|by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY|
Unable to recover their investments from Stanford or his fraudulent entities, including a bank based in
Faced with conflicting lower court rulings, the
Ironically, the case may hinge on whether the fraud involved "covered securities," which Stanford claimed were standing behind his clients' bogus certificates of deposit. Although that puts the concept of covered securities at the center of the dispute, they were never purchased — a fact that concerned Associate Justice
The court's liberal wing appeared to be sympathetic to the hapless investors, while more conservative justices seemed inclined to side with the defendants and the federal government. That could leave Scalia's literal approach to the law holding the balance of power.
Some 25,000 investors were fleeced by Stanford over 15 years before his arrest in 2009 and subsequent conviction in 2012. He is serving a 110-year federal prison sentence in
|Copyright:||Copyright 2013 USATODAY.com|