8/3/2019 Rawl Letter

1/1

January 16, 2012

ViewpointsC/O Houston Chronicleviewpoints@chron.com

Re: 2 brokers say SEC let them down, January 6, 2012, section D, page 1

I am very proud of my role in helping shut down Stanford Financial Group. My partnerand I made tremendous personal and professional sacrifices to expose the corruption at Stanfordand protect innocent investors. I was therefore saddened to see the published response from the

Stanford receiver's counsel, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts. His comments reveal his ignorance of

basic facts in our case and are symbolic of what I consider a failed receivership. I "earned" agrand total of $25,665 selling Stanford International Bank CDs over the 2 years prior to myresignation from Stanford Group Company in December 2007 (after expending substantial effort

to address numerous red flags.) Mr. Sadler's firm has billed the Stanford estate nearly 1,000

times this amount!

The estimated Stanford losses have been reported to be over $7 billion. As of September30, 2011, the receiver has "collected" $217 million and spent $118 million in the process. Mr.Sadler has reported that most of Stanford's assets have already been liquidated, so there isn't

much more that can be expected to be collected. More than $70 million of the receiver's expenses

have been "professional fees. Another $16 million in fees have been accrued, but held back bythe judge. Not one penny has been returned to investors during the nearly three-year receivership,

so it appears the only "receiving" being done is by the receiver and his hired professionals.

Regarding Mr. Sadlers quote that I still have that money -- what makes my situation sovastly different from the other 300+ former Stanford advisors and management (including many

who have not been sued) is the fact that I risked my career to make the government aware of thepossible fraud at Stanford. I spent my savings fighting Stanford and helping the government shutdown the corrupt enterprise, while Stanford Group spent millions fighting my partner and me and

trying to run us out of business. Has the receiver sued the law firm that fought us and attempted

to discredit us? No! This law firm still has the money! I contend that would have been a smarter

expenditure of the estates resources, but the reality is that the receiver has not pursued many ofthe responsible parties with deep pockets!

Most of the Stanford Group advisors and management who went down with the shipknew the firm was corrupt and/or in trouble, yet many of them are better off than us today. In all

regards, we have paid a dear price for blowing the proverbial whistle on Stanford. The

consequential message to America is that going along with fraud pays, and doing the right thingcould very well cost you everything. Mr. Sadler's comments aside, all of my work at Stanford

was ethical, above board and in my clients best interest. It was that commitment to integrity andhonesty that led me to leave Stanford and go to the authorities.

Sincerely yours,

Charlie Rawl