Ruth Madoff, shown here with the Upper East Side apartment that she shared with notorious Ponzi... 
(ABC Photo/AP Photo)
More Photos
A court-appointed trustee says Ruth Madoff received over $44 million dollars from various Madoff-related companies over the past six years to which she was not entitled and used primarily to "enrich herself."
"For decades, Mrs. Madoff lived a life of splendor" on payouts from her husband's investment securities firm and, subsequently, his investors-turned-victims, according to a new filing by court appointed attorney Irving H. Picard, who is tasked with liquidating Madoff's assets to compensate his victims.
"While Madoff's crimes have left many investors impoverished and some charities decimated, Mrs. Madoff remains a person of substantial means" wrote Picard, describing Mrs Madoff's conduct as "willful, wanton and malicious."
While her husband received a 150-year sentence for fraud, Ruth Madoff has not been charged with any crimes and, under a deal with federal authorities last month, Ruth received a payout of $2.5 million and had her passport returned.
The $44.8 million she is being sued for is comprised of funds that Picard says Ruth received, directly or indirectly, for the six years before the firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), filed bankruptcy in December. The six year period is what is legally allowed under federal bankruptcy law.
During this time, Picard said, Ruth "received tens of millions of dollars from BLMIS for which BLMIS received no corresponding benefit or value and to which Mrs. Madoff had no good faith basis to believe she was entitled."
Picard says these payments were both given directly to her - for example, millions of dollars "to pay for a yacht for her personal enjoyment" and for "personal expenses to Mrs. Madoff's American Express card" - and in indirect payments to entities she owned or invested in. Madoff's fraudulent Ponzi scheme, Picard said, "massively enriched Mrs. Madoff."
Ruth's attorney, Peter Chavkin, in statement called the complaint "particularly perplexing" and "totally unjustified," saying it is "wrong as a matter of law and fairness."
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.
