What sentence, if any, for Allen Stanford, the little Madoff?

There hasn't been a trial date set. I think this will not settle for close to a year

I see bayoubear has clarified the question somewhat but that it remains flagged for review. youbet, I flagged this question, in part because I believe it is potentially defamatory and/or prejudicial to Sir Allen. Under the relevant legal system, defendents are considered innocent until proven guilty. Except in cases like Madoff (who made a guilty plea), markets on sentences for unconvicted defendants should not be permitted in the interests of justice - not to mention the interests of Hubdub.

The trial is expected at the beginning of August.
---
Justice has nothing to do with predicting the statistics of the talk of the town.
Sir Allen ???? Stanford is a big time idiot !

I see there are 21 charges (with a maximum sentence of 375 years in all), to which the man in orange (how prejudicial is that!) has pled not guilty. The question has been considerably cleaned up to be less prejudicial, but I still suggest that an outcome of 0-25 years - were this to be the case - doesn't sound much like an acquittal, and could still be defamatory if that were to occur. (Go on, pretend to be a texan cricket loving billionaire for a moment - how would you feel?) [OK, if press reports that his CFO has reached a plea agreement are true, he won't be likely to be returning to Lords or Antigua any time soon...]

In any case, it is possible that - were guilt found on multiple charges - the outcome could well depend on whether the sentences run consecutively or concurrrently, were suspended in part or whole, and the effect of time served. (Presumably appeals and parole and such might well also lead to a reduced sentence but wouldn't count.) This could make it difficult to determine the 'correct' outcome - and in any case 25 years (or is that between 25 and 26?) seems a relatively unlikely figure compared to the other outcomes with ranges stated (tho by no means impossible). (Also, 0 to 25 seems to me to include 25...)

As to the substance: The Madoff sentencing scale runs at about .36 of a second per dollar burned (on the low estimate of $13 billion; much lower on the $50-65 billion high estimates); the amount in this case seems to be around $7 billion. Sir Allen is considerably younger than Bernie, so if found guilty and sentenced accordingly, he might well end up serving a lot more time. Foreign rather than US investors are alleged to be the victims for the lion's share (other way round for Bernie), and of course while Madoff was entitled to consideration for pleading guilty, many felt that he did so to protect family members. Some associates of Mr. Stanford are also expected to be on trial, so (in a sense) pleading not guilty should not really penalise him, as - if any crimes were committed - responsibility may be shared or lie less heavily on Sir Allen with respect to particular charges.

Texas is known for relatively harsh sentences (tho I have some recollection that this is much less true for 'white collar' crime), but while I haven't yet found this in the press reports, I suspect his trial is to be in Federal rather State Court. Given everything, I think what this really boils down to is whether (assuming guilt is proved) the crimes are considered as a whole - in which case the sentences may well run 'concurrently', and I doubt the longest part would exceed 25 years - or as a set of separate crimes (either all 21 charges, or as a set of say 3/4 'related' crimes each with a bunch of charges) in which case a total sentence of over 50 years could well be plausible. Another factor could well be the length of time the whole 'scheme' had been run (if it is one); Bernie kept his up for ages and ages in financial market terms, while Sir Allen appears to be on trial as purely a 21st century criminal...

...however, the main point I am trying to make is that the 'headline' sentence (if any) may say one thing and mean another, forcing the category editor to effectively decide the outcome...

...so any way, sorry, youbet, I respect the purpose of the q. but still feel this one needs substantial further revision or voided.

Question has been reopened as the trial is moving along quite slowly (no surprise there) and Sanford has been admitted to the hospital with heart problems (who knew he had one)....new date is mid-September or so, and we'll revisit the issue if necessary...

Trial still hasn't begun, so we've reopened this question again and set the new suspension date for mid-to-late November...here's a recent newslink and excerpt:

Bloomberg News Wednesday, September 16, 2009

R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier accused of running a $7 billion investor fraud, will be represented by the federal public defender's office in his criminal case because he has no money to hire an attorney.
Stanford's previous attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has estimated it will cost more than $20 million and take a year to prepare for a trial that could last six months.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503431.html