Even with the ringleader in jail, the pursuit of Bernie Madoff doesn't seem to be finished. Sunday night, the trustee who's winding down the Madoff company said on 60 Minutes that Madoff's two sons (Mark and Andrew), brother (Peter) and niece (Shana) will be slapped with a $198 million suit. They are alleged to have known about the Ponzi scheme, according to the trustee, Irving Picard and his chief counsel, David Sheehan.

Sheehan and Picard are also working under the assumption that there is still some money hidden, quite a lot of it, in fact. Picard told the show, "We'd assume it's millions and millions of dollars." Yet, this probably wouldn't help with the task in front of them.

David Friehling is only the second person to face criminal charges in the Bernard Madoff debacle. He served as Madoff's auditor from 1991 to 2008, though it's hard to say if they'll resume their relationship as cellies. For now, Friehling has only been charged (innocent until proven guilty, and such) with securities fraud, abetting investment adviser fraud and filing false reports with the SEC. On five of the six charges filed, he faces a 20-year maximum.

It's alleged that Friehling didn't conduct "meaningful" audits while in Madoff's employ, despite issuing reports saying that he'd done his job -- which paid close to $15,000 a month (no work for big pay . . . where do I sign up?). In particular, he's said to have not bothered to verify Madoff's business assets, revenue sources or bank accounts. This is no-brainer stuff for an auditor.

Money manager Bernard Madoff had a trading strategy that was so awesomely complex that no one understood it. Well, it turns out that was a lie too.

Media reports say that the alleged mastermind of a $50 billion Ponzii scheme may have never traded any securities at all. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has no evidence of Madoff's investment fund executing trades through his brokerage operation, the Associated Press said. Fidelity Investments, listed among many trades included in statements sent to customers, says Madoff is not a client, the AP said.

There are many lessons to be learned from the Madoff scandal.

First, don't invest in something you do not understand.

Many Madoff customers were either afraid or unwilling to ask what was going on with their accounts. The Boston Globe, which broke this story, said the firm's "statements were often so complicated that investors had to call representatives of the firm for explanations."

People can understand if a money manager loses money by making some bad bets on the market. They may not like it much but they know that investments will lose their value. But Madoff never even tried to make money for his clients. He was only interested in lining his own pockets.

How Madoff could sleep nights knowing that he had swindled everyone from billionaires to charities to small union pension funds is beyond me.

Dr. Stephen Greenspan is an expert on why people behave foolishly. That what makes his role as a victim of the Madoff Ponzi scheme so informative and ironic.

In a lengthy op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut, Greenspan argues that even highly educated people can become victims of a Ponzi scheme. The architects of these frauds tend to be personable people adept on playing on the insecurities of their clients.

Greenspan did not invest with Madoff directly. Like many victims, he gave money to one of the so-called "feeder funds" after listening to a pitch from an acquaintance of his sister and brother-in-law. He argues that Madoff's lies were not obvious or easy to recognize. Heck, the SEC couldn't figure out what Madoff was up to even though it was given a pretty clear road map. Let's hope Congress can get to the bottom of this in hearings later today.

It looks like America has shut down until 2009. And that's probably a good idea because there were so many bad ones in 2008. Bad ideas are like vampires. They charm their way into the good graces of a host society and then they suck the blood right out of them.

Although they all didn't just pop into our lives in 2008, these eight ideas reached a peak of awfulness in 2008:

• Deregulation is good. The wave of deregulation that started in the early 1980s has created enormous problems for society. Sure there were some bad regulations on the books, but just one deregulated industry -- the $62 trillion credit default swaps (CDS) market -- has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in the bailout of American International Group (NYSE: AIG).
• If you can lend against it, securitize it. Securitization -- the practice of buying, credit-rating, and bundling loans backed by assets like mortgages, credit card receivables, and leveraged buyout loans -- created the illusion that you could mix risky loans in with safer ones and you could earn above-average returns with no risk. Bad call -- securitization has spread toxic waste around the world from Iceland to Whitefish Bay, Wis.
• Home-ownership is good for everyone. The hungry maw of securitization created enormous demand for new mortgages. And that led mortgage originators to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay back the loans. The $1.3 trillion subprime mortgage market was born and it grew so big that its collapse refused to remain contained. In 2004 Bush bragged about home ownership reaching 69.2% -- three million foreclosures later it seems we should be careful what we wish for.
• Leverage up your balance sheet 30:1 or more. In 2004, the SEC gave financial institutions (FIs) discretion to borrow more money than they had ever borrowed before. Most banks and hedge funds borrowed as much as $35 for every $1 of equity. If they had used their $340 billion in equity to buy the $13 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), a 3% decline in the MBSs and CDOs value would have wiped out the FI's capital.

As the story unfolds, winning investors find that even though they took their funds out, they may have to repay some of their gains. That's because of something called "clawbacks." A court could rule that anyone who gained money from Madoff's Ponzi scheme must repay some of the gains even if the person had no idea the gains were fraudulent.

When it comes to a Ponzi scheme, unknowing early investors make their profits because the money from later investors is used to pay those profits. In the New York Times story this morning, the Times reviews the records of one investor who made millions with Madoff, even though he still had several million dollars in his account when the fund collapsed last week. The Times did not reveal his name because he is afraid he could be sought out to repay some of his gains.

Based on previous court rulings involving other frauds, winners have reason to worry. In past scandals they have had to give up some of their gains to even up the losses. Losers are likely to receive just 20 to 40 percent of their original investment. Clawbacks will help in an attempt to repay some of the losses.

Clawbacks could impact investors who received gains over the last six years, but how far back the courts will decide to go will be determined in the future when all the facts are known. Some believe investors could also sue other investors who drew them into this fraud. Whatever happens Madoff-related lawsuits will probably fill the courts for years.

Right now the Times reports only $20 billion of the possible $50 billion in losses have been identified, but more losers are expected to come forward. The $50 billion estimate is the number suggested by Madoff when he confessed to the fraud.

Lita Epstein has written more than 25 books including "Reading Financial Reports for Dummies."