HOUSTON, (Reuters) – Allen Stanford says he is  innocent and intends to fight any fraud charges against him. So  a court decision on whether he can tap his vast wealth for his  legal defense will be pivotal as his case moves forward.
The billionaire’s court battle over the release of $10  million to pay legal fees will be a tough one, with the outcome  likely hinging on any criminal evidence the government may have  against the Texas financier, who faces only civil charges now,  lawyers said.

Stanford, two aides and three of his companies are accused  by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of a Ponzi  scheme involving high-yield certificates of deposit issued by  Stanford International Bank in Antigua.

Stanford, whose assets were frozen on Feb. 17 by a  court-appointed attorney, said his bank accounts, luxury homes  and credit cards have been seized and he has no money to pay  his growing legal defence team.

Defense attorneys have questioned the fairness of asset  freezes in high-profile white-collar cases. Some say a freeze  gives the government too much power, putting pressure on  clients to plead guilty instead of defending themselves in a  costly court battle.

The executive does not face criminal charges but has said  he expects to be arrested and indicted soon. And in a filing  with the federal court in Dallas on Sunday, his lawyers said  the case and the grand jury’s criminal investigation are  proceeding at a “blistering pace.”

In a criminal matter, he would have the right to an  attorney — but not the right to hire the high-powered,  high-dollar team he would likely need.

Stanford has asked U.S. District Judge David Godbey for   release of the funds and a hearing on the matter. His attorneys  also said he is also seeking defence costs from insurance  policies.

The judge has not yet ruled on the request and the  government has not yet said whether it opposes the motion.
“The question is going to be what kind of evidence they  have on Stanford himself, personally linking him to the  wrongdoing,” said Mark Srere, vice chairman of the government  enforcement and corporate compliance committee at DRI, an  advocacy group for defence lawyers. “Who ultimately has shown  more rights to the money?”

Should criminal charges be filed, “it will be particularly  difficult for Mr. Stanford and the other defendants to argue  that they had access to untainted funds,” said Ross Albert, a  former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney and now  partner at Morris, Manning & Martin LLP in Atlanta.