Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 27, 2009

FLORIDA

Antitrust Division Charges Two in Connection with Stanford Financial Group Investigations

On Sept. 10, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's New York Field Office announced the indictment of Thomas Raffanello, a former global director of security in the Fort Lauderdale office of Stanford Financial Group. Raffanello is charged in a three-count superseding indictment with conspiracy to obstruct an SEC proceeding and to destroy documents in a federal investigation, obstructing an SEC proceeding, and destroying documents in a federal investigation. The superseding indictment also charged Bruce Perraud, a former global security specialist in the same office, with conspiracy and obstructing an SEC proceeding. An original indictment, unsealed on June 19, 2009, had charged Perraud with one count of destroying records in a federal investigation. The charges relate to an SEC investigation into Stanford Financial Group and its subsidiary, Stanford International Bank Ltd. The SEC has alleged in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that Stanford entities orchestrated a “massive, ongoing fraud.”

NEW JERSEY

DOJ Antitrust Division Charges Three in Connection with Superfund Site

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's New York Field Office announced a 12-count indictment of three individuals on Sept. 11, 2009, in connection with their alleged participation in fraud and kickback conspiracies related to contracts at an EPA Superfund site in Manville, NJ. The indictment charged Gordon D. McDonald, John A. Bennett, and James E. Haas, Jr., with rigging bids for the award of subcontracts to remove contaminated soil at the Federal Creosite Superfund Site. Each faces one or more counts, including charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy, fraud, bid rigging, kickbacks, obstruction of justice, tax violations, and international money laundering.

NEW YORK

Judge Rakoff Rejects Bank of America, SEC Settlement

Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on Sept. 14, 2009, that rejected the proposed settlement agreement between Bank of America and the SEC related to Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Bank of America would have paid $33 million to settle charges that it concealed in communications to shareholders an agreement to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives.

In his order, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement because it did not “comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality, in that it proposes that the shareholders who were the victims of the Bank's alleged misconduct now pay the penalty for that misconduct,” and questioned why Bank of America would agree to pay $33 million while maintaining that it was innocent. Judge Rakoff also criticized lawyers for Bank of America, who allegedly wrote the misleading shareholder communications, and asked why the SEC had not sought to penalize the attorneys.

Several weeks after Judge Rakoff issued his order, Bank of America's Board of Directors agreed to produce documents related to the legal advice it received during its purchase of Merrill Lynch, reversing a position that the bank had maintained for several months. Trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 1, 2010.

U.S. Attorney Charges Six with Insider Trading

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York charged and arrested six individuals for insider trading in what the U.S. Attorney's Office called the “largest hedge fund insider trading case in history.” According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the defendants allegedly realized more than $20 million in illegal profits by trading in the shares of Intel Corp., IBM, McKinsey & Co., Moody's Investors Services, Inc., Market Street Partners, Akamai Technologies, Inc., and Polycom, Inc. The defendants are Raj Rajaratnam, the Managing Member of Galleon Management, LLC; Danielle Chiesi, an employee of New Castle Funds, LLC; Mark Kurland, an executive at New Castle; Rajiv Goel, a Director in Strategic Investments at Intel Capital, the investment arm of Intel Corp.; Anil Kumar, a Director at McKinsey & Co.; and Robert Moffat, Senior Vice President and Group Executive at IBM. The defendants face as many as 13 counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. The U.S. Attorney's Office stated that these charges followed the government's first use of wiretaps to target significant insider trading on Wall Street.

In a related case, the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the six individual defendants and Galleon Management LP and New Castle Funds, LLC. The SEC's complaint alleges that all of the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and that some of the defendants violated section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Former KPMG Partner Pleads Guilty in Tax Scheme

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced on Sept. 23, 2009, that Robert Pfaff, a former partner with KPMG, pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the IRS by concealing from the IRS and Saipan tax authorities millions of dollars of income received from tax-shelter transactions. Pfaff also pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud a Saipan company of its right to the honest services of its employees by sharing tax-shelter income with officers of the company, who failed to disclose the income to the company's board of directors. According to the plea agreement and related records, Pfaff realized more than $3.75 million in fee income from the tax shelters. Pfaff will be sentenced on Nov. 16, 2009. The U.S. Attorney already has forfeited $1.84 million through a civil forfeiture proceeding. Pfaff currently is serving a 97-month sentence that was imposed after his conviction in United States v. Stein.

