Criminal Activity

Disciplinary action serves as reminder of due diligence requirement in Reg. D offerings

A recent disciplinary action reaffirmed FINRA member firms’ obligations to conduct a reasonable investigation of the issuer and the securities it recommends in offerings made under the SEC’s Regulation D, commonly known as private placements. Regulation D provides exemptions from the registration requirements of Section 5 under the Securities & Exchange Act, but it does not exempt these transactions from the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. A broker-dealer thus has a duty—enforceable under federal securities laws and FINRA rules—to conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities it recommends. Moreover, any broker-dealer that recommends securities offered under Regulation D must meet the suitability requirements under NASD Rule 2310, and comply with the advertising and supervisory rules of FINRA and the SEC.

A broker-dealer’s reasonable investigation must be tailored to each Regulation D offering, as its scope will depend on factors such as the sophistication of the investors, the broker-dealer’s affiliation with the issuer, and other facts and circumstances of the offering. The investigation, at a minimum, should include background checks of the issuer and its management, the business prospects of the issuer, the assets held or to be acquired by the issuer, the claims being made, and the intended use of the proceeds.

A firm that engages in Regulation D offerings also must have supervisory procedures under NASD Rule 3010 that are designed to ensure that its personnel and representatives conduct an inquiry that is sufficient to comply with the legal and regulatory requirements; that they perform the suitability analysis required by NASD Rule 2310; that they qualify the investors’ eligibility to purchase the securities; and that they abide by the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and FINRA rules regarding the preparation and distribution of offering documents or sales literature. And a broker-dealer has a further duty to adequately investigate any information located during the investigation that may be considered a “red flag.”

August 7th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence, Criminal Activity|Tags: , , |

SEC announces new enforcement initiatives to combat fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”) announced today three new initiatives that will build on its Division of Enforcement’s ongoing efforts to concentrate resources on high-risk areas, as follows:

  • The Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force will concentrate on expanding and strengthening the Division’s efforts to identify securities law violations relating to the preparation of financial statements, issuer reporting and disclosure, and audit failures. Its principal goal will be fraud detection and increased prosecution of violations involving false or misleading financial statements and disclosures. 
  • The Microcap Fraud Task Force will investigate fraud in the issuance, marketing, and trading of microcap securities. These abuses frequently involve serial violators and organized syndicates that employ new media, especially websites and social media, to conduct fraudulent promotional campaigns and engage in manipulative trading strategies to amass ill-gotten gains, largely at the expense of less sophisticated investors. The task force’s principal goal will be to develop and implement long-term strategies for detecting and combating fraud especially by targeting “gatekeepers,” such as attorneys, auditors, broker-dealers, and transfer agents, and other significant participants, such as stock promoters and purveyors of shell companies.
  • The Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics (CRQA) will support and coordinate the Division’s risk identification, risk assessment and data analytic activities by identifying risks and threats that could harm investors, and assist staff nationwide in conducting risk-based investigations and developing methods of monitoring for signs of possible wrongdoing. A central point of contact for risk-based initiatives nationwide, CRQA will serve as both an analytical hub and source of information about characteristics and patterns indicative of possible fraud or other illegality.
July 2nd, 2013|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , |

CFPB’s expanded complaint database goes live

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) announced that the nation’s largest database of federal consumer financial complaints is live and open for public viewing.

The CFPB’s recent launch significantly expands the Consumer Complaint Database from about 19,000 credit card complaints in 2012 to more than 90,000 complaints on mortgages, student loans, bank accounts and services, other consumer loans, and credit cards. It also includes product sub-categories, such as reverse mortgages, conventional fixed mortgages and adjustable mortgages, and home equity loans or lines of credit. Complaints are entered only after the company provides a response or after it has had the complaint for 15 days, whichever comes first. The CFPB states that while the allegations in the complaints are not verified, a commercial relationship between the consumer and the company is substantiated before the complaint is added to the database.

According to the CFPB, the database now has more than one million data points covering approximately 450 companies, and includes information such as the type of complaint, date of submission, consumer’s ZIP code, and the company’s name. The database also provides information about the actions taken on the complaint, i.e., whether the company’s response was timely, how the company responded, and whether the consumer disputed the response.

To file a complaint with the CFPB, consumers can:>

  • File online at www.consumerfinance.gov/Complaint;
  • Call 1-855-411-CFPB (2372) or TTY/TDD phone number at 1-855-729-CFPB (2372);
  • Fax to: (855) 237-2392; or
  • Mail to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 4503, Iowa City, IA 52244.
May 9th, 2013|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , |

SEC and CFTC issue final identity theft rules to protect investors

On April 10, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) issued joint Identity Theft Red Flags Rules requiring broker-dealers, mutual funds, investment advisers, and certain other entities to adopt programs to detect red flags and prevent identity theft. Notably, certain state laws may also require the adoption of similar guidelines.

Additionally, entities that retain service providers must ensure that the providers conduct their activities in accordance with reasonable policies and procedures designed to detect, prevent and mitigate the risk of identity theft. A financial institution may be found in violation of the Rules if it fails to exercise appropriate and effective oversight over the engagement.

May 6th, 2013|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , , |

Business identity theft: a crime that often goes unreported

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) data from its Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN), an online database of consumer complaints available only to law enforcement, identity theft was the top consumer complaint in 2011, accounting for 17% or 287,232 complaints of the 1.8 million received; 990,242 of these cases involved fraud.

