Bradley L. Ruderman, 46, of Los Angeles recently surrendered himself to federal agents after it was discovered he had defrauded roughly $44 million from investors in yet another white collar crime case. Ruderman allegedly persuaded several family members and friends to invest in two separate hedge funds that he founded and managed, promising returns as high as 60%. This white collar crime was performed by Ruderman apparently been sending false statements to his 22 investors since form his hedge funds in 2002. Ruderman claimed through his account statements that his hedge funds had managed $206 million while the funds' actual net value at the beginning of 2009 was just $588, 246. Evidence compiled by federal investigators claims Ruderman spent over $8.7 million of investor money on personal expenses, including a summer vacation home in Malibu and two Porsches. Ruderman also admitted to losing as much as $5.2 million more of his investors' money in private poker games held at a Los Angeles-area hotel. Ruderman has officially been charged in a Los Angeles court with wire fraud. Fraud is one of the most common examples of white collar crime, but still carries potential prison time if you are convicted of it. As in Ruderman's white collar case, fraud involves taking other people's money under false pretenses and through non-violent means. Both an individual and a business can be charged with fraud. In the case of a conviction, an individual can likely go to jail while a business would most likely be hit with substantial fines. In both cases, credibility would be ruined, making a return to business as usual near impossible. Because fraud and white collar crimes in general deal with such large quantities of money, penalties for a conviction can land you in a state or federal prison for several years. With your reputation and your freedom on the line, you need an experience white collar crime defense attorney at your side if you have been charged with fraud. Call the attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin today to find out what your options are and being preparing your defense. Tagged as: theft, white collar crime fraud theft laws
Komel Soin UCLA on June 14, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. wrote: Most individuals who do commit white collar crimes spend it on things like homes in Malibu, porsches, and poker games. That shows how completely unnecessary it is for such a crime to be committed. I don't think the defense would be best off trying to create sympathy for him, but would be better off dealing directly with the law as it is written and going about this case in a way which would lower his sentence. The best way to do this would be dealing with the law directly and moving the attention away from pathos. Vincent Palladino on June 12, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. wrote: I agree with an earlier comment that white collar crimes are of convenience and greed rather than necessity. In this case, Ruderman bilked investors out of about $44 million in a wire fraud scheme and foolishly spent investors' money on a Malibu home, 2 Porsches, and poker games. The disturbing part of this case is that many of the victims were Rudman's own relatives. If you do something like this in my family, you get your kneecaps busted in with a baseball bat. Good luck to the defense on creating sympathy for this colossal failure. Sion Arakelian UCLA 803449309 on June 12, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. wrote: Hearing about this type of crime is just as bad as when a petty criminal robs an innocent person's home or holds them up at gunpoint. The problem here is that people who commit these types of white collar crimes are rarely suspected of such activity until it is too late. Recently, Bernie Madoff was charged with a Ponzi scheme that was reported to have scammed innocent investors of up to $50 billion in funds. One way I suggest the justice system deals with these types of cases is to punish these perpetrators to the full extent of the law, ignoring the fact that it was a 'white collar crime' and that nobody was gunned down or held up. Brian Ryoo on June 12, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. wrote: In this particular case Ruderman should be punished both in prison terms and fines. But I do worry that some disparate cases of fraud from those who advertised themselves as hedge funds will result in unnecessary regulations. Those who invest in hedge funds are all high-worth individuals and institutions. It's not like their ability to survive day to day depend on hedge fund results (though one could argue that the individual pension holders that those institutions represent might be middle/working class). These investors, in most cases, know full well that a fund that can promise 30%+ return comes with far more risk. To be fair, they clearly do not believe that the fund is a fraud, but the fact remains that substantial research is done before an investment is made. Market participants and especially uber-skilled ones like hedge funds perform the best when there are fewer unnecessary regulations. As long as property rights are clearly defined, the government should avoid creating politically-motivated regulations that hurt the society's overall progress and rate of innovation. Ashley Harris on June 11, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. wrote: The defense is disadvantaged by the times in this case. I would imagine a jury would be predisposed to convict and generally dislike the defendant. Many people have likely been touched or know someone who has been affected by corrupt business dealings. The prosecution could argue that all of us are suffering from the indulgent and greedy behavior of white collar criminals running our country. And that they need to act locally and stop this sort of crime in their own community. Painting the picture of Ruderman driving one of his Porsches to his Malibu beach house while investors foolishly rest assured that their chidren will be able to afford college or they will be able to retire with their investment would be effective for the prosecution. Also, prosecution could ask the jury if they've ever made a loan to someone and not been paid back. They could relate that to this investment. Katy (Kathryn) Green on June 11, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. wrote: In our current economic climate and especially after the Bernie Madoff scandal, it's become quite apparent that white collar crimes are just as worthy of punishment as are violent crimes. Even though offenses involving fraud are typically non-violent and don't necessarily inflict physical harm, the emotional and mental strife caused by such crimes inflict enough pain and suffering. Furthermore, what really irks me, is (as stated above) the greed and mal-intent with which such a crime is committed. It doesn't take a violent act to make someone criminal in their behavior. In Ruderman's case, it seems as though his lawyer would have to prove that his client perhaps did have good intentions in the long run, through he might've slipped up a long the way. However, given the nation's current circumstances, proving something like that could be quite difficult. Leilani Materon (UCLA) on June 11, 2009 at 4:25 a.m. wrote: The difficulty of white collar crimes is that often they are not crimes of necessity but crimes of convenience and greed. The repercussions of white collar crimes can be devastating and in some ways I think that they are as disturbing as traditionally violent crimes. On the issue of white collar crimes, what is difficult is that the business must bear the burden of its employee's offense. Although I agree that sometimes it's important to have a zero-sum outcome in terms of the law, I think that white collar crime justice is still somewhat primitive. (This is assuming of course that the business acts in good faith, that it is unaware of the shady dealings of its employer). This case is unfortunate because there is so much at stake--- lives will be rebuilt, innocent people will have their worlds turned upside down. Although the principle of caveat emptor is in order, the peripheral effects are still troubling especially in our current economic state. MatthewReynard703719660 on June 10, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. wrote: White collar crimes seem to be more rapid than one would expect. I think it is certain that one could suggest many professionals can more easily cover up a crime than say a blue collar would. But none the less, white-collar people need to be represented correctly. Because some might go under harsh scrutiny because of who they are.