ALLEGEDLY, GOLD COIN DEALER INVESTED MONEY AT A CASINO

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 26, 2012
SEC Charges Operator of Gold Coin Firm with Conducting Fraudulent Securities Offering
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed a civil injunctive action against David L. Marion of Minneapolis, Minnesota and his company, International Rarities Holdings, Inc. (“IR Holdings”), accusing them of conducting a fraudulent, unregistered offer and sale of approximately $1 million in securities.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, alleges that from at least November 2008 through July 2009, Marion and IR Holdings raised approximately $1 million from at least 26 investors through the offer and sale of IR Holdings securities. According to the complaint, Marion represented to investors that they were purchasing shares of IR Holdings, which he said was the parent company and 100% owner of International Rarities Corporation (“IR Corp.”). The complaint alleges that IR Corp. is a privately held Minneapolis based gold coin and bullion sales and trading firm that Marion also owned and operated. The complaint further alleges that Marion told investors that their investments were to be used to expand IR Holdings’ business and eventually take it public. According to the complaint, Marion’s representations were false because IR Holdings never owned IR Corp. and thus Marion sold investors shares of a worthless shell company. In addition, the complaint alleges that Marion did not use the investors’ funds to expand IR Holdings’ business and instead diverted the majority of the funds for his own personal use, including for casino gambling.

The SEC’s complaint charges Marion and IR Holdings with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, jointly and severally, against Marion and IR Holdings and a civil penalty against Marion.

SEC CHARGES BAY AREA INVESTMENT ADVISER FOR DEFRAUDING INVESTORS WITH BOGUS AUDIT REPORT

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 21, 2012
On March 15, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a San Francisco-area investment adviser with defrauding investors by giving them a bogus audit report that embellished the financial performance of the fund in which they were investing.

The SEC alleges that James Michael Murray raised more than $4.5 million from investors in his various funds including Market Neutral Trading LLC (MNT), a purported hedge fund that claimed to invest primarily in domestic equities. Murray provided MNT investors with a report purportedly prepared by independent auditor Jones, Moore & Associates (JMA). However, JMA is not a legitimate accounting firm but rather a shell company that Murray secretly created and controlled. The phony audit report misstated the financial condition and performance of MNT to investors.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California also has filed criminal charges against Murray in a complaint unsealed yesterday.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, Murray began raising the funds from investors in 2008. The following year, MNT distributed the phony audit report to investors claiming the audit was conducted by a legitimate third-party accounting firm. However, JMA is not registered or licensed as an accounting firm in Delaware, where it purports to do business. JMA’s website was paid for by a Murray-controlled entity and listed 12 professionals with specific degrees and licenses who supposedly work for JMA. However, at least five of these professionals do not exist, including the two named principals of the firm: “Richard Jones” and “Joseph Moore.” Murray has attempted to open brokerage accounts in the name of JMA, identified himself as JMA’s chief financial officer, and called brokerage firms falsely claiming to be the principal identified on most JMA documents.

The SEC alleges that the bogus audit report provided to investors understated the costs of MNT’s investments and thus overstated the fund’s investment gains by approximately 90 percent. The JMA audit report also overstated MNT’s income by approximately 35 percent, its member capital by approximately 18 percent, and its total assets by approximately 10 percent.

The SEC’s complaint charges Murray with violating Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, which prohibits fraud by investment advisers on investors in a pooled investment vehicle. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and financial penalties from Murray.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Karen Kreuzkamp and Robert S. Leach of the San Francisco Regional Office following an examination of MNT conducted by Yvette Panetta and Doreen Piccirillo of the New York Regional Office’s broker-dealer examination program. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Robert L. Mitchell of the San Francisco Regional Office. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Secret Service for their assistance in this matter.

