Tag Archives: Rule 10b-5

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Securities Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages

“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.

Continue reading

Posted in Criminal Defense Lawyer, Criminal Law, Department of Justice, Fraud, High Profile Prosecutions, Investment Fraud, Securities Fraud, South Carolina Attorney, South Carolina Criminal Defense Lawyer, South Carolina Fraud Lawyer, South Carolina Law Firm, South Carolina Lawyer, U.S. Attorney, White Collar Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Telemarketers Convicted of Securities Fraud in Telemarketing Schemes to Defraud Investors

Under 9th Circuit jurisprudence, willfully as used in Section 77ff(a) does not require that a defendant specifically know that his conduct was unlawful, and the trial court’s erroneous instruction was harmless. The court further held that a defendant’s reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a misrepresentation can also be considered “willfull” under the securities fraud statute. The court further found that there was no error in failing to provide the jury a “puffing” instruction because the trial court had instructed that jury that good faith constituted a complete defense. Continue reading

Posted in Criminal Defense Lawyer, Criminal Law, Fraud, Securities Fraud, Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. Attorney, White Collar Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Day Trader Convicted of Federal Securities Fraud Involving Manipulations of Lucent Corporation Stock with Fraudulent Chat Room Press Releases

Defendant Moldofsky was an on-line “day trader” of stocks. On March 22, 2002, he began posting anonymous messages on an internet website message board regarding Lucent Corporation stock. All of his messages were false and generally stated that Lucent was about to issue public earnings warnings due to deteriorating business conditions. Lucent stock traded significantly lower on the morning of March 23, 2002, until such time as Lucent issued a press release stating that Moldofsky’s chat room messages were fake and incorrect. Upon Lucent’s press release, its stock price rose significantly. Moldofsky was convicted at trial for violating the 1934 Act, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §§ 78ff(a) and 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5. During the trial, he had moved the court for a jury instruction stating that the the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not know of the Rule 10b-5. The court denied the motion, noting that the No Knowledge Clause might be relevant when it came to sentencing, but that it was not an element of the offense for the jury’s consideration. The court later denied the defendant’s motion for a sentence of no imprisonment, finding that the defendant, an experienced day-trader, had admitted that he knew there were rules against fraud and manipulation of stocks. Continue reading

Posted in Criminal Defense Lawyer, Criminal Law, Fraud, Securities Fraud, U.S. Attorney, White Collar Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DOJ Securities Fraud Prosecution of Lawyer for Insider Security Trading of Options of Pillsbury Corporation

Securities Fraud Prosecution of Lawyer for Insider Security Trading of Options of Pillsbury Corporation The following case summary is illustrative of criminal prosecutions purusant to the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act. It involves the unlawful use of non-public, inside information by a senior partner in the law … Continue reading

Posted in Criminal Defense Lawyer, Fraud, Securities Fraud, U.S. Attorney, White Collar Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Criminal Securities Fraud Provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 for SC Lawyers, SC Attorneys and SC Law Firms

The 1934 Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) generally regulates trading of securities after their distribution through initial public offerings. Some of the provisions of the 1934 Act also regulate initial public offerings. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a through 78mm. The criminal provisions of the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff, provide as follows:

(a) Willful violations; false and misleading statements

Continue reading

Posted in Fraud, Government Fraud, Securities Fraud, U.S. Attorney, White Collar Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment