The SEC has found yet another head of a Mortgage company that not only committed mortgage fraud but, decided to defraud the government out of tarp funds (Known commonly as bank bail-out money). Although financial professionals and politicians alike tout the case that no one in particular is to blame for the financial melt-down it would seem that, the SEC keeps finding a few of the people who are to blame and benefited greatly from the financial meltdown. What is interesting is that the same fraudsters who committed mortgage securities fraud turned right around to defraud the government out of bank bail-out money. The following is an excerpt from the SEC sites which gives the details of this case:
“The SEC alleges that Lee B. Farkas through his company Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (TBW) sold more than $1.5 billion worth of fabricated or impaired mortgage loans and securities to Colonial Bank. Those loans and securities were falsely reported to the investing public as high-quality, liquid assets. Farkas also was responsible for a bogus equity investment that caused Colonial Bank to misrepresent that it had satisfied a prerequisite necessary to qualify for TARP funds. When Colonial Bank's parent company — Colonial BancGroup, Inc. — issued a press release announcing it had obtained preliminary approval to receive $550 million in TARP funds, its stock price jumped 54 percent in the remaining two hours of trading, representing its largest one-day price increase since 1983.
As the country's mortgage markets began to falter, Farkas arranged the sale of more than one billion dollars worth of mortgage loans and securities he knew to be fictitious or impaired," said Lorin Reisner, Deputy Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Farkas also lied about a sham equity investment he engineered to defraud U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program."
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Farkas executed the fraudulent scheme from March 2002 until August 2009, when TBW — a privately-held company headquartered in Ocala, Fla. — filed for bankruptcy. TBW was the largest customer of Colonial Bank's Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division (MWLD). Because TBW generally did not have sufficient capital to internally fund the mortgage loans it originated, it relied on financing arrangements primarily through Colonial Bank's MWLD to fund such mortgage loans.
According to the SEC's complaint, TBW began to experience liquidity problems and overdrew its then-limited warehouse line of credit with Colonial Bank by approximately $15 million each day. The SEC alleges that Farkas pressured an officer at Colonial Bank to assist in concealing TBW's overdraws through a pattern of "kiting" whereby certain debits to TBW's warehouse line of credit were not entered until after credits due to the warehouse line of credit for the following day were entered. As this kiting activity increased in scope, TBW was overdrawing its accounts with Colonial Bank by approximately $150 million per day.
The SEC alleges that in order to conceal this initial fraudulent conduct, Farkas devised a plan for TBW to create and submit fictitious loan information to Colonial Bank. Farkas also directed the creation of fictitious mortgage-backed securities assembled from the fraudulent loans. By the end of 2007, the scheme consisted of approximately $500 million in fake residential mortgage loans and approximately $1 billion in severely impaired residential mortgage loans and securities. As a direct result of Farkas's misconduct, these fictitious and impaired loans were misrepresented as high-quality assets on Colonial BancGroup's financial statements.
The SEC alleges that in addition to causing Colonial BancGroup to misrepresent its assets, Farkas caused BancGroup to misstate to investors and TARP officials that it had obtained commitments for a $300 million capital infusion, which would qualify Colonial Bank for TARP funding. Farkas falsely told BancGroup that a foreign-held investment bank had committed to financing TBW's equity investment in Colonial Bank. Contrary to his representations to BancGroup and the investing public, Farkas never secured financing or sufficient investors to fund the capital infusion. When BancGroup and TBW later mutually announced the termination of their stock purchase agreement, essentially signaling the end of Colonial Bank's pursuit of TARP funds, BancGroup's stock declined 20 percent.
The SEC's complaint charges Farkas with violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The SEC also seeks an officer-and-director bar against Farkas as well as an equitable order prohibiting him from serving in a senior management or control position at any mortgage-related company or other financial institution and from holding any position involving financial reporting or disclosure at a public company.”
The department of justice and FBI along with other government agencies has been noted to be involved with this case as members of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. Too often these cases result at best in just destroying the criminal careers of fraudsters by banning them from doing business in the securities markets. Financial crimes committed against the public seem to be the only crimes that have no personal consequences for the fraudsters. Perhaps Bernie Madoff would be spending his golden years living in the Cayman Islands had his son’s not turned him in for financial fraud. No doubt he is thinking that now as he sees how his peers are walking away very rich and very free as their criminals enterprises burn down behind them.
This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
SEC CHARGES KENNETH IRA STAR WITH FRAUD
It seems another Wall Street investment guru has come under the scrutiny of the SEC. It looks like in this case the alleged perpetrators just openly stole funds from their client’s accounts. These alleged perpetrators stole the money in a way that they could easily be caught. The way the smart people on Wall Street steal is to pay themselves fantastical amounts of compensation no matter how poorly their companies are performing. Stealing money out of a company through perks and compensation should be the number one class at all business school. What is nice about looting a business via compensation packages is that it is legalized stealing. The government has given such schemes the stamp of approval. Setting up Ponzi schemes and taking money out of client accounts is just stupid.
The following is part of a press document released by the SEC and posted on their web site:
“Washington, D.C., May 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Manhattan-based financial advisor Kenneth Ira Starr with fraud and is seeking an emergency court order to freeze his assets after he stole client money for his personal use, including the purchase last month of a multi-million dollar apartment where he and his wife now reside.
Starr and two entities he controls — Starr Investment Advisors LLC and Starr & Company LLC — have made unauthorized transfers of money in client accounts that ultimately wound up in Starr’s personal accounts. They violated securities laws pertaining to investment advisers in order to perpetrate the scheme.
Most investment advisers do not maintain physical custody of their clients’ assets, and those assets are instead held by qualified third-party custodians such as a regulated bank or a registered broker-dealer. In this case, the SEC alleges that certain client assets were held in a safe in Starr & Company’s offices despite the fact that Starr and his firms were not qualified custodians. Their ability to steal client funds was enhanced by the failure of Starr Investment Advisors to comply with asset custody rules that require firms to engage an independent public accountant to perform yearly surprise examinations of client assets in the firm’s custody.
“Starr breached his fiduciary duty as an investment adviser in the most egregious manner possible — he stole the funds his clients entrusted to him,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Starr betrayed the trust of some clients who have looked to him for years for investment advice and financial guidance.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, Starr and his companies transferred $7 million from the accounts of three clients between April 13 and April 16, 2010, without any authorization. The transferred funds were ultimately used to purchase a $7.6 million apartment on the Upper East Side in Manhattan on April 16. When one of the clients detected the unauthorized transfer and demanded the money be returned, Starr reimbursed that client with money siphoned from the account of another client without authorization. The other two investors have not been reimbursed.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that the unauthorized transfers in April 2010 were not the only instances when Starr misappropriated client funds. In August 2009, Starr and his entities began transferring approximately $1.7 million from the personal account of a client and from the account of a charity run by this client. These were all unauthorized transfers. In April 2010, an additional transfer of $750,000 was attempted from an account belonging to this client. But this time, Starr’s plans were frustrated because the bank alerted the client, who then halted the transfer. The client then reviewed the account transactions and uncovered the unauthorized $1.7 million transfers in 2009. When confronted about these transactions, Starr gave improbable explanations before eventually reimbursing the client with money that appears to have come from the bank account of another unrelated party.
The SEC’s complaint names two relief defendants in order to recover client assets now in their possession:
Diane Passage — Starr’s wife with whom he has a joint bank account.
Colcave LLC — An entity through which Starr purchased the apartment.
The SEC’s complaint charges each of the three defendants with violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, further, charges Starr Investment Advisors with violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2(a)(1) thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions barring future violations of the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of the defendants’ and relief defendants’ ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and financial penalties from the defendants.”
With all the fraud charges the SEC actually files you hear of almost no criminal follow-up by the FBI or any authority that could put a few of the bad guys behind bars for at least the summer. At the very least they should have to wear a T-shirt for a month that says “I’m A Wall Street Fraudster”.
The following is part of a press document released by the SEC and posted on their web site:
“Washington, D.C., May 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Manhattan-based financial advisor Kenneth Ira Starr with fraud and is seeking an emergency court order to freeze his assets after he stole client money for his personal use, including the purchase last month of a multi-million dollar apartment where he and his wife now reside.
Starr and two entities he controls — Starr Investment Advisors LLC and Starr & Company LLC — have made unauthorized transfers of money in client accounts that ultimately wound up in Starr’s personal accounts. They violated securities laws pertaining to investment advisers in order to perpetrate the scheme.
Most investment advisers do not maintain physical custody of their clients’ assets, and those assets are instead held by qualified third-party custodians such as a regulated bank or a registered broker-dealer. In this case, the SEC alleges that certain client assets were held in a safe in Starr & Company’s offices despite the fact that Starr and his firms were not qualified custodians. Their ability to steal client funds was enhanced by the failure of Starr Investment Advisors to comply with asset custody rules that require firms to engage an independent public accountant to perform yearly surprise examinations of client assets in the firm’s custody.
“Starr breached his fiduciary duty as an investment adviser in the most egregious manner possible — he stole the funds his clients entrusted to him,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Starr betrayed the trust of some clients who have looked to him for years for investment advice and financial guidance.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, Starr and his companies transferred $7 million from the accounts of three clients between April 13 and April 16, 2010, without any authorization. The transferred funds were ultimately used to purchase a $7.6 million apartment on the Upper East Side in Manhattan on April 16. When one of the clients detected the unauthorized transfer and demanded the money be returned, Starr reimbursed that client with money siphoned from the account of another client without authorization. The other two investors have not been reimbursed.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that the unauthorized transfers in April 2010 were not the only instances when Starr misappropriated client funds. In August 2009, Starr and his entities began transferring approximately $1.7 million from the personal account of a client and from the account of a charity run by this client. These were all unauthorized transfers. In April 2010, an additional transfer of $750,000 was attempted from an account belonging to this client. But this time, Starr’s plans were frustrated because the bank alerted the client, who then halted the transfer. The client then reviewed the account transactions and uncovered the unauthorized $1.7 million transfers in 2009. When confronted about these transactions, Starr gave improbable explanations before eventually reimbursing the client with money that appears to have come from the bank account of another unrelated party.
The SEC’s complaint names two relief defendants in order to recover client assets now in their possession:
Diane Passage — Starr’s wife with whom he has a joint bank account.
Colcave LLC — An entity through which Starr purchased the apartment.
The SEC’s complaint charges each of the three defendants with violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, further, charges Starr Investment Advisors with violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2(a)(1) thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions barring future violations of the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of the defendants’ and relief defendants’ ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and financial penalties from the defendants.”
With all the fraud charges the SEC actually files you hear of almost no criminal follow-up by the FBI or any authority that could put a few of the bad guys behind bars for at least the summer. At the very least they should have to wear a T-shirt for a month that says “I’m A Wall Street Fraudster”.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
MAKER OF ATM AND VOTING MACHINES CHARGED WITH FRAUD
The security firm Diebold, Inc., of Canton Ohio, has been charged along with three former executives with fraudulent accounting. Diebold is listed on Wikipedia as one of the largest ATM manufacturing companies in the United States. The executives at Diebold Inc., tried to get their earnings numbers to correspond to the estimates given by Wall Street analysts. Companies who miss estimates often have their market value slide lower and can even have more difficulty in obtaining credit. Most importantly to many executives is the fact their bonus might not be as lucrative if the stock price takes a nose dive because the management did not meet the expectations of market analysts. The following is an excerpt of the post the SEC has put up:
“Washington, D.C., June 2, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Diebold, Inc. and three former financial executives for engaging in a fraudulent accounting scheme to inflate the company's earnings. The SEC separately filed an enforcement action against Diebold's former CEO seeking reimbursement of certain financial benefits that he received while Diebold was committing accounting fraud.
The SEC alleges that Diebold's financial management received "flash reports" — sometimes on a daily basis — comparing the company's actual earnings to analyst earnings forecasts. Diebold's financial management prepared "opportunity lists" of ways to close the gap between the company's actual financial results and analyst forecasts. Many of the opportunities on these lists were fraudulent accounting transactions designed to improperly recognize revenue or otherwise inflate Diebold's financial performance.
Diebold — an Ohio-based company that manufactures and sells ATMs, bank security systems and electronic voting machines — agreed to pay a $25 million penalty to settle the SEC's charges. Diebold's former CEO Walden O'Dell agreed to reimburse cash bonuses, stock, and stock options under the "clawback" provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The SEC's case against Diebold's former CFO Gregory Geswein, former Controller and later CFO Kevin Krakora, and former Director of Corporate Accounting Sandra Miller is ongoing.
“Financial executives borrowed from many different chapters of the deceptive accounting playbook to fraudulently boost the company's bottom line," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "When executives disregard their professional obligations to investors, both they and their companies face significant legal consequences."
Scott W. Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, added, "Section 304 of Sarbanes-Oxley is an important investor protection provision because it encourages senior management to proactively take steps to prevent fraudulent schemes from happening on their watch. We will continue to seek reimbursement of bonuses and other incentive compensation from CEOs and CFOs in appropriate cases."
Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act deprives corporate executives of certain compensation received while their companies were misleading investors, even in cases where that executive is not alleged to have violated the securities laws personally. The SEC has not alleged that O'Dell engaged in the fraud. Under the settlement, O'Dell has agreed to reimburse the company $470,016 in cash bonuses, 30,000 shares of Diebold stock, and stock options for 85,000 shares of Diebold stock.
According to the SEC's complaint against Diebold, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the company manipulated its earnings from at least 2002 through 2007 to meet financial performance forecasts, and made material misstatements and omissions to investors in dozens of SEC filings and press releases. Diebold's improper accounting practices misstated the company's reported pre-tax earnings by at least $127 million. Among the fraudulent accounting practices used to inflate earnings and meet forecasts were:
Improper use of "bill and hold" accounting.
Recognition of revenue on a lease agreement subject to a side buy-back agreement.
Manipulating reserves and accruals.
Improperly delaying and capitalizing expenses.
Writing up the value of used inventory.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's charges, Diebold consented to a final judgment ordering payment of the $25 million penalty and permanently enjoining the company from future violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.
The SEC charged Geswein, Krakora, and Miller, in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 10b 5 and 13b2-1; and aiding and abetting Diebold's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. In addition, the SEC charged Geswein and Krakora with violating Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 13b2-2 and Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The SEC also seeks officer-and-director bars against Geswein and Krakora as well as their reimbursement of bonuses and other incentive and equity compensation.”
Most people should feel just a bit uneasy to know that the company responsible for the security of their bank and many other financial transactions has just been found guilty of accounting fraud. Diebold Inc. seems to have a lot of issues in regards to honesty and integrity. The following is from Wikapedia and helps to outline some of the company’s ongoing problems.
“In August 2003, Walden O'Dell, then the chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends in the Republican Party, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.
In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.
In March 2007, it was reported by the Associated Press that Diebold was considering divesting itself of its voting machine subsidiary because it was "widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation".
In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.”
“Washington, D.C., June 2, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Diebold, Inc. and three former financial executives for engaging in a fraudulent accounting scheme to inflate the company's earnings. The SEC separately filed an enforcement action against Diebold's former CEO seeking reimbursement of certain financial benefits that he received while Diebold was committing accounting fraud.
The SEC alleges that Diebold's financial management received "flash reports" — sometimes on a daily basis — comparing the company's actual earnings to analyst earnings forecasts. Diebold's financial management prepared "opportunity lists" of ways to close the gap between the company's actual financial results and analyst forecasts. Many of the opportunities on these lists were fraudulent accounting transactions designed to improperly recognize revenue or otherwise inflate Diebold's financial performance.
Diebold — an Ohio-based company that manufactures and sells ATMs, bank security systems and electronic voting machines — agreed to pay a $25 million penalty to settle the SEC's charges. Diebold's former CEO Walden O'Dell agreed to reimburse cash bonuses, stock, and stock options under the "clawback" provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The SEC's case against Diebold's former CFO Gregory Geswein, former Controller and later CFO Kevin Krakora, and former Director of Corporate Accounting Sandra Miller is ongoing.
“Financial executives borrowed from many different chapters of the deceptive accounting playbook to fraudulently boost the company's bottom line," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "When executives disregard their professional obligations to investors, both they and their companies face significant legal consequences."
Scott W. Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, added, "Section 304 of Sarbanes-Oxley is an important investor protection provision because it encourages senior management to proactively take steps to prevent fraudulent schemes from happening on their watch. We will continue to seek reimbursement of bonuses and other incentive compensation from CEOs and CFOs in appropriate cases."
Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act deprives corporate executives of certain compensation received while their companies were misleading investors, even in cases where that executive is not alleged to have violated the securities laws personally. The SEC has not alleged that O'Dell engaged in the fraud. Under the settlement, O'Dell has agreed to reimburse the company $470,016 in cash bonuses, 30,000 shares of Diebold stock, and stock options for 85,000 shares of Diebold stock.
According to the SEC's complaint against Diebold, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the company manipulated its earnings from at least 2002 through 2007 to meet financial performance forecasts, and made material misstatements and omissions to investors in dozens of SEC filings and press releases. Diebold's improper accounting practices misstated the company's reported pre-tax earnings by at least $127 million. Among the fraudulent accounting practices used to inflate earnings and meet forecasts were:
Improper use of "bill and hold" accounting.
Recognition of revenue on a lease agreement subject to a side buy-back agreement.
Manipulating reserves and accruals.
Improperly delaying and capitalizing expenses.
Writing up the value of used inventory.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's charges, Diebold consented to a final judgment ordering payment of the $25 million penalty and permanently enjoining the company from future violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.
The SEC charged Geswein, Krakora, and Miller, in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 10b 5 and 13b2-1; and aiding and abetting Diebold's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. In addition, the SEC charged Geswein and Krakora with violating Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 13b2-2 and Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The SEC also seeks officer-and-director bars against Geswein and Krakora as well as their reimbursement of bonuses and other incentive and equity compensation.”
Most people should feel just a bit uneasy to know that the company responsible for the security of their bank and many other financial transactions has just been found guilty of accounting fraud. Diebold Inc. seems to have a lot of issues in regards to honesty and integrity. The following is from Wikapedia and helps to outline some of the company’s ongoing problems.
“In August 2003, Walden O'Dell, then the chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends in the Republican Party, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.
In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.
In March 2007, it was reported by the Associated Press that Diebold was considering divesting itself of its voting machine subsidiary because it was "widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation".
In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.”
Sunday, May 30, 2010
SEC GETS NEARLY 180 MILLION BACK FOR INVESTORS
The SEC has forced Millennium Partners to return 178 million dollars to investors. Unfortunately this distribution of funds fraudulently obtained by Millennium was from an enforcement action started way back in 2005. Can the wheels of justice turn any more slowly when it comes to financial crimes? The following is an excerpt of the action taken by the SEC and posted on their government web site:
“Washington, D.C., May 21, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the completion of a distribution of more than $178 million to investors affected by improper market timing by Millennium Partners and its related entities. The Millennium Fair Fund distributions went to more than 1,000 mutual funds and annuities.
“The total distribution of more than $178 million in this case further demonstrates the SEC’s commitment to holding wrongdoers accountable and recovering funds for injured investors from illegal activity,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 gave the SEC authority to increase the amount of money returned to injured investors by allowing civil financial penalties to be included in distributions. Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley, only ill-gotten gains could be returned to investors.
In 2005, the SEC brought an enforcement action charging Millennium Partners, L.P., Millennium Management, L.L.C., Millennium International Management, L.L.C., and several individuals with devising and carrying out a fraudulent scheme to avoid detection and circumvent restrictions that mutual funds imposed on market timing. The Millennium Fair Fund distribution fully reimburses the recipient mutual funds and annuities for their injury from the market timing. Pursuant to the Plan of Distribution, any remaining funds will be sent to the U.S. Treasury."
It appears that in this case the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was mentioned so prevalently in the press when it was passed in 2002, made a difference in regards to the amount of the recovery for investors. Under Sarbanes-Oxley civil financial penalties were increased which allows for increased compensation for the parties who were harmed by criminal activities.
“Washington, D.C., May 21, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the completion of a distribution of more than $178 million to investors affected by improper market timing by Millennium Partners and its related entities. The Millennium Fair Fund distributions went to more than 1,000 mutual funds and annuities.
“The total distribution of more than $178 million in this case further demonstrates the SEC’s commitment to holding wrongdoers accountable and recovering funds for injured investors from illegal activity,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 gave the SEC authority to increase the amount of money returned to injured investors by allowing civil financial penalties to be included in distributions. Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley, only ill-gotten gains could be returned to investors.
In 2005, the SEC brought an enforcement action charging Millennium Partners, L.P., Millennium Management, L.L.C., Millennium International Management, L.L.C., and several individuals with devising and carrying out a fraudulent scheme to avoid detection and circumvent restrictions that mutual funds imposed on market timing. The Millennium Fair Fund distribution fully reimburses the recipient mutual funds and annuities for their injury from the market timing. Pursuant to the Plan of Distribution, any remaining funds will be sent to the U.S. Treasury."
It appears that in this case the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was mentioned so prevalently in the press when it was passed in 2002, made a difference in regards to the amount of the recovery for investors. Under Sarbanes-Oxley civil financial penalties were increased which allows for increased compensation for the parties who were harmed by criminal activities.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
TWO SHORT SELLERS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE RULES
The SEC has caught two more individuals that were illegally shorting stocks. This is the first enforcement actions brought under rule 105. Rule 105 is meant to help stop the malicious market manipulations which has caused harm to the markets and has driven many retail (individual) investors away. Short selling when used as a hedge against sharp losses is a good thing. Short selling as a method of gambling is a dangerous thing to do for the short seller. The only time it is not dangerous is if the short seller has taken his own risk from the gamble via manipulating the market so that the stock will go down. It is like playing with a loaded deck of cards and that is perhaps a greater threat to capitalism than communism, fascism or any other ism.
The following is an excerpt from the SEC internet site. The SEC is at least finding some of the miscreants. It is too bad The Department of Justice does not take a keener interest in what may be the greatest threat to our national survival since WWII.
“Washington, D.C., May 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Boca Raton, Fla., residents for engaging in illegal short selling of securities in advance of participating in numerous secondary offerings to make illicit profits.
These mark the first enforcement actions brought by the SEC under Rule 105 of Regulation M against individuals with no securities industry background. Rule 105 helps prevent abusive short selling and market manipulation by ensuring that offering prices are set by natural forces of supply and demand for the securities in a secondary offering rather than by manipulative activity.
In separate orders issued by the Commission, Peter G. Grabler was charged with repeatedly violating Rule 105 over a period of more than two years for gains of $636,123. Leonard Adams was charged with similarly violating Rule 105 for gains of $331,387. According to the orders, Grabler and Adams engaged in a strategy of participating in numerous secondary offerings of stock in public companies in order to improve their access to initial public offerings underwritten by the same broker-dealers through which they participated in the secondary offerings.
Grabler and Adams, who both lived in Massachusetts during the period of the wrongdoing, agreed to pay a combined total of more than $1.5 million to settle the SEC's charges.
"Rule 105 applies just as much to individuals trading in their own accounts as it does to investment advisers and their related funds, which have been the subject of prior SEC enforcement actions," said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. "Grabler and Adams engaged in a trading strategy that by its very nature violates the SEC's rules."
Short selling ahead of offerings can reduce the proceeds received by public companies and their shareholders by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering. The SEC amended Rule 105 effective October 2007 to prevent this trading practice known as "shorting into the deal." The revised rule generally prohibits the purchase of offering shares by any person who sold short the same securities within five business days before the pricing of the offering.
According to the SEC's orders, Grabler engaged in transactions prohibited by Rule 105 on at least 119 occasions between February 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 102 issuers. Adams engaged in illegal transactions on at least 94 occasions between March 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 86 issuers. The SEC found that Grabler opened or controlled at least 52 brokerage accounts at more than a dozen broker-dealers and that Adams opened or controlled at least 32 brokerages accounts also at more than a dozen broker-dealers.
In settling the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Grabler and Adams separately consented to cease and desist from violating Rule 105. Grabler will pay more than $988,000 to settle the SEC's charges, and Adams will pay more than $514,000”
Well, the SEC has caught and fined more crooks. As a long time investor in securities and commodities I have seen a lot of market manipulation. In this case the criminals were stealing a relative small amount of money but, they did get a just fine and perhaps they should get some criminal charges brought against them but unfortunately, the SEC cannot try people and put them away.
One thing that should be noted in this case is how much trouble a couple of guys can cause through illegal short sales. It would be good if the SEC would look into a lot of the shenanigans that went on in the 2007-2008 melt down. Several major brokerages have been rumored to have made a tremendous fortune shorting stocks so far down that the underlying businesses could not get loans to stay in business. Some of these short sellers may have been such large institutions that they created the short selling market for these stocks which wiped a lot of retail investors out and forced good companies to lay off employees. The aforesaid happens if the collapsing price of a stock of a business causes that business to have problems getting loans to fund day to day operations.