ACCOUNT CHURNING GETS FUTURES TRADER'S REGISTRATIONS REVOKED

The following excerpt is from the CFTC website:
March 21, 2012
CFTC Revokes Registrations of Richard Allan Finger, Jr. and his Company, Black Diamond Futures, LLC Based on Criminal Action
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a Notice of Intent to Revoke the Registrations (Notice) of Richard Allan Finger, Jr. (Finger), a resident of Washington State, and Black Diamond Futures, LLC (Black Diamond), a Washington State limited liability company. The CFTC simultaneously issued an Opinion and Order (Order) settling the action and revoking Black Diamond’s registration with the CFTC as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) and Finger’s registration as its sole Associated Person (AP).

The Notice alleged that, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), Finger was subject to a statutory disqualification of his registration based upon his plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in the criminal action, United States v. Finger, Crim. Case No. 11-mj-424 (W.D. Wash.). The Notice further alleged that Black Diamond was subject to a statutory disqualification pursuant to the CEA because Finger was the sole principal of Black Diamond and Finger’s registration is subject to revocation.

The Notice alleged that in the criminal action, Finger admitted to certain facts, including that:

 From late 2009 to August 2011, Finger was a registered securities representative in Washington State;
 In approximately February 2011, Finger started his own broker-dealer, Black Diamond Securities LLC;

 In order to induce his existing investors to transfer their accounts to his new company, Finger fraudulently inflated the values of their accounts in statements he made to them;
 Thereafter, Finger churned the securities accounts of at least 10 of his investors, despite telling them that he would use a conservative investment strategy. For example, with respect to one investor, Finger’s churning reduced the value of the investor’s account from approximately $1 million to less than $225,000 within two months; and
 In order to conceal his churning, Finger emailed false account statements to his investors.
The CFTC’s Order accepting the offer of settlement in the statutory disqualification proceeding finds that Finger and Black Diamond are subject to statutory disqualification from registration with the CFTC pursuant to Sections 8a(2)(D)(iii) and (iv) and 8a(2)(H) of the CEA, respectively, and revokes their registrations.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Glenn Chernigoff, Alison Wilson, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

SEC CHARGES BIOMETINC., WITH BRIBING DOCTORES IN ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, AND CHINA

The following excerpt is from a Securities and Exchange Commission e-mail:
Washington, D.C., March 26, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Warsaw, Ind.-based medical device company Biomet Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) when its subsidiaries and agents bribed public doctors in Argentina, Brazil, and China for nearly a decade to win business.

Biomet, which primarily sells products used by orthopedic surgeons, agreed to pay more than $22 million to settle the SEC’s charges as well as parallel criminal charges announced by the U.S. Department of Justice today. The charges arise from the SEC and DOJ’s ongoing proactive global investigation into medical device companies bribing publicly-employed physicians.

The SEC alleges that Biomet and its four subsidiaries paid bribes from 2000 to August 2008, and employees and managers at all levels of the parent company and the subsidiaries were involved along with the distributors who sold Biomet’s products. Biomet’s compliance and internal audit functions failed to stop the payments to doctors even after learning about the illegal practices.

“Biomet’s misconduct came to light because of the government’s proactive investigation of bribery within the medical device industry,” said Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. “A company’s compliance and internal audit should be the first line of defense against corruption, not part of the problem.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Washington D.C., employees of Biomet Argentina SA paid kickbacks as high as 15 to 20 percent of each sale to publicly-employed doctors in Argentina. Phony invoices were used to justify the payments, and the bribes were falsely recorded as “consulting fees” or “commissions” in Biomet’s books and records. Executives and internal auditors at Biomet’s Indiana headquarters were aware of the payments as early as 2000, but failed to stop it.

The SEC alleges that Biomet’s U.S. subsidiary Biomet International used a distributor to bribe publicly-employed doctors in Brazil by paying them as much as 10 to 20 percent of the value of their medical device purchases. Payments were openly discussed in communications between the distributor, Biomet International employees, and Biomet’s executives and internal auditors in the U.S. For example, a February 2002 internal Biomet memorandum about a limited audit of the distributor’s books stated:

Brazilian Distributor makes payments to surgeons that may be considered as a kickback. These payments are made in cash that allows the surgeon to receive income tax free. …The accounting entry is to increase a prepaid expense account. In the consolidated financials sent to Biomet, these payments were reclassified to expense in the income statement.

