U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investigations Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme - Public Version - August 31, 2009 Report No. OIG-509 Report of Investigation Case No. OIG-509 - Public Version - Table of Contents Page Introduction....................................................................................................................1 Scope of the Investigation..............................................................................................3 I. Document Preservation and Meetings with Senior-Level Officials....................................................................................3 II. E-mail Searches and Reviews of E-mails ......................................................3 III. Document Requests and Review of Records.................................................4 IV. Document and Information Requests to Independent Third-Parties..............................................................................5 V. Retention of Expert in Analyzing Examination and Investigatory Work..................................................................................5 VI. Retention of Expert in Recovering E-mails...................................................6 VII. Testimony and Interviews..............................................................................7 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................20 Results of the Investigation ...........................................................................................42 I. SEC 1992 INVESTIGATION OF AVELLINO & BIENES.........................42 A. Customers Complained about Avellino & Bienes’ Investments ..............................................................................................42 B. SEC Contacted Avellino and Suspected that Avellino & Bienes Was Selling Unregistered Securities and Running A Ponzi Scheme.......................................................................................44 C. Counsel for Avellino & Bienes Contacted the SEC and Avellino and Bienes Came in for Voluntary Joint Testimony.................45 D. The SEC Conducted a Brief, Limited Cause Examination of Madoff .....................................................................................................47 1. The Examination was Conducted by a Relatively Inexperienced Team and Its Scope was Limited ........................47 i 2. A Net Capital Review was Performed and the SEC Examiners Sought DTC Records From Madoff, Not from DTC directly.................................................................48 3. The Examiners Never Looked into Where the Money That Was Used to Pay Back Avellino & Bienes’ Investors Came From...................................................................................49 4. The Examiners Were Aware of Madoff’s Stature .......................50 E. The SEC Filed a Complaint against Avellino & Bienes for Selling Unregistered Securities, But the Complaint Did Not Allege Fraud and Did Not Assert Any Claims Against Madoff. ....................................................................................................50 F. The Trustee Retained Price Waterhouse to Conduct an Audit of Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements and Conducted Discovery But Its Jurisdiction was Limited .........................53 G. Price Waterhouse Experienced Great Difficulties in Conducting its Audit of Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements and a Request was made to the Presiding Judge for Additional Time.......................................................................55 H. After the Request for Additional Time was Denied, Price Waterhouse Issued its Report But was Unable to Render an Opinion on Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements.............................56 I. The SEC Conducted Limited Discovery About Madoff But Avellino & Bienes Objected Aggressively and it is Unclear if the SEC Obtained any Relevant Information ........................57 J. A Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction was Entered on Consent Against the Defendants, Penalties were Assessed And the Investigation was Closed............................................................58 K. Conclusion ...............................................................................................59 II. SEC REVIEW OF 2000 AND 2001 MARKOPOLOS COMPLAINTS..............................................................................................61 A. Markopolos Approached the SEC’s Boston Office in May 2000 with Evidence that Madoff was Operating a Ponzi Scheme.....................................................................................................61 1. The 2000 Submission...................................................................61 2. Markopolos Met with Grant Ward, a Senior SEC Enforcement Official ...................................................................63 3. Ward Decided Not to Pursue the 2000 Submission.....................64 4. Ward’s Testimony Regarding the 2000 Submission is Suspect .....................................................................................65 ii B. Markopolos Made a Second Submission to the Boston Office in March 2001 ..................................................................67 1. The 2001 Submission...................................................................67 2. Boston Forwarded the 2001 Submission to NERO .....................70 3. NERO Decided Not to Investigate Madoff Only One Day After Receiving the 2001 Submission..................................71 4. Two Articles Were Published in May 2001 Questioning the Legitimacy of Madoff’s Returns .......................74 5. NERO Did Not Reconsider Its Decision Not to Investigate Madoff After Publication of the Articles ..................76 III. SEC 2004 OCIE WASHINGTON DC CAUSE EXAMINATION OF MADOFF ...................................................................77 A. An Employee of a Registered Hedge Fund Provided The OCIE Investment Management Group With A Detailed Complaint About Madoff ..........................................................77 1. During Due Diligence of Madoff Feeder Funds, Fund Managers Identified Red Flags in Madoff’s Representations ...........................................................................78 2. MarHedge Article Raised Red Flags About Madoff’s Returns .........................................................................80 3. Investment Management Examiners Would have Validated Madoff’s Returns.........................................................82 4. Investment Management Examination Group Referred the Complaint to the Broker-Dealer/ Self-Regulatory Organization Examination Group .....................82 5. SRO Group Received the Complaint No Later Than the Fall of 2003...................................................................84 6. OCIE’s SRO Examination Group Had No Policies Or Procedures for Handling Tips or Complaints .........................85 7. OCIE Received Another Tip About Madoff in December 2003 ............................................................................85 8. It Appears Richards First Sent McCarthy the Barron’s Article About Madoff in 2001 ......................................86 9. Richards and McCarthy Called Madoff Prior to OCIE’s Examination....................................................................87 B. SRO Group Began Planning Its Examination of Madoff in December 2003 ........................................................................................89 iii 1. The Madoff Examination Team Consisted Entirely of Attorneys......................................................................................89 2. OCIE Expanded Rapidly and Lacked Trained Examiners ....................................................................................90 3. SRO Group Chose Not To Include Investment Management Examiners on Examination Team..........................91 4. Examination Planning Memorandum Stated Trading Data Would be Sought From the NASD......................................92 5. McCarthy Focused the Examination on Front-Running..............93 6. Swanson Acknowledged in Testimony that If He Had Carefully Reviewed the Complaint, He Would Have Investigated Additional Red Flags That Were Raised ................95 7. Donohue Acknowledged Issues Raised in the Hedge Fund Manager’s Complaint Other Than Front-running Should Have Been Investigated...................................................95 8. The Examination Did Not Focus on Red Flags Raised in MarHedge Article About Madoff’s Trades Not Being Seen in the Market......................................................96 9. Investment Management Examiners Did Not Read the Complaint’s Main Focus to be Front-running .............................96 C. Conduct of the Examination ....................................................................97 1. Examination Team Did Not Send Draft Letter to NASD............97 2. OCIE Examiners Did Not Request Documents from Madoff Feeder Funds...................................................................98 3. Draft OCIE Document Request Referenced Madoff’s Call with Richards and McCarthy................................................99 4. After Sending OCIE Document Request, Swanson Discussed Request with Madoff ..................................................99 5. Documents and Information Madoff Produced Contradicted the 2001 Articles and the 2003 Complaint, But OCIE Did Not Seek to