Morgan Stanley avoids scam but pays widow: Senior investor protection needed

Imagine losing a huge chunk of your savings. It happened to a 75-year-old widow in Florida. She got conned out of almost $2. 1 million last summer.

The twist? Her investment firm, Morgan Stanley, has been ordered to pay her $843,000.

How Did This Happen?

A group of scammers got really creative. They pretended to be tech support, bank employees, even government workers. They told Marjorie Kessler, the widow, that her identity was stolen. They said her assets would be frozen. Can you imagine the fear?

They tricked her into taking out big withdrawals. Then, they made her turn the money into cash, gold bars, and cryptocurrency.

Morgan Stanley’s Side of the Story

Morgan Stanley says Kessler is “incredibly sharp. ” They claim she’s managed her own money for 20 years. The firm says she lied, telling her advisor she was buying two condos. One for herself, one for her divorced daughter.

In a statement, Morgan Stanley said they “sympathize” with Kessler. But, they say the fraud “did not occur at Morgan Stanley. ”

They argue they shouldn’t be responsible because Kessler misled her advisor. And, she sent the money to a bank account in her name. It’s complicated.

“Red Flags” Ignored?

Kessler’s lawyer, Lloyd Schwed, sees it differently. He says Morgan Stanley “ignored multiple red flags. ” He thinks they should have caught on.

Schwed argues it’s unbelievable that a 75-year-old would suddenly need over $2 million in eight days to buy two homes. He’s thankful the arbitrators understood how vulnerable senior investors are to scams.

The Outcome

Kessler asked for $1,744,470. She got less than half. Still, it’s something. What about the scammers? We don’t know what happened to them. Sadly, that’s often the case.

What’s the Takeaway?

This story is a reminder that anyone can be a victim of fraud. Especially seniors. More senior investor protection is needed. Here’s why:

• Scammers are getting smarter.
• It’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s not.
• We need better safeguards to protect vulnerable people.

This case highlights the need for vigilance. And, for financial firms to take extra care with older clients. It’s a sad situation. But, hopefully, it will lead to change.