According to the SEC’s complaint, two additional subsidiaries – Biomet China and Scandimed AB – sold medical devices through a distributor in China who provided publicly-employed doctors with money and travel in exchange for their purchases of Biomet products. Beginning as early as 2001, the distributor exchanged e-mails with Biomet employees that explicitly described the bribes he was arranging on the company’s behalf. For example, one e-mail stated:

[Doctor] is the department head of [public hospital]. [Doctor] uses about 10 hips and knees a month and it’s on an uptrend, as he told us over dinner a week ago. …Many key surgeons in Shanghai are buddies of his. A kind word on Biomet from him goes a long way for us. Dinner has been set for the evening of the 24th. It will be nice. But dinner aside, I’ve got to send him to Switzerland to visit his daughter.
The SEC alleges that some e-mails described the way that vendors would deliver cash to surgeons upon completion of surgery, and others discussed the amount of payments. The distributor explained in one e-mail that 25 percent in cash would be delivered to a surgeon upon completion of surgery. Biomet sponsored travel for 20 Chinese surgeons in 2007 to Spain, where a substantial part of the trip was devoted to sightseeing and other entertainment.

Biomet consented to the entry of a court order requiring payment of $4,432,998 in disgorgement and $1,142,733 in prejudgment interest. Biomet also is ordered to retain an independent compliance consultant for 18 months to review its FCPA compliance program, and is permanently enjoined from future violations of Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Biomet agreed to pay a $17.28 million fine to settle the criminal charges.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Brent S. Mitchell with Tracy L. Price of the Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit and Reid A. Muoio. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fraud Section and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation into bribery in the medical device industry is continuing.

TRADER CHARGED WITH MANIPULATION FUTURES PRICES OF PALLADIUM AND PLATINUM

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website:
CFTC Charges Joseph F. Welsh III, Former MF Global Broker, with Attempted Manipulation of Palladium and Platinum Futures Prices

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a federal court action in the Southern District of New York chargingJoseph F. Welsh III, of Northport, N.Y., with attempted manipulation of the prices of palladium and platinum futures contracts, including the settlement prices, traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). The CFTC complaint alleges that Welsh engaged in this conduct from at least June 2006 through May 2008 and specifically on at least 12 separate occasions.

The complaint charges Welsh with directly attempting to manipulate the palladium and platinum futures prices and with aiding and abetting the attempted manipulations of Christopher L. Pia, a former portfolio manager of Moore Capital Management, LLC, a CFTC registrant.

According to the complaint, while working as a broker at MF Global Inc., Welsh employed a manipulative scheme commonly known as “banging the close.”

Welsh allegedly routinely received market-on-close orders to buy palladium and platinum futures contracts from Pia, either directly or through a clerk, and also allegedly understood that Pia wanted to buy at high prices. To accomplish that, Welsh intentionally devised and implemented a trading strategy to attempt to maximize the price impact through trading during the two-minute closing periods of the palladium and platinum futures contracts markets (Closing Periods), the complaint charges.

The CFTC complaint also states that to push prices higher, Welsh routinely withheld entering the market-on-close buy orders until only a few seconds remained in the Closing Periods and thereby caused the orders to be executed within seconds of the close of trading.

The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans and a permanent injunction against further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.

The CFTC settled related actions against Moore Capital Management LLC’s successor, Moore Capital Management, LP (Moore), and its affiliates and against Pia. On April 29, 2010, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges of attempted manipulation and failure to supervise against Moore and its affiliates. The CFTC’s order imposed a $25 million civil monetary penalty, restricted Moore’s market-on-close trading in the palladium and platinum futures and options markets for two years and restricted Moore’s registration for three years (see CFTC Press Release 5815-10).

