Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Showing posts with label FRAUD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRAUD. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

INVESTMENT ADVISER AND OWNER RECEIVE PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS FOR ROLES IN ALLEGED FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Obtains Order of Permanent Injunctions Against Chicago-Area Investment Adviser and Its Owners for Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that on December 19, 2013, Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order of permanent injunctions against Oakbrook, Illinois resident Patrick G. Rooney (Rooney) and his company Solaris Management, LLC (Solaris).

According to the SEC's complaint filed on November 16, 2011, Rooney and Solaris radically changed the investment strategy of the Solaris Opportunity Fund LP (the Fund), contrary to the Fund's offering documents and marketing materials, by becoming wholly invested in Positron Corp. (Positron), a financially troubled microcap company. The SEC alleges that Rooney, who has been Chairman of Positron since 2004 and received salary and stock options from Positron since September 2005, misused the Fund's money by investing more than $3.6 million in Positron through both private transactions and market purchases. Many of the private transactions were undocumented while other investments were interest-free loans to Positron. Rooney and Solaris hid the Positron investments and Rooney's relationship with the company from the Fund's investors for over four years. Although Rooney finally told investors about the Positron investments in a March 2009 newsletter, the SEC's complaint alleges he falsely told them he became Chairman to safeguard the Fund's investments. These investments benefited Positron and Rooney while providing the Fund with a concentrated, undiversified, and illiquid position in a cash-poor company with a lengthy track record of losses.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Rooney and Solaris consented to the entry of permanent injunctions which enjoin them from violating Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 206(4)-8(a)(1) and (a)(2) thereunder; Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; and Sections 10(b) and 13(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13d-1 thereunder. Rooney and Solaris Management further agreed that the court would determine whether to impose penalties and disgorgement against them and whether Rooney should be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of a public company.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

SEC ANNOUNCES FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST COMPANY CALLED "MAKE A LOT OF MONEY"

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges against a company named with an acronym for “Make A Lot Of Money” that is behind a pair of advance fee schemes guaranteeing astronomical returns to investors in purported prime bank transactions and overseas debt instruments.

The SEC alleges that Swiss-based Malom Group AG and several individuals conducted the schemes from Las Vegas and Zurich.  They raised $11 million from U.S. investors by using a series of lies and forged documents to steer them into seemingly successful foreign trading programs that were nothing more than vehicles to steal money.  Advance fee frauds solicit investors to make upfront payments before purported deals can go through, and perpetrators fool investors with official-sounding terminology to add an air of legitimacy to the investment programs.  Many transactions offered by Malom Group bore hallmarks of prime bank frauds, which tout the supposed use of well-known overseas banks to attract investors.

The SEC alleges that Malom Group charged fees to investors for bogus services, and the individuals pulling the strings distributed investor funds among themselves for personal use.  They further lied to investors who later inquired about the progress of the transactions, lulling them with excuses about why they have yet to receive investment returns or refunds.

“Under the guise of a name insinuating they would make a lot of money for investors, the individuals behind this scheme sought nothing more than to make a lot of money for themselves,” said Stephen L. Cohen, an associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “They peddled agreements and transactions filled with technical-sounding jargon that was as meaningless as their promises to investors.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Department of Justice today announced criminal charges against the same six individuals charged in the SEC’s complaint:

Anthony B. Brandel of Las Vegas, who served as Malom Group’s main point of contact with U.S. investors – explaining the investments, collecting investor funds, and lulling investors about the status of the transactions.  His Las Vegas company M.Y. Consultants also is charged in the SEC’s complaint.
Sean P. Finn of Whitefish, Mont., who recruited U.S. investors through his Wyoming-based company M. Dwyer LLC, which also is charged in the SEC’s complaint.
Hans-Jürg Lips of Switzerland, who has been described as the Malom Group’s president or chairman of the board of directors.
Joseph N. Micelli of Las Vegas, who has been described as Malom Group’s compliance officer.
Martin U. Schläpfer of Switzerland, who has been described as Malom Group’s chief executive officer, managing director, and legal counsel.
James C. Warras of Waterford, Wisc., who has been described as Malom Group’s executive vice president.
According to the SEC’ s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the schemes occurred from 2009 to 2011 and the lulling of investors continued into 2013.  None of the transactions in securities offered or sold were registered with the SEC or eligible for an exemption.  In the first scheme, they offered “joint venture” agreements that purportedly allowed investors to “use” Malom Group’s financial resources in exchange for an upfront fee.  The agreements required the investors to propose investment transactions for Malom Group to enter into with third parties in order to generate returns for the company and the investor.  Malom Group supplied investors with forged bank statements and “proof of funds” letters to give the false impression that the company had the millions of dollars needed for the transactions.  Before investors paid their upfront fees, the Malom Group executives and promoters typically knew at least the basic details of the proposed trading programs, in some cases actually providing the trading program for investors to propose.  But after receiving the upfront fees from investors, Malom Group proceeded to reject every proposed transaction and misappropriate investor funds to further the scheme and line the perpetrators’ pockets.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the second scheme falsely promised investors that Malom Group would generate funding by creating structured notes that would be listed on “Western European” exchanges.  After inducing investors to pay an “underwriting fee” and making personal and corporate guarantees of repayment, Malom Group reneged on the guarantees of repayment and failed to issue any structured notes.  Again the perpetrators behind the scheme quickly distributed investor funds among themselves.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Malom Group, Schläpfer, Lips, Warras, and Micelli violated the antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws, and Brandel, Finn, M.Y. Consultants, and M. Dwyer LLC violated the antifraud and securities and broker-dealer registration provisions.  The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Stephen Simpson and Angela Sierra, and the SEC’s litigation will be led by Mr. Simpson.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State Attorney’s Office for the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR ORDERED TO PAY OVER $470,000 TO SETTLE FRAUD CHARGES

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Orders David R. Lynch to Pay More than $470,000 in Restitution and a Civil Monetary Penalty to Settle Charges of Fraudulent Misappropriation, Fraudulent Solicitations, and False Statements

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it entered an Order requiring David R. Lynch of Stuart, Florida, to make restitution of $171,297 to defrauded customers and pay a $300,000 civil monetary penalty, among other sanctions, for fraudulent misappropriation, fraudulent solicitations, and false statements in connection with a commodity pool trading leveraged or margined off-exchange foreign currency contracts (forex). Lynch has never been registered with the CFTC.

According to the CFTC’s Order, from about December 2008 through July 4, 2013, Lynch operated a commodity pool and fraudulently solicited at least $348,450 from at least 14 pool participants. Lynch falsely told pool participants that he had earned as much as 7 percent per month trading forex, that they could never lose their principal, and that they could get their funds back at any time. However, Lynch deposited only a portion of his pool participants’ funds in forex trading accounts and the trading he did was unprofitable, the Order finds.

The CFTC’s Order also finds that Lynch misappropriated over $126,000 of his pool participants’ funds by using part of those funds to pay his personal expenses and the remainder to pay false profits or purported returns of capital to some pool participants in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. Further, to conceal his trading losses and misappropriations, Lynch issued monthly account statements to pool participants that falsely showed that pool participants were earning consistent profits.

In addition to ordering restitution to be made and imposing a civil monetary penalty, the CFTC Order also requires Lynch to cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC regulation, as charged, and imposes permanent bans on trading, registration, and certain other commodity related activities.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Glenn I. Chernigoff, Alison B. Wilson, Kara L. Mucha, and Gretchen L. Lowe.


Thursday, December 5, 2013

SEC INJUNCTION BANS PENNY STOCK FRAUD OPERATOR FOR DOING BUSINESS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
District Court Enters Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Orders a Penny Stock and Officer-And-Director Bar Against Defendant Thomas Gaffney

The Commission announced that on November 20, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief by consent against Defendant Thomas Gaffney, enjoining him from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a).

