When the party is raging and the celebration is in full swing, it's easy to get caught up and enjoy the ride. But after every good celebration comes the cleanup. We now know that we're in a period of epic cleanup, and with every new Ponzi scheme and investment fraud to emerge, we learn of those who will bear the brunt of the famine that follows the feast.

In the Madoff scheme, it was the prominent investors who were most affected: well-heeled New Yorkers and Palm Beach retirees, charitable organizations, and the members of the so-called "feeder funds.” Art Nadel’s investment scam left the artsy little community of Sarasota as its biggest loser.

In the case of Robert Allen Stanford, those who are likely to be most hurt by the alleged fraud are much more difficult to categorize. They span continents, countries and cultures. Investors in the United States, Europe, South and Central America and the Caribbean were all attracted to the high-yield, low-risk certificates of deposit that Stanford International Bank offered.

Because of the investments' touted safety, the CDs were particularly appealing to the risk-averse investors who needed a guaranteed investment promising a quick, solid return. Those investors tended to be older, nearing retirement and middle-income.

“I’m 60 years old and I don’t know how I can save up that kind of money again at my age,” said JoAnn Altman, who retired early from Hewlett-Packard and had half of her life savings in CDs with Stanford International Bank.

For many of these alleged victims, their CDs with Stanford International Bank were their life-savings. Catherine Burnell, a citizen of the UK who currently resides full time in Antigua has had all of her assets frozen.

“I’m here living off charity at the moment,” Burnell said. “Friends are actually buying me food because I have nothing --everything I’m getting is charity from friends.”

The multiple governments and regulatory bodies that Stanford investors believe should bear some responsibility for lackluster regulation that was unable to prevent the fraud -- and the ineffective oversight that failed to end it years ago -- have said little about what investors should do if they’ve lost their life savings. Many investors feel the government has done nothing to help investors who are struggling to get by while their assets are frozen.

“The government will work to bail out the big financial companies and big business, but the government is not addressing the people who are victims of fraud and we have not made bad decisions,” Altman said. “We were trying to be responsible and plan for the future, but there’s no bailout plan for us.”

At the moment, the Stanford Victims’ Coalition, a Texas-based group comprised of investors across the globe, has criticized the U.S. receiver appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Ralph Janvey, for wasting hundreds of man-hours freezing and unfreezing assets that some argue never needed be seized.

“The Dallas-based receiver has already asked for $10 million to cover expenses related to the Pershing accounts,” which are accounts held by a clearing firm, said Michael Kogutt, one of the founding members of the SVC. “There are two receivers who are both claiming jurisdiction over this…they’re just burning through our money.”

Kogutt's coalition served Janvey and Nigel Hamilton-Smith, one of the two Antigua-appointed receivers, with letters last Friday, asking them to clarify their jurisdiction over American and international assets, since it appears that the American and Antiguan receivers are claiming jurisdiction over the same assets. The coalition has gotten no response from Janvey, but received an email from Hamilton-Smith, who says that he and the Antiguan authorities “maintain that SIB should be under my control not Mr Janvey.”

Hamilton-Smith said he has arranged to see Janvey next week and hopes the “confusion for depositors is settled shortly.”

Across the pond, Burnell has written letters to both of her members of the British Parliament, and has yet to receive much advice in how she might recover her losses, or maintain her lifestyle while her assets are frozen.

For his part, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of Oversight and Government Reform, has reportedly “opened a file” to look into whether the U.S. government has any accountability in the case. After the New York Times reported a government agency asked the SEC to “stand down” in their investigation back in October 2006, Kucinich demanded the SEC disclose documents revealing which government agency it was.

But whether these investors will ever see any of their money again is anyone's guess. Burton Wiand, receiver in the Nadel case in Sarasota, Fla., advises victims look into the new IRS guidelines that allow victims of fraud to claim a “theft-loss” deduction, which allows them to deduct 95% of their losses this year. Wiand also agreed that Stanford investors might be able to qualify for Securities Investors Protection Company insurance, which could reimburse up to $500,000.

In the meantime, investors will continue to fight, both the SEC, and Stanford, to regain as much of their initial investment as is possible.

“We aren’t asking for any government bailout money, and we don’t expect it. However, we do want to pursue all legal means to get our principal investment back (if Stanford’s assets can be located) and to see justice served on Stanford,” Jon Bell, a Stanford investor living in Oregon, told FOXBusiness.com in an email. “Stanford’s fraud has destroyed the life savings of hard-working middle-class people all over the world.”