The following is an excerpt from the SEC internet site. The SEC is at least finding some of the miscreants. It is too bad The Department of Justice does not take a keener interest in what may be the greatest threat to our national survival since WWII.
“Washington, D.C., May 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Boca Raton, Fla., residents for engaging in illegal short selling of securities in advance of participating in numerous secondary offerings to make illicit profits.
These mark the first enforcement actions brought by the SEC under Rule 105 of Regulation M against individuals with no securities industry background. Rule 105 helps prevent abusive short selling and market manipulation by ensuring that offering prices are set by natural forces of supply and demand for the securities in a secondary offering rather than by manipulative activity.
In separate orders issued by the Commission, Peter G. Grabler was charged with repeatedly violating Rule 105 over a period of more than two years for gains of $636,123. Leonard Adams was charged with similarly violating Rule 105 for gains of $331,387. According to the orders, Grabler and Adams engaged in a strategy of participating in numerous secondary offerings of stock in public companies in order to improve their access to initial public offerings underwritten by the same broker-dealers through which they participated in the secondary offerings.
Grabler and Adams, who both lived in Massachusetts during the period of the wrongdoing, agreed to pay a combined total of more than $1.5 million to settle the SEC's charges.
"Rule 105 applies just as much to individuals trading in their own accounts as it does to investment advisers and their related funds, which have been the subject of prior SEC enforcement actions," said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. "Grabler and Adams engaged in a trading strategy that by its very nature violates the SEC's rules."
Short selling ahead of offerings can reduce the proceeds received by public companies and their shareholders by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering. The SEC amended Rule 105 effective October 2007 to prevent this trading practice known as "shorting into the deal." The revised rule generally prohibits the purchase of offering shares by any person who sold short the same securities within five business days before the pricing of the offering.
According to the SEC's orders, Grabler engaged in transactions prohibited by Rule 105 on at least 119 occasions between February 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 102 issuers. Adams engaged in illegal transactions on at least 94 occasions between March 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 86 issuers. The SEC found that Grabler opened or controlled at least 52 brokerage accounts at more than a dozen broker-dealers and that Adams opened or controlled at least 32 brokerages accounts also at more than a dozen broker-dealers.
In settling the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Grabler and Adams separately consented to cease and desist from violating Rule 105. Grabler will pay more than $988,000 to settle the SEC's charges, and Adams will pay more than $514,000”
Well, the SEC has caught and fined more crooks. As a long time investor in securities and commodities I have seen a lot of market manipulation. In this case the criminals were stealing a relative small amount of money but, they did get a just fine and perhaps they should get some criminal charges brought against them but unfortunately, the SEC cannot try people and put them away.
One thing that should be noted in this case is how much trouble a couple of guys can cause through illegal short sales. It would be good if the SEC would look into a lot of the shenanigans that went on in the 2007-2008 melt down. Several major brokerages have been rumored to have made a tremendous fortune shorting stocks so far down that the underlying businesses could not get loans to stay in business. Some of these short sellers may have been such large institutions that they created the short selling market for these stocks which wiped a lot of retail investors out and forced good companies to lay off employees. The aforesaid happens if the collapsing price of a stock of a business causes that business to have problems getting loans to fund day to day operations.
Monday, May 10, 2010
BROKERS ACCUSED OF HELPING TO SELL PENNY STOCKS UNLAWFULLY
The sale of penny stocks are often looked upon as controversial way to raise capital. Many investors will not purchase stocks that sell for under $10.00 for fear the company may not have the financial ability to survive. However, sometimes a stock may be undervalued by the market and becomes a really good value at really low prices.
Of course anyone with a copy machine can print off stock certificates and anyone with a computer can set up bogus securities to sell to the public. Most people remember all the anecdotal stories of Internet companies being formed and then raising capital on the basis of just an idea with no real business behind the issued securities. This type of behaviour is something the SEC is mandated to investigate.
Because companies who engage in security sales are required to make sure that bogus the securities they sell are legitimate; the SEC brought the following action against Leeb Brokerage Services:
"Washington, D.C., April 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced administrative proceedings against five securities professionals accused of facilitating unlawful sales of penny stocks to investors and failing to act as "gatekeepers" as required under the federal securities laws.
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that three registered representatives and two supervisors at Leeb Brokerage Services allowed customers to routinely deliver large blocks of privately obtained shares of penny stocks into their accounts at the firm. The customers would then sell them to the public in transactions that were not registered with the SEC under the securities laws. The accused securities professionals allowed these sales without sufficiently investigating whether they were facilitating illegal underwriting, and they also caused the firm's failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report potential misconduct by their customers.
-"Firms whose customers repeatedly bring in large blocks of microcap securities for sale to the public have an obligation to ensure they are not facilitating wrongdoing," said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "Securities professionals who turn a blind eye to suspicious customer conduct are not fulfilling their duties as gatekeepers and risk violating the securities laws themselves."
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that Leeb registered representatives Ronald Bloomfield, John Earl Martin, Sr., and Victor Labi failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry before allowing the public sales of the large blocks of penny stocks in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The Enforcement Division further alleges that the firm's president Eugene Miller and its chief compliance officer Robert Gorgia failed to reasonably supervise the conduct of these representatives. All five individuals are accused of aiding and abetting the firm's failure to file SARs. These events occurred between 2005 and 2007. Leeb is no longer in business.
According to the Commission's order instituting administrative proceedings, the Leeb representatives ignored obvious red flags indicating that their customers were violating securities laws by engaging in illegal distributions of securities through their Leeb accounts. One group of customer accounts was affiliated with an individual who had previously been involved in a pump-and-dump scheme, and with a stock promoter who routinely received shares in compensation for promotional services for penny stock companies. The accounts earned more than $20 million in proceeds while repeatedly depositing privately obtained shares and then selling them to the public, raising the constant specter that Leeb was facilitating "scalping." Another Leeb customer wired more than $30 million in penny stock proceeds to a bank in Liechtenstein, a tax haven.
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that despite these and other suspicious activities of their customers, the accused Leeb representatives and supervisors ignored their obligation to report the possible misconduct to authorities. Such disregard of the firm's reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act enabled Leeb's customer activity, and the commissions it generated, to continue unfettered. And the public was exposed to repeated risk of unlawful distributions of penny stocks.
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the accused individuals committed the alleged violations and provide them an opportunity to defend the allegations. The hearing also will determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate in the public interest."
The above was quoted from the SEC official web page. The possibility of fraud is great in an unregulated industry and it is good that there are regulations to help protect the public from being victims of heinous crimes. The unfortunate thing is that too many politicians believe that it is alright that people loose their life savings to fraudsters. These politicians believe that stealing from people is just one very legitimate form of capitalism that should be protected from governmental intervention. This form of capitalism only works if the public is allowed to exact vengeance upon fraudsters the same way vengeance was enacted upon horse thieves in the old west. "Horse Thief Capitalism" only works if you have a "Horse Thief Justice System" otherwise, it is important to have strong aggressive governmental institutions to protect the public from fraud and the fraudsters from "Horse Thief Justice".
Of course anyone with a copy machine can print off stock certificates and anyone with a computer can set up bogus securities to sell to the public. Most people remember all the anecdotal stories of Internet companies being formed and then raising capital on the basis of just an idea with no real business behind the issued securities. This type of behaviour is something the SEC is mandated to investigate.
Because companies who engage in security sales are required to make sure that bogus the securities they sell are legitimate; the SEC brought the following action against Leeb Brokerage Services:
"Washington, D.C., April 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced administrative proceedings against five securities professionals accused of facilitating unlawful sales of penny stocks to investors and failing to act as "gatekeepers" as required under the federal securities laws.
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that three registered representatives and two supervisors at Leeb Brokerage Services allowed customers to routinely deliver large blocks of privately obtained shares of penny stocks into their accounts at the firm. The customers would then sell them to the public in transactions that were not registered with the SEC under the securities laws. The accused securities professionals allowed these sales without sufficiently investigating whether they were facilitating illegal underwriting, and they also caused the firm's failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report potential misconduct by their customers.
-"Firms whose customers repeatedly bring in large blocks of microcap securities for sale to the public have an obligation to ensure they are not facilitating wrongdoing," said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "Securities professionals who turn a blind eye to suspicious customer conduct are not fulfilling their duties as gatekeepers and risk violating the securities laws themselves."
