Why are Regulators Idiots?

From the FBI Press Release about the recent construction ponzi scheme.
"WENDELL RAY SPELL, 50, of Gainesville, Georgia, was sentenced today by United States District Judge William C. O'Kelley to serve 12 years in federal prison for committing wire fraud in the execution of a scheme that defrauded investors out of more than $16 million.
United States Attorney David E. Nahmias said of the case, "This is another in a long line of multi-million dollar get-rich-quick schemes we have prosecuted in recent years.
In this case, the con man raised more than $60 million by falsely leading investors to believe that they were purchasing construction equipment for resale, and that they would earn above-market returns with little or no risk to their investment capital.
In fact, the defendant was not investing the money as promised but, instead, was using it to create an aura of legitimacy for his failing business.
These fraudulent investment schemes come in many guises but seem to have one thing in common-- the 'guaranteed' returns are literally too good to be true."
SPELL was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution in an amount to be determined later by the Court.
SPELL pleaded guilty to the charge on March 23, 2009. According to Nahmias and information presented in court: From February 2005 through October 2008, SPELL was in the business of buying and selling construction equipment in Gainesville, Georgia. SPELL did business in the names of "North Georgia Equipment Sales, LLC," and "Cornerstone International Investments, LLC." In order to keep his failing businesses afloat, SPELL sought and obtained from investors the necessary funds to purchase additional construction equipment, which he said he could re-sell to third parties for a substantial profit.
SPELL promised some of the investors that he would split the profits with them on a 50/50 basis, and he promised other investors that he would pay them interest at the rate of 36% per year.
Based upon such promises, SPELL obtained more than $60 million in investment capital from more than 50 investors in Gainesville, Georgia and elsewhere.
SPELL then led the investors to believe that he had used their money to purchase specific pieces of construction equipment, which he knew he had not purchased.
SPELL prepared and provided to the investors bogus bills of sale and other counterfeit documents to make it appear that he had purchased certain equipment as promised, thereby lulling the investors into a false sense of security and delaying or preventing their complaint to law enforcement authorities, and leading them to invest additional funds in his fraudulent scheme.
SPELL used a substantial portion of the fraud proceeds to pay phantom "profits" to the investors, to pay his own personal expenses, and to purchase a variety of real and personal property for himself and his family members."
Well, Dave congratulations on solving the case after the fact - but if this was so good to be true, why weren't you all over before any complaints?
Why did investors have to lose $60 million if it was so obvious that this was too good to be true?
Dave, where were you and the FBI before the investors lost $60 million? Or did you just think it was fun to watch "idiot" investors not be able to spot "too good to be true schemes"?
Or is something else going on?


Comments
Davis;
I get very tired of regulators speculating that it would have been so easy to avoid this fraud if the investors had only thought "is this too good to be true"?
You are right, I am probably too harsh on this single individual.
But, it is absurd that regulators keep repeating this lie about due diligence. And you are right about both Standford and Madoff - the returns weren't too good to be true.
Due diligence requires much more than adherence to the simple maxim "Is this too good to be true?" And if there were a simple maxim it would be "Are you being promised something for nothing?"
Posted by: bizop
|
August 22, 2009 12:01 AM
I hate it when people say that you should be able to stop fraud by knowing its too good to be true because A.) there are good investments out there that are true and even more importantly B.) It's just as easy to steal money with conservative returns as it is aggressive ones. The only reason why most of these ponzi schemes promise such lucrative payouts is because they aren't established brands and need the higher rates to attract capital. If you look at the Stanford financials of the world you'll find plenty of investments that weren't paying too good to be true rates, but were still false. I don't know that I'd call this guy a moron for repeating this tired maxim, but it's fair for you to call him out and warn others that it's not as easy as avoiding high yielding investments.
Posted by: Davis Freeberg | August 21, 2009 11:13 PM