 

FLORIDA

Antitrust Division Charges Two in Connection with Stanford Financial Group Investigations

On Sept. 10, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's New York Field Office announced the indictment of Thomas Raffanello, a former global director of security in the Fort Lauderdale office of Stanford Financial Group. Raffanello is charged in a three-count superseding indictment with conspiracy to obstruct an SEC proceeding and to destroy documents in a federal investigation, obstructing an SEC proceeding, and destroying documents in a federal investigation. The superseding indictment also charged Bruce Perraud, a former global security specialist in the same office, with conspiracy and obstructing an SEC proceeding. An original indictment, unsealed on June 19, 2009, had charged Perraud with one count of destroying records in a federal investigation. The charges relate to an SEC investigation into Stanford Financial Group and its subsidiary, Stanford International Bank Ltd. The SEC has alleged in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that Stanford entities orchestrated a “massive, ongoing fraud.”

NEW JERSEY

DOJ Antitrust Division Charges Three in Connection with Superfund Site

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's New York Field Office announced a 12-count indictment of three individuals on Sept. 11, 2009, in connection with their alleged participation in fraud and kickback conspiracies related to contracts at an EPA Superfund site in Manville, NJ. The indictment charged Gordon D. McDonald, John A. Bennett, and James E. Haas, Jr., with rigging bids for the award of subcontracts to remove contaminated soil at the Federal Creosite Superfund Site. Each faces one or more counts, including charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy, fraud, bid rigging, kickbacks, obstruction of justice, tax violations, and international money laundering.

NEW YORK

Judge Rakoff Rejects Bank of America, SEC Settlement

Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on Sept. 14, 2009, that rejected the proposed settlement agreement between Bank of America and the SEC related to Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Bank of America would have paid $33 million to settle charges that it concealed in communications to shareholders an agreement to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives.

In his order, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement because it did not “comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality, in that it proposes that the shareholders who were the victims of the Bank's alleged misconduct now pay the penalty for that misconduct,” and questioned why Bank of America would agree to pay $33 million while maintaining that it was innocent. Judge Rakoff also criticized lawyers for Bank of America, who allegedly wrote the misleading shareholder communications, and asked why the SEC had not sought to penalize the attorneys.

Several weeks after Judge Rakoff issued his order, Bank of America's Board of Directors agreed to produce documents related to the legal advice it received during its purchase of Merrill Lynch, reversing a position that the bank had maintained for several months. Trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 1, 2010.

U.S. Attorney Charges Six with Insider Trading

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York charged and arrested six individuals for insider trading in what the U.S. Attorney's Office called the “largest hedge fund insider trading case in history.” According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the defendants allegedly realized more than $20 million in illegal profits by trading in the shares of Intel Corp., IBM, McKinsey & Co., Moody's Investors Services, Inc., Market Street Partners, Akamai Technologies, Inc., and Polycom, Inc. The defendants are Raj Rajaratnam, the Managing Member of Galleon Management, LLC; Danielle Chiesi, an employee of New Castle Funds, LLC; Mark Kurland, an executive at New Castle; Rajiv Goel, a Director in Strategic Investments at Intel Capital, the investment arm of Intel Corp.; Anil Kumar, a Director at McKinsey & Co.; and Robert Moffat, Senior Vice President and Group Executive at IBM. The defendants face as many as 13 counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. The U.S. Attorney's Office stated that these charges followed the government's first use of wiretaps to target significant insider trading on Wall Street.

In a related case, the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the six individual defendants and Galleon Management LP and New Castle Funds, LLC. The SEC's complaint alleges that all of the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and that some of the defendants violated section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Former KPMG Partner Pleads Guilty in Tax Scheme

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced on Sept. 23, 2009, that Robert Pfaff, a former partner with KPMG, pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the IRS by concealing from the IRS and Saipan tax authorities millions of dollars of income received from tax-shelter transactions. Pfaff also pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud a Saipan company of its right to the honest services of its employees by sharing tax-shelter income with officers of the company, who failed to disclose the income to the company's board of directors. According to the plea agreement and related records, Pfaff realized more than $3.75 million in fee income from the tax shelters. Pfaff will be sentenced on Nov. 16, 2009. The U.S. Attorney already has forfeited $1.84 million through a civil forfeiture proceeding. Pfaff currently is serving a 97-month sentence that was imposed after his conviction in United States v. Stein.

 

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?