So now we know that Victim-2 is Briar Wood Investments, Victim-1 is Source Financing by Rosenman and Yau Cheng. Both, according to them, account for more than $60 Million worth of lost "investments".
I don't see here anything approaching close to Ponzi scheme. I also don't see why Democrats would set up Hsu in a "Ponzi scheme" and create a huge problem for themselves, when it's so much easier and cleaner to use Hsu company as a channel for laundering money from rich entities - like China, Burkle, New School India China Institute etc. - into their campaigns through Hsu via small campaign contributions on retail level. It's a perfect "funnel tunnel". Why would they need to worry about where Hsu would get the money, when someone like Burkle or Steven Spielberg or a Chinese outfit (let's say the "factor", as the Hsu himself called it) singlehandedly could be on the other side of Briar Wood and Source Financing and cover the "interest" / "investor profit" and Hsu's "profit" which is then to be recycled into campaign by Hsu through "little people" in small $2,300 donations? And "investor" is pretty much guaranteed and assured that money can't be lost.
From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899763/posts?page=113#113 :
According to the lawsuit, Waters invested with Hsu in part because “prominent persons, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, national Democratic political adviser James Carville, film director Steven Spielberg, actor (Tobey) Maguire, grocery store magnate/billionaire Ron Burkle and others introduced and/or endorsed Hsu as a friend, colleague and trusted associate.”
Note that Hsu did not get caught originally in "Ponzi scheme" - he got caught because of his "prior" (1991 case) and FEC records of likely illegal donations (like Paws)... "Ponzi scheme" came later when "investors" post-dated checks started to bounce and they are now out of money because Hsu's accounts are frozen and the "factor" or "factors" can't or don't want to send money to Components et al, or the amount became too big to cover without exposing themselves as "factors" - source[s] of excess money that went to campaigns and Hsu's comfortable life style.
Tell me if this would make sense to do for anyone invoolved in a Ponzi scheme : As a condition of doing business with the fundraiser , Hsu directed investors to make contributions to certain Democratic candidates, the lawsuit said. The investors turned over tens of thousands of dollars, including $30,000 worth of checks to Clinton’s campaign on a single day.
Usually, it would be the other way around. The only way they would be interested in and meet the "conditions", if they were assured and/or "guaranteed" the profits on their short-term loans in excess of what they could get from interest-bearing bank account. This was no Ponzi scheme, there had to be a "guarantor" (a "factor")...
This was no accident, either. Timeline shows that Hsu got set up in business (dormant or non-existent Components Ltd, registered as Next Components) at the same time as he became a board member of New School (Bernie Schwartz, Hochberg pattern, India China Institute grant[s]) without any qualifications to be one, and same time as Source Financing Investors LLC came into being (Rosenman's partner in SFI, Yau Cheng, was former partner of Norman Hsu), for the purpose of running a Ponzi scheme that he kneww had no chance to survive for long? Highly bloody unlikely!
OT. Ron Burkle (of Los Angeles based Yucaipa Companies) was recently a part of one of several groups that was asked by Bancroft family to "save" WSJ and Dow Jones from Murdoch's bid.
EXCERPT How a Billionaire Friend of Bill Helps Him Do Good, and Well
NY TIMES, Published: April 23, 2006 By JOHN M. BRODER and PATRICK HEALY
After leaving the White House in 2001, former President Bill Clinton was inundated with business and job offers, from investment-bank partnerships to seats on corporate boards. He turned them all down, with one exception: He agreed to be an adviser to a family of funds run by the Yucaipa Companies, a California private equity firm controlled by one of his best friends, the billionaire Ronald W. Burkle.
Mr. Clinton's arrangement with Mr. Burkle is an unusual one for a former president, giving him the potential to make tens of millions of dollars without great effort and at virtually no risk, according to Mr. Burkle and advisers to Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton's role is to help find investment opportunities for Yucaipa projects, give credibility to the funds and champion their mission of investing in poor areas to corporate executives, union leaders and others. But he has put up little of his own money and has no day-to-day responsibilities over how the more than $1 billion in the funds is invested.
Mr. Clinton, 59, spends most of his time on philanthropic ventures, like fighting AIDS in Africa and poverty around the world, and minimal time on Yucaipa, his advisers say.
Mr. Burkle, 53, who made his fortune operating supermarkets, said that the time Mr. Clinton does spend on the funds is invaluable because of the incomparable access and political star power he provides.
Mr. Burkle, a major Democratic donor who is now a fund-raising force for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. He served as host for a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton at his Beverly Hills estate.........
The three Yucaipa funds that Mr. Clinton advises total more than $1 billion, according to interviews and public records. Mr. Burkle would not disclose the precise amounts, citing competitive concerns, but Yucaipa manages in excess of $3 billion, of which these three funds are a subset. The funds are intended to inject investment capital into poor urban and rural areas in the United States and abroad that traditional equity funds and banks are reluctant to serve, Mr. Burkle said.
The funds Mr. Clinton advises invest in grocery stores, retail developments, manufacturing and distribution, and minority-owned businesses. Yucaipa has found significant growth opportunities in such areas because of the low cost of land and the relative lack of competition.
Under terms described by Clinton advisers and Mr. Burkle, Mr. Clinton will receive a share of Mr. Burkle's profits on two domestic funds should their returns exceed 9 percent over the life of the funds. One fund had reported a gain of 51.3 percent and the other 25.8 percent in 2005, according to reports to investors.
Mr. Clinton is also a partner in a Yucaipa fund that invests in overseas ventures, for which he receives regular payments and would draw one-third of the profits when the fund is dissolved at least five years from now.
Mr. Burkle contributed millions of dollars to Mr. Clinton's campaigns and to the Democratic Party and has been a significant benefactor of the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark. He also helped pay part of the more than $11 million in legal bills Mr. Clinton accrued during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations. Mr. Burkle was among the dozens of Democratic donors rewarded with a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House.
SOUORCE http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/nyregion/23burkle.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=8072d510a5b4ab09&ex= 1303444800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss