• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
Download
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.FRANK DIPASCALI, JR.,Defendant.::::::::::09 Cr. 764 (RJS)ECF Case
DEFENDANT FRANK DIPASCALI'S MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION OF BAIL CONDITIONS
Defendant Frank DiPascali, Jr., by his attorneys, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, MarcL. Mukasey and Craig S. Warkol, of counsel, respectfully moves this Court to enter anOrder admitting Mr. DiPascali to bail in accordance with conditions set forth herein.
1
 As set forth below, clear and convincing evidence exists that, upon satisfaction of the new combination of conditions proposed herein, Mr. DiPascali will not pose a risk of flight, and he should be granted bail pending sentencing.
I. BackgroundA. Mr. DiPascali's Career At Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
From in or about 1975 through on or about December 11, 2008, Frank DiPascaliworked for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities ("BLMIS"). For his first fifteen yearsat BLMIS, Mr. DiPascali held a variety of jobs, lawful and legitimate, including as aresearch analyst, an options trader, and a person who "did whatever I was told to do aroundthe office." Transcript of Proceedings dated August 11, 2009 ("Tr.") at 45. Without a
1
The proposed Order is attached to the Government's Motion For Reconsideration Of Bail Conditions, datedOctober 16, 2009.
 
 2college education or formal training, Mr. DiPascali thought he was learning how thesecurities industry worked by observing Mr. Madoff and others. For many years, hethought that he worked at a prestigious and successful securities firm. (Tr. at 45).In the late 1980s Mr. DiPascali became involved in Mr. Madoff's fraudulentactivity. Although he did not know the complete scope of Mr. Madoff's criminal conduct,Mr. DiPascali ultimately made the conscious decision to participate in Mr. Madoff'scriminal activity by, among other things, falsifying account statements, lying to regulatorsand misleading investors.Throughout the time period of the fraud, Mr. Madoff lied to Mr. DiPascali. Mr.Madoff led Mr. DiPascali to believe that, despite the fact no trades were being executed,investors would not lose any of their funds because Mr. Madoff owned a massive portfolioof assets that he could liquidate to satisfy redemption requests if, and when, clientsrequested the return of their funds. As counsel noted during the prior court proceeding inthis matter, Mr. DiPascali believed that:. . . no one is going to get hurt at the end because Bernie Madoff has been telling me he has assets abroad and in real estate and incommodities that are going to make sure that all the clients' moneywill be able to be returned. So he wasn't out there sort of rippingand robbing and stealing as you might think of it. [I]s [Mr.DiPascali] guilty? 1,000 percent. No question about it. . . . It wasokay because Bernie was going to take care of it. Don't worry,Bernie will take care of it. That is how he went to sleep at night.(Tr. at 85).The belief that Mr. Madoff always would be able to satisfy redemption requests,and that clients would not lose their invested funds, brought Mr. DiPascali a degree of comfort. But in early December 2008, Mr. Madoff revealed to Mr. DiPascali that he didnot have a portfolio of assets that could be liquidated to return investor funds. At that
 
 3moment, Mr. DiPascali knew full well that the consequences of the BLMIS collapse wouldbe cataclysmic, that investors would lose billions, and that he would likely face criminalprosecution and a significant prison sentence.
B. Mr. DiPascali's Post-Madoff Conduct
On December 11, 2008, federal authorities served Frank DiPascali with a grand jurysubpoena. Mr. DiPascali understood immediately that he was the target of a criminalinvestigation. At the time, Mr. DiPascali was a man of substantial means. He had all thetools necessary for one who might be inclined to avoid a prosecution: a passport; unfetteredaccess to over two million dollars; a 61-foot yacht capable of traveling in internationalwaters; a time-sharing arrangement in a private jet service; and several cars. But Mr.DiPascali
never 
considered flight. Upon receipt of the subpoena, he retained counsel,surrendered his passport to his lawyers and, a few weeks later, initiated conversations withthe United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York aimed atadmitting his guilt and securing a cooperation agreement.Between January 2009 and August 2009, Mr. DiPascali met repeatedly with theUnited States Attorney's Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the FederalBureau of Investigation. In addition, he demonstrated his commitment to cooperating withthe investigation by voluntarily entering into an agreement with the Government thatrestrained his assets and imposed strict spending limits on him and his family. Hediscontinued his private jet time share; surrendered his boat to the U.S. Marshal; forfeitedhis cars; and surrendered family heirloom firearms to the local sheriff. He also agreed tosettle the case filed against him by the SEC and be forever barred from association with abroker dealer or investment advisor. See
 
SEC
 
v.
 
DiPascali, No. 09-cv-07085 (S.D.N.Y.).
 
of 00

Commenting has been disabled.