Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Thursday, July 14, 2011

CHARGES BROUGHT IN ALLEGED REVERSE MORTGAGE/LOAN MODIFICATION FRAUD SCHEME



The following is an excerpt from the Department of Justice website:

"Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Coinciding with One-Year Anniversary of “Operation Stolen Dreams,” Three Loan Officers and a Title Agent Charged in $2.5 Million Reverse Mortgage and Loan Modification Scheme
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today the unsealing of a criminal information earlier today, charging four defendants – Louis Gendason, 42, of Delray Beach, Fla.; Kimberly Mackey, 46, of Pittsburgh; John Incandela, 24, and Marcos Echevarria, 29, both of Palm Beach, Fla. – with conspiracy to commit wire fraud involving a nation-wide reverse mortgage scam that defrauded elderly borrowers, financial institutions and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A reverse mortgage allows borrowers, who are at least 62 years of age, to convert the equity in their homes into a monthly stream of income, or a line of credit. Three of the defendants made their initial appearances at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., earlier today. If convicted, the defendants each face a statutory maximum term of up to 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. These charges coincide with the one-year anniversary of “Operation Stolen Dreams,” the department’s anti-mortgage fraud enforcement initiative announced by Attorney General Eric Holder last June.

These latest charges demonstrate the department’s continued commitment to the identification and eradication of mortgage fraud. The scheme charged today contains many of the characteristics common to mortgage fraud around the country. The information charges Louis Gendason, John Incandela and Marcos Echevarria with using a Florida-based loan modification business known as Lower My Debts.com L.L.C. as a front to identify elderly borrowers who were financially-vulnerable. They are alleged to have in their capacity as loan officers at 1st Continental Mortgage LLC. solicited borrowers to refinance their existing mortgages with a reverse mortgage loan financed by Genworth Financial Home Equity Access Inc. To induce Genworth and HUD to fund and insure the reverse mortgage loans, the defendants allegedly changed the unwitting borrowers’ real estate appraisal reports to fraudulently represent equity in the properties. The information alleges that Gendason, Incandela and Echevarria originated fraudulent loans on properties located in seven different states between May 2009 and November 2010 exceeding $2.5 million.

As a further part of the charged conspiracy, a fourth defendant, Kimberly Mackey, a licensed title agent and proprietor of the Pittsburgh title agency Real Estate One Land Services Inc., fraudulently closed the Genworth loans by failing to pay off the seniors’ existing liens. Instead, Mackey wired nearly $1 million in Genworth loan proceeds to the business checking account for Lower My Debts.com. She conspired to conceal the fraudulent loan closings from financial institutions by preparing written settlement documents which falsely represented that the borrowers’ existing mortgages had, in fact, been paid off. In some instances, after Mackey wired the loan proceeds to bank accounts in Florida controlled by her co-conspirators, she is alleged to have assisted them with defrauding the banks holding the borrowers’ first mortgages by negotiating fake short sales. This was designed to induce these banks to release their valid liens on the seniors’ properties at a fraction of their existing loan balance. All of the defendants are accused of pocketing the illegally-obtained loan proceeds.

“Protecting Americans from financial fraud is one of our top priorities,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “With these charges, we are taking another important step in the effort we began with Operation Stolen Dreams by holding accountable those whom we believe lined their own pockets with money that should have gone to help vulnerable seniors.”

“These defendants preyed on senior citizens on fixed and modest incomes. While legitimate loan modifications and reverse mortgages are useful tools to help those who need it, we will remain vigilant to make sure these tools are not misused by those who seek to line their own pockets,” said Wifredo Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “We urge potential borrowers to use caution when entrusting their homes and savings to those offering financial alternatives, including loan modifications and reverse mortgages.”

This case was investigated by agents from the HUD-Office of Inspector General; the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation; the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the FBI Miami Field Office; and the state of Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Kevin J. Larsen from the Civil Division’s Office of Consumer Protection Litigation, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey H. Kay and Thomas P. Lanigan from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Initiated in June 2010, Operation Stolen Dreams targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and was the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in confronting mortgage fraud. The operation was organized by the Mortgage Fraud Working Group of President Obama’s interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was established to lead an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. Operation Stolen Dreams targeted 1,517 criminal defendants nationwide, included 525 arrests, and involved an estimated loss of more than $3 billion.