In addition, United States District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., permanently barred Gaffney from participating in an offering of penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. The Court also permanently barred him from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

The Commission commenced this action by filing its Complaint on August 14, 2013, against Gaffney and Health Sciences Group, Inc. ("HESG"). The Complaint alleged the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving HESG's stock, illicit kickbacks, and phony agreements to mask those kickbacks.

Monday, November 4, 2013

SEC ANNOUNCES FRAUD CHARGES, EMERGENCY ASSET FREEZE RELATED TO ALLEGED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges and an emergency asset freeze against a group of Pasadena, Calif.-based companies at the center of an ongoing real estate investment scheme.

The SEC alleges that Yin Nan (Michael) Wang and Wendy Ko have raised more than $150 million from approximately 2,000 investors by selling promissory notes issued through Velocity Investment Group, which manages a series of investment funds entitled the Bio Profit Series.  Each of the Bio Profit Series funds purports to be primarily in the business of making real estate-related loans in California, but in reality Wang and Ko have used money received from newer investors to make the promised quarterly interest payments to earlier investors in Ponzi-like fashion.

“The SEC sought emergency action to prevent the further dissipation of investor assets through an expected set of upcoming Ponzi-like payments,” said Michele Wein Layne, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.  “Wang falsified financial records and used another company to create the illusion of legitimate economic activity.”

According to the SEC’s complaint unsealed today in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Wang and Velocity Investment Group have been raising money since at least 2005.  Wang is the sole owner of Velocity Investment Group, and the Bio Profits Series fund accounts are controlled by Wang and Ko, who transferred some investor funds to make quarterly interest payments to other investors. The SEC’s complaint says Wang has admitted that Velocity was using new investor money to pay earlier investors.

The SEC alleges that Wang directed one of the Bio Profit Series funds to provide its outside accountant with inaccurate financial information that materially overstated its mortgage loans receivable and mortgage income figures.  The more than $9.8 million of mortgage loan income shown in those financial statements included accrued interest that Wang knew that the fund would never actually receive. Wang told Velocity’s accounting manager that investors would flee if they were told the true numbers, and it would be difficult for him to raise money.

The SEC further alleges that Wang and Ko used transactions between the Bio Profit Series funds and another company charged in the complaint – Rockwell Realty Management – with the apparent purpose of concealing the fraud.  These transactions appear to have had no purpose other than to obfuscate the amount of transfers among the various funds.

The SEC’s complaint charges Wang and his companies as well as Ko with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The Honorable John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the SEC’s request for a temporary asset freeze against Velocity, Bio Profit Series I, Bio Profit Series II, Bio Profit Series III, Bio Profit Series V, and Rockwell Realty Management.  Judge Kronstadt’s order prohibits the destruction of documents, requires the defendants to provide accountings, and allows expedited discovery.  A court hearing has been scheduled for December 9 on the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by M. Lance Jasper, Peter F. Del Greco, and Dora Zaldivar in the Los Angeles office.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Lynn M. Dean and David J. Van Havermaat.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

SEC CHARGES OWNER OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY WITH DEFRAUDING INVESTORS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the owner of a New York-based investment advisory firm with defrauding investors while grossly exaggerating the amount of assets under his management.

The SEC alleges that Fredrick D. Scott of Brooklyn, N.Y., registered his firm ACI Capital Group as an investment adviser and then embarked on a series of fraudulent schemes targeting individual investors and small businesses.  Scott repeatedly touted ACI’s registration under the securities laws and falsely claimed the firm’s assets under management to be as high as $3.7 billion to bolster his credibility when offering too-good-to-be-true investment opportunities.  As Scott solicited funds from investors after promising them very high rates of return, he simply stole their money almost as soon as they deposited it with ACI.  Scott paid no returns to investors and illegally used their money to fund such personal expenses as his children’s private school tuition, air travel and hotels, department store purchases, and several thousand dollars in dental bills.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York today announced Scott has pleaded guilty to criminal charges.  Among the charges to which Scott has pleaded guilty is making false statements to SEC examiners when they questioned whether Scott and ACI had accepted loans from investors.  SEC examiners notified the agency’s Enforcement Division, which began investigating and referred the matter to criminal authorities.

“Scott told brazen lies about the value of ACI’s assets under management and its ability to deliver huge returns on various investments,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “Our examination and enforcement staff aggressively pursue investment advisers who flout the registration provisions of the securities laws for their personal gain, especially those who attempt to cover up their misdeeds by flat-out lying to our examiners.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Brooklyn, one variation of Scott’s fraud was a so-called advance fee scheme – Scott promised investors that ACI would provide multi-million dollar loans to people seeking bank financing.  But investors were told that they first needed to advance ACI a percentage of the loan amount, and once they did so they would receive the remaining balance of the amount that Scott promised to pay.  Scott had no intention of ever returning the money, nor did he repay it.

The SEC alleges that in another iteration of his fraud, Scott offered investors the opportunity to make a bridge loan to a third-party entity.  The investor was told to fund one portion of the loan, and ACI would supposedly fund the remaining balance.  In exchange, the investor would supposedly receive a substantial return on his initial investment.  In this scheme as with each of his others, investors never received returns and Scott stole the money.

The SEC’s complaint charges Scott with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Section 207 of the Investment Advisers Act for filing a false Form ADV, and aiding and abetting ACI’s improper registration in violation of Section 203A of the Advisers Act.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted in the New York office by Sharon Binger, Adam Grace, Justin Alfano, Elzbieta Wraga, and Jordan Baker.  The investigation stemmed from a referral by the SEC’s examination staff including Raymond Slezak, Michael O’Donnell, Kathleen Raimondi, and Ken Fong.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Alexander Vasilescu.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Friday, August 9, 2013

SETTLED FRAUD AND SECURITIES CHARGES FILED AGAINST OWNER OF CONESTOGA LOG CABIN LEASING, INC.

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Files Settled Charges Against John M. Sensenig, Founder and Owner of Conestoga Log Cabin Leasing, Inc. for Fraud and Unregistered Sales of Securities Violations

On July 29, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed a complaint against John M. Sensenig ("Sensenig"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Sensenig, a member of the Mennonite community and the founder and owner of Conestoga Log Cabin Leasing, Inc. and other affiliated companies, violated the antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least 1997 until 2009, Sensenig raised millions of dollars from more than 1,500 fellow members of the Amish and Mennonite communities through the offer and sale of Promissory Notes. Sensenig used the proceeds to finance a collection of start-up companies he founded and controlled, the largest of which was Conestoga Log Cabin Leasing, Inc. More than half of the funds raised by Sensenig were returned to investors. The complaint further alleges that Sensenig made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors including failing to disclose the use of proceeds, the risks associated with the investment, and remedial sanctions placed on him by a state securities regulator. The Commission further alleges that Sensenig failed to register the offering of the Promissory Notes although no exemption from registration applies. The complaint alleges that this conduct violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act").

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Sensenig consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to the court's approval, in which he is: (i) permanently enjoined from further violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, (ii) permanently enjoined from direct or indirect participation in any unregistered offerings of securities; (iii) ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $131,500; and (iv) ordered to surrender for cancellation all shares of stock he owns in two privately held companies formerly affiliated with Conestoga Log Cabin Leasing, Inc. The Commission is not seeking the imposition of a higher penalty in light of Sensenig's financial condition.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

INVESTMENT FRAUDSTER GETS 20 YEARS IN PRISON

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Minneapolis-Based Fraudster Patrick Joseph Kiley Sentenced to 20 Years in Priso
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July 15, 2013, the Honorable Chief Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Patrick J. Kiley to 20 years in prison and ordered him to pay $155 million in restitution.  The sentence was based on Kiley’s conviction on 15 criminal counts including mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and money laundering for his role in a $194 million foreign currency trading scheme that defrauded approximately 1,000 investors.  Kiley was charged on July 19, 2011, and a jury found him guilty on June 12, 2012.

Kiley is one of the defendants in a pending civil injunctive action filed by the Commission on November 23, 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Commission’s action against Kiley arose out of the same facts that are the subject of the criminal case against him.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that from at least July 2006 through at least July 2009, Kiley and co-defendant Trevor G. Cook of Minneapolis, Minnesota, raised at least $190 million (later determined to be $194 million) from 1,000 investors through the unregistered offer and sale of investments in a purported foreign currency trading venture.  According to the Commission’s complaint, Cook and Kiley pooled investors’ funds in bank and trading accounts in the names of entities they controlled.  The Commission’s complaint alleges that the foreign currency trading they conducted resulted in millions of dollars in losses, and they misused approximately one half of the investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors and pay for, among other things, Cook's gambling losses and the purchase of the historic Van Dusen Mansion in Minneapolis.

The Commission’s complaint charges Cook and Kiley with violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On November 23, 2009, the Court entered a preliminary injunction order against Cook and Kiley and froze all of their assets.  On March 7, 2011, the Commission also filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis against Jason Bo-Alan Beckman and his registered investment advisory firm Oxford Private Client Group, LLC, for their roles in this scheme.  On August 27, 2010, the Court entered an order of permanent injunction against Cook.  The Court also appointed a receiver to marshal and preserve all of the Defendants’ assets

Thursday, July 11, 2013

THREE CHARGED IN ALLEGED GOLD FUTURES INVESTMENT PONZI SCHEME


FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANG COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed an enforcement action on July 5, 2013 against John Fowler, a convicted felon, Jeffrey Fowler, a former Florida public school teacher, and Julianne Chalmers. The SEC charged John Fowler and Jeffrey Fowler with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC also charged John Fowler and Julianne Chalmers with registration violations.

From January 2011 through November 2011, John Fowler and Jeffrey Fowler raised approximately $4.3 million from 70 unsuspecting investors nationwide through a Ponzi scheme disguised as a gold futures investment program. The program purportedly was affiliated with a prominent New York-based hedge fund manager but actually had no connection to this manager and no investment in gold futures. Chalmers solicited investors to invest in the gold futures program by purchasing promissory notes.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges that John Fowler masterminded the Ponzi scheme and made misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the offer and sale of the promissory notes. He solicited at least one prospective investor, falsely claiming that a prominent hedge fund manager was the general partner of the investment program, that investor returns were guaranteed, and that he was a fellow investor. The complaint alleges that he also prepared fake promissory notes and assignments of security, and signed them as trustee of the prominent hedge fund manager. Finally, the complaint alleges that John Fowler misappropriated investor funds and unlawfully sold unregistered securities.

The complaint alleges that John Fowler’s son, Jeffrey Fowler, took steps to make the scheme appear legitimate by forming a Florida corporation with an identical name to the actual New York-based hedge fund manager and opening several bank accounts in this corporate name. Investors deposited their funds into this account and Jeffrey Fowler made purported interest payments to investors from these funds. Jeffrey Fowler also allegedly misappropriated investor funds for personal use.

The SEC’s complaint also alleges that by soliciting investors into the scheme, Chalmers unlawfully acted as an unregistered broker-dealer and sold unregistered securities that did not qualify for an exemption from the SEC’s registration provisions. Chalmers received more than $90,000 of investor proceeds in transaction-based commissions.

The SEC’s enforcement action charges John Fowler with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) thereunder; and Jeffrey Fowler with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) thereunder. The action charges Chalmers with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Both John Fowler and Jeffrey Fowler have consented to the entry of judgments, which would enjoin then from violation of the above provisions. These judgments are subject to court approval. The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement, and financial penalties against Chalmers.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida conducted a parallel investigation of this matter, which resulted in felony convictions against John Fowler and Jeffrey Fowler. Both Fowlers are currently serving prison sentences. U.S. v. John Henley Fowler, 8:12-CR-359-T-35TGW (M.D. Fla. 2012); U.S. v. Jeffrey Robert Fowler, 8:12-CR-358-T-24EAJ (M.D. Fla. 2012).

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Miami Regional Office enforcement staff Cecilia Danger and Tonya Tullis and supervised by Chad Alan Earnst. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Christine Nestor.

The SEC acknowledges assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, the United States Secret Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

INVESTMENT COMPANY OWNER PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD

FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Owner of Investment Company Pleads Guilty to Engaging in a Fradulent Investment Scheme

The owner of an investment company pleaded guilty today for his role in an investment scheme involving false promises, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil H. MacBride, and Assistant Director in Charge Valerie Parlave of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

David Eugene Howard II, 34, of Queens Village, N.Y., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis III in the Eastern District of Virginia to one count of mail fraud.

According to the plea documents, from in or about March 2008 through in or about April 2009, Howard falsely represented to investors that his company, Flatiron Systems LLC, traded pooled equity accounts using a proprietary trading system called "Pathfinder." Through distributing false and misleading letters, operating agreements, account statements and other materials, he caused investors to send investments of at least $5,000, which were deposited into an account that he exclusively controlled and which he later misappropriated for his own benefit and the benefit of others.

Over the course of his scheme, Howard directly misappropriated approximately $373,000 of $1.8 million in investor funds. Howard’s misappropriation included approximately $86,000 in transfers to his personal bank account, cash withdrawals and personal expenditures made with his company debit card, to include approximately $34,500 in charges at a night club and approximately $3,600 in charges towards the purchase of a Tiffany necklace for Howard’s girlfriend at the time.

According to court documents, in December 2008, Howard falsely informed investors that trading had been voluntarily halted so that an independent audit could be performed. Nonetheless, Howard continued to transfer approximately $26,500 in investor funds to his personal bank account, along with additional cash withdrawals and personal expenditures over the course of the following four months. Howard followed up with another letter which falsely advised investors of prolonged audit and tax procedures, which his nonexistent attorneys and accountants were purportedly diligently working on.

At sentencing, Howard faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, and full restitution. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 20, 2013.

In a related action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil enforcement action against Howard on March 21, 2011.

This prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, along with a parallel investigation by the SEC. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Mark Grider, N. Nathan Dimock, and Luke B. Marsh of the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kosta S. Stojilkovic of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Monday, May 20, 2013

THE "GOLDEN GOOSE" INSIDER TRADING CASE LAYS LAST EGG

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Final Settlements Reached in "Golden Goose" Wall Street Insider Trading Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that on May 14, 2013, the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against defendants Jamil Bouchareb, Daniel Corbin and Corbin’s companies, Corbin Investment Holdings, LLC and Augustus Management LLC. These are the last remaining defendants in a Commission case alleging widespread insider trading. The Commission’s case alleged the defendants traded in 11 to 12 corporate transactions based on inside information obtained from Matthew Devlin, a former Lehman Brothers, Inc. representative, who had misappropriated the confidential information from his wife, a partner in a public relations firm working on the deals. Because the inside information was valuable, Bouchareb and Corbin referred to Devlin’s wife as the "golden goose." A judgment against defendant Matthew Devlin was previously entered by the Court.

Bouchareb and Corbin agreed to pay a total of over $1.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the Commission’s charges. The final judgments against Bouchareb, Corbin and Corbin’s companies permanently enjoin them from violating antifraud provisions Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3. Bouchareb was ordered to pay disgorgement of $921,082 and prejudgment interest of $127,216. Corbin was ordered to pay disgorgement of $164,515.50 and prejudgment interest of $26,164.83. Bouchareb’s and Corbin’s disgorgement includes the entities’ trading profits. Bouchareb’s disgorgement also includes profits generated by his parents’ trading and trading profits generated by his girlfriend, relief defendant Maria Checa and her entity, relief defendant Checa International, Inc. Corbin’s disgorgement includes trading profits generated by his father, relief defendant Lee Corbin.

