1. The fact that Bernard Madoff was already a multimillionaire before his scheme, does not make him more unethical than Charles Ponzi. No matter what their background was, they both committed the same crime. They both stole money from innocent people trying to make money. A serial killer and a murdered are still committing the same crime. It does not matter that he is a serial killer. 2. A Ponzi scheme is a scam that scammers use on people who want to invest their money. The basics are that they promise a high rate of return with no risk to investors. They aren’t really making money, they are just giving the money from new investors to the old ones. Eventually, there is more and more money being added that the initial schemer can profit on. 3. Does the SEC bear any responsibility in the extent of the Madoff scheme? …show more content…
They are there to prevent this types of actions from occurring, so when they happen they are at fault. The fact that they investigated him four times and found nothing looks really bad on them. Taking into account that Madoff used to consult for them, made them look even worse. 4. Even though Madoff offered less outrageous returns, it does not make his scheme any less unethical. He still lied and conned investors that had no idea he was conning them. While Ponzi’s promise was outrageous, they both ended up failing their promise and that makes them both at fault. 5. Can the investors who put their money in Madoff’s funds without any due diligence, often on the basis of a tip from a friend or a ‘friend of a friend,’ really be considered victims in this case? Why or why not? The investors who put their money in Madoff’s funds are victims in this case. Even though they were dumb and naïve, they were still robbed of their money. If a person walking at night in a bad neighborhood still is a victim too. The only persons that were not victims were Madoff and the