The operation also resulted in 191 civil enforcement actions and the recovery of more than $196 million. Combating mortgage fraud continues to be a primary focus of the Civil Division. Since the end of Operation Stolen Dreams last June, Civil Division attorneys have continued to vigorously pursue mortgage fraud cases throughout the country, working with our partners in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and various federal agencies, specifically including HUD."

11-884

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

SEC GETS FAVORABLE JURY VERDICT AGAINST COMPANY CFO



July 12, 2011
The following case is an excerpt from the SEC website:

On July 8, 2011, following a February 25, 2011 jury verdict in favor of the Commission and partial summary judgment granted in the Commission’s favor on November 18, 2009, the Honorable William Q. Hayes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a final judgment permanently enjoining Ran H. Furman, the former CFO of Island Pacific, Inc., and a resident of San Diego, California, from violating the antifraud, books and records, lying to auditors, and certification provisions of the federal securities laws, prohibiting him for seven years from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and assessing a $75,000 civil penalty.
On September 4, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a Complaint alleging that
Island Pacific improperly recorded and reported $3.9 million in revenue from a sham transaction that was based on a License Agreement that had been altered by Furman, unbeknownst to the other party to the transaction. In its June 23, 2011 Order granting relief, the Court found, among other things, “the evidence presented at trial and on summary judgment demonstrates that Furman knowingly participated in and facilitated the alteration of the License Agreement, [engaged in] repeated violations of GAAP and the company’s revenue recognition policy, [participated in] the firing of [a whistle-blowing company employee] and [made] repeated misrepresentations to the auditors” which merited imposition of requested relief. The Court further concluded that “Furman played an essential and knowing role in the securities law violations at issue.”
The Court permanently enjoined Furman from future violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the record-keeping and internal control provisions of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, the false statements to auditors provisions of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2, and the officer certification provisions of Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act, and aiding and abetting violations of the issuer reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. In addition, the Court prohibited Furman from acting as an officer or director of a public company for a period of seven years and assessed a third tier civil penalty of $75,000.
Previously, on October 16, 2008, the Court entered final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against Island Pacific and former CEOs Barry M. Schechter and Harvey Braun, pursuant to their consents, and on October 24, 2008, the Commission instituted an administrative proceeding against Schechter, pursuant to which he was permanently suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant."

FINAL JUDGEMENT OBTAINED BY SEC AGAINST INSIDER TRADER



The case below is a excerpt from the SEC website:

July 15, 2011
“The SEC announced that the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment as to Danielle Chiesi on July 12, 2011, in the SEC’s insider trading case, SEC v. Galleon Management, LP, et al., 09-CV-8811 (SDNY) (JSR). The SEC filed its action on October 16, 2009, against Raj Rajaratnam, Galleon Management, LP, Danielle Chiesi and others, alleging a widespread insider trading scheme involving hedge funds, industry professionals, and corporate insiders.
At the time of the alleged conduct, Chiesi was a consultant and portfolio manager at New Castle Funds LLC, formerly a registered hedge fund investment adviser. The SEC alleged that Chiesi traded on and tipped others to material, nonpublic information she learned from corporate insiders about Akamai Technologies, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc., IBM, and Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
The Final Judgment entered against Chiesi: (1) permanently enjoins her from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”); and (2) orders her liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains of $500,000, together with prejudgment interest of $40,534.90, for a total of $540,534.90. Chiesi awaits sentencing in a parallel criminal action against her in which she pleaded guilty, United States v. Chiesi, 10 CR 1184 (RJH) (SDNY).
In addition, since the case was filed the SEC has:
entered into a settlement with David Plate, a proprietary trader at broker/dealer Schottenfeld Group, LLC. Pursuant to that settlement, Plate is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and is liable for disgorgement of $43,876.37, plus prejudgment interest of $9,415.54. The judgment further provides that the Court later will determine issues relating to a civil penalty. Plate has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations.
entered into a settlement with Gautham Shankar, a proprietary trader at Schottenfeld. Pusuant to that settlement, Shankar is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and is liable for disgorgement of $243,105.59, plus prejudgment interest of $34,462.35. The judgment further provides that the Court later will determine issues relating to a civil penalty. Shankar has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations.
entered into a settlement with Ali Hariri, an Atheros Communications, Inc. executive. Pursuant to that settlement, Hariri is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act; and is permanently barred him from acting as an officer or director of any public company. Hariri also is liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest, for a total of $2,665.68.
entered into a settlement with Robert Moffat, Senior Vice President and Group Executive of IBM’s Systems and Technology Group. Pursuant to that settlement, Moffat is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and barred from acting as an officer or director of any public company.
entered into a settlement with Mark Kurland, Chief Executive Officer of New Castle Funds LLC. Pursuant to that settlement, Kurland is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Kurland is also liable for disgorgement of $4,213,630.18, representing profits made and/or losses avoided as a result of the unlawful trading alleged to have occurred at New Castle, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $204,553.59, for a total of $4,418,183.77.
dismissed its claims against New Castle, which is no longer operating as an investment advisor and has filed Form ADV-W with the Commission, withdrawing its registration as an investment advisor. New Castle has agreed to cooperate with the Commission’s staff and has represented, as a condition of the dismissal of the Commission's action against it, that it will not engage in further operations.
entered into a settlement with Rajiv Goel, a former managing director in the treasury group of Intel Corp., as well as the Director of Strategic Investments at Intel Capital, an Intel subsidiary that makes proprietary equity investments in technology companies. Pursuant to the settlement, Goel is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Goel is also required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $230,570.52, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $23,447.21, for a total of $254,017.73. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Goel. Finally, Goel is barred from acting as an officer or director of any public company. Goel has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations.
entered into a settlement with Roomy Khan, an individual investor who had been employed at Intel in the late 1990s and had been subsequently employed at Galleon, pursuant to which Khan is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,552,566.94, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $304,398.77, for a total of $1,856,965.71. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Khan. Khan has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations.
entered into a settlement with Anil Kumar, a former director at the global consulting firm McKinsey & Co., pursuant to which Kumar is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $2.6 million, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $190,621, for a total of $2,790,621. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Kumar. Kumar has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations.
entered into a settlement with Schottenfeld Group, LLC, a New York limited liability company and registered broker-dealer, pursuant to which Schottenfeld is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $460,475.28, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $72,202.72, and a civil penalty of $230,237.64, representing fifty percent of the disgorgement amount, a discount from a one-time penalty in recognition of its agreement to cooperate. Schottenfeld also agreed to implement enhanced policies and procedures to prevent future securities laws violations, as well as to retain an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures.
entered into settlements with Choo-Beng Lee and Ali T. Far, who were both managing members of Far & Lee LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In addition, Lee was president and Far a managing member of Spherix Capital LLC, an unregistered hedge fund investment adviser based in San Jose, California. Pursuant to the settlements, Lee and Far are permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and are required, jointly and severally, to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,335,618.17, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $96,385.52, and a civil penalty of $667,809.09, representing fifty percent of the disgorgement amount, a discount from a one-time penalty in recognition of their cooperation.
dismissed its claims against Far & Lee and Spherix, which are now defunct or nearly so, in exchange for their agreement to cooperate and cease doing business.”

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

SEC WILL USE INFLATION GUIDE TO DETERMINE WHEN ADVISERS CAN CHARGE CLIENTS PERFORMANCE FEES



The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:

“Washington, D.C., July 12, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued an order that raises, to adjust for inflation, two of the thresholds that determine whether an investment adviser can charge its clients performance fees. The order carries out a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act allows an investment adviser to charge a client performance fees if the client meets certain criteria, including two tests that have dollar amount thresholds. Under today’s order, an investment adviser will be able to charge performance fees if the client has at least $1 million under the management of the adviser, or if the client has a net worth of more than $2 million. Either of these tests must be met at the time of entering into the advisory contract. The previous thresholds were $750,000 and $1.5 million respectively, and were last revised in 1998.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Commission issue an order to adjust for inflation these dollar amount thresholds by July 21, 2011 and every five years thereafter. The Commission published a notice of its intent to issue the order on May 10, 2011. The Commission also proposed amendments to rule 205-3, which are currently under consideration.
The order will be effective on September 19, 2011, which will be approximately 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.”

CFTC CHAIRMAN SUPPORTS DOD-FRANK



The following is an excerpt from the CFTC website:

"Chairman Gensler’s Statements of Support on Five Dodd-Frank Final Rules
Enhancing the Commission’s ability to protect against manipulation

I support the final rulemaking to enhance the Commission’s ability to protect against manipulation. Effective regulation requires an effective enforcement program. The Dodd-Frank Act enhances the Commission's enforcement authorities in the futures markets and expands them to the swaps markets. This rule implements new Dodd-Frank authorities to police against fraud and fraud-based manipulative schemes, based upon similar authority that the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Federal Trade Commission have for securities and certain energy commodities."

