[ by Melanie Gretchen ] Allen Stamford, who ran a 20-year $7 billion Ponzi scheme, may currently be indigent, and he may be looney from a couple of prison beatings, but that didn't stop U.S. attorneys from asking the court to order Mr. Stanford from forfeiting $5.9 billion, in addition to a prison sentence and other sanctions. Prosecutors derived that figure from the books of Stanford International Bank Ltd, which lists having had $7.2 billion of CD account balances in February, inclusive of some $1.3bn in fictitious interest. U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson admitted in a court filing that, while $5.9 billion is clearly a massive amount, it's not at all excessive, considering Stanford's involvement.  If anything, Mr. Magison asserted, he was being rather "conservative."  He added that it would prove difficult to arrive at a higher amount given the duration of Stanford's fraud and the incomplete condition of the banks records. The prosecutors issued the demand 2 days before Stanford's sentencing hearing;  he was convicted by a Houston jury of running a$7bn Ponzi scheme.  The government demand requires court approval, based on the sum total of money investors lost on CD's issued by his Antigua-based bank.  The bank was put into receivership in February 2009. Stanford: Billionaire-Turned-Convict. Defense lawyer Ali Fazel opposed the forfeiture motion.  Although his client at one point had been considered a billionaire,  he was declared indigent in 2010 and convicted on 3/16/12 by a federal jury on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges related to his alleged two-decade scam, centered on the sale of bogus CDs. Upon his conviction, the government referred to Stanford as a "ruthless predator" and "among the greediest, most selfish, and utterly remorseless criminals."  They further recommended that he serve a 230-year prison term, the most recommended under federal law.   Federal Judge Hittner will make a decision on the term of any prison sentence, as well as on any forfeiture order. The case: U.S. v. Stanford, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 09-cr-00342. For further details, go to [Reuters, 6/12/12].