets. If the government were to acquire title to substitute assets at the time of the crime, then any untainted money given by Mr. Madoff could still be reached. That is a bit of a stretch, to be sure, but may be a means to get to the $70 million in Ms. Madoff’s name if the assets in her name cannot be traced to his fraud.
Putting assets in a spouse’s name sounds like a convenient way to hide money if you are engaged in criminal conduct. Mr. Madoff’s fraud was of astounding proportions, and it may be that part of his plan was to ensure his wife was taken care of if he were ever caught. The criminal asset forfeiture laws may well cut him off at the pass, however, if the government can show that the assets in her name were the proceeds of his criminal activity.
