Could Carmela Soprano Have Been Sued Like Ruth Madoff?

Carmela's lifestyle was financed by Tony

The $45 million lawsuit against Ruth Madoff yesterday by Irving Picard leads me to wonder: what kind of precedent might this set?

Certainly Ruth is not the first wife to have benefited from the thievery of her husband. Down through history, from Mrs. Jesse James to Mrs. Lansky to Mrs. Gotti and, of course, our beloved if fictional Carmela Soprano, wives have enjoyed lavish lifestyles because of their husbands' criminality, and I imagine they could have been sued by the feds by the same logic that Picard is using. I guess there might have to be a bankruptcy involved, but maybe not. Prosecutors can be creative, after all.

Picard says Ruth lived a "life of splendor" on proceeds from the Shtunk's fraud, and you can't really argue with him. I wonder if he might be trying to play a bit to the crowds here, as Picard has been a subject of a great deal of unjustified criticism by victims, as Joe Nocera pointed out in a column a few weeks ago. This lawsuit may, or may not, get some of the critics off his back.

While I'd love to see Ruth reduced to the penury of her victims, I have doubts that Picard is going to have much luck collecting and whether the attendant legal fees will exceed any possible recovered sums.

But it's an interesting precedent. Might even serve as a deterrent. Only question is whether future bankruptcy trustees will have the moxie to engage in a similar spouse-suing strategy.

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Welcome to Ruth Madoff Rehabilitation Week

Bernie and Ruth taking a break between ripping off people/not know hubby was ripping off people

ABC News is reporting that the feds have given back Ruth Madoff's passport. This means, and it is a close question, that either the government is being more incompetent than usual or that Ruth Madoff is not going to be charged criminally for being the rather obvious accomplice to her hubby Bernie.

So this seems to be Ruth Madoff Rehabilitation Week. In its latest issue, New York magazine falls just a few inches short of taking her side, in an article with a title that asks the clueless question, "Why does Bernie's better half inspire such vitriol?" Because she's probably guilty, that's why.

The article goes on to quote Gloria Steinem unconvincingly trotting out the gender card:

Ruth’s problem seems to be a particularly female one. “It’s the gender politics of the culture,” says Gloria Steinem. “It’s easier to blame the person with less power.” And, she adds, why aren’t people blaming her sons? “They would be much more likely to be in cahoots, because they were in the same professional field. And the answer is, they’re men, that’s why.”

Why aren't people blaming her sons? Hello? In its current issue, Vanity Fair has an article by David Margolick describing just how much people are blaming her sons. I wouldn't have minded the Steinem quote so much if it weren't preceded by the ridiculous, approving topic sentence that Ruth's problem is a "particularly female one."

Not to worry. Looks like Ruth will be walking off with her $2.5 million, unprosecuted. One can only hope that the lawsuits snatch away from her that outrageous bonanza, and quickly. Then we can get another naively sympathetic article about "poor Ruth."

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.