Devlin was permanently enjoined from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 in a judgment entered on October 19, 2012. In a related administrative proceeding, the Commission barred Devlin from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent, and barred Devlin from participating in any offering of a penny stock. (In the Matter of Matthew C. Devlin, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15315, May 6, 2013).

Bouchareb, Corbin and Devlin also pleaded guilty in parallel criminal cases brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Bouchareb was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine and forfeit $1,582,125. Corbin was sentenced to serve six months in prison followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to forfeit $1 million. Based on Devlin’s cooperation with the criminal authorities, the court sentenced Devlin to three years’ probation and ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine and forfeit his gains of $23,000.

In prior settlements, the four other defendants in the case agreed to be enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions and pay over $1.3 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties. The Commission’s relief included permanent industry bars and a forthwith suspension from appearing or practicing before the Commission pursuant to Rule 102(e)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Two of these defendants also had pleaded guilty in parallel criminal cases.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Commission also thanks the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

FINAL JUDGEMENTS ENTERED IN DEER HILL FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC., CASE

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Final Judgments Entered Against Connecticut-Based Investment Adviser and His Firm Charged with Fraud for Stealing Investor Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on May 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entered final judgments by consent in a previously filed enforcement action against Stephen B. Blankenship and his investment advisory firm, Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC. The judgments enjoin Blankenship and Deer Hill from future violations of the federal securities laws.

On September 13, 2012, the Commission filed an enforcement action charging Blankenship, then a resident of New Fairfield, Connecticut, and Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company under Blankenship’s control, with a scheme to defraud investors. The Commission’s Complaint alleged that, from at least 2002 through November 2011, Blankenship misappropriated at least $600,000 from at least 12 brokerage customers by falsely representing that he would invest their funds in securities through defendant Deer Hill. The Court’s judgment enjoins Blankenship and Deer Hill from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The judgment also enjoins the defendants from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.

Based on the same misconduct, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut charged Blankenship with criminal violations. On December 5, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut sentenced Blankenship to forty-one months imprisonment plus three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a fine of $7,500 and restitution in the amount of $607,516.81, based on his earlier guilty plea to one count of Mail Fraud and one count of Securities Fraud.

On October 11, 2012, the Commission barred Blankenship from working in the securities industry. The bar was based on his guilty plea to the federal criminal charges. The Connecticut Department of Banking’s Securities Division also obtained, by consent, a revocation of Blankenship’s registration and has barred Blankenship and Deer Hill from operating in Connecticut.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

COURT FINDS BROKERAGE FIRM AND TWO FORMER EXECUTIVES LIABLE FOR FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Court Finds Brokerage Firm and Two Former Executives Liable for Over $2.74 Million in a Fraudulent Misappropriation Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on April 25, 2013, a federal court in New York found defendants Joshua Constantin and Windham Securities, Inc. jointly and severally liable for over $2.49 million and defendant Brian Solomon liable for over $249,000 in disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties. In addition, the court found relief defendants Constantin Resource Group, Inc. (CRG) and Domestic Applications Corp. (DAC) jointly and severally liable with Constantin and Windham for over $760,000 and $532,000, respectively, of disgorgement and pre-judgment interest.

On July 6, 2011, the SEC filed its complaint. The complaint alleged that Windham, Windham's owner and principal Constantin, and former Windham managing director Solomon fraudulently induced investors to provide more than $1.25 million to Windham for securities investments. The complaint alleged that defendants made false claims to the investors about the intended use of the investors' funds and about Windham's investment expertise and past returns. Instead of purchasing securities for the investors, the defendants misappropriated the investors' funds and then provided false assurances to the investors to cover up their fraud. The SEC's complaint charged Windham, Constantin, and Solomon with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also named CRG and DAC, entities Constantin owned and/or controlled, as relief defendants. Â

On July 3, 2012, the SEC moved for summary judgment against each of the defendants and relief defendants on all of the SEC's claims. On April 2, 2013, the court issued an opinion granting the SEC's motion in its entirety and finding defendants liable for fraud. Based on the undisputed evidence, the court found that "[t]he litany of misrepresentations that Solomon and Constantin made to their clients is striking;" that Constantin "diverted [investors'] funds to his own purposes;" and that "both Solomon and Constantin provided clients with misleading documents to cover up the fraudulent nature of their investment scheme." The court concluded that permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and civil penalties were warranted against each of the defendants and that the relief defendants would be required to disgorge any assets they received through the defendants' misconduct.

On April 25, 2013, the court issued a supplemental order finding Windham, Constantin, Solomon, CRG, and DAC collectively liable for more than $2.74 million in disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

COMPANIES, INDIVIDUALS ORDERED TO PAY $750,000 FOR FOREX FRAUD AND VIOLATING CFTC REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
April 9, 2013

CFTC Orders Florida-based Forex Global Solutions Inc., Forex Global Solutions Ltd., Barry Sendach, and Joshua Kershner to Pay $750,000 for Foreign Currency (Forex) Fraud and Violating CFTC Registration Requirements

Washington, DC
– The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an Order filing and settling charges against Barry Sendach of Boca Raton, Fla., Joshua Kershner of Boynton Beach, Fla., and their Boca Raton-based companies, Forex Global Solutions Inc. and Forex Global Solutions Ltd. (together, Forex Global), for fraudulently soliciting customers to trade foreign currency (forex) and violating CFTC registration requirements. The Order requires Forex Global, Sendach, and Kershner, jointly and severally, to pay a $750,000 civil monetary penalty and imposes permanent trading and registration bans against them.

The CFTC Order finds that since October 18, 2010, Forex Global fraudulently solicited customers to open off-exchange forex trading accounts and grant discretionary trading authority over those accounts to Forex Global. In its solicitations, Forex Global published false historical performance returns on its website and in its solicitation emails and failed to disclose that it calculated the performance returns inaccurately, including by reflecting only one of the three fees that customers are charged, the Order finds.

The Order also finds that since October 18, 2010, Forex Global, Sendach, and Kershner failed to register with the CFTC as required under comprehensive new CFTC forex rules that became effective on that date.

Under those rules — which are designed to protect individual investors that buy forex contracts from or sell forex contracts to forex firms — entities that obtain or exercise discretionary trading authority over forex trading accounts must be registered with the CFTC as Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs), and entities that solicit or accept forex trades must be registered with the CFTC as Introducing Brokers (IBs). The CFTC forex rules also require certain persons associated with a CTA or IB to be registered as Associated Persons (APs) of the CTA or IB. The Order finds that Forex Global violated those rules by acting as a CTA and IB without registering in those capacities, and further finds that Sendach and Kershner violated those rules by acting as APs of Forex Global without registering as APs.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are Stephanie Reinhart, Joseph Patrick, Susan Gradman, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.

CFTC Customer Protection Information

The CFTC strongly urges members of the public to check with the National Futures Association (NFA) whether a company is registered before investing funds. If a company is not registered, an investor should be wary of providing funds to that company.

SEC CHAIRMAN WHITE'S OPENING STATEMENT AT SEC OPEN MEETING

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXHANGE COMMISSION 

Opening Statement at the SEC Open Meeting

by
Chairman Mary Jo White

Washington, D.C.
April 10, 2013


Good morning. This is an open meeting of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission being held on April 10, 2013.

Commissioner Walter is participating by telephone conference, and Commissioner Aguilar is participating by video conference.

Today, the Commission is considering whether to issue final rules to help protect investors from the risks of identity theft. The rules, required by the Dodd-Frank Act, would be issued jointly with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Under the rules, certain businesses regulated by the SEC and CFTC would be required to adopt and implement programs to detect and respond to indicators of possible identity theft.

Identity theft is a type of fraud that robs millions of Americans of their hard-earned money. Current estimates are that about five percent of American adults fall victim to identity theft fraud each year. It is a risk for everyone, and as technology continues to advance, the risks increase.

These rules are a common-sense response to the growing threat of identity theft to all Americans who invest, save, or borrow money. Any person who entrusts money to a financial institution or who receives money on credit can be vulnerable to those who may falsely pose as the individual and divert the money to a third party. The costs to victims can be great, including loss of individuals’ money and significant damage to their credit history.

In 2007, six federal agencies jointly adopted identity theft rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Those agencies were the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission. Their rules applied to business entities that qualify as "financial institutions" or "creditors" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and offer or maintain certain types of accounts.

However, neither the SEC nor the CFTC adopted those identity theft rules in 2007, because the laws at that time did not authorize either of the Commissions to do so. Instead, entities that the SEC and CFTC regulate such as broker-dealers and futures commission merchants were covered by the rules of the six agencies.

The Dodd-Frank Act changed this approach by transferring rulemaking and enforcement authority for identity theft rules to the SEC and CFTC for the entities we regulate.

The SEC rules, if adopted, would apply to entities such as broker-dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers. The CFTC’s rules would apply to entities such as futures commodity merchants, commodity trading advisors, and commodity pool operators.

If these rules are approved, both Commissions will issue them in one joint adopting release.

The rules the SEC is considering today are substantially similar to the rules that the other six federal agencies adopted in 2007, but they also include examples and guidance to help the relevant businesses determine how to comply with the new rules. I look forward to the issuance of these rules and to the protections that these rules will afford investors against the growing threat of identity theft.

Before I turn to the Commission staff, I would like to say one personal word about today’s meeting. This is my first public meeting as Chair of the SEC. It is my privilege and honor to join today in these important efforts to protect investors and to ensure the strength, efficiency, and transparency of the securities markets. I look forward to working hard with my fellow Commissioners and with the dedicated staff of the Commission. I would also like to specifically thank my predecessor in this office, Elisse Walter, who has been so helpful in welcoming me to the agency and in providing strong leadership to the agency.

I would like to thank the Division of Investment Management and the Division of Trading and Markets for bringing this rule recommendation before us today. From Investment Management, I would like to thank the Director, Norm Champ, and Diane Blizzard, Hunter Jones, Thoreau Bartmann, Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, and Amanda Wagner. From the Division of Trading and Markets, I would like to thank Acting Director John Ramsay, Jim Burns, David Blass, Joe Furey, and Brice Prince. I am also grateful for the important participation of the Commission’s economists in the Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation, in particular Director and Chief Economist Craig Lewis, Jennifer Marietta-Westberg, Matthew Kozora, and Stephen Lenkey. From the Office of General Counsel, I would like to thank the General Counsel Geoffrey Aronow, Meridith Mitchell, Lori Price, Cathy Ahn, Jill Felker, and Mykaila DeLesDernier.

And now let me turn the proceedings over to Norm Champ, the Director of the Division of Investment Management, and John Ramsay, the Acting Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, who will tell us more about the rules we are considering today.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

SOMETIMES WE GET WHAT WE NEED. ALLEN STANFORD NEEDS 110 YEARS IN PRISON

FROM:  U.S. DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE
 Thursday, June 14, 2012
Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison for Orchestrating $7 Billion Investment Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON – R. Allen Stanford, the former board of directors chairman of Stanford International Bank (SIB), was sentenced today in Houston to a total of 110 years in prison for orchestrating a 20-year investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion from SIB to finance his personal businesses.

The sentencing was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas; FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the Criminal Investigative Division; Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration Phyllis C. Borzi; Chief Postal Inspector Guy J. Cottrell; and Richard Weber, Chief of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).

On March 6, 2012, Stanford, 62, was convicted on 13 of 14 counts by a federal jury following a six-week trial and approximately three days of deliberation.  The jury also found that 29 financial accounts located abroad and worth approximately $330 million were proceeds of Stanford’s fraud and should be forfeited.

Stanford was sentenced by U.S. District Judge David Hittner.  After considering all the evidence, including more than 350 victim impact letters that were sent to the court, Judge Hittner sentenced Stanford to 20 years for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, 20 years on each of the four counts of wire fraud as well as five years for conspiring to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation and five years for obstruction of an SEC investigation.  Those sentences will all run consecutively.  He also received 20 years for each of the five counts of mail fraud and 20 years for conspiracy to commit money laundering which will run concurrent to the other sentences imposed today for a total sentence of 110 years.

As part of Stanford’s sentence, the court also imposed a personal money judgment of $5.9 billion, which is an ongoing obligation for Stanford to pay back the criminal proceeds.  The court found that it would be impracticable to issue a restitution order at this time.  However, all forfeited funds recovered by the United States will be returned to the fraud victims and credited against Stanford’s money judgment.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the vehicle for Stanford’s fraud was SIB, an offshore bank owned by Stanford and based in Antigua and Barbuda that sold certificates of deposit (CDs) to depositors.  Stanford began operating the bank in 1985 in Montserrat, the British West Indies, under the name Guardian International Bank.  He moved the bank to Antigua in 1990 and changed its name to Stanford International Bank in 1994.  SIB issued CDs that typically paid a premium over interest rates on CDs issued by U.S. banks.  By 2008, the bank owed its CD depositors more than $8 billion.
According to SIB’s annual reports and marketing brochures, the bank purportedly invested CD proceeds in highly conservative, marketable securities that were also highly liquid, meaning the bank could sell its assets and repay depositors very quickly.  The bank also represented that all of its assets were globally diversified and overseen by money managers at top-tier financial institutions, with an additional level of oversight by SIB analysts based in Memphis, Tenn.

As shown at trial, this purported investment strategy and management of the bank’s assets was followed for only about 10-15 percent of the bank’s assets.  Stanford diverted billions in depositor funds into various companies that he owned personally, in the form of undisclosed “loans.”  Stanford was thus able to continue the operations of his personal businesses, which ran at a net loss each year totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, at the expense of depositors.  These businesses were concentrated primarily in the Caribbean and included restaurants, a cricket tournament and various real estate projects.  Evidence at trial established Stanford also used the misappropriated CD money to finance a lavish lifestyle, which included a 112-foot yacht and support vessels, six private planes and gambling trips to Las Vegas.

According to evidence presented at trial, Stanford continued the scheme by using sales from new CDs to pay existing depositors who redeemed their CDs.  In 2008, when the financial crisis caused a slump in new CD sales and record redemptions, Stanford lied about personally investing $741 million in additional funds into the bank to strengthen its capital base.  To support that false announcement, Stanford’s internal accountants inflated on paper the value of a piece of real estate SIB had purchased for $63.5 million earlier in 2008 by 5,000 percent to $3.1 billion, despite the fact there were no independent appraisals or improvements to the property.  
           
The trial evidence also showed that Stanford perpetuated his fraud by paying bribes from a Swiss slush fund at Societe Generale to C.A.S. Hewlett, SIB’s auditor (now deceased), and Leroy King, the then-head of the Antiguan Financial Services Regulatory Commission.
           
In addition to Stanford, a grand jury in the Southern District of Texas previously indicted several of his alleged co-conspirators, including: James Davis, the former chief financial officer; Laura Holt, the former chief investment officer; Gil Lopez, the former chief accounting officer; Mark Kuhrt, the former controller; and King.  Davis has pleaded guilty and faces up to 30 years in prison under the terms of his plea agreement.  The trial of Holt, Kuhrt and Lopez, which was severed from Stanford’s trial, is scheduled to begin before Judge Hittner on Sept. 10, 2012.  They are presumed innocent unless and until convicted through due process of law.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Houston Field Office, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, IRS-CI and the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration.  The case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief William Stellmach and Trial Attorney Andrew Warren of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Gregg Costa of the Southern District of Texas.  AUSA Kristine Rollinson of the Southern District of Texas and Trial Attorney Kondi Kleinman of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division assisted with the forfeiture proceeding, and AUSA Jason Varnado and Fraud Section Deputy Chief Jeffrey Goldberg assisted with the sentencing proceeding.

The Justice Department also wishes to thank several countries for their ongoing cooperation during the investigation and prosecution of Stanford and his co-conspirators, including the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Switzerland, the Cook Islands, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man.



Wednesday, March 21, 2012

OWNER, EXECUTIVES AND BCI AIRCRAFT LEASING INC., ALL CONVICTED OF FRAUD


The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 20, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced that on March 14, 2012, a federal jury convicted Brian Hollnagel and BCI Aircraft Leasing Inc. on seven criminal counts, including fraud and obstruction charges for engaging in a fraudulent financing scheme that raised more than $50 million from investors and lenders. Brian Hollnagel, 38, of Chicago, the owner, president, and chief executive officer of BCI Aircraft Leasing Inc., and the corporation itself were each convicted of six counts of wire fraud and one count of obstruction of justice for obstructing the Commission’s 2007 lawsuit against them. As part of this verdict, Hollnagel and BCI were convicted of committing fraud and obstruction in connection with the provision of fraudulent court-ordered accountings of investor LLCs to the SEC during that litigation. U.S. v. Brian Hollnagel et al., Criminal Action No. 1:10-cr-0195 (N.D. Ill.) (St. Eve., J.).

On August 13, 2007, the Commission filed a civil injunctive complaint alleging that Defendants Hollnagel and BCI, from approximately 1998 through 2007, raised at least $82 million from approximately 120 investors as part of a fraudulent scheme in which the Defendants commingled investor funds, used investor funds to pay other investors, and failed to use investor funds as represented. The Complaint alleged that, as a result of their conduct, the Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission’s action remains pending.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

CANOPY FINANCIAL , INC., CO-FOUNDERS GO TO PRISON FOR STEALING

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:

February 27, 2012
“United States v. Jeremy Blackburn and Anthony Banas, Criminal Action No. 09 CR 976 (N.D. Ill. March 1, 2010)
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that on February 15, 2012, co-founders of the bankrupt Canopy Financial, Inc., a health care transaction-software company based in Chicago, were sentenced to 15 and 13 years in prison for defrauding investors and clients of more than $93 million. Anthony Banas, Canopy’s chief technology officer, was sentenced to 160 months in prison, while Jeremy Blackburn, Canopy’s former president and chief operating officer, was sentenced to 180 months in prison. Both men pleaded guilty in late 2010 to one count of wire fraud, admitting they engaged in a fraud scheme that cheated investors of approximately $75 million and also misappropriated more than $18 million from customer accounts intended for health care savings and expenses. In imposing sentence, United States District Judge Ruben Castillo of the Northern District of Illinois noted that this case was the most aggravated financial fraud he had seen in his 18 years on the federal bench. The judge ordered both men to pay mandatory restitution and forfeiture totaling $93,125,918.

According to their plea agreements, Blackburn and Banas used false information about Canopy’s financial condition, including a bogus auditor’s report and falsified bank statements, to fraudulently obtain approximately $75 million from several private equity investors in 2009. Approximately $39 million of that money was used to redeem shares of other Canopy investors, including approximately $1.6 million that went to Blackburn and $975,000 that went to Banas, while another $29 million obtained from investors was deposited into Canopy operating accounts.

Also according to their plea agreements, Blackburn and Banas misappropriated Canopy operating funds for their own benefit. Blackburn took approximately $6 million in unauthorized withdrawals and transfers from Canopy bank accounts during 2009. Blackburn typically directed a Canopy employee, or occasionally Banas, to transfer Canopy funds to his bank accounts or to pay for his personal expenses, including credit card balances, luxury car purchases, and travel on a private jet. Blackburn also paid for personal home renovations, bought sports tickets and purchased jewelry and watches using misappropriated Canopy funds. Banas used misappropriated Canopy money to invest $300,000 in a nightclub. Banas also spent $400,000 between 2007 and 2009 on other personal expenses.

Blackburn admitted that he created phony bank statements during 2009 to conceal the transfer of more than $18 million from special health care accounts in which Canopy held funds as custodian for the benefit of more than 1,600 clients and customers to make payments to medical providers. The funds were transferred to Canopy’s own operating accounts, as well as to benefit Blackburn and Banas personally.

The Commission’s cases against Blackburn (SEC v. Canopy Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-7429, USDC, N.D.IL (LR-21324) and Banas (SEC v. Anthony T. Banas, Case No. 10- CV 3877 USDC N.D. IL) (LR-21566) resulted in permanent injunctions against both individuals, by consent, for violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 [Section 17(a)] and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder], ordered disgorgement of $1,779,759.83 and prejudgment interest of $71,182.03 against Blackburn in April 2011 and disgorgement of $975,548.25 and prejudgment interest of $32,910.45 against Banas in June 2010.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Labor in this matter.”


Thursday, February 23, 2012

CHAIRMAN OF PUDA COAL, INC., IS CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY SEC


The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

SEC Charges Chairman and Ex-CEO of Puda Coal With Fraud

On February 22, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the Chairman of Puda Coal, Inc. (“Puda”) and the former CEO of Puda with securities fraud for the undisclosed theft of the primary asset of the U.S. public company they controlled. The Commission’s complaint alleges as follows:


Defendants Ming Zhao, the Chairman of Puda, and Liping Zhu, Puda’s former CEO, perpetrated a massive fraud on Puda’s public shareholders by effectively stealing and selling Puda’s operating subsidiary. Before the defendants’ fraud, Puda held an indirect 90% ownership stake in Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd (“Shanxi Coal”), a coal mining company located in the Shanxi Province of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). In September 2009, just weeks before Puda announced that Shanxi Coal had received a highly lucrative mandate from the provincial government authorities to become a consolidator of smaller coal mining companies, Zhao, with Zhu’s knowledge and complicity, transferred Puda’s 90% stake in Shanxi Coal to himself. In July 2010, Zhao transferred a 49% equity interest in Shanxi Coal to CITIC Trust Co. Ltd. (“CITIC Trust”), a Chinese private equity fund controlled by CITIC Group, which is reported to be the largest state-owned investment firm in the PRC. CITIC Trust placed its 49% stake in Shanxi Coal in a trust and then sold interests in the trust to Chinese investors. In addition, Zhao caused Shanxi Coal to pledge 51% of its assets to CITIC Trust as collateral for a loan of RMB 3.5 billion ($516 million) from the trust to Shanxi Coal. In exchange, CITIC Trust gave Zhao 1.212 billion preferred shares in the trust. None of these asset transfers were approved by Puda’s board or its shareholders or disclosed in Puda’s various SEC filings, which Zhao and Zhu signed knowing that those documents were materially false and misleading. Puda also conducted two public offerings in 2010 in the U.S. without disclosing that it no longer had any ownership stake in the coal company, Puda’s sole source of revenue. Thus, at the same time that CITIC Trust was effectively selling interests in the coal company to Chinese investors, Zhao and Zhu were still telling U.S. investors that Puda owned a 90% stake in that company.

In addition, Zhao and Zhu continued their fraudulent scheme to deceive public investors even after the Commission began its investigation. As part of the fraud, Zhu forged a letter purporting to be from CITIC Trust which falsely stated that no funds had actually been loaned to Shanxi Coal and disclaimed any interest in Puda’s or Shanxi Coal’s assets. Zhao’s counsel then provided the forged letter to the Commission’s investigative staff and to Puda’s audit committee in an effort to create the false impression that Puda and its public shareholders had not been harmed by the asset transfers. After Puda disclosed the letter to the public in an SEC filing, further misleading shareholders about the ownership of Puda’s assets, the letter was exposed as a forgery. Zhu admitted forging the letter and resigned as CEO, but Zhao remains Chairman. As a result of the defendants’ fraud, Puda is now little more than a shell company, with no ongoing business operations.

Both Zhao and Zhu are charged in the Commission’s complaint with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9a thereunder. Both men are also alleged to be liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of Puda for Puda’s violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and that they are also liable pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act for aiding and abetting those violations. Zhu is also charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-14. Finally, the Commission alleges, in the alternative, that Zhao and Zhu are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of Puda for Puda’s violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(b), and 10b-5(c), 14a-3 and 14a-9, and that they are also liable pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act for aiding and abetting those violations.
The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from committing future violations of these provisions, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, imposing financial penalties and barring them from acting as officers or directors of a public company."

