P. 1
Rawl Letter

Rawl Letter

|Views: 4,590|Likes:
Published by Loren Steffy

More info:

Published by: Loren Steffy on Jan 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





January 16, 2012 Viewpoints C/O Houston Chronicle viewpoints@chron.

com Re: “2 brokers say SEC let them down,” January 6, 2012, section D, page 1 I am very proud of my role in helping shut down Stanford Financial Group. My partner and I made tremendous personal and professional sacrifices to expose the corruption at Stanford and protect innocent investors. I was therefore saddened to see the published response from the Stanford receiver's counsel, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts. His comments reveal his ignorance of basic facts in our case and are symbolic of what I consider a failed receivership. I "earned" a grand total of $25,665 selling Stanford International Bank CDs over the 2½ years prior to my resignation from Stanford Group Company in December 2007 (after expending substantial effort to address numerous red flags.) Mr. Sadler's firm has billed the Stanford estate nearly 1,000 times this amount! The estimated Stanford losses have been reported to be over $7 billion. As of September 30, 2011, the receiver has "collected" $217 million and spent $118 million in the process. Mr. Sadler has reported that most of Stanford's assets have already been liquidated, so there isn't much more that can be expected to be collected. More than $70 million of the receiver's expenses have been "professional fees.” Another $16 million in fees have been accrued, but held back by the judge. Not one penny has been returned to investors during the nearly three-year receivership, so it appears the only "receiving" being done is by the receiver and his hired professionals. Regarding Mr. Sadler’s quote that I “still have that money” -- what makes my situation so vastly different from the other 300+ former Stanford advisors and management (including many who have not been sued) is the fact that I risked my career to make the government aware of the possible fraud at Stanford. I spent my savings fighting Stanford and helping the government shut down the corrupt enterprise, while Stanford Group spent millions fighting my partner and me and trying to run us out of business. Has the receiver sued the law firm that fought us and attempted to discredit us? No! This law firm still has the money! I contend that would have been a smarter expenditure of the estate’s resources, but the reality is that the receiver has not pursued many of the responsible parties with deep pockets! Most of the Stanford Group advisors and management who went down with the ship knew the firm was corrupt and/or in trouble, yet many of them are better off than us today. In all regards, we have paid a dear price for blowing the proverbial whistle on Stanford. The consequential message to America is that going along with fraud pays, and doing the right thing could very well cost you everything. Mr. Sadler's comments aside, all of my work at Stanford was ethical, above board and in my clients’ best interest. It was that commitment to integrity and honesty that led me to leave Stanford and go to the authorities. Sincerely yours,

Charlie Rawl

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->