On July 25, 2011, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges of attempted manipulation against Pia. The CFTC order required Pia, among other things, to pay a $1 million civil monetary penalty and permanently bans him from trading during the closing periods for all CFTC-regulated products and permanently bans him from trading CFTC regulated products in palladium and platinum (see CFTC News Release 6079-11).

The CFTC thanks the CME Group, the parent company of the NYMEX, for its assistance.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Melanie Bates, Kara Mucha, James A. Garcia, August A. Imholtz III, Kassra Goudarzi, Jeremy Cusimano, Janine Gargiulo, Stephen Obie, Michael Solinsky, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

SEC HAS NEW SUPERVISORY COOPERATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
SEC Establishes New Supervisory Cooperation Arrangements with Foreign Counterparts
Washington, D.C., March 23, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has established comprehensive arrangements with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) as part of long-term strategy to improve the oversight of regulated entities that operate across national borders.

The two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) reached this month follow on a similar supervisory arrangement that the SEC concluded with the Quebec Autorité des marchés financiers and the Ontario Securities Commission in 2010 and expanded to include the Alberta Securities Commission and the British Columbia Securities Commission last September.

The SEC’s latest supervisory cooperation arrangements will enhance SEC staff ability to share information about such regulated entities as investment advisers, investment fund managers, broker-dealers, and credit rating agencies. The Cayman Islands is a major offshore financial center and home to large numbers of hedge funds, investment advisers and investment managers that frequently access the U.S. market. ESMA is a pan-European Union agency that regulates credit rating agencies and fosters regulatory convergence among European Union securities regulators.

“Supervisory cooperation arrangements help the SEC build closer relationships with its counterparts to cooperate and consult on each other’s oversight activities in ways that may help prevent fraud in the long term or lessen the chances of future financial crises,” said Ethiopis Tafara, Director of the SEC’s Office of International Affairs.
The SEC’s approach to supervisory cooperation with its overseas counterparts follows on more than two decades of experience with cross-border cooperation, starting in the late 1980s with MOUs facilitating the sharing of information between the SEC and other securities regulators in securities enforcement matters. The SEC’s enforcement cooperation arrangements — which now encompass partnerships with approximately 80 separate jurisdictions via bilateral MOUs and a Multilateral MOU under the auspices of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) — detail procedures and mechanisms by which the SEC and its counterparts can collect and share investigatory information where there are suspicions of a violation of either jurisdiction’s securities laws, and after a potential problem has arisen.

In contrast, the SEC’s supervisory cooperation arrangements generally establish mechanisms for continuous and ongoing consultation, cooperation and the exchange of supervisory information related to the oversight of globally active firms and markets. Such information may include routine supervisory information as well as the types of information regulators need to monitor risk concentrations, identify emerging systemic risks, and better understand a globally-active regulated entity’s compliance culture. These MOUs also facilitate the ability of the SEC and its counterparts to conduct on-site examinations of registered entities located abroad.

Although they are designed to achieve different things, enforcement and supervisory cooperation arrangements are complimentary tools. Supervisory cooperation involves ongoing sharing of information regarding day-to-day oversight of regulated entities. Enforcement cooperation MOUs, by contrast, help the Commission collect information abroad that is necessary to help ensure that the SEC’s enforcement program deters violations of the federal securities laws, while also helping to compensate victims of securities fraud when possible.
The SEC entered into its first supervisory cooperation MOU in March 2006 with the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. Following the recent financial crisis, the Commission has expanded its emphasis on this form of continuous supervisory cooperation in an effort to better identify emerging risks to U.S. capital markets and the international financial system. As part of this effort, SEC commissioners and staff co-chaired an international task force in 2010 to develop principles for cross-border supervisory cooperation. These principles have since proven to be a useful guideline for structuring MOUs around the type of information to be shared, the mechanisms which regulators can use to share information, and the degree of confidentiality this information should be accorded.