Authorities investigating admitted fraudster Bernard L. Madoff appear to have been working at cross-purposes in efforts to solve one of the main mysteries in the scandal: the role of a London firm that is owned by Madoff's family and has drawn the attention of British authorities looking for evidence of money laundering.

The British firm, Madoff Securities International Limited, closed in December just after the former Nasdaq chairman was arrested after saying his New York-based investment-management company—Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities—was a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

The London firm, owned almost entirely by the Madoff family, is the subject of a criminal investigation by the British government's Serious Fraud Office, whose spokesman told Condé Nast Portfolio that it's looking into evidence of money laundering by the London operation.

Recent events and interviews show an apparent lack of coordination between two key U.S. officials: a trustee appointed by a federal bankruptcy court judge to take over Madoff's New York firm and trace missing assets, and a receiver appointed by a federal judge in a separate Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Madoff.

The judge in the SEC case had appointed the receiver, Lee S. Richards III, specifically to investigate and safeguard assets of Madoff's London firm.

Richards, however, asked the judge last week to relieve him of his duties. He said in a court document that British-appointed liquidators of the London firm were refusing to share information with him, and that efforts to trace assets and piece together what happened at the London firm would best be left to British investigators. He said the SEC agreed with his position.

In the court document, he said that employees of Grant Thornton, the accounting firm appointed by a British High Court judge to liquidate the London firm, "have not formally recognized the legal authority of the receiver to carry out his duties." He added that Grant Thornton hadn't shared "critical information about MSIL [the London firm] that they have gathered during the course of their work."

Richards, though, didn't know that the bankruptcy trustee, Irving Picard, had hired British lawyers who just a day later obtained an order from a British High Court judge clearing the way for Grant Thornton to share its information about the Madoff London firm with Picard.

Daniel Zinman, a Richards law partner working with him on the case, told Condé Nast Portfolio on Tuesday that they weren't aware that Picard had sought and obtained the British court order.

The apparent contretemps is significant because it raises questions about how aggressively the SEC is pursuing its investigation of Madoff, and why Richards, appointed by the judge in the SEC case, hadn't sought an order in London similar to Picard's to obtain British cooperation.

The federal judge here hasn't ruled yet on Richard's request to withdraw. If he assents, one likely effect is that the SEC wouldn't be able to obtain information directly about the London operation. Instead, it would have to rely on what Picard may share, or wait for British officials to complete their investigation.

A spokesman for the SEC said the agency declined to comment.

In London, a spokesman for Grant Thornton said the firm hadn't shared information with the U.S. officials because British law normally prohibits sharing information when a Serious Fraud Office criminal investigation is underway.