Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Florida Democratic congressman loses $18 million in ponzi scheme
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:30 PM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson lost $18 million in a scheme by a Virginia man that involved over a 100 victims, the congressman’s office confirmed Monday. The man who ran the scheme, William Dean Chapman, was sentenced Friday in federal court to 12 years in prison. Prosecutors say Chapman used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle including a Lamborghini, a Ferrari and a $3 million home. In most of the court papers, Grayson's identity is protected -- prosecutors say only that an elected official with the initials A.G. was the primary victim -- but documents twice mention Grayson by name. Nothing in the court papers suggests Grayson was anything but a victim of the scheme. Grayson, a former trial attorney, said he has had a long record for picking winning stocks, which formed the basis for his personal fortune. The scheme worked like this: clients would turn over their stocks to Chapman as collateral for a loan, and Chapman would let customers borrow about 90 percent of the stocks' value. If the stocks did badly, borrowers could walk away and keep the money they were loaned. But if the borrowers' stocks did well, they would repay the loan with interest, and Chapman was supposed to return the stocks to the investor at their increased value. But, according to court papers, Chapman sold the stocks and had no way to fulfill his obligations if a client's stock portfolio did well. "If they had not sold the collateral, it all would have worked," said Grayson, who is generally listed as one of the 20 wealthiest members of Congress with assets of more than $20 million. His financial disclosure forms list holdings in dozens of stocks. His dealings with Chapman preceded his time in Congress, which began in 2009. Court records indicate Chapman's firm was drawing regulatory scrutiny as early as 2007. Grayson also expressed concern that his identity as a victim was not protected by the court file, and that a defense motion and an attachment to a prosecution motion both identified him by name despite procedures that are supposed to be in place to protect victims' privacy.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL