ACTION ALERT–AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED GUTTING THE VIRGINIA FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS ACT
As readers are aware, legislation has been submitted by state Sen. Jill Vogel to amend the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act such that it is brought up to date with the Federal False Claims Act. That legislation, SB1262 is needed and should be passed.
It appears that several ill-advised attempts are also being made to gut the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Specifically, SB831 and SB1314 were submitted in response to AG Ken Cuccinelli’s civil investigative demand (“CID”) to UVa.
SB831 provides that the Attorney General “may not issue a civil investigative demand to a Virginia public institution of higher education when the claim relates to a matter of academic inquiry or research.” This legislation would help to create a free-fraud zone in the academic community.
In case anyone needs proof that there are a certain percentage of academics in the world who are completely capable of falsifying records and/or making false statements in order to get grants, I suggest you google “false claims act” and “university” or “academic research.” Enough said.
SB1314 (by Sen. McEachin) goes a step further, and repeals the ability of the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands altogether. McEachin, therefore, seems to be in favor of making Virginia a free-fraud zone altogether.
These bills might have disastrous consequences. No one is arguing that the Attorney General should not have the ability to file an affirmative civil enforcement action to enforce the terms of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act; as I have said before, the purpose of a CID is to AVOID litigation in the first place by allowing the potential defendant to work with law enforcement to avoid being sued.
So, what SB831 and SB1314 would really accomplish would be to force the Attorney General to file a civil lawsuit when fraud was suspected.
ACTION ALERT–AMENDMENTS GUTTING THE CID PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS ACT
Important Breaking News on the Legislative Front–state Sen. Jill Vogel and Del. Greg Habeeb Sponsor Amendments to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act!!
As regular readers are aware, the Federal False Claims Act has been amended and improved recently on three occasions, starting with the March 2009 FERA Amendments. All of the changes were for the better, and all of them were based on experience with the 1986 amendments to the FCA.
Back in 2002 when Virginia passed the VFATA, the General Assembly did the smart thing and adopted the Federal FCA word-for-word. This is the smart thing for many different reasons–perhaps most important, when you adopt the Federal False Claims Act’s language, you incorporate 147-plus years of judicial interpretations for your state court’s judges to rely on.
With the recent amendments, however, the VFATA is out of synch with the federal statute, and Virginia’s taxpayers are not protected by the very best tools. So, without a doubt, amendments to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act were always in the cards.
We held off with Virginia legislation last year because it appeared further changes to the Federal FCA were likely. That turned out to be a good move, because indeed in March of 2010 further changes were made, and now the Commonwealth can get all of the updates with one fell swoop.
Thus, I am please to announce that state Sen. Jill Vogel has introduced SB1262 in the state Senate and that Delegate Greg Habeeb will be sponsoring this legislation in the House of Delegates.
SB1262 modernizes the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act for the 21st Century. In the 1986, the drafters of the Federal False Claims Act broke new ground, and it is only reasonable to expect that after 24 years of experience with the statute, some things would become apparent that were not apparent initially.
Among the changes made by SB1262 are these, all of which mirror the federal government’s changes to the Federal FCA:
==> A correction of the Allison Engine decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a false invoice or record must be presented directly to the Commonwealth itself, rather than to a subcontractor or a grantee of the Commonwealth.
==> Changes to a number of key definitions in the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act; of particular importance are the new definitions of the words “material” and “claim.”
==>The power to dismiss a case based on the public disclosure bar is placed in the hands of the Virginia Attorney General, which is where it belonged all along. The new public disclosure bar reads “the Court shall dismiss an action or claim under this section, unless opposed by the Commonwealth, if substantially the same allegations or transactions alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed.” The underlined portion is new, and gives the AG the power to decide if the relator beings something to the table such that he or she should be allowed to share in the recovery.
The “original source” exception to the public disclosure bar is expanded by the SB1262 to include any relator who can add “knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions … “
==>SB1262 makes it clear for the first time that retention of overpayments by the Commonwealth is unlawful; currently, the statute is very clear about what happens to those who take an affirmative step to get (or keep) money of the Commonwealth to which they are not entitled, but the amendments make it clear that even without an affirmative step, there is no “finders keepers” rule when it comes to money belonging to the Commonwealth.