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that Leeb registered representatives Ronald Bloomfield, John Earl Martin, Sr., and Victor Labi failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry before allowing the public sales of the large blocks of penny stocks in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The Enforcement Division further alleges that the firm's president Eugene Miller and its chief compliance officer Robert Gorgia failed to reasonably supervise the conduct of these representatives. All five individuals are accused of aiding and abetting the firm's failure to file SARs. These events occurred between 2005 and 2007. Leeb is no longer in business.
According to the Commission's order instituting administrative proceedings, the Leeb representatives ignored obvious red flags indicating that their customers were violating securities laws by engaging in illegal distributions of securities through their Leeb accounts. One group of customer accounts was affiliated with an individual who had previously been involved in a pump-and-dump scheme, and with a stock promoter who routinely received shares in compensation for promotional services for penny stock companies. The accounts earned more than $20 million in proceeds while repeatedly depositing privately obtained shares and then selling them to the public, raising the constant specter that Leeb was facilitating "scalping." Another Leeb customer wired more than $30 million in penny stock proceeds to a bank in Liechtenstein, a tax haven.
The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that despite these and other suspicious activities of their customers, the accused Leeb representatives and supervisors ignored their obligation to report the possible misconduct to authorities. Such disregard of the firm's reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act enabled Leeb's customer activity, and the commissions it generated, to continue unfettered. And the public was exposed to repeated risk of unlawful distributions of penny stocks.
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the accused individuals committed the alleged violations and provide them an opportunity to defend the allegations. The hearing also will determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate in the public interest."
The above was quoted from the SEC official web page. The possibility of fraud is great in an unregulated industry and it is good that there are regulations to help protect the public from being victims of heinous crimes. The unfortunate thing is that too many politicians believe that it is alright that people loose their life savings to fraudsters. These politicians believe that stealing from people is just one very legitimate form of capitalism that should be protected from governmental intervention. This form of capitalism only works if the public is allowed to exact vengeance upon fraudsters the same way vengeance was enacted upon horse thieves in the old west. "Horse Thief Capitalism" only works if you have a "Horse Thief Justice System" otherwise, it is important to have strong aggressive governmental institutions to protect the public from fraud and the fraudsters from "Horse Thief Justice".
Saturday, May 1, 2010
SEC CHARGES DETROIT FIRM WITH FRAUD
It seems the penchant for securities dealers to steal pensions never ends. The Detroit area is one of the most economically ravaged areas of the U.S. and then to have some Wall Street fraudsters come along and rub salt in the wounds of this ancient French Fort City is just unconscionable. At any rate, the SEC feels it can go ahead and get some of the money back. The following excerpt was taken from the SEC site and explains in pretty good detail the crimes that were committed:
"Washington, D.C., April 22, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a private equity firm, a money manager and his friend with participating in a fraudulent scheme through which they stole more than $3 million invested by three Detroit-area public pension funds.
Detroit-based Onyx Capital Advisors LLC and its founder Roy Dixon, Jr., raised $23.8 million from the three pension funds for a start-up private equity fund created to invest in small and medium-sized private companies. Often to cover overdrafts in his bank accounts, Dixon illegally withdrew money invested by the pension funds from the bank accounts of the private equity fund. Assisting in the scheme was Dixon’s friend Michael A. Farr, who controls three companies in which the Onyx fund invested millions of dollars. Farr diverted money invested in these entities to another company he owned, withdrew the money from that bank account, and gave the cash to Dixon. Farr also kept some money for himself, and used investor funds to make payments to contractors building a multi-million dollar house for Dixon, who lives primarily in Atlanta.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Detroit, also alleges that Dixon and Onyx Capital made a number of false and misleading statements to defraud the three pension funds about the private equity fund and the investments they were making.
“These public pension funds provided seed capital to the Onyx fund, and Dixon betrayed their trust by stealing their money,” said Merri Jo Gillette, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. “Farr assisted Dixon by making large bank withdrawals of money ostensibly invested in Farr’s companies, and together they treated the pension funds’ investments as their own pot of cash.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, shortly after the three pension funds made their first contributions to the Onyx fund in early 2007, Dixon and Onyx Capital began illegally siphoning money. Dixon and Onyx Capital took more than $2.06 million under the guise of management fees, and Farr assisted in diverting approximately $1.05 million through the Onyx fund’s purported investments in companies Farr controlled. Dixon used the money to pay personal and business expenses, including construction of his house in Atlanta and mortgage payments on more than 40 rental properties Dixon owns in Detroit and Pontiac, Mich.
Under the partnership agreement for the Onyx fund, Onyx Capital was entitled to receive an annual management fee of 2 percent of the committed capital within the fund, or $500,000 per year, payable on a quarterly basis. The SEC alleges that instead of deducting management fees on a quarterly basis, Dixon withdrew money whenever he desired from the Onyx fund’s bank accounts under his control.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Onyx Capital invested more than $15 million from the Onyx fund in three related entities controlled by Farr – Second Chance Motors, SCM Credit LLC, and SCM Finance LLC. Farr diverted a portion of the pension fund investments in Farr’s companies to 1097 Sea Jay LLC, another entity that Farr controlled. Farr then withdrew large sums of cash and provided most of it to Dixon while retaining at least $229,000 for his own benefit. Farr also used Sea Jay’s bank accounts to make at least $522,000 in payments to construction companies performing work on Dixon’s house in Atlanta.
The SEC further alleges that Dixon and Onyx Capital made numerous false and misleading statements to Onyx Capital’s public pension fund clients. For example, one pension fund had concerns about Dixon’s inexperience in private equity. To allay the concerns and ultimately convince the pension fund to fund the investment, Dixon sent a letter falsely stating that a purported joint owner of Onyx Capital with substantial experience evaluating private equity investments would devote all of his efforts to the Onyx fund. The letter contained a forged signature of that individual, who had reviewed certain investment opportunities for the Onyx fund during his spare time, but has never owned or been employed by Onyx Capital. He instead had been working full-time for another company since 1996.
As alleged in the SEC’s complaint, Dixon and Onyx Capital violated and Farr aided and abetted violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking a court order for emergency relief, including temporary restraining orders, asset freezes and accountings. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and financial penalties."
It is just too bad the SEC can't prosecute these individuals as real criminals and send them off to prison. It seems Congress made sure many years ago that the most that can happen to Wall Street fraudsters is that they might have to give back at least some of the money they stole. People who steal candy bars at convenience stores get greater punishments. The Department of Justice is supposed to handle criminal prosecutions of Wall Street fraudsters but, they don't seem to have the accountants who can find the fraud or the lawyers who can understand the fraud once it is found.
It might be noted that a fraud of just a few million dollars is not that big however, these frauds are being perpetrated by perhaps the hundreds or even thousands across the United States. Of course with the penalty of being caught being no greater than giving back what was stolen then "why not steal?" In this country it seems we have banks too big to fail and Wall Street bankers too rich to go to jail.
"Washington, D.C., April 22, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a private equity firm, a money manager and his friend with participating in a fraudulent scheme through which they stole more than $3 million invested by three Detroit-area public pension funds.
Detroit-based Onyx Capital Advisors LLC and its founder Roy Dixon, Jr., raised $23.8 million from the three pension funds for a start-up private equity fund created to invest in small and medium-sized private companies. Often to cover overdrafts in his bank accounts, Dixon illegally withdrew money invested by the pension funds from the bank accounts of the private equity fund. Assisting in the scheme was Dixon’s friend Michael A. Farr, who controls three companies in which the Onyx fund invested millions of dollars. Farr diverted money invested in these entities to another company he owned, withdrew the money from that bank account, and gave the cash to Dixon. Farr also kept some money for himself, and used investor funds to make payments to contractors building a multi-million dollar house for Dixon, who lives primarily in Atlanta.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Detroit, also alleges that Dixon and Onyx Capital made a number of false and misleading statements to defraud the three pension funds about the private equity fund and the investments they were making.
“These public pension funds provided seed capital to the Onyx fund, and Dixon betrayed their trust by stealing their money,” said Merri Jo Gillette, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. “Farr assisted Dixon by making large bank withdrawals of money ostensibly invested in Farr’s companies, and together they treated the pension funds’ investments as their own pot of cash.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, shortly after the three pension funds made their first contributions to the Onyx fund in early 2007, Dixon and Onyx Capital began illegally siphoning money. Dixon and Onyx Capital took more than $2.06 million under the guise of management fees, and Farr assisted in diverting approximately $1.05 million through the Onyx fund’s purported investments in companies Farr controlled. Dixon used the money to pay personal and business expenses, including construction of his house in Atlanta and mortgage payments on more than 40 rental properties Dixon owns in Detroit and Pontiac, Mich.