In the past, the CFTC had the ability to prosecute manipulation, but to prevail, it had to prove the specific intent of the accused to create an artificial price. Under the new law and one of the rules before us today, the Commission's anti-manipulation reach is extended to prohibit the reckless use of fraud-based manipulative schemes. This closes a significant gap, as it will broaden the types of cases we can pursue and improve the chances of prevailing over wrongdoers.

The rule also implements the Dodd-Frank Act’s price-based manipulation authority to police against corners and squeezes. These new authorities expand the CFTC’s arsenal of enforcement tools and strengthen the Commission’s ability to effectively deal with threats to market integrity. We will use these tools to be a more effective cop on the beat, to promote market integrity and to protect market participants.

I thank Senator Maria Cantwell for her work to secure this important authority for the CFTC. As Senator Cantwell explained in proposing that this authority be included in the Commodity Exchange Act, “It is a strong and clear legal standard that allows regulators to successfully go after reckless and manipulative behavior.”

Large trader reporting for swaps on physical commodities

I support the final rulemaking to establish large trader reporting for physical commodity swaps. This is a significant rulemaking that, for the first time, enables the CFTC to receive data from large traders in the commodity swaps markets.

The American public has benefited for decades by the Commission’s ability to gather large trader data in the futures market and use that data to police the markets. Today’s large trader reporting rulemaking establishes that clearinghouses and swap dealers will have to report to the CFTC about the swaps activities of large traders in the physical swaps markets.

Over time, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the markets will benefit from swap data repositories. Today’s rulemaking will enable the Commission to gather important swaps data until there are robust, well-regulated swap data repositories. This data will be useful for the Commission to monitor and police the markets, including establishing and enforcing position limits.

Definition of “agricultural commodity”

I support the final rulemaking that defines the term, “agricultural commodity.” The Dodd-Frank Act requires that agricultural commodities be defined. In a separate rulemaking, the Commission will determine the requirements that apply to swaps on agricultural commodities.

Preventing certain business affiliate marketing and establishing other consumer information protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

I support the final rulemaking to extend to customers of CFTC-regulated entities protections preventing certain business affiliated marketing and establishing other consumer information protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The rulemaking protects consumers by providing privacy protections to nonpublic consumer information held by entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The final rulemaking provides customers of CFTC-regulated entities with the same privacy protections now enjoyed by the customers of entities regulated by other federal agencies.

The rulemaking has two important features. First, it allows customers to prohibit Commission-regulated entities from using certain consumer information obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations to that customer for marketing purposes. This will be done by means of a customer opt out. Second, it requires Commission-regulated entities to develop and implement a written program and procedures for the proper disposal of consumer information. The rulemaking will help prevent the unauthorized use and disclosure of nonpublic, consumer information.

Expanding scope of privacy protections for consumer financial information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

I support the final rulemaking to expand the scope of privacy protections for consumer financial information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The rulemaking expands the scope of the Commission’s existing privacy protections afforded to consumers’ information – under the Commission’s Part 160 rules – to swap dealers and major swap participants."

SEC ANNOUNCES FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST FORMER CORPORATE OFFICERS



July 6, 2011
The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a final judgment today against Benjamin R. Young that (i) enjoins him from violating Sections 5 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 Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and (ii) finds him liable for payment of $30,000 under Securities Act Section 20(d) and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3). Young consented to entry of the judgment and did not admit or deny the allegations in the complaint.
According to the Commission's complaint, Young and codefendant James R. Spurger, former officers of Navigators International Management Co., Ltd., a Bahamian Corporation, solicited investors to participate in an unregistered and fraudulent bond funding program. The complaint alleged that investors were promised returns of 67% or more and were assured that their principal was safe and collateralized. The complaint further alleged that investors' funds were not safe and collateralized and that none of the investors received a return of principal or payment of the promised profits.
Earlier, on March 28, 2011, the Court entered final judgments against Spurger and Navigators International Management Co., Ltd. enjoining them from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and (ii) finding them liable for payment of $25,000 and $45,000, respectively, under Securities Act Section 20(d) and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3). Spurger and the corporation consented to entry of the judgments and did not admit or deny the allegations in the complaint.”