Jun

29

"Unraveled" is a reprehensible showing of the last month of Dreier's house arrest before he was sentenced for 18 years for pleading guilty to a 750 million fraud. He built a firm of 200 lawyers up in 6 years with him as the only equity holder. One of his major clients was Solow whose balance sheet he captured and used to sell debt to unsuspecting hedge funds. At the end with the funds he borrowed from demanding repayment, he took 40 million from an escrow account, and then went to Canada where he impersonated a member of the lender's firm to try to show that the firm truly was borrowing the money. 

The movie was supposed to build up sympathy for Dreier. He did it according to him because he was angry with Solow for not caring about him, and he just wanted to be big. He will be unable to see his dog again. He had no friends. He was going through a nasty divorce. And he is sad because he won't be able to see his two kids except in jail for 15 years. We are supposed to feel sympathy for him because when he was in Dubai, he still had 100 million in the bank account and could have stayed there with no extradition treaty, and similarly he could have stayed in Canada had he not been jailed there when they caught on. Left out was the incredible harm he inflicted on the 28 hedge funds he stole from, the cascading problems that a loss of 750 million causes to all those that lost. Yes, hedge funds have investors and they are hurt when they lose money.

In addition to being victimized by Stockholm Syndrome, the director should be censored for being conned by Dreier himself. Dreier got him to pay 50,000 for his house expenses for a month. And carefully staged every interview to make himself look like a sympathetic personage. On the contrary, I've never heard a thief come up with such weak and feeble explanations for his wrongdoing. He had a 15 million yacht, and 3 homes, and gave lavishly to charities he says to maintain his image and get funds. But the money he dissipated had to have much benefit to him.

I disputed that a fraud of this magnitude could be implemented by one person alone but the director answered that the prosecutors didn't feel it worthwhile to prosecute any of the others that might or should have known. One is amazed that the accounting firms of the hedge funds involved or his own fund would not have somehow uncovered the fraud as they usually audit all items on a funds balance sheet. The family supposedly didn't receive any benefits from the fraud, but the power, perks, and spillovers of having your dad or son be able to dissipate that much money would be enormous.

In addition to being victimized by Stockholm Syndrome, the director should be chastised for not showing one iota of the damage that the victims of the crime suffered. Everything in the movie was shown from the standpoint of sympathy for the perp– he will never see his dog again, he will have to say goodbye to his son, who seemed oblivious to the crime, he will not be able to watch the Mets games unless he goes to a minimum security prison, and he may have to sleep in a bunk bed with snoring.

The director seems to have no idea that the punishment is 1000 times less than the crime. There is also no compunction from the director for any money that the attorneys at the firm may have received from money that may have been stolen from the funds that he stole from.

To book, it seems that the director was conned into paying 50,000 for a month of expenses to pay for his house arrest. Somehow he had enough money to pay his very estimable attorneys, but did not have enough money to pay for 1 month more of house arrest. A total reprehensible movie about a reprehensible crook.

p.s. This is merely a review, and I have not checked all my facts nor am I familiar with the full extent of who knew or should have known, or who was or was not involved and who did or did not benefit. 

Documentary maker Marc Simon replies:

As I attempted to convey last night [after the showing], I am not in disagreement with your view of Dreier and I am not seeking to convince the audience that he is deserving of empathy (nor am I drinking the Dreier kool-aid –thus the Stockholm reference). I am trying to present an unreliable narrator, in a setting that we almost never see in a documentary, and give the audience an intelligent, complicated and manipulative man to wrestle with and judge for itself — I feel that the film did strike a chord with you and that's my hope as a filmmaker.

For more insight on my views see my director's statement [1 page pdf].


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search