Under the partnership agreement for the Onyx fund, Onyx Capital was entitled to receive an annual management fee of 2 percent of the committed capital within the fund, or $500,000 per year, payable on a quarterly basis. The SEC alleges that instead of deducting management fees on a quarterly basis, Dixon withdrew money whenever he desired from the Onyx fund’s bank accounts under his control.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Onyx Capital invested more than $15 million from the Onyx fund in three related entities controlled by Farr – Second Chance Motors, SCM Credit LLC, and SCM Finance LLC. Farr diverted a portion of the pension fund investments in Farr’s companies to 1097 Sea Jay LLC, another entity that Farr controlled. Farr then withdrew large sums of cash and provided most of it to Dixon while retaining at least $229,000 for his own benefit. Farr also used Sea Jay’s bank accounts to make at least $522,000 in payments to construction companies performing work on Dixon’s house in Atlanta.
The SEC further alleges that Dixon and Onyx Capital made numerous false and misleading statements to Onyx Capital’s public pension fund clients. For example, one pension fund had concerns about Dixon’s inexperience in private equity. To allay the concerns and ultimately convince the pension fund to fund the investment, Dixon sent a letter falsely stating that a purported joint owner of Onyx Capital with substantial experience evaluating private equity investments would devote all of his efforts to the Onyx fund. The letter contained a forged signature of that individual, who had reviewed certain investment opportunities for the Onyx fund during his spare time, but has never owned or been employed by Onyx Capital. He instead had been working full-time for another company since 1996.
As alleged in the SEC’s complaint, Dixon and Onyx Capital violated and Farr aided and abetted violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking a court order for emergency relief, including temporary restraining orders, asset freezes and accountings. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and financial penalties."
It is just too bad the SEC can't prosecute these individuals as real criminals and send them off to prison. It seems Congress made sure many years ago that the most that can happen to Wall Street fraudsters is that they might have to give back at least some of the money they stole. People who steal candy bars at convenience stores get greater punishments. The Department of Justice is supposed to handle criminal prosecutions of Wall Street fraudsters but, they don't seem to have the accountants who can find the fraud or the lawyers who can understand the fraud once it is found.
It might be noted that a fraud of just a few million dollars is not that big however, these frauds are being perpetrated by perhaps the hundreds or even thousands across the United States. Of course with the penalty of being caught being no greater than giving back what was stolen then "why not steal?" In this country it seems we have banks too big to fail and Wall Street bankers too rich to go to jail.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The following pargraphs were sent out via e-mail to subscribers of The Washington Post. It was sent out late Friday night April 23, 2010. It reads as follows:
"Goldman Sachs is preparing its most detailed defense yet to allegations that it misled clients in its mortgage securities business, arguing that it was unsure whether housing prices would rise or fall and did not take any action at odds with the interests of its clients.
An internal Goldman document, prepared for senior executives and obtained by The Washington Post, addresses the criticism that the bank invested its own money betting against the housing market while simultaneously urging clients to invest in securities that would increase in value only if the housing market did."
This article did not indicate whether or not Goldman is mounting a vigorous defence against allegations of misconduct in order to avoid prosecution, the paying of fines or, loss of reputation and hence, clints. I suspect all three motives might be behind Goldman's insistance that it has done nothing wrong.
"Goldman Sachs is preparing its most detailed defense yet to allegations that it misled clients in its mortgage securities business, arguing that it was unsure whether housing prices would rise or fall and did not take any action at odds with the interests of its clients.
An internal Goldman document, prepared for senior executives and obtained by The Washington Post, addresses the criticism that the bank invested its own money betting against the housing market while simultaneously urging clients to invest in securities that would increase in value only if the housing market did."
This article did not indicate whether or not Goldman is mounting a vigorous defence against allegations of misconduct in order to avoid prosecution, the paying of fines or, loss of reputation and hence, clints. I suspect all three motives might be behind Goldman's insistance that it has done nothing wrong.
CEO CHARGED WITH STEALING
It is sad that we have so many businessmen that are just pure thieves. This makes us all look bad and undermines our cherrished free enterprise system. These very successful fraudsters also set a bad example for the kids. Hard work does not pay off nearly as well as being a Wall Street Fraudster. The following is another exerpt from the SEC web site that shows how very bad many executives behave:
"Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
"Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants."
"Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
"Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants."
Sunday, April 18, 2010
JP MORGAN CAUGHT UP IN PAY-TO-PLAY MUNI BOND SCHEME
The following is an excerpt from the SEC web page in regards to a recent action taken by the SEC. It seems that a JP Morgan executive gave a campaign contribution to a politician responsible for the issuance of Municipal bonds. Such contributions are not legal under MSRB Rule G-37. The SEC explains the rule in the following:
"Washington, D.C., March 18, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a report warning firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm's employees.
The pay-to-play rule, MSRB Rule G-37, generally prohibits firms from underwriting municipal bonds for an issuer for two years after a municipal finance professional (MFP) involved with that firm makes a campaign contribution to an elected official of that municipality.
In the Report of Investigation, the Commission makes clear that an executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer is not exempt from the MSRB's pay-to-play rule just because he or she may be outside the firm's corporate governance structure. As such, an executive may be deemed an MFP if he or she is not part of a broker-dealer, but oversees the broker-dealer from the vantage of the holding company.
“Firms and associated persons must adhere strictly to municipal securities pay-to-play rules,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Firms cannot rely solely upon titles or organizational charts in determining whether a person is subject to those rules.”
When the Commission approved the rule in 1994, it indicated that banks and bank holding companies affiliated with brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers were excluded from the rule. Since then, the Commission has not directly addressed whether directors, officers or employees of such banks and bank holding companies are MFPs if they supervise the public finance activities of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers or serve on executive committees that engage in such supervision.
The Commission's Report of Investigation stems from an Enforcement Division inquiry into whether JP Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) violated the MSRB Rule. According to the Report, JPMSI underwrote municipal bonds issued by the state of California within two years after a then-Vice Chairman of JPMSI's parent bank holding company (JP Morgan Chase) gave a $1,000 contribution to a California elected official.
Under Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Commission may investigate violations of the federal securities laws and at its discretion "publish information concerning any such violations." JPMSI consented to the issuance of the Report without admitting or denying any of the statements or conclusions."
It is apparent from the above that some corporations bribe public officials for government business. Many in this nation state that the government should keep it's nose out of the way businesses are run. Maybe big business should keep its checkbook closed instead of trying bribe the government to send the peoples money into the coffers of big firms.
"Washington, D.C., March 18, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a report warning firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm's employees.
The pay-to-play rule, MSRB Rule G-37, generally prohibits firms from underwriting municipal bonds for an issuer for two years after a municipal finance professional (MFP) involved with that firm makes a campaign contribution to an elected official of that municipality.
In the Report of Investigation, the Commission makes clear that an executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer is not exempt from the MSRB's pay-to-play rule just because he or she may be outside the firm's corporate governance structure. As such, an executive may be deemed an MFP if he or she is not part of a broker-dealer, but oversees the broker-dealer from the vantage of the holding company.
“Firms and associated persons must adhere strictly to municipal securities pay-to-play rules,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Firms cannot rely solely upon titles or organizational charts in determining whether a person is subject to those rules.”
When the Commission approved the rule in 1994, it indicated that banks and bank holding companies affiliated with brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers were excluded from the rule. Since then, the Commission has not directly addressed whether directors, officers or employees of such banks and bank holding companies are MFPs if they supervise the public finance activities of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers or serve on executive committees that engage in such supervision.
The Commission's Report of Investigation stems from an Enforcement Division inquiry into whether JP Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) violated the MSRB Rule. According to the Report, JPMSI underwrote municipal bonds issued by the state of California within two years after a then-Vice Chairman of JPMSI's parent bank holding company (JP Morgan Chase) gave a $1,000 contribution to a California elected official.
Under Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Commission may investigate violations of the federal securities laws and at its discretion "publish information concerning any such violations." JPMSI consented to the issuance of the Report without admitting or denying any of the statements or conclusions."
It is apparent from the above that some corporations bribe public officials for government business. Many in this nation state that the government should keep it's nose out of the way businesses are run. Maybe big business should keep its checkbook closed instead of trying bribe the government to send the peoples money into the coffers of big firms.
