Stanford Ponzi scheme victims looking for love in all the wrong places

“Why is the IMF about to award a $124 million dollars loan to the Government of Antigua, knowing that Antigua was a criminal partner of R. Allen Stanford in the perpetration of the largest pyramidal fraud in history?” questioned Jaime Escalona, leader of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC)

“Why help them if its Government has not responded for the $7.2 billion US dollars that were robbed from 27,992 victims distributed among 113 countries? Why do they ridicule us so unmercifully? Why such complicity?”

IMF Rewarding Antigua & Barbuda for Crime?

The International Monetary Fund is about to give a US$124 million loan to the Government of Antigua – and victims of SIR Allen Stanford are calling upon the IMF to stop aiding the government that was his criminal conspirator.

Barbados Free Press is in total sympathy with Stanford’s victims, but we fear that “de fix is in”. The IMF does what it wants to do and it’s not going to allow a few thousand victims of a criminal scheme to upset the house of cards known as the precarious international economy.

Read the sad story at Caribbean 360’s Stanford Investors lash out at IMF

Now let’s compare the Stanford/Antigua losses with the CLICO fraud!

When compared to the CL Financial – CLICO scandal, Sir Allen Stanford looks like a kid who pocketed a sweet without paying.

C.L. Financial’s assets vanished into thin air – $100.7 billion down to $23.9 billion in just 12 months! There were phony shell companies, executives who took bribes to have the company purchase land in Florida for more than its real value and on and on and on.

The CL Financial – CLICO scandal is huge and the people of Barbados deserve better from their news media than they have been getting.

Until the Barbados news media decides that they serve the public interest, Barbados citizens will continue to be kept in the dark about how much of their money went missing, where it went and who profited from their losses.



Filed under Barbados, Business & Banking, Corruption, Crime & Law, Offshore Investments, Political Corruption, Politics, Politics & Corruption

8 responses to “Stanford Ponzi scheme victims looking for love in all the wrong places

  1. Straight talk

    Perhaps we should start with Sir Courtney Blackman, who signed off Stanford’s accounts as Vice Chairman of Stanford International.

  2. reality check

    Ahh yes the IMF!

    There is a responsible body.

    Instead of having seperate floating currency for seperate regions and countries like the UK and letting these currencies float according to their governance and economic prudence, the EU is tied into one big Euro quagmire of its own bureaucratic making not to mention Goldman Sachs. and their off balance sheet transactions in Greece.

    Now the IMF is stepping in and guess who pays?

  3. Donald Duck Esq

    It is amazing that sir courtney has not said anything in public on the issue. Don’t directors think they have any responsibilties to stakeholders of the companies they represent?

  4. Observer

    The IMF is an Internationally Mother F!@#$%. Has anyone been following the news recently? The IMF is setting up regional offices in Jamaica and Antigua… FOR THE IMF!!! The same two countries who have recently signed IMF agreements. Does anyone think that this is merely coincidental? I do not.

  5. whistling frog

    I cant believe anyone is wondering where did the $64.billion dollars go.duhhhhh…check the BMW’S,Mercedes big up mansions,trips,,,,New accounts in Cayman etc………………

  6. Nostradamus

    REPAY THAT $876 000 to CLICO.

    That was the call by Opposition Leader Mia Mottley who has charged that the money was paid by cheque to Branlee Consulting Services on the same day that Government met with CLICO officials to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing the future operations of the insurance company.

    “I went to the Corporate Affairs registry, the exact number (of the cheque) is number 876. On the very day that (Prime Minister) David Thompson met with CLICO Holdings and Leroy Parris, four days before the MOU was signed, this cheque was drawn,” Mottley told a political meeting at Eagle Hall on Sunday night.

    Mottley said Branlee Consulting Services was listed as providing management services and was incorporated in 2001 by Thompson and named its directors as CLICO’s executive chairman Leroy Parris and his wife Faye Wharton-Parris.

    She said the company controlled by Parris should repay CLICO “until such time as the other policyholders, shareholders and investors have been paid any outstanding monies owed to them”.

    The Opposition Leader also submitted that the conditions of the MOU would have prohibited payment of all bonuses and ex-gratia payments to CLICO’s directors, management or senior officials or its subsidiaries.

    “Is it an accident that Leroy Parris met with David Thompson the same day that $876 000 was paid to him. . . . a payment if made four days later would have been in breach of the MOU,” she added.

    Mottley also called on the Oversight Committee to state whether it was aware that this payment was made days before the signing of the MOU which was designed to prevent such preferential payments.

    The Opposition Leader, who called on Thompson to place CLICO under judicial management, said there was a need for an urgent forensic audit of CLICO and urged the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the situation at the insurance company. (TS)

  7. Observer


    The above Nostradamus story should be headlines on your front page.

  8. Green Monkey

    Did SEC Hide Botched Stanford Probe? I.G. Says Timing Is “Suspicious”

    In the style of “Mad” magazine, it’s the season of con vs. con at the Securities and Exchange Commission — only no one’s laughing.

    Word on the inside is that the Commission covered up — or at least ignored — an investigation of billionaire R. Allen Stanford, who is awaiting trial in a Texas jail on 21 criminal charges that his Antiguan bank allegedly sold questionable certificates of deposit with “improbably high” interest rates and was running a Ponzi scheme at the same time.

    “They didn’t call him ‘Agile Allen’ for nothing,” according to a source familiar with the case.

    The SEC apparently wasn’t nearly so agile.

    A report by SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz claims the SEC was aware Stanford was running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme as far back as 1997, but waited until late 2005 to step in. The Commission filed civil charges in the case in February 2009.

    Kotz noted that the Commission filed civil fraud charges against Goldman Sachs last April, on the same day it released his report critical of the Stanford investigation. The timing of the Goldman filing is “suspicious,” said Kotz, who went on to suggest that the Goldman charges diverted attention from the report of the botched Stanford probe.