As many of you may know Allen Stanford appealed his conviction on 24th April 2014.
In his “Motion to Vacate” Allen Stanford has cited various reasons not least of which that the CDs were regulated only in the sovereign nation of Antigua and that the SEC had no jurisdiction and no authority to go after him.
Should Allen Stanford successful in his argument its conceivable that it could have implications for any appeal by the SEC against SIPC and also in the lawsuit that KLS is bringing against the SEC.
The Motion to Vacate makes interesting reading whether you agree with Stanford’s assertions or not and could potentially affect victims entitlements should Stanford be successful.
Some of the more interesting claims made in Stanford’s “Motion to Vacate” which you may or may not agree with are:
- The SEC had no jurisdictional or regulatory authority over SIB.
- Allen Stanford was denied due Process, and the venue for their complaint was improper.
- There was a blatant violation of Stanford’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from illegal search and seizure.
- Fraud upon de Court in this matter
Stanford’s motion also calls into question the report by Ms Van Tassel. When questioned Ms Tassel had experience in only two other matters that involved ponzi schemes, one involved a computer re-seller where no written report was submitted and a second involving real estate.
Stanford’s motion argues that Ms Van Tassel was Senior Managing director of FTI Consulting which was not a CPA firm and her company was unlicensed (in Texas) to perform the work it performed.
You can read the Allen Stanford’s “Motion to Vacate” HERE
For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum http://sivg.org.ag/