Friday, April 16, 2010
GOLDMAN SACHS CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Goldman Sachs has been charged with fraud by the SEC. The Dow 30 Industrial Index fell by up to 150 points when the fraud was disclosed today. The following is an excerpt from the press release given by the Securities and exchange commission:
"SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-59
Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.
Additional Materials
Litigation Release No. 21489
SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."
The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.'s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.'s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.'s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA's interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.
According to the SEC's complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.
Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.
The SEC's complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties."
The SEC can only assess civil liabilities however, it is unclear as to whether or not the Department of Justice or the Attorney General of the State of New York will pursue criminal charges.
"SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-59
Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.
Additional Materials
Litigation Release No. 21489
SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."
The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.'s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.'s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.'s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA's interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.
According to the SEC's complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.
Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.
The SEC's complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties."
The SEC can only assess civil liabilities however, it is unclear as to whether or not the Department of Justice or the Attorney General of the State of New York will pursue criminal charges.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
FLASH ORDERS: THE WAY INVESTORS WERE BEAT
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted unanimously to ban flash orders. According to the SEC filing "A flash allows a person who has not publicly displayed a quote to see orders less than a second before the public is given an opportunity to trade with those orders. Investors who have access only to information displayed as public quotes may be harmed if market participants are able to flash orders and avoid the need to make the order publicly available."
"Flash orders may create a two-tiered market by allowing only selected participants to access information about the best available prices for listed securities," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "These flash orders provide a momentary head-start in the trading arena that can produce inequities in the markets and create disincentives to display quotes."
Flash orders are one of the many ways that wealthy investors have been taking individual investors and traders to the cleaners for years. Up until now, politicians and agencies created to oversea criminal activities on WallStreet, have turned a blind eye to practices such as these. This is a sad time in America when a few wealthy bankers on Wallstreet can manipulate markets with the blessing of the government. Even casino's are better regulated. The very existence of the SEC has for decades gave people the confidence to invest their hard earned savings. The SEC has just been operating as a co-conspirator in the Wallstreet confidence game.
At least finally, the SEC is doing it's job but, will people trust them in the future? Obviously, it would be shear ignorance to trust the Wallstreet banking elite.
The following is more detail regarding their decision on flash orders, released on the SEC web site:
"The Commission today voted unanimously to propose the elimination of the flash order exception from Rule 602. If adopted, the proposed amendment would effectively prohibit all markets - including equity exchanges, options exchanges, and alternative trading systems - from displaying marketable flash orders.
In its proposal, the Commission is seeking public comment and data on a broad range of issues relating to flash orders, including the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. It also seeks comment on whether the use of flash orders in the options markets should be evaluated differently than their use in the equity markets.
* * *
Public comments on today's proposal must be received by the Commission within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register."
T
"Flash orders may create a two-tiered market by allowing only selected participants to access information about the best available prices for listed securities," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "These flash orders provide a momentary head-start in the trading arena that can produce inequities in the markets and create disincentives to display quotes."
Flash orders are one of the many ways that wealthy investors have been taking individual investors and traders to the cleaners for years. Up until now, politicians and agencies created to oversea criminal activities on WallStreet, have turned a blind eye to practices such as these. This is a sad time in America when a few wealthy bankers on Wallstreet can manipulate markets with the blessing of the government. Even casino's are better regulated. The very existence of the SEC has for decades gave people the confidence to invest their hard earned savings. The SEC has just been operating as a co-conspirator in the Wallstreet confidence game.
At least finally, the SEC is doing it's job but, will people trust them in the future? Obviously, it would be shear ignorance to trust the Wallstreet banking elite.
The following is more detail regarding their decision on flash orders, released on the SEC web site:
"The Commission today voted unanimously to propose the elimination of the flash order exception from Rule 602. If adopted, the proposed amendment would effectively prohibit all markets - including equity exchanges, options exchanges, and alternative trading systems - from displaying marketable flash orders.
In its proposal, the Commission is seeking public comment and data on a broad range of issues relating to flash orders, including the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. It also seeks comment on whether the use of flash orders in the options markets should be evaluated differently than their use in the equity markets.
* * *
Public comments on today's proposal must be received by the Commission within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register."
T
Sunday, March 28, 2010
SEC CONTINUES TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD
The following information was presented on the SEC website. The information is regarding a case of securities fraud. The SEC is bringing charges of securities fraud against family members who managed a hedge fund based in Florida. This is a follow-up to the charges brought against Arthur G. Nadel last year.
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Sarasota, Fla.-based investment advisers with securities fraud for misleading investors about the financial condition of three hedge funds they managed, and misrepresenting that they controlled the funds' investment and trading activities when in fact they were being handled by Arthur G. Nadel.
The SEC alleges that Neil V. Moody and his son, Christopher D. Moody, distributed offering materials, account statements, and newsletters to investors that misrepresented the hedge funds' historical investment returns and overstated their asset values by as much as $160 million. The Moody’s based their materials on grossly overstated performance numbers that Nadel created and provided to them. The Moodys failed to independently verify the accuracy of the figures despite multiple red flags, and relied exclusively on Nadel’s inaccurate information when communicating with investors.
The SEC last year obtained an emergency court order to freeze his assets.
"The Moodys led investors to believe that they were faithfully managing funds invested with them," said Glenn S. Gordon, Associate Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. "Instead, they abdicated their responsibilities to investors and ignored warning signs that should have alerted them to the fraud that was occurring all around them."
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., Neil and Christopher Moody disseminated misleading materials to investors about their hedge funds Valhalla Investment Partners L.P., Viking IRA Fund LLC, and Viking Fund LLC from at least 2003 through December 2008.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that the Moodys misled investors regarding their role in managing the assets of the three hedge funds by claiming that they controlled all of the investment and trading decisions. In truth, under an arrangement that the Moodys had with Nadel, he controlled nearly all of the funds’ investment and trading activities with no meaningful supervision or oversight by the Moodys.
In its complaint against the Moodys, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, and disgorgement of illegal gains. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, the Moodys have consented to permanent injunctions against future securities fraud violations. The Moodys also consented to the entry of a Commission order that will bar them for five years from associating with any investment adviser.”
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Sarasota, Fla.-based investment advisers with securities fraud for misleading investors about the financial condition of three hedge funds they managed, and misrepresenting that they controlled the funds' investment and trading activities when in fact they were being handled by Arthur G. Nadel.
The SEC alleges that Neil V. Moody and his son, Christopher D. Moody, distributed offering materials, account statements, and newsletters to investors that misrepresented the hedge funds' historical investment returns and overstated their asset values by as much as $160 million. The Moody’s based their materials on grossly overstated performance numbers that Nadel created and provided to them. The Moodys failed to independently verify the accuracy of the figures despite multiple red flags, and relied exclusively on Nadel’s inaccurate information when communicating with investors.
The SEC last year obtained an emergency court order to freeze his assets.
"The Moodys led investors to believe that they were faithfully managing funds invested with them," said Glenn S. Gordon, Associate Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. "Instead, they abdicated their responsibilities to investors and ignored warning signs that should have alerted them to the fraud that was occurring all around them."
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., Neil and Christopher Moody disseminated misleading materials to investors about their hedge funds Valhalla Investment Partners L.P., Viking IRA Fund LLC, and Viking Fund LLC from at least 2003 through December 2008.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that the Moodys misled investors regarding their role in managing the assets of the three hedge funds by claiming that they controlled all of the investment and trading decisions. In truth, under an arrangement that the Moodys had with Nadel, he controlled nearly all of the funds’ investment and trading activities with no meaningful supervision or oversight by the Moodys.
In its complaint against the Moodys, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, and disgorgement of illegal gains. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, the Moodys have consented to permanent injunctions against future securities fraud violations. The Moodys also consented to the entry of a Commission order that will bar them for five years from associating with any investment adviser.”
Saturday, March 27, 2010
GETTING SEMINAR PONZIED BY FAKE ESTATE PLANNERS
Below is an excerpt from the SEC web site which outlines an alleged Ponzi Scheme committed by some very smooth operators. This story has the real smell of a con complete wining and dining potential victims and with lying about investments and even about having an MBA. Please read the following excerpt regarding the Estate Planning Seminar Con:
"SEC Halts Ponzi Scheme Preying on Retirees Attending Estate Planning Seminars
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-37
Washington, D.C., March 10, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency court order to shut down a Ponzi scheme targeting retirees in California and Illinois by inviting them to estate planning seminars and later coaxing them to buy promissory notes for purported Turkish investments.
