Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Guilty Madoff CFO Update

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

It’s offish. DiPascali pleaded guilty to all ten counts against him and faces 125 years in prison, just quarter century short of Boss Ponz. However, because he is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney, DiPascali may be lucky enough to get a sentence under the century mark.
The bright side for Frank DiPascali is that he gets to spend his last few days as a free man courtesy of a very nice sister who put up her house for the $2.5 million bond. Sentencing is tentatively set for May 2010.
DiPascali was the man that many Madoff investors corresponded with directly so it’s clear to us that he was LYING A LOT.
Per the WSJ:

The former chief financial officer for Bernard Madoff says he helped the disgraced financier and others “carry out a fraud that hurt thousands of people”…Mr. DiPascali said at the plea hearing that the transactions were “all fake. It was all fictitious. It was wrong, and I knew it was wrong at the time.”

Okay then, nothing really new there but we will be waiting patiently to hear the other names. Next bean counter up for book throwing is David Friehling, who was kind enough to rubber stamp the Madoff financial statements for around $14k a month. Bright side for Friehling is that he’s looking at 50% less time in jail then Bernie.

Related Posts

We’re Probably Going to Have to Accept the Fact That Accounting Rules are No Match for the Bank Lobby

reservoir-dogs-mexican-standoff.jpgWe’ve been over this 1000 times but like a bad rash, the issue keeps coming back.
NYT has already accused politicians of meddling in the esoterica of accounting, though personally I think that accusation might have been expressed just a tad too late.
As I mentioned when the July article came out:
More, after the jump

Ex FASB chair and former KPMG partner Edward Trott got it right saying “The area for bank regulators to be involved with accounting standards setting is to help identify the financial information the banks need from others to make appropriate lending and investing decisions. In my experience, banks want current fair value information about assets that serve as collateral for loans. They do not want information about what assets cost two or three years ago.”

Exactly! So what’s the debate about?
Assets are not being valued rationally. If someone can explain the model to me, I would love to hear it.
Or as we now call it, “fuzzy math.”
I’ve never been a huge fan of math, probably a large part of why I ended up on the fringes of the accounting industry, we hardly use it. It’s the rules that are being perverted, not necessarily the numbers. That’s Trott’s point, and he’s not the only one who feels that way.
The problem is that companies (non-financials) need to navigate these waters that have been artificially stirred up to allow banks to appear healthier than they are. Companies are licking their wounds and selling off assets while banks are preening over their profitable quarters? That doesn’t make sense.
Accounting pressure is not new either:

What’s gone unnoticed is that in the late ’90s Summers did nothing to stop former Fed chair Alan Greenspan from pressuring US accounting rule makers to water down a proposed new derivatives accounting rule that may have helped stop the current crisis. Many business leaders had strongly opposed the new rule…In fact, in 1998, Summers testified in Congress against regulating the derivatives market.

The ongoing debate gets stranger. What is there to debate about? The pressure is there, minus the understanding of what occurs as a consequence of these actions. Somehow, the behavior continues and we’re still arguing over it.

The Accounting World Issues a Collective Sigh as Soon Enough, We Won’t Have to Talk About Revenue Recognition

Anyone else sick of this topic? Did you ever really care? Just go ahead and […]

Wherein We Speculate Wildly on the Merger of Accounting Firms Mazars and Weiser

Last week we told you about the on-going Global 6 talks between Mazars and Weiser. As we mentioned then, the copulation of the two firms would put them in the direct competition with the likes of Grant Thornton, BDO, RSM and hell, they may even snag some Big 4 clients.

Web CPA caught up with this story yesterday and we learned that not only has Mazars done business in the states with Weiser, they’ve also “relied on joint venture agreements with U.S. firms…Moss Adams and BKD.”

Maybe we’re going way out on a limb here, but if Mazars is making a play for Weiser (and it sounds like it’s all but a done deal) are they just trying to make a play on the whole IFRS bonanza that’s being unleashed OR are they looking to get closer to the likes of Moss Adams and BKD to expand their exposure and to become a bigger player in the States? Even if Mazars were to merge with Moss Adams and BKD the combined revenues still would be a drop in the bucket of the Big 4 but it would cement their presence in U.S. and allow them to compete even more directly for potential business here.

If we’re letting the cat out of the bag here, mucho apologies, just kinda thinking out loud.