Posted By:
Jeff LichtmanFirst off, who's being naive here? Do you actually think Doug Allen spoke to the News reporter at a time when Mastro wasn't being represented by counsel? Of course they were. They just made a careful determination to speak to the News in an effort to spin the story their way and protect their business. Surely some major Mastro bidders read this forum; so why on earth wouldn't Doug come on here and give his side? It's the same concept though more acute here as there are more bidders concentrated on this forum than in the readership of the NY Daily News.
Leon, as a criminal attorney, of course I don't believe that where there is smoke there is necessarily fire. But I'm also intelligent and experienced enough to know that in order for a fraud probe to start something more than some single nutjob providing info is often required.
David, it's clear to me from reading the article that the Ohio prosecutor is discussing the investigation in the present tense. How on earth you could read that to mean that the investigation is "old news" is beyond me - an investigation becomes "old news" only after the statute of limitations on it has run its course. As for your claim that it's "pretty basic" as to how Mastro got drawn into the investigation - the crook who stole Ohio funds had a Mastro private account - you're kidding, right? What does having a private account have to do with allegations of shill bidding against the auction house?
Frankly, if I were representing Mastro, I would have surely sought to spin the News article my way -- too much potential revenue to be lost. I wouldn't be concerned about making any incriminating statements to the press because I would have prepared my spokesperson a list of things he was permitted to say (and nothing else). I would have been present during the interview or else I would have emailed responses on behalf of any Mastro rep.