==> The conspiracy section of the VFATA (Virginia Code 8.01-216.3(A)(3)) is amended to make a conspiracy to violate any portion of the VFATA unlawful. (Currently, it is only unlawful to conspire to violate 8.01-216.3(A)(1).
==>The Virginia Attorney General finally has the ability to share materials obtained from the Civil Investigative Demand with other departments of government and, if the AG deems it necessary, with the qui tam relator and is or her lawyers.
There is no word yet on when hearings will be held, but I strongly encourage all of my readers to contact their Delegate and state Senator and urge them to support SB1262.
Updates will follow…..
An Excellent Example of the Need for State False Claims Acts
From the Windy City, we have an excellent example of a case with “Potential State False Claims Act case” written all over it.
It seems a one-time business partner of Mayor Richard Daley’s son was indicted for an alleged scheme to obtain work for a company he ran by using a “pass-through” minority-owned company.
The Chicago Tribune online has the full story.
Simply put, a “pass-through” scheme is a common type of false claims act case. As an important public policy matter, many federal, state and local government contracts have a provision giving minority-owned businesses a leg up in the competition for the work.
Some contractors choose to cheat, however, by pretending to be a minority-owned Enterprise in order to get the contract. There are a number of ways this can be done, including by finding a minority-owned Enterprise to serve only as a “front” for a non-minority owned business. The minority owned-company gets the contract, but the larger company does the work.
The above example is just one way this particular type of scam can work. Another excellent example of this type of case found in Ab-Tech Const., Inc. v. U.S., 31 Fed. Cl. 429 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
Ab-Tech is a classic from this line of cases, and it also demonstrates nicely the damages the government suffers by such schemes, and how serious the ramifications can be for those companies that choose to engage in unfair business practices. In Ab-Tech, each invoice (or payment voucher) submitted by the defendants was false and was a violation of the Federal False Claims Act.
To my knowledge, there have not been any claims similar to this one brought under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, but there should be lots of these types of cases out there.
And, of course, any individual with personal, first-hand information about this type of fraud on the government would stand to gain a healthy reward if they followed the qui tam process provided by in the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to Hear Argument on the Scope of the FLSA’s Anti-Retaliation Provisions
Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The case is captioned Dellinger v. SAIC, and the question before the Fourth Circuit is whether the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA protect an applicant for employment. Stated a slightly different way, the question is whether a prospective employer can lawfully discriminate against an applicant for employment after learning that the applicant filed an FLSA lawsuit against a past employer.
The plaintiff in this case was qualified for the job with SAIC; moreover, she had received a written offer of employment, had passed the drug test, and had otherwise met every requirement SAIC made of her. Because the job required a security clearance, before she could officially begin employment, she was required to inform SAIC if she had been a party to any sort of litigation.
She truthfully answered that she had filed an FLSA lawsuit against a previous employer, and that is where things fell apart. Suddenly, she went from someone who had a written offer of employment and a date to start work to someone without a job. To read the Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, click /files/116785-109034/13_Opinion.pdf”>dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and we took this appeal to the Fourth Circuit. To read the opening brief click t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.
This case therefore addresses the question of whether an applicant for employment is an “employee” as defined by the statute. In the past, Courts have interpreted the term “employee” broadly to include former employees as within the protections of the FLSA anti-retaliation provisions, but again, there is very little case law concerning whether an applicant for employment falls within that scope. In fact, prior to this case, there were only two District Court opinions on this subject.
The U.S. Department of Labor filed an excellent Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Announcing the First ebook on the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act
As the year 2010 winds down I wanted to announce the publication (or rather the republication) of my 54-page practice guide for the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
I get somewhat frequent requests for this material, and I am always happy to send folks a copy. It will be available on www.amazon.com in the next couple of days with a sticker price of $19.99.
Or, if anyone would like a pdf copy for free, I will provide one via email to any new subscriber to this blog, whether on kindle or via email feed.
These are the materials I prepared for the 2008 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act CLE at the Office of the Attorney General in Richmond, and while they are somewhat out of date for the Federal False Claims Act, they are perfectly up-to-date on our Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
Happy New Year!
Comments on the S.E.C.’s Proposed Rulemaking
Today, Taxpayers Against Fraud delivered its Harry Markopolos for years despite the fact that he had crystal-clear proof of Bernie Madoff’s fraud. So you take the human nature factor above and multiply it times ten, or maybe even twenty.
Yes, the SEC is now under new management, and yes an awful lot of the old management “resigned to spend more time with family,” but I think it will take time for the new SEC folks to prove themselves.
And consider this, target audience for the whistle blower provisions includes financial professionals–and by and large these people not only do not trust the SEC, they think the SEC is something of a joke. No doubt, putting the SEC in charge of the program with so much authority will kill this idea in its infancy.
In an academic sense, I also wonder whether the incredibly successful qui tam model of the Federal False Claims Act and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act will apply to other contexts like Wall Street. Just putting money on the table certainly won’t make this program successful, because the exact people the government is targeting already make enormous salaries and bonuses.
Moreover, for better or for worse, money is not the be all and end all of human behavior. IMHO, the False Claims Act works well for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the ranks of defense contractors, the health care industry and others have a disproportionate share of patriotic Americans who know right from wrong and are not afraid to speak out about it.
In other words, the Federal False Claims Act depends on individuals who have a healthy, working, moral compass. Only time will tell if there are enough individuals in the financial industry with a healthy, working moral compass to make a difference, but some of us have our doubts…..
A Welcome Change in the Expert Witness Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
On December 1, 2010, several changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective. While most of the changes were of a technical nature, the changes to the expert witness discovery provisions were truly needed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 has been amended to expand work-product protections to cover draft expert reports, many communications between lawyers and expert witnesses, and certain information considered by expert witnesses.
Specifically, Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) now limits discovery to “facts or data considered by the witness” in forming his or her expert opinion. Under the pre-December 2010 version of Rule 26, testifying experts were required to disclose data or “other information” they considered regardless of whether the information was relied upon in forming an opinion.
Most significant of all were the changes to Rule 26(b)(4)(B) and 26(b)(4)(C). Subsection (b)(4)(B) now protects draft expert reports from disclosure. Most courts interpreting the old Rule 26 read the rule as authorizing discovery of all draft reports and all expert communications.
The old rule resulted in a nightmare, and it didn’t make discovery any more streamlined. I suppose the idea behind the old model was the notion that lawyers were secretly authoring the reports of expert witnesses.
That idea always seemed ridiculous to me because if an expert witness’ opinion was truly authored by a lawyer, it would rapidly become apparent on cross examination. Moreover, there were already numerous safeguards in place to ensure that the expert’s opinion was really his or her opinion. For example, all experts are required to turn over a list of the cases in which they have testified in the last four years.
Personally, most of the time I would rather my opponent have an expert who is prepared to testify about his opinion, and who has fully and freely discussed the case with the lawyer who hired him.
The worst thing about the old system was that it gave lawyers who might already be inclined to gamesmanship lots and lots of fertile ground. I have heard numerous tales of expert depositions that focused more on whether the other party had been provided with all draft reports, emails, etc., than on the substance of what the expert said.
Subsection (b)(4)(C) now protects all communications between counsel and testifying experts, regardless of the form. There is an exception for communications related to: (1) compensation the expert received, (2) facts or data provided by the lawyer that the expert considered in forming opinions, and (3) assumptions provided to the expert by the lawyer that the expert relied upon in forming an opinion.
All in all, expert witness discovery will now be similar to the rules in Virginia state courts. For the most part, those rules work well.
The rule does not itself protect communications between counsel and other expert witnesses, such as those from whom disclosure is required under new Rule 26(a)(2)(C).
Harry Markopolos Book Review: No One Would Listen
Harry Markopolos Book Review: No One Would Listen
“No One Would Listen” is the story of a great American named Harry Markopolos. In case any of my readers have been on the moon for the last two years, here is a description of the book in exactly 92 words: Harry Markopolos is a private citizen who “caught” Bernard Madoff, the most heinous financial criminal in history. Harry didn’t just catch him; he developed mathematical, incontrovertible proof that Madoff was defrauding investors out of billions of dollars. Harry then spent close to ten years on a crusade, trying to interest various law enforcement authorities in this crime with the goal of stopping Madoff. Harry and his message were uniformly ignored. Eventually, when Madoff’s scheme collapsed—entirely of its own volition—Harry was proven correct, and he became a media sensation virtually overnight.