The SEC alleges that USA Retirement Management Services (USARMS) and managing partners Francois E. Durmaz and Robert C. Pribilski mass-mailed promotional materials to prospective investors and invited them to estate planning seminars held at country clubs and banquet halls. They gained retirees' confidence in follow-up meetings and portrayed themselves as educated and experienced in foreign investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors. Durmaz and Pribilski then pitched what they represented as safe, guaranteed investments in "Turkish Eurobonds" through the purchase of USARMS promissory notes that would earn annual returns between 8 and 11 percent.
The SEC alleges that USARMS raised at least $20 million from more than 120 investors, but did not actually invest the money in Turkish Eurobonds as promised. Instead, returns were paid to earlier investors with funds received from new investors in Ponzi-like fashion. Durmaz and Pribilski further misused investor funds to finance their other businesses and purchase such things as luxury automobiles, homes, vacations, and web-based pornography. They also wired investor money into bank accounts belonging to individuals living in Turkey who are named as relief defendants in the SEC's case.
"Durmaz and Pribilski used estate planning seminars as a means to elicit investor trust and lure retirees into investing in a classic Ponzi scheme," said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
USARMS and its securities are not registered with the SEC. USARMS is incorporated in Illinois and has offices in Los Angeles; Irvine, Calif.; and Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. Durmaz resides in Los Angeles and Streamwood, Ill., and Pribilski resides in Lisle, Ill. Neither of them is registered with the SEC in any capacity nor do they hold any securities licenses.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Durmaz and other USARMS employees provided seminar attendees a general presentation on estate planning and later sent them a letter inviting them to their offices for a personal consultation "to explain the amazing steps you must take when you set up a Living Trust or Will."
The SEC alleges that once seminar attendees went to their estate planning appointments, Durmaz examined their personal financial information and told prospective investors that they had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in USARMS promissory notes. In addition, Durmaz falsely claimed that he held a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and was a Certified Senior Advisor (CSA). Thus, prospective investors were led to believe that Durmaz was educated and experienced in investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors and retirees."
The above allegations of the SEC demonstrates again how widespread fraud exists all over the investment community. Ponzi schemes have been around for generations but, crooks seem to love to use them over and over again.
"SEC Halts Ponzi Scheme Preying on Retirees Attending Estate Planning Seminars
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-37
Washington, D.C., March 10, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency court order to shut down a Ponzi scheme targeting retirees in California and Illinois by inviting them to estate planning seminars and later coaxing them to buy promissory notes for purported Turkish investments.
The SEC alleges that USA Retirement Management Services (USARMS) and managing partners Francois E. Durmaz and Robert C. Pribilski mass-mailed promotional materials to prospective investors and invited them to estate planning seminars held at country clubs and banquet halls. They gained retirees' confidence in follow-up meetings and portrayed themselves as educated and experienced in foreign investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors. Durmaz and Pribilski then pitched what they represented as safe, guaranteed investments in "Turkish Eurobonds" through the purchase of USARMS promissory notes that would earn annual returns between 8 and 11 percent.
The SEC alleges that USARMS raised at least $20 million from more than 120 investors, but did not actually invest the money in Turkish Eurobonds as promised. Instead, returns were paid to earlier investors with funds received from new investors in Ponzi-like fashion. Durmaz and Pribilski further misused investor funds to finance their other businesses and purchase such things as luxury automobiles, homes, vacations, and web-based pornography. They also wired investor money into bank accounts belonging to individuals living in Turkey who are named as relief defendants in the SEC's case.
"Durmaz and Pribilski used estate planning seminars as a means to elicit investor trust and lure retirees into investing in a classic Ponzi scheme," said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
USARMS and its securities are not registered with the SEC. USARMS is incorporated in Illinois and has offices in Los Angeles; Irvine, Calif.; and Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. Durmaz resides in Los Angeles and Streamwood, Ill., and Pribilski resides in Lisle, Ill. Neither of them is registered with the SEC in any capacity nor do they hold any securities licenses.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Durmaz and other USARMS employees provided seminar attendees a general presentation on estate planning and later sent them a letter inviting them to their offices for a personal consultation "to explain the amazing steps you must take when you set up a Living Trust or Will."
The SEC alleges that once seminar attendees went to their estate planning appointments, Durmaz examined their personal financial information and told prospective investors that they had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in USARMS promissory notes. In addition, Durmaz falsely claimed that he held a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and was a Certified Senior Advisor (CSA). Thus, prospective investors were led to believe that Durmaz was educated and experienced in investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors and retirees."
The above allegations of the SEC demonstrates again how widespread fraud exists all over the investment community. Ponzi schemes have been around for generations but, crooks seem to love to use them over and over again.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
EXECUTIVES CHARGED WITH ENRICHING CEO WITH PERKS
The following excerpt of information was gathered from the SEC webpage. It shows how easily executives can drain a company of money leaving shareholders, employees and creditors to suffer great losses. Please read the following excerpt:
2010-39
Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-39.htm
2010-39
Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-39.htm
Sunday, February 28, 2010
CALIFORNIA TELECOM CO. CHARGED WITH BRIBERY
On Dec. 31, 2009, the SEC charged UTStarcom, with corrupton charges. The following was found on the SEC Governmental page. It seems that UTStarcom had a very lavish and intricate scheme for bribing officials in Asia. The Department of Justice was also involved with this case. The following is an exerpt from the SEC web page:
"Washington, D.C., Dec. 31, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alameda, Calif.-based telecommunications company UTStarcom, Inc. with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for authorizing millions of dollars in unlawful payments to foreign government officials in Asia.
UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay a $1.5 million penalty among other remedies. In a related criminal case, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that UTStarcom agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million fine.
"UTStarcom spent millions of dollars on illegal bribes to win and keep customers in Asia," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "It is important for corporate America to recognize that resorting to these methods of boosting profits contributes to a culture of corruption that cannot be condoned under U.S. law."
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that UTStarcom's wholly-owned subsidiary in China paid nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2007 for hundreds of overseas trips by employees of Chinese government-controlled telecommunications companies that were customers of UTStarcom, purportedly to provide customer training. In reality, the trips were entirely or primarily for sightseeing.
The SEC further alleges that UTStarcom provided lavish gifts and all-expenses paid executive training programs in the U.S. for existing and potential foreign government customers in China and Thailand. UTStarcom also purported to hire individuals affiliated with foreign government customers to work in the U.S. and provided them with work visas, when in reality the individuals did no work for UTStarcom. According to the SEC's complaint, UTStarcom also made improper payments to sham consultants in China and Mongolia while knowing that they would pay bribes to foreign government officials.
The SEC's complaint charges UTStarcom with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. UTStarcom agreed, without admitting or denying the charges, to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and to provide the SEC with annual FCPA compliance reports and certifications for four years, in addition to paying the $1.5 million penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Department of Justice during the investigation."
"Washington, D.C., Dec. 31, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alameda, Calif.-based telecommunications company UTStarcom, Inc. with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for authorizing millions of dollars in unlawful payments to foreign government officials in Asia.
UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay a $1.5 million penalty among other remedies. In a related criminal case, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that UTStarcom agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million fine.
"UTStarcom spent millions of dollars on illegal bribes to win and keep customers in Asia," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "It is important for corporate America to recognize that resorting to these methods of boosting profits contributes to a culture of corruption that cannot be condoned under U.S. law."
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that UTStarcom's wholly-owned subsidiary in China paid nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2007 for hundreds of overseas trips by employees of Chinese government-controlled telecommunications companies that were customers of UTStarcom, purportedly to provide customer training. In reality, the trips were entirely or primarily for sightseeing.
The SEC further alleges that UTStarcom provided lavish gifts and all-expenses paid executive training programs in the U.S. for existing and potential foreign government customers in China and Thailand. UTStarcom also purported to hire individuals affiliated with foreign government customers to work in the U.S. and provided them with work visas, when in reality the individuals did no work for UTStarcom. According to the SEC's complaint, UTStarcom also made improper payments to sham consultants in China and Mongolia while knowing that they would pay bribes to foreign government officials.
The SEC's complaint charges UTStarcom with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. UTStarcom agreed, without admitting or denying the charges, to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and to provide the SEC with annual FCPA compliance reports and certifications for four years, in addition to paying the $1.5 million penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Department of Justice during the investigation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To WALL STREET FRAUDSTERS
Posts
All Comments