Vice President Joe Biden may also have some difficult questions to answer, according to John Hempton who blogs at Bronte Capital.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge says:

John Hempton, who writes the insightful blog Bronte Capital, has done some amazing dot connecting in what, if true, and not swept promptly under the carpet by the powers that be, could expose a hedge fund scandal that could rival the Madoff fiasco, for the simple reason that it implicates none other than Barack Obama’s right hand man: Joe Biden. The fund in question is Paradigm Capital, a fund of funds, that is controlled by Hunter and James Biden, the VP’s son and brother, respectively.

This is an intricate story. And it is my no means conclusive. But Hempton has done a lot of good snoop work – enough to receive threats from lawyers. (As a former investigative journalist, I know that this is almost always a sign that a sensitive nerve has been touched. Subjects under investigation may as well wave a red flag with the letters “G.U.I.L.T.Y” embossed on it.)

According to Durden, the possible implications for James and Hunter Biden are as follows:

They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which they allege misrepresented its returns and yet which they kept operational.

They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which houses an alleged fraud in its offices (Ponta Negra).

They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which employed a marketing organization (Onyx) which was associated with distributing alleged frauds (Ponta Negra and Stanford)

They were and remain controllers of a fund that claimed to have 28 staff many of whom are difficult to trace and where the revenue to fund those staff did not obviously exist. This suggests that either the staff were not paid, did not exist or (more sinisterly) they were paid by stealing from the small amount of funds under management. You could only steal the client money if the asset custody safeguards were not robust. There is an audit statement on the SEC files qualified as to the robustness of these protections – however there is no evidence that the lack of robustness was exploited.