Madoff Ex-Aides’ Fraud Trial ‘Juiced Up,’ Lawyer Says

The trial of five former aides to Bernard Madoff was “juiced up” with a flirtatious e-mail taken out of context and two innocent checks to the con man’s wife that were used as evidence, a defense lawyer said.

When the U.S. showed jurors a 2007 e-mail from one of the defendants, Daniel Bonventre, to his wife stating, “You don’t know this, but we have people here who read all the e-mails,” prosecutors left out details that revealed its innocence, the lawyer, Andrew Frisch, said today in his closing statement in Manhattan federal court.

The message from Bonventre, Madoff’s ex-director of operations, was in response to something “amorous” his wife had written, Frisch said. “If it’s so obvious Dan is guilty, why do they do this? Why do they juice it up?” he said to jurors.

The criminal trial, which started in October, is the first stemming from Madoff’s $17 billion Ponzi scheme, which collapsed after his confession and arrest in December 2008.

The e-mail is just one example of the speculative nature of the government’s evidence against Bonventre, who never worked in Madoff’s investment advisory unit, where the fraud took place, and didn’t interact with its customers or regulators, Frisch said.

The five former colleagues are accused of conspiring to use fake account statements and false trade confirmations to trick thousands of customers into believing they owned shares in the world’s biggest companies. Instead, their cash was used to enrich insiders and prop up Madoff’s money-losing operations, according to a 31-count indictment in the case.

Customer Cash

The U.S. alleges Bonventre helped hide Madoff’s investment advisory unit from regulators and funneled about $800 million in customer cash to finance the broker-dealer unit he oversaw.

Frisch showed jurors copies of two $40,000 checks Bonventre wrote to Madoff in 2004, which prosecutors used as evidence in the trial. Madoff had signed the checks over to his wife Ruth’s bank account.

The government presented the checks without offering proof of what they meant in order to insinuate there was “some elaborate, nefarious agreement” between Bonventre and Ruth Madoff, who shared the task of managing the checking account for the investment-advisory business, Frisch said.

Bonventre’s explanation that the checks were for repaying Madoff for personal expenses on his corporate credit card were ignored by prosecutors, Frisch said.

“It’s another example of creating a cloud of suspicion from nothing,” Frisch said.

Natural Inclination

The U.S. threatened former Madoff controller Enrica Cotellessa-Pitz to secure a guilty plea and have her testify against the five defendants, Frisch said.

When she testified in November, she “was like a deer in headlights” on the stand, struggling to answer questions because she had to go against her natural inclination to tell the truth and lie to please the government, Frisch said. Cotellessa-Pitz was “in anguish” on the stand, Frisch said. “She’s not to blame for buckling to the pressure.”

Bonventre was also tricked by Madoff like thousands of others, lulled into a false sense of security by the firm’s success and the praise he received in the industry, Frisch said.

“Madoff was secretive, demanded confidentiality and, unbeknownst to the world, was a pathological liar who duped sophisticated investors, well-known businesses and celebrities,” Frisch said.

When Bonventre testified at trial, he told jurors Madoff could be a bully who mocked and ridiculed people and would say in anger that “he was surrounded by idiots and assassins,” Frisch said.

Key Witness

Frisch, the last of five defense lawyers to give a closing summation, joined the other four in condemning the government’s key witness, Madoff’s former finance chief, Frank DiPascali, who pleaded guilty in the case and agreed to testify against his onetime colleagues.

DiPascali is a “toxic” witness who implicated Bonventre and the others in a bid to please prosecutors and spend less time behind bars, Frisch said.

DiPascali, who faces a maximum term of 125 years, lied on the witness stand when he said he testified in a related civil case filed by victims of the fraud, Frisch said. In fact, Frisch said, DiPascali refused to answer any questions in that case, undermining his claim to care about the victims of the fraud.

The case is U.S. v. O’Hara, 10-cr-00228, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at Mary Romano, David Glovin

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.