Stanford was initially charged along with three former executives and the former top banking regulator in Antigua, the home of Stanford’s offshore bank. But the co-defendants’ cases were separated from Stanford’s last year. The new indictment charges Stanford alone.
As in the earlier case, he is accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, obstruction of an SEC investigation and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The new indictment removes two counts of wire fraud and five counts of mail fraud, and Stanford is no longer accused of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Still, Stanford faces up to 250 years in prison.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment, citing a court-imposed gag order in the case.
While the new indictment sharpens the focus on Stanford as a lone defendant, it is unclear whether it will do much to advance a case that has been hopelessly stalled for months.
Stanford’s original trial, scheduled for January, was postponed indefinitely after he became addicted to prescription drugs while in federal custody and a judge ruled him incompetent. Because of that, he is also unable to answer the new charges against him and will not attend an arraignment scheduled for May 19. Stanford’s court-appointed defense attorney, Ali Fazel, says that as a matter of law, Stanford cannot enter a plea.
“He has been found incompetent,” Fazel said. “We are on standby.”
The fate of Stanford’s initial co-defendants—former chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt, former accounting executives Mark Kuhrt and Gilbert Lopez, and former Antiguan banking regulator Leroy King—also remains unclear. Pendergest-Holt, Kuhrt and Lopez have all pleaded not guilty. King, who holds dual citizenship in the U.S. and Antigua, has been fighting extradition to the U.S.
Fazel notes that as a matter of law, the judge in the case could put the co-defendants on trial at any time, but instead has chosen to delay their cases until after Stanford’s trial, which has been postponed indefinitely.
“The other defendants are free on bond and have had months to study the charges,” Fazel said. Citing the judge’s gag order, however, Fazel to speculate on why the co-defendants are being allowed to wait for trial.
“Make of that what you will,” he said.
The new indictment comes at a time when investors and others touched by the Stanford scandal have been turning up the heat on the authorities in hopes of moving the case along. The delays have confounded efforts by a court-appointed receiver to recover assets for Stanford’s alleged victims, because most of the missing funds are believed to be in overseas accounts. Without a guilty verdict and a forfeiture order, the funds are off limits to U.S. authorities, meaning investors are likely to see just pennies on the dollar.
The receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, has instead been focusing his efforts in the U.S. Janvey has filed dozens of so-called “clawback” claims, including against dozens of former Stanford employees and investment advisors. One such claim targets two advisors widely credited with helping authorities make their case against Stanford: Charles Rawl and Mark Tidwell of Houston.
The two sued Stanford in 2007, saying they left the company due to rampant fraud, which the company denied. Rawl and Tidwell say they brought their evidence to the SEC, which sued Stanford in 2009. (Read about other whistleblower cases and how the SEC rewards tipsters here.)
Rawl, who has not spoken publicly about the case in two years, told CNBC exclusively this week that he and Tidwell contacted the SEC seeking help with the suit by the receiver, but were told they are on their own.
“The SEC attorneys informed us that, you know, We’ve got your back guys, you’re good with us,” Rawl said. But apparently that goodwill only went so far. Rawl said they were told, “We like you, you’re our guys, but we don’t control the receiver. There’s nothing we can do to help you.”
An SEC spokesman did not respond to CNBC’s request for a comment.
Secrets of the Knight: The Allen Stanford Story Rawl believes the government is intentionally dragging its feet because authorities took so long to move in on Stanford. A 2010 SEC Inspector General’s report found the agency was aware of issues at Stanford as far back as 1997. Rawl alleges the delays in Stanford’s criminal case are part of what he calls a cover-up.
“The further that people dig, the more embarrassment on the government’s part,” Rawl said. “I think certain people hope it just fades away.”
(One of the whistleblowers) Charlie Wall worked for two years in Stanford’s palatial Houston headquarters. He still finds it hard to come back here”.
CW: “It makes my heart race. makes me nervous. and — i’d like to go”.
He left Stanford in 2007, claiming the company was writhe with fraud. Never wanted to be a whistleblower, “but that’s what we’ve been deemed”. He claims the government is deliberately delaying the case as part of a cover up.
SC: “What is the government covering up”?
CW: “Their own embarrassment.”
“There is plenty to be embarrassed about at the S.E.C., where an internal report knew about issues about Stanford as far back as 1987, but didn’t act until 12 years later. Despite reforms at the S.E.C., that report would come up in a trial, but the longer the trial is delayed, the more conspiracy theorys gain steam. Even before stanford’s indictment, there was speculation he was a government informant, which we asked him about in 2009.
Allen Stanford: “You talking about the cia?”
SC: “you tell me.”
AS: “I’m not going to talk about that“.
“What about antigua? Stanford helped write the banking regulations there, so why did the state department supply thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment to antigua’s banking regulator in 2001? As part of the audit, it was part of a drug enforcement program. Charlie just wonders if the truth will ever come out.
CW: “In a certain way, seems like Stanford’s still winning”.
Neither the justice department nor the S.E.C. is commenting. The S.E.C.’s hands are tied. As far as the criminal case goes, the justice department has four prosecutors on the case, but much of the work is effectively come to a halt because the main defendant is in rehab. For the 28,000 investors, that is a huge problem because a vast majority of the money is in offshore accounts, so without a guilty verdict, authorities can’t touch the money and investors here are stuck with pennies on the dollar. It’s in marked contrast to the madoff case. now, the Stanford losses are right up there with the madoff ones.”