But he doesn’t think it will have wide-ranging impact on the handling of other Ponzi-type schemes.
Mr. Prickett said Ponzi schemes don’t tend to have the type of written agreements for “certificates of deposits” seen in the Stanford case.
“I think if people apply [the 5th Circuit opinion] based on its facts, it won’t have a ton of broader implications,” he said.
Mr. Stanford remains jailed awaiting trial on federal charges that he sold self-styled “certificate of deposits” that promised impossibly high returns but were said to be part of a Ponzi scheme that afforded Mr. Stanford a jet-setting lifestyle.
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
By John Solomon
How the government's punishing of the exposure of official wrongdoing can linger for years
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
A collection of reader guest articles, thoughts and opinions by Communities writers and breaking news and information.
A mother of three and a passionate conservative, Shirley Husar changes the game.
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.
Eye on Europe, the Middle East and Africa
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention