A ‘Diamond in the Rough’ – Diamond JoeGutnick’s Wife

http://www.smh.com.au/business/joseph-gutnick-slams-press-reports-says-wife-is-diamond-20170426-gvtcj8.html

Joseph Gutnick slams press reports, says wife is ‘diamond’

Bankrupt former rich lister ‘Diamond’ Joe Gutnick has taken a swipe at the media after reports regarding his wife’s involvement in his companies following his bankruptcy, saying she is worth “millions” and is a “diamond”.

Mr Gutnick took the stand in the Federal Court on Thursday as public examinations of his bankrupt estate continue. His wife and son were examined earlier in the week.

 

“She is herself a very special gem, a diamond,” Joe Gutnick says of his wife.

“There were disgusting reports in the newspaper,” he said.

Earlier this week, the court heard that a company linked to the bankrupt mining magnate is paying his wife, Stera Gutnick, $285,000 a year to work “a few hours a day” as a trainee jewellery designer, while her husband earns just $45,000 a year to work full time.

Related Content

• Gutnick’s wife paid $285k to work ‘a few hours a day’

• Gutnick faces public examination of bankruptcy

“She’s worth a lot more than some $200,000, possibly millions,” he said.

“She is herself a very special gem, a diamond,” he added.

“The press projected her as if she does nothing and we’re paying her an exorbitant wage. My wage is a separate issue. My concern is how this was presented in the papers,” he said.

Mr Gutnick said after his bankruptcy last year his wife worked three to four hours in the office, attended high level meetings and had research the jewellery industry extensively.

 

Stera Gutnik at the Federal Court this week. Photo: Jason South

When asked what qualifications Mrs Gutnick had to be running the businesses while Mr Gutnick was bankrupt Mr Gutnick told the court: “She wears a diamond”.

Mr Gutnick also raised his plans to take defamation action over the stories.

He denied ever discussing with his wife any plans to put assets out of reach of creditors in the event he went bankrupt.

On Monday, lawyers for the bankruptcy trustees challenged Mrs Gutnick, and suggested the shuffling of directorships and her taking on the debt was part of a “broader plan to protect Joseph against bankruptcy”‘.

Philip Crutchfield QC, who was  asking questions of Mr Gutnick on behalf of two major creditors to the former magnate’s bankrupt estates, the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) and Kisan International Trading, told the court that on Monday Mrs Gutnick said her husband had discussed structuring his affairs to protect assets “in some fashion”.

Mr Gutnick said his discussions with Mrs Gutnick regarding his assets related to her desire that the couple invest in safer assets like real estate rather than speculative mining stocks.

He denied ever hiding assets from creditors.

“Over the years I ‘ve just followed the advice of my accountants and my lawyers about how my affairs have been put into place,” Mr Gutnick said.

Mr Gutnick entered bankruptcy last year after losing a court battle with his former business partner IFFCO and Kisan over a $54 million personal debt. His company Legend International Holdings owes IFFCO a further $15 million. With interest, IFFCO is owed a total of $73 million. Legend is now in liquidation.

As revealed by Fairfax Media last year, Mr Gutnick’s statement shows he owes his creditors $275 million and has only has assets of $16,087 in savings and a host of shareholdings that are valued at zero.

Some of Mr Gutnick’s debts are to relatives, including a $30.7 million debt to his wife Stera and more than $116 million in debts to three companies run by family members.

The examination continues.

• Recent bankrupt Diamond Joe Gutnick back in the mining saddle
• Diamond Joe Gutnick’s brother fights eviction

Jona Rechnitz: Loan Shark? Diamond Dealer? Lucky Gambler? Real Estate Mogul? Shoshana by any other name…

 

NYPost: http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/key-witness-in-nypd-corruption-probe-was-an-alleged-loan-shark/

Key witness in NYPD corruption probe was an alleged ‘loan shark’’

The government’s key witness in multiple corruption probes was a part-time “loan shark” who made money doling out predatory loans, court documents alleged on Tuesday.

Jona Rechnitz — the government’s witness against two NYPD cops accused of taking bribes — “was nothing more than a loan shark” when it came to his business dealings with Hamlet Peralta, the former owner of a Harlem eatery that was popular with cops, Peralta’s lawyer said.

Peralta, the former owner of the Hudson River Cafe, stands accused of running a $12 million Ponzi scheme tied to an allegedly fictitious wholesale liquor business.

Peralta’s lawyer, Cesar de Castro, made the allegations against Rechnitz as part of a legal tug-of-war with feds about what evidence can be introduced at Peralta’s upcoming May trial.

The government wants to call as witnesses victims of Peralta’s alleged scheme who were recruited by Rechnitz — and who learned of the scheme through Rechnitz.

De Castro has objected, arguing that statements made by Rechnitz cannot be offered as the truth because he was engaged in his own loan-sharking scheme.

“Evidence at trial will show that (Rechnitz) was not Mr. Peralta’s agent but the architect of his own scheme in order to bleed Mr. Peralta dry,” de Castro said.

Rechnitz’s lawyer, Alan Levine, declined to comment.

Rechnitz, a real estate investor, is also the government’s key witness in the upcoming bribery trial of Norman Seabrook, former head of NYC’s correction officers’ union.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/key-witness-in-nypd-corruption-probe-was-an-alleged-loan-shark/

A New List – ‘the Rabbis Who Steal From Special Needs Children’ – This one: For Diamonds and Supermarkets

 

NY Post: https://nypost.com/2017/04/21/rabbi-admits-to-stealing-millions-from-special-needs-school/

Rabbi admits to stealing millions from special-needs school

A Queens rabbi has pleaded guilty to embezzling $5 million from his taxpayer-funded Queens preschool — money intended for Orthodox Jewish special-needs students ages 3 to 5.

Rabbi Samuel Hiller, the former assistant director of Island Child Development Center in Far Rockaway, is expected to be sentenced to one to three years prison after Thursday’s guilty plea to first-degree grand larceny, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

SEE ALSO

Rabbi & pals stole $12M from school for disabled kids: DA

Under the terms of his plea, Hiller, 59, will forfeit $1 million in seized assets and must pay $1 million more by the time he is sentenced June 15, Brown said. If he fails to make the deadline, he’ll be sentenced instead to two to six years. Hiller will also agree to pay an additional $3 million at a later date, Brown said.

Hiller used the embezzled funds — stolen between 2005 and 2012 — to prop up several for-profit summer camps he ran. He also used $30,000 to revamp the plumbing in his Elvira Avenue home in Far Rockaway, prosecutors said.

“Stealing from the public is bad enough, but exploiting small children to pay your plumber and support your for-profit camps, is reprehensible,” noted state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli in a statement Friday.

It was DiNapoli’s office that uncovered the embezzlement scheme, in which three of the rabbi’s colleagues were also charged.

The comptroller’s office had notified Hiller’s child development center in 2012 that it would be conducting a routine audit. But when auditors arrived that July, they were told that the then-executive director, Ira Kurman, had left his position — and taken all of his books and records with him.

After an initial investigation, the comptroller’s office referred the case the the Queens DA’s Detective and Economic Crimes bureaus.

Kurman has already pleaded guilty to first-degree grand larceny, as has co-defendant Roy Hoffman, who had been hired by the pre-school to serve as its state-mandated independent auditor.

The case against the third co-defendant, Daniel Laniado, 44, of Brooklyn, a self-described “investor” in the school, is still pending.

Prosecutors say Laniado used some of the more than $1 million he pocketed to stock the shelves of his kosher supermarket in Borough Park, and to buy 7.5 carats in uncut diamonds.

https://nypost.com/2017/04/21/rabbi-admits-to-stealing-millions-from-special-needs-school/

Diamond Joe’s Wife Paid to Work A Few Hours per Day

http://www.theage.com.au/business/diamond-joe-gutnicks-wife-paid-285000-to-work-a-few-hours-a-day-20170424-gvr8vz.html

‘Diamond’ Joe Gutnick’s wife paid $285,000 to work ‘a few hours a day’

A company linked to bankrupt mining magnate “Diamond” Joe Gutnick is paying his wife, Stera Gutnick, $285,000 a year to work “a few hours a day” as a trainee jewellery designer, while her husband earns just $45,000 a year to work full time.

Details of the remarkable pay arrangement came to light during Federal Court examination by Joseph Gutnick’s bankruptcy trustees on Monday.

 

Joe Gutnick’s statement of affairs shows he owes his creditors $275 million. Photo: Nicolas Walker

Mr Gutnick was chairman and chief executive of Merlin Diamonds before his bankruptcy.

Mrs Gutnick told the court she reported to her husband, who worked longer hours in the company. She said her primary duties as a $285,000 a year executive were “studying jewellery design” and “accompanying my husband to events”.

 

Stera and Mordecai Gutnik were questioned at the Federal Court on Monday.

Lawyers for the bankruptcy trustees contended that Joseph Gutnick was deliberately being paid a low salary in order to avoid having money taken from his wage.

Trustees can take money from a bankrupt’s salary once it reaches $65,000 per year.

Mr Gutnick’s son Mordechai Gutnick was also questioned under oath about his mother’s salary, which is exactly the same as he earns as a full-time executive director in the company.

“His income is being kept artificially low so he does not have to make income contributions,” said barrister Carl Moller.

 

Stera Gutnik at the Federal Court. Photo: Jason South

“I don’t know,” responded Mordi Gutnick.

Asked if his mother’s salary was appropriate for the work she does, Mordy Gutnick said “um”, paused for a lengthy period, and sighed.

“She understands jewellery better than any of us,” he finally said.

Asked if his mother, who worked fewer hours and had no input into “operational matters”, deserved the same salary as him, Mordi Gutnick responded “it is what it is”.

Mr Gutnick’s bankruptcy trustees are chasing an estimated $200 million of assets that are believed to have moved offshore to parties associated with Joseph Gutnick and his family.

Mrs Gutnick told the Federal Court she could not explain how she came to be owed $33.5 million by her husband.

Mrs Gutnick also admitted under oath she signed hundreds of documents for a web of companies and trusts without ever asking her husband or his lawyers what they were for.

“I trust my husband. The finances are up to him,” Mrs Gutnick told the court.

Mrs Gutnick was read a lengthy list of Gutnick family companies and trusts that she is either a company director, guardian or beneficiary of. She repeatedly told the court that she did not know what those companies did, and had little if no familiarity with their daily business.

As revealed by Fairfax Media last year, Mr Gutnick’s statement of affairs shows he owes his creditors $275 million, and has no other assets except for $16,087 in savings and a worthless portfolio of shareholdings.

Mr Gutnick declared himself bankrupt in July last year, ahead of a court hearing to hear a petition by his former business partner Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO), which was seeking to have him declared bankrupt over a $54 million debt.

Lawyers for the bankruptcy trustees challenged Mrs Gutnick, and suggested the shuffling of directorships and her taking on a $33.5 million debt were part of a “broader plan to protect Joseph against bankruptcy”‘.

While the loan to Mrs Gutnick dates back to July 2000, she claimed “I wasn’t aware of it then.”

Asked when she first became aware that her husband owed her $33.5 million, she replied “I first knew of it in 2016”.

Asked who told her of the debt, she replied “Joseph did” and added “he told me it was a loan on paper and it doesn’t mean practically I was going to get it”.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/diamond-joe-gutnicks-wife-paid-285000-to-work-a-few-hours-a-day-20170424-gvr8vz.html

 

A Platinum Story -de Blasio Unscathed

 

The Real Deal

De Blasio won’t face federal, state charges in fundraising probe

News comes just days after Preet Bharara was fired

Mayor Bill de Blasio won’t be facing federal or state criminal charges for fundraising activities tied to his now defunct Campaign for One New York, officials announced on Thursday.

“After careful deliberation, given the totality of the circumstances here and absent additional evidence, we do not intend to bring federal criminal charges against the Mayor or those acting on his behalf relating to the fundraising efforts in question,” acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim announced on Thursday.

The investigations hinged on whether de Blasio solicited donations from developers and others who had business before the city in exchange for political favors. In October, the New York Time’s reported that Jona Rechnitz, the real estate developer at the center of the NYPD corruption scandal, was cooperating with authorities. The mayor was accused of giving a retired police official a high-level position in his administration after Rechnitz called him and requested the appointment as a “personal favor.” The federal investigation was conducted by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office led the state probe.

In his announcement, District Attorney Cyrus Vance stated that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the mayor violated state election laws in his efforts to help Democrats take over the Republican-controlled state Senate. The investigation focused on whether he wrongfully sidestepped contribution limits to individual candidates by directing donations to upstate county committees. Vance said, however, that the actions “appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits.”

Kim noted the unusual nature of announcing that his office wouldn’t pursue criminal charges, saying that, in this case, it was appropriate to not “unduly influence the upcoming campaign and Mayoral election.” The announcement comes just a few days after President Donald Trump fired Preet Bharara from his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The decision not to prosecute clears what was a black cloud over the mayor’s re-election campaign. It remains to be seen if potential Democratic challengers who were waiting on the sidelines as the investigation dragged on will now step aside. Meanwhile, Republican mayoral candidate and Cushman & Wakefield executive Paul Massey announced Wednesday that he raised twice as much as de Blasio since Jan. 12.

Continue Reading here.

THE PLATINUM QUESTION – WAS ANYBODY LISTENING?

PLATINUM PARTNERS AND THEIR OUTRAGEOUS RETURNS

LostMessiah 4 January 2016

LostMessiah was and has been the brainchild of several people who began this venture last February with a few stories already in our heads, Platinum being front and center.

From the very beginning we made clear that something was very wrong with Platinum, beginning with the extraordinary, though irrational returns. We then raised the question of David Bodner and a piece of property (191 Viola Road) that transferred names rather nefariously in Rockland County, New York.

We questioned the Africa-Israel connection and most notably those who financed Platinum in its early years: David Bodner and Murray Huberfeld and their band of merry… Philanthropists? No.

We posted diagrams.

We showed you the connections between Seabrook and Platinum, COBA and Platinum. We even spoke of Black Elk, a story still in its making. We believe that most of the Platinum investor money (which is likely currently in the family trusts of Bodner and Huberfeld and in the yeshivas begun by Nordlicht and his family) belongs to Black Elk investors who were taken for a ride during a tender offer which was specifically intended to drain the company of its assets.

That story is still one to be told but unfortunately 12 pages later, we have found a web of lies and a spider with far more than eight legs and we have not even scratched the surface.

The investor money has not been spent, in our view. It has been funneled. The trick is going to be getting it out from under the various trust laws protecting it. The key to Huberfeld’s participation in all of this beyond his family trusts is his property which has more recently been transferred to his wife in a quit-claim deed. 

There were people questioning – just too few listening.

 

See also:

https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/the-seabrook-connection-investments-gone/

https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/the-long-short-nope-the-dead-undead/

https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/theres-not-enough-time-in-the-day-to-discuss-nordlicht-huberfeld-bodner/

READ FURTHER:

No One Questioned This Hedge Fund’s Madoff-Like Returns

• Red flags abounded while hedge fund claimed 17% annual gains
• Platinum was embroiled in rogue trades, Florida Ponzi scheme

In the years before Mark Nordlicht was arrested for what’s alleged to be one of the biggest investment frauds since Bernie Madoff’s, U.S. authorities had plenty of reasons to suspect something might have been fishy about his hedge fund, Platinum Partners.

As far back as 2007, Bank of Montreal accused Nordlicht of helping a rogue trader, costing it more than $500 million. Three years later, when the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating what it called a “scheme to profit from the imminent deaths of terminally ill patients,” the agency discovered that Platinum had funded the deals. And in 2011, a Florida lawyer who confessed to running a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme testified that Nordlicht, his biggest funder, lied to help him lure new investors.

And then there were the remarkable profits: 17 percent annually on average from 2003 through 2015, with no down years. The returns were almost as smooth as the fake gains that Madoff claimed year after year, as measured by a popular metric called the Sharpe ratio.

The Missing Trust Agreement, The Rabbi and the Diamond Dealer

http://www.totpi.com/31172-2/

Rabbi Berel Lazar and A Missing Trust Agreement Between Arkady Gaydamak and Lev Leviev September 11, 2016/1 Comment/in Joe Levin /by Joe Levin By this interview Rabbi Berel Lazar actually recognizes that he had received the envelope from Arkady Gaydamak or from Lev Leviev but by no means ever knew what this envelope contained. As the Justice Lord Vos stated in his Decision, “since this TV interview Lazar (and Leviev) are not able to deny the fact that Lazar received for the safekeeping an envelope and thus each Party, Arkady Gaydamak and Leviev, should explain the content of the envelope”. Thus, in front of the High Court of Justice, Rabbi Berel Lazar and other witnesses on Leviev’s side stated with great confidence that the envelope contained Gaydamak’s written commitments to contribute to the Federation of Jewish Organizations of FSU instead of, as Gaydamak stated, the copy of the signed Trust Agreement of December 13, 2001. Leviev’s side even presented to the Court false, fabricated by the US Chartered Accountant Joel Zuller, Tax Return Forms, in order to support Leviev’s fraudulent allegations that Gaydamak had fulfilled his financial commitments of contribution to the Federation of Jewish Organizations. The TV interview of Rabbi Berel Lazar evidenced premeditated, knowingly fraudulent statements and documents presented to the High Court of Justice in London by Lev Leviev and his accomplices. Lazar’s affirmations are — that he did not know what the envelope contains; and that he had never understood the reason why he received the envelope; and he expressed his astonishment why Gaydamak did not keep with him one signed copy of such, in accordance with Gaydamak’s claim, an important document. These kind of allegations, specifically expressed by Lazar, who pretends to be a Rabbi, are absolutely outrageous. By his affirmations, Lazar rejects the basic Halachic Rule about the function of “Shomer Ne’eman” (safe-keeper or Jewish Notary, Trustee in duty). In accordance with these rules, two Jews, in the case where they want to establish an important (from their point of view) confidential document– they should do it precisely in one signed copy and transmit it to a “Shomer Ne’eman” (for which any Rabbi can serve). Only on condition when the document itself was established in accordance with the “Halacha” rules and “Mazal Ubraha” was pronounced, which is precisely the case, as the Justice Lord Vos has stated — the responsibility of “Shomer Ne’eman”, in this case Lazar, should be engaged. In the case where “Shomer Ne’eman” (Lazar) is not able to return the document, specifically when the document did not disappear for the reason of Force Major (fire, flood, earthquake, and other kinds of “Plagues of Egypt”, etc.) and in the case of a dispute between the two parties that signed the document the Halacha says that the version of the complaining party (Gaydamak) should be accepted. In this case, we have all the founded evidences at our disposal that Lazar had actually allowed this document to disappear intentionally for the reason of his acquaintance, connections with and dependence from Leviev (the Justice Lord Vos unambiguously stated it in his Decision of June 29, 2012). Journalist: Honorable Rabbi, Hello. Rabbi Berel Lazar: I will tell you what I told him. I told him a very simple thing. If you give me a paper… First thing, if you make an agreement with someone, it is very strange that you don’t keep a copy yourself. It is a strange thing in my opinion. Second, if you give me such a paper, tell me what this paper is. Of course I have never said to him that I kept it. These are things that suddenly he thought that he had heard from me. I had already said to him in a meeting: when did I tell you that? He does not remember when I told him. He does not remember if I told him. Maybe I did not tell him. And suddenly, afterwards, he decided that maybe there is a chance that he publishes that I was indeed heard nearby. These are all, excuse me, fantasies of a person – that once he delivered to me a paper, in this paper something was written, something that he, himself, claims that he had not told me. He does not remember when he delivered it to me, he does not remember who delivered it to me, but there is “as if”… Journalist: Do you remember that you received such a thing at all? Rabbi Berel Lazar: I do remember that once there was – that either HE or Leviev – gave me an envelope and that’s it. They did not even tell me to keep it. Journalist: Honestly, it does not make sense that a Rabbi who receives an envelope from Leviev or Gaydamak loses it, also in the case where he does not know what it contains. Rabbi Lazar alleged in front of us that during his conversation with Leviev, the latter admitted in delivery of the envelope.