エピソード

  • The cable that called him "godfather" contradicted every charge

    The cable that called him "godfather" contradicted every charge
    2026/09/03
    A classified U.S. cable called him "godfather" while the same man watched his factories burn and funded the defenders inside Azovstal-so what really happened?

    The cable that called him "godfather" contradicted every charge

    In this episode, we trace a single contradiction running from a leaked diplomatic cable to a forged government report and a steelworks under siege. We outline who Rinat Akhmetov was, the documents that shaped his public image, and the unanswered questions they leave about power in Donetsk. What does the gap between allegation and evidence tell us?

    Person: Rinat Akhmetov
    Location: Azovstal steel works, Donetsk
    Date: February 3, 2006 (U.S. cable); 1999 (Ministry of Internal Affairs report); November 2011 (committee finding)
    Event: Classified U.S. diplomatic cable calling Akhmetov "the godfather of the Donetsk Clan"
    Status: 2011 parliamentary committee and Ministry of Interior found the 1999 report was a forgery

    - Fifteen minutes before the last defenders left Azovstal, Akhmetov received a phone call from its commander, Denys Prokopenko.
    - Akhmetov built Azovstal into one of Europe’s largest steel complexes and by 2022 was a major private wartime donor as his factories burned.
    - A 1999 Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs report named Akhmetov as a leader of organized crime and circulated widely.
    - In 2011 a Ukrainian parliamentary committee and the Ministry of Interior concluded that the 1999 report was a fabricated document.
    - On February 3, 2006, U.S. Ambassador John Herbst wrote a classified cable labeling Akhmetov "the godfather of the Donetsk Clan," a phrase that later leaked and shaped his shadow biography.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • The 18.5-Minute Erase: Nixon's Secret Secretary

    The 18.5-Minute Erase: Nixon's Secret Secretary
    2026/09/03
    A security guard finds tape on a stairwell latch at the Watergate. Who covered it up?

    The 18.5-Minute Erase: Nixon's Secret Secretary

    In this episode, we lay out the scene around the June 17, 1972, arrests and the building they took place in. We trace how the Watergate's design, ownership, and residents set the stage for a political scandal and ask how a single complex became central to what happened next.

    Date: June 17, 1972
    Location: Watergate Office Building, sixth floor
    Person: Frank Wills (security guard)
    Event: Second break-in to repair previously planted bugs
    Person: Rose Mary Woods (resident, Nixon's secretary)

    - A security guard noticed tape on a stairwell latch, removed it, and found it replaced twenty minutes later.
    - Five men were arrested on the sixth floor carrying surveillance gear, cameras, cash, and wearing surgical gloves.
    - The DNC had leased the entire sixth floor since April 1967; the first break-in occurred on May 28, 1972.
    - The Watergate complex was developed by SGI, backed initially by the Vatican, and designed by Luigi Moretti with terraces and waterfalls.
    - Residents included high-ranking officials and figures like Rose Mary Woods, making the building a concentrated center of political power.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • The prospectus that counted reserve transfers as "earnings" exposed the lie

    The prospectus that counted reserve transfers as "earnings" exposed the lie
    2026/09/03
    A 1928 London prospectus promised huge earnings while hiding secret withdrawals-what did investors actually buy?

    The prospectus that counted reserve transfers as "earnings" exposed the lie

    In this episode, we present a close look at the document, the figures it used, and the corporate practices that let a hulking shipping empire dress losses as profits. How did transfers from a hidden reserve become the basis for public investment, and what questions did that raise about truthful accounting?

    Company: Royal Mail Steam Packet Company
    Person: Lord Kylsant
    Date: 1928 prospectus; trading losses since 1925; 1931 Court of Appeal verdict referenced
    Event: 1928 debenture prospectus claiming average annual earnings of £500,000 based on prior decade figures
    Location: United Kingdom

    - The prospectus asserted the company had averaged £500,000 per year over the previous ten years, printed and signed by respected men.
    - The company had a hidden reserve-about £1 million remaining after wartime government payments and tax provisions-kept off public accounts.
    - From 1926 onward, reported profits relied on transfers from that secret reserve rather than genuine trading profits.
    - 1926 accounts showed a reported profit of £439,000 that included a £750,000 withdrawal from the reserve; without it the year was a loss.
    - The 1928 debenture prospectus used the ten-year earnings claim to raise money from the public, setting up a legal challenge about whether all-true statements can nevertheless constitute a lie.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    20 分
  • The Memo That Shielded a Bank and Exposed a System

    The Memo That Shielded a Bank and Exposed a System
    2026/09/03
    A former private banker, fresh out of prison, receives a $104 million check from the IRS for exposing the very crime he committed. This is the story of Swiss bank secrecy.

    The Memo That Shielded a Bank and Exposed a System

    This episode explores the paradox of a man who pleaded guilty to a crime and was then paid to expose it. It delves into the inner workings of offshore tax evasion and the system that allowed it to flourish.

    Person: Bradley Birkenfeld
    Date: September 11, 2012
    Location: Geneva, Switzerland
    Topic: Swiss bank secrecy
    Organization: UBS

    - Bradley Birkenfeld spent years moving money for wealthy clients within a secretive financial institution.
    - In October 2005, Birkenfeld resigned from UBS, carrying knowledge of the bank's operations.
    - The Swiss Banking Act of 1934 made disclosing client information to foreign governments a criminal offense.
    - UBS bankers traveled to the United States to cultivate American clients and offer invisible accounts.
    - An internal UBS memo described prohibited cross-border banking activities, which Birkenfeld interpreted as a "paper shield."

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    15 分
  • The Harvard Lawyer Who Stole A Billion Dollars

    The Harvard Lawyer Who Stole A Billion Dollars
    2026/09/03
    A Harvard-trained attorney sells fictitious debt instruments to hedge funds. How did he almost pull it off?

    The Harvard Lawyer Who Stole A Billion Dollars

    This episode explores the story of Marc Dreier, a Yale and Harvard-trained attorney who built a sophisticated scheme selling fictitious debt instruments. It delves into the details of how he operated and the unanswered questions surrounding his actions.

    Person: Marc Stuart Dreier
    Education: Yale, Harvard Law School
    Location: 499 Park Avenue, New York
    Amount: $950 million (fictitious notes)
    Period: 2004-2008

    - Marc Dreier, born in 1950, came from a family where ambition was a business model.
    - He earned degrees from Yale in 1972 and Harvard Law in 1975, becoming a partner at respectable law firms.
    - In 1996, Dreier formed his own firm, eventually launching Dreier LLP in 2006 with offices in five cities.
    - As the sole equity partner, Dreier controlled all financial decisions, despite the firm having a net operating loss of approximately one million dollars monthly.
    - Dreier began issuing fictitious promissory notes around 2004, purporting to be from real companies like Solow Realty, complete with fabricated financial statements and forged audit letters.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
  • The ledger that never issued a share burst the South Sea bubble

    The ledger that never issued a share burst the South Sea bubble
    2026/09/03
    A clerk records millions in phantom stock transactions for a company built on a non-existent trade route, fueling the largest financial fraud in British history.

    The ledger that never issued a share burst the South Sea bubble

    This episode delves into the origins of the South Sea Company, revealing how a scheme built on a war debt and a fictional trade route managed to operate for nearly a decade. It explores the deliberate engineering of a financial bubble and the efforts to conceal its true nature.

    Period: 1711-1720
    Event: South Sea Bubble
    Key Person: Robert Knight
    Financial Instrument: Phantom stock
    National Debt: Nine million pounds

    - The story begins with Robert Knight, a clerk, recording millions of pounds in stock transactions for shares that did not exist.
    - Britain faced a nine-million-pound national debt in 1711, with no allocated income to service it.
    - Robert Knight, Chancellor of the Exchequer, sought a solution to the debt problem and found John Blunt, who ran the Hollow Sword Blade Company.
    - The South Sea Company was chartered in 1711, promising to take on government debt in exchange for an annuity and exclusive trading rights with Spanish South America.
    - The trading rights with Spain, which formed the basis of the company's value, were theoretical and not agreed upon by Spain.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    19 分
  • The statements that showed millions hid a total of $15,214.92

    The statements that showed millions hid a total of $15,214.92
    2026/09/03
    A Sarasota hedge-fund manager's accounts showed $15,214.92 one Jan morning-after raising millions; how did the statements hide that gap?

    The statements that showed millions hid a total of $15,214.92

    In this episode, we lay out the timeline and players behind the funds whose statements kept reporting healthy balances while actual cash evaporated. What choices, relationships, and documents let millions disappear into a $15,214.92 reality?

    Person: Arthur Geoffrey Nadel
    Event: Accounts held $15,214.92 total on January 14, 2009
    Amount Raised: $397,000,000
    Investors: more than 371
    Date: January 14, 2009

    - Nadel ran trading through Scoop Management while partners Neil and Chris Moody acted as general partners for Viking, Valhalla, and Victor.
    - Public statements showed strong returns (e.g., +21.6% in 2002) even as underlying assets declined.
    - Michael Zucker, handling Nadel’s books, lacked a valid Florida CPA license since 1990.
    - Donald Rowe published praise in The Wall Street Digest while Carnegie Asset Management received referral payments from Nadel’s funds.
    - Dennis Raefield’s June 2008 redemption request for $3.2M was met with only $1M, a shortfall that triggered scrutiny.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
  • They named it for Ponzi - a Dickens scene had already laid the plan

    They named it for Ponzi - a Dickens scene had already laid the plan
    2026/09/03
    A single international reply coupon in a Boston office exposed a paper scheme - how did Dickens' structure become Ponzi's legacy?

    They named it for Ponzi - a Dickens scene had already laid the plan

    In this episode, we trace the origins and mechanics of a paper-based investment fraud that predated Charles Ponzi and persisted across continents and centuries. The episode follows the chain of operators, literary descriptions, and structural features that made the scheme repeatable - and asks why one name stuck to it.

    Person: Charles Ponzi
    Person: Adele Spitzeder
    Person: Sarah Howe
    Date: 1844
    Event: discovery of an international reply coupon in a Boston office

    - Postal inspectors in Boston found an international reply coupon used as the stated foundation of a multimillion-dollar operation.
    - Charles Dickens described the same payout-from-new-funds structure in Martin Chuzzlewit and Little Dorrit in 1844.
    - Adele Spitzeder ran a private banking house in Bavaria before 1871 that paid early depositors with new deposits and was later prosecuted.
    - Sarah Howe operated the Ladies' Deposit in the 1880s, offering 8% monthly interest to women and collapsing when new money slowed.
    - The scheme’s mechanics: opaque promised returns, payments to early investors drawn from new investors, paper statements sustaining the illusion, collapse when inflows stopped.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    19 分