Attorney asks judge to lock up Madoff until fraud trial begins

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 6, 2009

NEW YORK — A prosecutor Monday asked that Bernard Madoff be jailed pending trial, saying the disgraced financier broke a promise not to touch his assets by mailing watches, jewelry, cufflinks and mittens estimated to be worth $1 million to relatives and two friends.

Disgraced financier Bernard Madoff leaves U.S. District Court in Manhattan after a bail hearing in New York on Monday. AP photo

Multimedia

Photoview all photos

"The defendant’s recent actions amount to obstruction of justice,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt told U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis at an hour-long bail hearing.

The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments this week and said he would rule later.

Madoff’s lawyer, Ira Sorkin, said his client did not violate a court-imposed asset freeze by mailing heirlooms including $25 cufflinks and a $200 pair of mittens to his brother, a son and daughter-in-law and a New York couple vacationing in Florida. Sorkin said Madoff and his wife sought the return of the items they had sent Dec. 24 as soon as they were told they could not send them out.

The lawyer said the sincerity of their effort was clear because the actions were taken well before Madoff learned Monday morning that prosecutors were investigating the mailing of the items and seeking to have him jailed.

The 70-year-old Madoff, a former Nasdaq stock market chairman, was arrested Dec. 11 on securities fraud charges alleging he duped investors out of as much as $50 billion in a giant Ponzi scheme. The prosecutor told the judge the case against Madoff "is strong and getting stronger.” Madoff has been confined to his Manhattan apartment under house arrest.

In court, the prosecutor argued Madoff obstructed justice by trying to dissipate assets and said he was a danger to the community because he was liquidating assets needed by investors.

The judge said he was concerned whether previous cases have claimed that potential economic harm represented a danger to the community. "In some instances, economic danger may be more severe than physical danger,” he said.