Bernard Madoff’s massive fraud has inspired a startling sculpture by artist Chen Wenling called “What You See Might Not Be Real.”  The sculpture, which was displayed at a Beijing gallery Sunday, is of an enormous bull blasting off and then ramming Madoff against a wall. The bull seems to be propelled by a huge blast of smoke coming out of its hindquarters.

According to one critic, the bull is meant to represent Wall Street and the smoke “not only refers to the end of a greedy era, but also symbolizes the danger of virtual bubbles in international financial markets.” I don’t know about all that, but if there is such thing as “revenge art,” this is it. (via Clusterstock)

Today, the DOJ announced the conviction of Los Angeles-area film executives Gerald Green and Patricia Green of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and money laundering laws, as well as substantive violations of the FCPA and U.S. money laundering laws.  The convictions of this husband and wife, which came on Friday of last week, relate to “a sophisticated bribery scheme that enabled the defendants to obtain a series of Thai government contracts, including valuable contracts to manage and operate Thailand’s yearly film festival.”  Sentencing has been set for Dec. 17, 2009, before the Honorable George Wu in the Central District of California.

The case caused me to have a flashback to a brilliant idea I had back in 2005 that the Bureau of Prisons has not yet implemented (the BoP probably just hasn’t gotten around to it yet).  In 2005, after reading this NYT article about a criminal insider trading prosecution under way against a Massachusetts husband and wife who faced up to 10 years in prison on charges that they traded on inside information, I had a moment of clarity:  Marital Prisons!

As I said at the time, under my plan, couples like the Greens

would not be sent off to random separate prisons if convicted but rather to “marital prison.”  This would be a special prison dedicated to simultaneous husband and wife offenders, and they would, of course, share a cell.  I see many efficiencies here:

• save on cell space
• easier for relatives to visit both inmates
• could serve as a significant deterrent to husbands or wives who don’t get along well but who are thinking of committing a crime together
• eliminates need for conjugal visits

Hey, it has been four years! What are we waiting for?!

The trailer for Michael Moore upcoming new documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” is now out and can be viewed below. The movie looks at the causes of the global economic meltdown and, in Moore’s words, focuses on “the disastrous impact that corporate dominance and out-of-control profit motives have on the lives of Americans and citizens of the world.”

“It will be the perfect date movie,” Moore said. “It’s got it all — lust, passion, romance and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day. It’s a forbidden love, one that dare not speak its name. Heck, let’s just say it: It’s capitalism.”

“Capitalism” is set to be released on Oct. 2, which is a year and a day after the U.S. Senate voted to approve the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

In a scene that is reminiscent of his early documentary “Roger & Me,” the trailer opens with Moore being hassled by security as he stands outside the offices of AIG with a bullhorn announcing that he is there to make a citizen’s arrest of its Board of Directors.  Check it out below.

I’m pretty much flabbergasted to learn that (a) someone saw fit to write a play about the Enron scandal, and (b) it is getting rave reviews!

Via Enforcement Action’s London bureau (actually, via the Twitter feed of Werner Kranenburg, of London), I learned today that “Enron” the play opened last month in Chichester and starts a run in London in September.  The Guardian called Enron “an exhilarating mix of political satire, modern morality and multimedia spectacle.”

Today, 71-year-old Bernard Madoff was sentenced to the maximum sentence–150 years in prison (aka, “The Full Bernie“)–for his multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. U.S. District Judge Denny Chin issued the sentence today in the Southern District of New York.

After the high-profile scandals involving first Ebbers and now Madoff, I have to think that the name “Bernard” has seen its last birth certificate for some time.

It’s not as if the name – which was in the “Top 100″ at the turn of the century – was exactly flourishing before 2002, when the first hints of the WorldCom scandal became known.  According to Social Security name data, the name “Bernard” was already in a slow, steady decline through the 1990s, dropping from the 430th most popular boy’s name in 1990, to 496th in 1995, and to 654th in 2000.

The criminal charges of financial fraud brought against Ebbers in 2004 seemed to hasten the decline of “Bernard,” as the name, which had plateaued in the mid-700s from 2002 to 2004, suddenly plummeted over 200 spots to 952nd in 2006.  The name has held steady since 2006, however, and even climbed back up to 940th in 2008.

Enter Bernard Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008.  Madoff has since pleaded guilty to the largest fraud in history and become one of the most reviled criminals ever, with tens of thousands of victims scattered around the globe.  The Social Security data only covers the top 1000 names, but I think it is safe to say that following Madoff, the name “Bernard” will drop off that list altogether in 2009, for a good long time.

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me… ending up together?
Mary: Well, that’s pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I’ve come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I’d say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you’re telling me there’s a chance.

I think this scene from Dumb and Dumber is probably pretty close to a transcript of the conversation that occurred between Bernard Madoff and his attorney on the subject of whether Madoff could successfully seek leniency in his sentencing on June 29.

According to a CNBC report, Madoff’s attorney Ira Lee Sorkin has filed a letter with the court in the SDNY seeking leniency and asking that Madoff be sentenced to as little as 12 years in prison, when he will be 83 years old. Madoff faces up to 150 years in prison after pleading guilty to 11 felony counts related to his massive Ponzi scheme. Sorkin’s letter to Judge Denny Chin also states that Madoff plans to speak at the sentencing hearing.

The WSJ reports that at a meeting for Madoff investors held today in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the trustee overseeing the liquidation of Madoff’s firm stated that “his investigation has found no evidence that any securities were purchased on behalf of customers in at least 13 years.”

Read that again.

No evidence that any securities were purchased on behalf of customers in at least 13 years!

The trustee has already received claims from Madoff 2,350 customers so far.  If the trustee’s statement is correct, that means that every one of the trades listed on every statement of thousands of customers over at least the last 13 years has been simply made up by someone at the Madoff firm — just complete, straight up fiction.

The response is now in to the very interesting question posed by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff (previously discussed here) when deciding whether to free Marc Dreier on bail: “Are these armed guards authorized to shoot him” if he tries to flee?

Counsels’ answer: Don’t Shoot!!

The New York Law Journal reports that in papers submitted to the court on Tuesday, both the prosecutors and Dreier’s counsel agreed that it would not be appropriate for armed guards to shoot Dreier if he attempted to flee:

[Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan] Streeter, said he was concerned about whether private guards would have the authority to detain Dreier if he tried to escape.

“There is a difference between being in an apartment in Manhattan and the [Metropolitan Correction Center],” Streeter said, raising the question of whether private guards could use deadly force.

In papers submitted to Rakoff Tuesday, Streeter concluded that under state law, “absent an imminent threat of deadly force by the defendant, private security guards would have no authority to use firearms or other deadly force against the defendant, either to prevent flight or otherwise.”

Dreier’s attorney Gerald Shargel, in his own submission to the court, reportedly backed away from an earlier suggestion the guards would be armed, stating that Dreier, “has no history of violence,” “is not a physically large or imposing individual,” and would be guarded by “physically fit” (but unarmed) retired law enforcement agents stationed in front of his apartment’s single exit.

Read the NY Law journal article