Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford ahora disponible en español

Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford, ahora disponible en español en:

Monday, March 19, 2012

IRS says it was ripped off by Stanford too

I have been warning victims for some time now that if money recovered from the Swiss, Canadian and British banks goes to the US receiver the money won't go to the victims, $226 million will go to the IRS and we (The victims) will be lucky to see anything!
The joint liquidators on Antigua (Grant Thornton) have a claims process setup and have pledged to distribute any money they recover to the victims.


Posted Mar 16th 2009 12:45PM by Zac Bissonnette
Filed under: Law, Scandals

If the allegations are to be believed, Robert Allen Stanford ripped off his
investors to the tune of $8 billion and managed to cheat the IRS out of its
cut of his ill-gotten gains as well.

The IRS has asked a judge to allow it to continue its efforts to collect
$226.6 million in back taxes -- and there may be more to come because
Stanford still hasn't filed his 2007 tax return.

Maybe I'm naive in the ways of massive fraud and its tax implications, but
here's what I don't understand: Thousands of investors are in all
probability out billions of dollars because of Mr. Stanford's alleged
conduct. Given that, every penny that the IRS collects from him represents a
penny that won't be available to his victims.
I understand that the IRS has a legal right to pursue whatever money it
feels it is owed, but shouldn't the remains of the Stanford carcass be left
for his victims?

Bloomberg reports that "Investors in R. Allen Stanford's Antiguan bank may
have to get in line behind the Internal Revenue Service as they seek to
recover money from the alleged swindler."

Taxpayer money has already been used to pay bonuses to the AIG executives
who put the company in a position to need a bailout. Given that, shouldn't
we let money that was stolen from innocent investors be used to pay them
back -- instead of stuffing it into the United States treasury?

1 comment:

  1. And to add to that; How can the IRS claim taxes from a person whose income was basically funds that were stolen. How can that be defined as income?
    I'm not a tax expert but that does not make any sense to me!!!