That is a bare-bones synopsis of the book, and it would make for an interesting read no matter how dry one tries to make it. But the real value of the book—and the reason why I chose to review it in this blog post—is two-fold. First, the book provides brilliant insights into the psychology of a whistleblower. Second, and most important, the book provides insights into government culture and the culture of Wall Street that no qui tam whistleblower can afford to ignore.
I. The Bernie Madoff Saga
Bernard Madoff was once one of the most powerful and respected “money men” in the world. At different points in his career he was a stock broker, a securities dealer, and an investment advisor—and in each of those fields, he was one of the most respected guys around. He was once chair of NASDAQ; indeed, he co-founded NASDAQ. His personal wealth was estimated to be in the tens of billions. And, as is expected of any ultra-wealthy person, Madoff was active in many philanthropic endeavors. In short, he appeared in every way to be not only a model citizen, but a super nice guy.
At some point, for reasons still unknown to the world, Madoff abandoned his legitimate business activities and started running a Ponzi scheme. In other words, Madoff was not investing any money or engaging in any legitimate business activity at all. Like every other Ponzi schemer, Madoff became nothing more than a scam artist convincing people to part with their money. Simply put, he was no different than the criminals that befriend the elderly and scam them out of their life savings.
His Ponzi scheme ran for at least 12 years, and reached pretty much every corner of the world. Minimum estimates place his theft somewhere between $40 and $60 billion USD, but the true figure will never be known.
Harry Markopolos, a Boston financial analyst who considers mathematics a hobby, figured out that Madoff was running a scam. What’s worse, he figured it out while Madoff’s scheme was probably still in its infancy. Harry did not engage in conjecture or guess-work. He developed mathematical proof that Madoff was not engaging in any legitimate investment activities whatsoever. As a patriotic American, Harry then tried for close to ten years to explain his proof to the S.E.C., the Attorney General of New York, and others. Had anyone listened to Harry, the largest financial fraudfeasor in history would have been caught, and billions of dollars in investor funds would have been saved.
Instead, Madoff was never caught—he turned himself in once his Ponzi scheme no longer had the momentum to sustain itself.
This book is mandatory reading for every qui tam lawyer, even though Harry’s pursuit of Madoff was not a qui tam case (indeed, as Harry states in his book, Madoff managed purely private funds and thus there was no way to pursue Madoff under either the Federal False Claims Act or a state false claims act). He had no monetary incentive for this, it was purely out of patriotism.
Harry is a great American not because of his dogged pursuit of truth and justice, despite all the obstacles against him, or because of his deeply-ingrained love for his country, although he has those things in abundance. He is a great American because he is not a man of half-measures. When Harry goes after something, whether it is Madoff or his beloved mathematical equations or anything else, he has only one approach—as another great American once said, “Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes.”
II. The Anthrologist’s Eye
As I noted earlier, the book provides valuable insight into the culture and inner workings of two worlds: government and Wall Street. When I say “culture” I mean that Markopolos’ book is almost anthropological in nature. At times, Markopolos’ narrative reads like a description of a visit to some remote location and his interactions with the strange tribes of people who live there.
As with any journey, Harry begins at the beginning; that is, he starts off by describing the formidable lessons he learned early in life.
This passage from early in the book is illustrative: “Bernie Madoff wasn’t a complete aberration; he was an extension of a cutthroat culture that was prevalent from the day I started … the industry is based on predator-prey relationships. If you don’t know who the predator is, then you are the prey.”
Indeed, Markopolos is able to separate himself from his surroundings in a way that brings Ray Liotta’s portrayal of Henry Hill in “GoodFellas” to mind. The brilliance of the movie GoodFellas was Henry Hill’s ability to analyze and describe the Mafia world despite his immersion in it. Like Henry Hill, despite Markopolos’ immersion in the culture and corruption of the financial world, he never forgets the values that his immigrant parents taught him. Harry was taught simple lessons early in his life: “Either you [are] honest or you are not … [It’s] not possible to be partly honest.”
As a result, during all his time in the world of “rip your face off financing,” he never forgets that he is a stranger in a strange land.
When he turns his keen anthropological eye toward the government the result is no less interesting. No qui tam lawyer will, however, share his surprise at the lack of enthusiasm shown by the federal agency to whom he first reported the fraud (in this case, the S.E.C.) The fact of the matter is that cooperation from the federal or state agency is, in every in qui tam case, absolutely crucial to a successful outcome.
Markopolos’ journey is also one with which any whistleblower will be familiar, at least up to a certain point. The feelings of helplessness that Markopolos experienced only increased over time, because he was not successful in his quest to blow the whistle on Madoff. At that point, thank goodness, his journey parts company with that of many qui tam relators.
His journey is different largely because qui tam relators in federal cases have the U.S. Department of Justice on our side. The book should renew the appreciation qui tam lawyers have for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Fraud Division. We are truly fortunate in federal cases to have the involvement of the United States Department of Justice. The civil enforcement folks at DOJ are top-notch litigators who take their obligations to investigate every case filed under the statute very seriously.
They may not always agree with those of us representing qui tam whistleblowers, and we may not always agree with them, but I have never felt like the folks at DOJ’s civil frauds division didn’t listen carefully to what my qui tam relator clients have to say. More important, if there is a disagreement, it is normally about something that reasonable people can disagree about.
As a result, DOJ can, and often does, help the agency to change its mind and arrive at the right conclusion about a case. At a minimum, DOJ makes sure the agency does not actively discourage an investigation. As Harry learned, unlike the lawyers at DOJ, lawyers at a specific agency often do not have what I like to call “a law enforcement mindset.”
Now, that is not to say that Harry did everything exactly as he should. In fact, he made some serious missteps in the way he went about trying to alert authorities. For example, he submitted an anonymous report to New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Anonymous letters, no matter how detailed, are rarely taken seriously by government officials, who receive thousands and thousands of such letters each year.
Moreover, by titling his first S.E.C. submission “The World’s Largest Hedgefund is a Fraud” Harry basically guaranteed that his submission would be viewed as a crank letter right out of the gate. Even worse, if any government reader made it past the title, the first sentence he or she read was probably his or her last. In that lead sentence, Harry seemingly reduced himself to a second-rate huckster by writing: “In 20 seconds or less I will show you that the world’s largest hedgefund is a fraud.”
III. The Anthropologist’s View of the S.E.C.
The fact that Markopolos inadvertently did his best to discredit himself does not excuse the S.E.C., however. First, because of his reputation for integrity and honesty, those S.E.C. people who actually knew him personally (particularly the people in the Boston office) knew that Harry Markopolos was a man to be taken seriously, and that is exactly what they did. From the beginning to the end, people in the Boston office of the S.E.C. were convinced of Harry’s cause. So it would not be accurate to say that every single person at the S.E.C. wrote Harry off as a nutcase. He had regional officials of the agency (like Boston Section Chief Mike Garrity) doing their level best to push his case up the ladder.
Second, and more incriminating for the S.E.C., a number relatively high-ranking officials had numeorus interactions with Harry, including multiple interviews, emails, letters, etc. Eventually, he got to be on a first-name basis with some of them. They thus had plenty of time to size Harry up and to investigate carefully his allegations. It is at this point in Harry’s story that S.E.C. layer and Branch Chief Meaghan Cheung enters the picture.
Almost from the very instant she is introduced to the reader, Meaghan Cheung’s dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance is on full display. The fact that she did not take the time to seriously study Harry’s information or to even read it thoroughly is not the scariest thing about Ms. Cheung. Indeed, one can even be forgiven for that, as I mentioned earlier. No, the scariest thing is the sense of superiority shown by Cheung.
She literally thought she knew everything there is to know about everything; she considered herself a Master of the Universe. She knew, for example, that Bernard Madoff was a very respected man on Wall Street. She probably thought him a wonferful person. And there is no question that she considered herself a Master of the Universe. And she knew that Harry was this little Greek guy. In her view, he was a nobody, and he was trying to assail the character of her fellow Master of the Universe.
As a result, in her mind, she didn’t need to waste her precious time with someone like Markopolos. The sort of lawyer who thinks that there is nothing that they can be taught is obviously someone that hasn’t litigated very many cases, or even worse, who has done one case of significance. Indeed, that is exactly the case with Ms. Cheung. In Chapter 5, when she proudly explains to Harry that he doesent’ matter to her, she includes a statement of her bona fides: “I did the Adelphia case.”
One important case is enough to make a lawyer feel like they are on top of the world. Lawyers with multiple significant cases know that no matter how well one important case turns out, the next one might make you feel like you got punched in the stomach. Lawyers with experience know that this is called a “learned profession” because no matter how much experience one has, there is always something that can be learned. A true learned professional is motivated, at least in part, out of a fear of learning something new the way Meghan Cheung did.
Cheung didn’t respond to Harry’s complaints or emails about Madoff, except to provide acidic commentary to Markopolos’ claims. We can be absolutely certain that after each phone call or email from Harry, Meaghan Cheung went to her other smart buddies at the S.E.C. enforcement division and made fun of Markopolos and the absurd, preposterous story he was telling.
I would bet that Meghan Cheung and at the other Masters of the Universe at the New York S.E.C. office probably developed Harry Markopolos impersonations that they enjoyed very much. They might have even made up a joke or two about him.
I hope Markpolos gets some satisfaction out of thinking of Cheung and all of her oh-so-smart-friends at the S.E.C. making fun of him around the office water-cooler, because we can be 100% certain that Meaghan Cheung isn’t laughing now.
In case I have not made the point clearly, I want to clearly say that I admire Harry Markopolos. I believe he is a great American; I am proud to share a nationality with him. In his journey as a whistleblower, he identified many weaknesses in government and in our financial markets, and in our society as a whole.
I point this out because as a patriotic, red-blooded American, Harry is not satisfied pointing out weaknesses and flaws in our country. He is way too American to content himself with pointing out flaws in our social structure. No, Harry feels a deep seated need to fix it the problems he found. This need is what makes our country the best in the world.
Nevertheless, Harry and I part ways in the last section of the book, when he tries to formulate solutions to the problems he describes so well.
IV. The True Story of No One Would Listen
I believe the behavior of the S.E.C. and Meaghan Cheung is a form of corruption. I believe also that the story of this unique brand of corruption is the true genius of No One Would Listen. It is also the reason it should be read by everyone interested in the future of our country.
It is not Latin-American or Russian-style corruption, however. At least that sort of corruption has a rational basis—i.e., in many parts of the world, government people get money for ignoring or prosecuting various behaviors. No, this is certainly irrational and a-typical corruption, but it is rampant and it is deadly.
Harry recognizes this as well, I think, and the final chapters of his book are dedicated to describing solutions that he believes workable.
Harry is very skilled at pointing and describing weaknesses in our government. He is less skilled at finding answers to those problems—which is no shortcoming on his part. Harry just doesn’t realize that if these things could be easily solved, they would have been solved long ago.
It is not that surprising that Harry attempts to come up with solutions—lots of people think there are simple solutions to complex problems. What I find amazing about the closing chapters of the book, however, is that Harry’s solution to the problems he encountered with government is—brace yourselves—more government. Whiskey…Tango…Foxtrot….
With an almost child-like innocence, he calls for the creation of a single “super agency” to regulate banking. One of the key elements of his plan is—and I am quoting here—a “super-duper call center” to log and track all complaints and/or investigations launched by the super agency.
He also fails to recognize one of the simple truths of life in a civilized society: and that is that no set of written rules will ever be capable of regulating even the simplest human activities, let along activities as complex as those of Wall Street or the federal government. So Harry’s call for “a simple, easy-to-follow set of rules and regulations” is simply naïve. From there, his demands only get worse.
What Harry fails to realize is that Madoff was able to pull this off because he was in the right place at the right time. (Or maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time…) As Madoff himself crows in the book, “These people [the S.E.C.] are light years behind…they don’t really understand this stuff….”
Indeed.
The world of financial products has changed and grown at a mind-boggling rate in recent years, just like every other highly-specialized field. Information technology, financial products, biotechnological engineering, you name it, and it is more complicated now than it was five years ago. What’s worse, the change has not been incremental—in other words, the world does not become 5% more complicated each year. Rather, it grows by irregular leaps and bounds, and the rest of society—never mind government—finds it quite difficult to keep pace.
That is at least one of the reasons why stock bubbles form so readily during periods of technological innovation.
We can hardly fault Harry for his attempt at solutions to the problems he found in government—he is, after all, a great American.
More than that, he has written a great book that should be read by everyone.