Saturday, November 5, 2011

SEC CHAIRMAN SCHAPIRO DISCUSSES FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: by Chairman Mary L. Schapiro U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. November 3, 2011 Good morning. It is a pleasure to be with you today to discuss fraud and how we might be better able to prevent it. I’d like to thank the Stanford Center on Longevity and the FINRA Foundation for sponsoring an especially timely conference. Today, we live in a world in which fewer individuals retire with defined-benefit pension plans; more people are paying more money out-of-pocket for higher education; and once solid savings strategies — like home ownership — seem unsure. People simply don’t have the safety net they had — or felt they had — just a few years ago. At times like these, fighting financial fraud is an especially urgent task. It’s not just the timing of this conference that makes it important, though. It’s the recognition by the sponsors and participants that there is no single strategy or entity that can eliminate fraud by itself. We need to mount a comprehensive, multi-lateral approach to fraud prevention, one that brings together government agencies, private and non-profit institutions and investors themselves. Of course, the SEC needs to play a central role in this effort. Protecting investors is our most important mission. It is why we exist. Our divisions and offices have unique power to regulate, oversee, examine and prosecute those in a position to commit fraud or engage in unscrupulous activities. But we have long relied on self-regulatory organizations (SROs) like FINRA to support us in this mission, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with the Center on Longevity and other partners to pursue this fight against fraud. This collaborative approach is something we are emphasizing inside and outside the agency. Inside the SEC, key offices and divisions are working together in all areas of our anti-fraud effort. And outside the agency, the SEC is collaborating more often, and with better results, with everyone from state securities regulators to criminal prosecutors to local nonprofits focused on fighting fraud. Rather than confronting fraudsters with a series of separate efforts, we are weaving our initiatives into an increasingly fine-meshed net, one that we hope is ever-harder to escape or avoid. The investor protection net we’re weaving has been reinforced with new leadership, more effective organizational structures, enhanced technology and a staff that is bringing greater industry experience, improved training and a renewed energy to the task of preventing fraud. Division of Enforcement The cornerstone of our anti-fraud effort remains the Division of Enforcement. Charged with detecting, deterring and prosecuting fraud, the Division is benefitting from an aggressive new management team, a more efficient structure, and upgraded technological support. One key step was restructuring the Division, redeploying veteran attorneys from management to investigative and prosecutorial positions, putting more troops on the front lines. Another was creating specialized units to concentrate on high-priority areas of enforcement. One such unit, the Office of Market Intelligence, serves as a central office for handling tips, complaints and referrals about wrongdoing, and houses the Whistleblower Office created by the Dodd-Frank Act. This office allows enforcement attorneys to provide a unified, coherent, coordinated response to the huge volume of potential leads the agency receives. In addition, when the SEC adopted rules creating the Whistleblower Program, we were finally able to offer substantial cash rewards to insiders and others with useful information about violations of the securities laws and abuse of the public trust. The result of all this is that the quality of the tips we receive has improved substantially and generated a number of cases now in the pipeline. Our handling of those tips has improved, as well, as the creation of the TCR system has allowed us to consolidate multiple, dispersed repositories for tips and complaints into a single, searchable database. In addition to capturing and storing information and making it broadly available to investigative staff, the system will eventually include risk analytics tools that will help the SEC quickly and efficiently identify the highest value tips and search for trends and patterns. Relying in part on information gathered through the TCR system, Enforcement is working to focus its limited resources on Division priorities by developing risk-based initiatives that anticipate and detect suspicious behavior, allowing Enforcement to move more rapidly in investigating and stopping fraud. One area of particular interest to Enforcement is affinity fraud — the targeting of specific groups tied together by shared characteristics, such as ethnicity, religious affiliation or profession. In these cases, fraudsters often rely on group members to provide recommendations and word-of-mouth advertising that brings in new victims. In one recent case, we obtained a court order freezing the assets of a company that targeted Deaf investors in the U.S. The company solicited several million dollars and promised extraordinary returns of 1.2 percent per day. In reality, those funds went into foreign banks and the 14,000 investors — half of them in the U.S. — never saw a penny returned. Of course, affinity fraud isn’t our only focus. Last winter, Attorney General Holder announced a dramatic example of a coordinated effort against schemes ranging from affinity fraud to Ponzi schemes to foreign exchange (FOREX) and business opportunity frauds. “Operation Broken Trust” was the first national operation of its kind to target such a broad array of investment frauds, all of which preyed directly on retail investors. Actions were brought against 189 civil defendants and 310 criminal defendants for fraud schemes that harmed more than 120,000 victims and involved more than $10 billion. These SEC collaborations with the Justice Department reflect an important symbiotic relationship. The SEC can only win civil judgments: monetary damages and industry bars. But we often provide the specialized investigative expertise that allows Justice to build a criminal case. In return, Justice wins criminal convictions that result in hard time for guilty parties — a particularly powerful deterrent. The Microcap Fraud Working Group is another collaboration, this one inside the agency. This team brings together the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examination (OCIE) in a coordinated, proactive approach to detecting and deterring fraud involving microcap securities. This type of fraud is often perpetuated through “pump and dump” schemes in which the securities are promoted or “pumped” through the release of false and misleading information while insiders profit by selling or “dumping” the promoted stock to the public. Many of the promoters and boiler room operations involved in pump and dumps are unregistered, making them harder to discover and shut down. Nonetheless, the SEC has closed down several of these operations this year alone. Last January, for example, we brought a case against a New York fraudster who was pushing millions of shares of penny stocks on his website and posting price predictions with no basis in reality. When these promotional efforts brought dramatic, but temporary, increases in volume and price, the perpetrator sold shares from his personal account, earning almost $3 million in profits. In addition to bringing cases against individuals who perpetrate microcap fraud, we also target the issuers themselves. In June, we suspended trading in 17 microcap stocks whose issuers were suspected of pumping stock prices by providing inadequate and inaccurate information to investors. Microcap stocks are often where fraud meets social media, with posts on message boards by stock-touting websites, twitter users, and anonymous individuals taking the place of the classic boiler room phone banks. In these cases, online hype often led to price spikes that didn’t last much beyond the time needed for their promoters to dump shares and pocket investors’ money. The challenges of policing these evolving markets are enormous but new strategies, technologies and organization are coming together to foster more and more effective enforcement. OCIE OCIE is another stalwart in the SEC’s battle against fraud and a source of referrals to enforcement for prosecution. Like Enforcement, OCIE has also undergone substantial changes over the last two years, with an energetic new leadership team working with agency veterans to create the National Exam Program (NEP). Working with the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation, the NEP is creating and continuously improving metrics that allow OCIE to target registrants that pose higher risk. A recently-established Office of Risk Analysis and Surveillance unit within OCIE guides that targeting strategy across different program areas and sharpens focus on registrants and practices that pose the greatest risk to investors and market integrity. Working with filings and public information, OCIE targets registrants that show unusual patterns of activity — claiming returns that are consistently high, for example, even when the markets are down or are mixed. Other discrepancies that can serve as red flags include overstatement of assets, non-disclosure of affiliates or misrepresenting custodial arrangements. Even something as simple as a tip that an individual is lying about their college degree, or that a broker claiming a PhD in finance cannot answer basic technical questions, can trigger additional scrutiny — particularly if a registrant emphasizes those credentials in promotional material. This ability to target more effectively has become even more important in the wake of Dodd-Frank as OCIE’s responsibilities increase rapidly — including expanded responsibility for hedge fund and rating agency examinations — but the SEC’s budget grows much more slowly. This creates a number of risks, not the least of which is that investors will have the impression that because an entity or activity is subject to registration and regulation, that means that it is being adequately examined. Once an exam is triggered, a lot depends on the skills of the examiners themselves — the ability to grasp complex and misleading accounting, the tenacity to deal with extraordinary amounts of data, and the skill to conduct an effective interview. As a result, we are focused not just on technology and targeting, but on our staff and the way they conduct examinations. OCIE is continuing its restructuring efforts, including the development of specialized working groups in six key areas: Equity Market Structure and Trading Practices, Fixed Income and Municipals, Marketing and Sales Practices, Microcap Fraud, New and Structured Products, and Valuation. These working groups will serve as forums in which the NEP and other agency staff collaborate on issues, initiatives, and concerns. They will serve as ongoing resource for training and for disseminating this specialized knowledge. Stronger teamwork and collaboration between OCIE and the Division of Enforcement both led to an increase in referrals by OCIE to Enforcement and allowed the SEC to move more swiftly to protect investor assets when irregularities were discovered. One major case this year involved a Connecticut hedge fund advisor and related entities that were engaged in a multi-year, $200 million Ponzi scheme. The fraud was first discovered by OCIE examiners during a risk-based exam of a registered adviser affiliated with the fraudster. Despite conduct that ultimately led to a criminal obstruction of justice charge, OCIE and their colleagues in Enforcement obtained evidence of the fraud - evidence that also led to criminal charges by the U.S. Attorney. Much of OCIE’s work serves investors by improving and probing the quality of registrant’s disclosures — determining if investors’ funds are being handled safely and reported accurately, and discouraging any temptation to do otherwise. Office of Investor Education and Advocacy Another of our most important collaborations is with individual investors. As you know well, an informed and skeptical investor is the best defense against securities fraud. Unfortunately, many investors are just sophisticated enough to be excellent victims — more educated, affluent and financially literate than is generally thought. So, at the SEC, we’re working to elevate investor education to the next level — where people recognize not just opportunities, but warning signs, a level where investors act not just on instinct, but on the basis of solid information. The Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) leads that effort: answering investor questions, making information available through a variety of media, and bringing new light to issues surrounding investor protection. Every day, we get questions about the securities markets and complaints, about brokers, investment advisers, and particular investments. Often these disputes can be settled quickly, after OIEA forwards the complaint to the entity involved. In more serious cases, OIEA staff enters the complaint into the SEC’s TCR database for review by either the Division of Enforcement or OCIE. Our goal, however, is to reach out to investors before they need to reach out to us, ensuring that they have the information and background they need before making potentially risky investment decisions. There are a number of ways we try to do that. In 2009, we launched Investor.gov, a website focused exclusively on investor education for individuals. It offers investors information topics such as how to research investments and investment professionals, understand fees, and detect fraud. For investors who prefer print, we continue to offer this information in hard copy, as well. And, of course, all of our materials are available free of charge and without copyright, encouraging the widest possible dissemination. We also reach out to investors directly, electronically and through partnerships with other organizations. In the past year, we have published Investor Alerts and Bulletins on subjects including fake securities-related websites, pre-IPO investment fraud, stock trading basics, margin rules, and potential issues with reverse merger transactions. In addition to using Investor.gov and the SEC’s website to disseminate materials, we also use other channels, including a designated RSS feed, GovDelivery, press releases, and our Twitter account — @SEC_Investor_Ed — which has over 22,000 followers. And we are also reaching out through partnership with other government agencies, local governments and private sector financial education organizations. We work, for example, with the FINRA Investor Education Foundation and its Investor Protection Campaign for Older Investors, which is conducted in conjunction with state securities regulators and AARP. Some of OIEA’s most important, recent contributions to investor protection are the studies it is conducting. One study, required by the Dodd Frank Act, looked at how investors get information about investment professionals and suggested ways to help them access and use it more effectively. It proposed, for example, combining FINRA’s BrokerCheck and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) databases and adding a ZIP Code search function, so investors can more easily obtain results about both advisers and broker-dealers no matter which database they search. And it suggested that educational content be added to both systems, so investors can better understand the information they find and make clearer red flags that might sometimes signal a potential fraud. Another study, also required by Dodd-Frank, involves a broad survey of retail investors’ financial literacy. Issues include: Evaluating the existing level of financial literacy among retail investors. How to improve the timing, content, and format of disclosures regarding financial intermediaries, investment products, and investment services. How to make it easier for investors to understand expenses and conflicts of interest in transactions involving investment services and products. What the most effective existing private and public efforts to educate investors are. A key component of this study is investor testing currently underway that is aimed at determining the effectiveness of current SEC-mandated disclosure documents. The results of this testing will be used to determine how disclosure materials could more effectively communicate the information that SEC registrants are required to provide. For many people, investment information that you and I would consider important and easily available, is difficult to access and hard to understand. And their failure to access it leaves them vulnerable. These studies will help the SEC put clear, necessary information in front of investors and help keep them keep their nest egg safe. Today, 100 million Americans are invested in the financial markets. The trillions of dollars they entrust to others make a tempting target. Fortunately, many frauds are slow-motion crimes, and alert investors can detect them before they take place. Unfortunately, too few investors know what to look for, or how easy it is to get answers from the SEC, FINRA, and many other organizations able to steer people away from risky or fraudulent investments. Our Office of Investor Education and Advocacy is working to change that. And they’re looking forward to changing that in partnership with you. Collaboration There are so many more other collaborative efforts underway than I have time to note. For example: We’ve leveraged the capacity of the private sector by adopting regulations requiring that broker-dealers and investment advisers which have custody of their clients funds be subject to a surprise audit every year to help ensure that customer funds are protected. We’re working more closely than ever with state regulatory agencies, leveraging the differing strengths and jurisdictions that federal and state agencies bring to the table, to build the strongest possible case when fraud is suspected. This year, a number of Chinese companies suspected of providing false or misleading financial statements to investors were delisted from U.S. exchanges. The SEC is working with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and the Chinese government to increase cooperation on audit oversight of public companies and ensure accurate financial reporting. And Risk Fin, the SEC’s “in-house think tank,” is playing a key role in developing our risk-based targeting strategy. The fact is no single agency can take all the actions needed to contain and reduce the kind of fraud that threatens life savings, turn “golden years” into dust, and steal dreams invested in over a lifetime. But no agency or institution is better placed, better prepared or more motivated to stand at the center of this fight, bringing our expertise to bear wherever possible, and taking advantage of the expertise of others whenever we can. Today, there’s a new energy and a smarter approach to the SEC’s efforts: more experience and better training in the staff, more effective organization and improved collaboration; and upgraded IT to support it all. Perhaps most important of all, though, is our understanding that in an age of limited resources, the SEC has to work collaboratively with other organizations, agencies, academics, and activists to protect investors. The fight against fraud will take a serious effort from us all."