RecordLens
Menu

Claim review. Fraud

Supported

The cited record supports the material proposition.

The SEC said on 17 February 2009 that Stanford International Bank ran a multi-billion dollar fraud, selling about $8 billion in certificates of deposit on false promises and fabricated return data.

a massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data
About
Stanford International Bank Ltd
Claim made by
US Securities and Exchange Commission, regulator statement
Published
17 February 2009
Original
SEC Charges R. Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank for Multi-Billion Dollar Investment Scheme
Evidence score
94 How it was scored
Last reviewed
25 October 2026

Why this label

The SEC release states the bank marketed an $8 billion CD program promising improbable and unsubstantiated high interest ratesS1. The 2009 charge was an allegation. The civil case then ran to final judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment against Stanford on 1 April 2026 and found no reversible errorS4. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on 5 October 2026S5. The criminal conviction for the same conduct is finalS2S3. The record now supports the core proposition of a large CD fraud. The exact loss figure is stated differently across records, so the dollar amount rests on the SEC framing.

Current procedural position

SEC civil complaint filed in Dallas on 17 February 2009S1. Final judgment entered 29 January 2025S9, affirmed by the Fifth Circuit on 1 April 2026S4, certiorari denied 5 October 2026S5.

Record supporting the assessment

a massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data
S1 Tier A US Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Charges R. Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank for Multi-Billion Dollar Investment Scheme, 17 February 2009
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
S4 Tier A US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Allen Stanford, No. 25-10387 (per curiam), 1 April 2026

Conflicting or limiting record

No record located that conflicts with this assessment.

Evidence score: 94 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Stanford International Bank Ltd. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

ComponentPointsMaxReason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?2930SEC and a federal appeals court are competent to establish the point.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?1820The release states the fraud and the CD program directly.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?1415The criminal conviction and the civil judgment point the same way.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?1415Civil judgment final after affirmance and denial of certiorari.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?1010Checked against the Supreme Court denial dated 5 October 2026.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?910The SEC release and the Fifth Circuit opinion are public.
Total94100

Timeline

  1. SEC files civil fraud action in DallasS1
  2. District court enters final judgmentS9
  3. Fifth Circuit affirms the civil judgmentS4
  4. Supreme Court denies certiorariS5

Related cases

Revision history

  • Assessment first published with label Supported.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

  1. S1Tier A SEC Charges R. Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank for Multi-Billion Dollar Investment SchemeUS Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulator press release. 17 February 2009.Supports the SEC allegation of an $8 billion CD fraud and the Dallas filing. The 2009 charge was an allegation, not a finding.
  2. S4Tier A Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Allen Stanford, No. 25-10387 (per curiam)US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Court judgment. 1 April 2026.Supports the affirmance of the civil judgment against Stanford and the use of collateral estoppel from the criminal case. Unpublished.
  3. S9Tier A SEC v. Robert Allen Stanford, et al., Litigation Release No. 26255US Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulator press release. 24 February 2025.Supports the final judgment entered against Stanford on 29 January 2025 in No. 3:09-cv-298-N and the disgorgement and penalty amounts. It does not cover the appeal.
  4. S5Tier A Docket for 25-7624, Stanford v. Securities and Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States. Court filing. 5 October 2026.Supports the denial of certiorari in the civil case on 5 October 2026 and the chain of appeal dates. It does not state the question presented.
  5. S2Tier A Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison for Orchestrating $7 Billion Investment Fraud SchemeUS Department of Justice. Government press release. 14 June 2012.Supports the jury conviction on 13 of 14 counts, the 110 year sentence and the $7 billion misappropriation. It does not cover the appeal.
  6. S3Tier C Supreme Court declines to review Stanford's Ponzi scheme convictionJURIST. Press report. November 2016.Supports the denial of certiorari and the Fifth Circuit affirmance of the criminal conviction. It gives no exact ruling dates.

Other claims about Stanford International Bank Ltd