Skip to main content

FORMER EMPLOYEE AT BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, PLEADS GUILTY TO TEN-COUNT CRIMINAL INFORMATION

LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), ALAN D. LEBOWITZ, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration ("DOL-EBSA"), and PATRICIA J. HAYNES, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), announced today that FRANK DIPASCALI, JR. pleaded guilty to ten felony counts contained in a Criminal Information. DIPASCALI, formerly an employee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court before United States District Judge RICHARD J. SULLIVAN to conspiracy, securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, falsifying records of a broker-dealer, falsifying records of an investment adviser, mail fraud, wire fraud, international money laundering, perjury, and attempting to evade federal income taxes.

DIPASCALI, 52, of New Jersey, faces a statutory maximum sentence of 125 years in prison. He is also subject to mandatory restitution and faces criminal fines up to twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense. Additionally, the Criminal Information to which DIPASCALI pleaded guilty includes forfeiture allegations that would require DIPASCALI to forfeit the proceeds of the charged crimes, as well as all property involved in the money laundering offenses and all property traceable to such property. The statutory maximum sentences for each of the charged offenses are set forth in an attached chart. Judge SULLIVAN remanded DIPASCALI and set a sentencing control date for May 15, 2010.

Mr. DASSIN praised the investigative work of the FBI, DOL-EBSA, and the IRS and thanked the SEC for its assistance. Mr. DASSIN added that the investigation is continuing. Assistant United States Attorneys MARC LITT, LISA A. BARONI, WILLIAM J. STELLMACH, BARBARA A. WARD, and SHARON FRASE are in charge of the prosecution.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more