There are no reliable federal or state statistics that specifically track business identity theft, but various studies suggest that businesses do not report the crime because of the stigma attached to it. The company’s credibility and trust of its clients may never recover if they admit to being a victim.

Business identity theft comes in many forms. Posing as a look-alike or sound-alike business, and impersonating owners, officers or employees to illegally get cash, credit, and loans, is just one example. Thieves typically steal a business’ identity by gaining access to its bank accounts and credit cards, or by stealing sensitive company information, such as its tax identification number (TIN) and the owners’ personal information. Elaine Marshall, North Carolina’s Secretary of State, sees an increasing number of cases involving falsified documents. Marshall says that “the easiest targets are dissolved corporations, because whoever ran those defunct businesses usually no longer pays attention. Somebody comes 20 years later and reinstates it, and it looks like it’s a 40-year-old corporation. And if it was in good standing financially when it was dissolved, then

[the thief] will capitalize on that good standing.”

Indeed businesses have become easy targets for identity theft. Almost anyone can obtain a business’ tax identification number. A merchant’s basic financial information, including bank account numbers, may be known to hundreds of its customers and suppliers. Data access can be exploited by employees and insider theft, and fraud is often difficult to detect, especially when carried out by trusted employees. Many businesses do not review their own credit information for fraud and may be lax in shredding or disposing of documents. Although more businesses are conducting background checks on employees and suppliers, only a few ensure the integrity of their commercial shredding contractors and even fewer conduct background checks on in-house or contracted cleaning staff. And many companies are simply complacent in data security.

The Internet carries the highest perpetration of criminal theft and fraud. Since 2002, the FBI has recorded an 84% increase in the number of computer intrusion investigations. Cyber thieves use the web to obtain goods, services, and money while exploiting time-lags in discovery and investigation. They also prowl for valuable non-ID specific business data including confidential e-mails, customer and marketing data, bid and pricing sheets, and trade-secrets. In the financial services sector, the vast majority of transactions, including credit cards and debit cards, and even mortgage funding, occur online in virtual anonymity without the risks associated with in-person transactions. Because such identity theft crimes take place in cyber-space, police often must coordinate with other state, federal, or international agencies. And even when jurisdictional issues are resolved, often only high-profile offenders actually face criminal prosecution.

In this complex and dangerous environment, a proactive approach to preventing business identity theft is critical, and should include:

  • Security policies based on the highest reasonably assessed risk, including limiting the number of persons with a valid need to access sensitive information;
  • Corporate governance which advocates strong security planning;
  • System audits and tests to ensure detection of inappropriate usage and other vulnerabilities;
  • Background checks of all employees, key vendors, and contractors including document shredding entities, cleaning personnel, etc.;
  • Annual reviews of Secretary of State and other public filings;
  • Annual or more frequent reviews of Dun & Bradstreet reports, and if applicable, small business reports with Equifax, Experian and TransUnion;
  • Practice of excluding sensitive personal or business information in public filings;
  • Shredding or destroying business records as applicable;
  • Securing paper documents in locked cabinets in restricted areas;
  • Using privacy screens with smart phones, laptops, etc., when accessing sensitive information while traveling; and
  • Obtaining business insurance that covers potential business identity theft losses.

There are many online information and action resources for identity theft. The FTC provides comprehensive guidelines for prevention and recovery from identity theft, along with complaint forms. The Identity Theft Resource Center also contains excellent reference materials, including links to state and local agencies, as do the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the National Consumers League. 

January 7th, 2013|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , |

Overview of identity theft related crime laws

Below is an overview of federal laws in connection with identity theft crimes.

  • The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (the “ITADA”)

The ITADA, passed in 1998, makes identity theft a distinct crime from wire fraud, covers theft of data (as well as documents), and encompasses businesses and persons that seek access to personal records through banks, state and federal agencies, or insurance companies. The ITADA mandates significant fines and imprisonment even for first offenders. The federal criminal jurisdiction requires an underlying felony (such as fraud or conspiracy) and involvement of an “identification document” that: (a) is purportedly issued by the United States, (b) is used or intended to defraud the United States, (c) is sent through the mail, or (d) is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

  • The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (the “FACTA”)

The FACTA was established as a national detection system to deter fraud resulting from identity theft in its early stages with or without subsequent law enforcement investigation. The FACTA, among other rights, allows victims to alert all three major credit rating agencies of suspected criminal use of their financial data or accounts affecting a credit rating. The FACTA created the rights to “free” annual credit reports, and requirements that mortgage lenders provide actual FICO credit scores (not just credit account data) if that score is used to determine interest rates for a housing loan. The FACTA also mandates that merchants show only the last five digits of credit card numbers on receipts. The FACTA further is responsible for developing a system to “red flag” suspicious requests for consumer data, and allows military personnel to “freeze” credit files when they are deployed overseas.

Under the FACTA, consumer “red flags” include fraud alerts from a reporting business that has identified a data breach, unusual patterns in credit usage, suspicious documentation, credit usage after long periods of inactivity, known mail drop addresses, and other anomalies.

The FACTA also requires employers to shred documents containing employee data; any business that supplies or facilitates consumer credit must secure or destroy consumer information. This “disposal rule” requires reasonable and appropriate destruction of all information derived from a consumer credit report, prior to its disposal. Failure to comply with destruction requirements (i.e. shredding) carries penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. There is an implied obligation within the FACTA disposal rule to conduct due diligence for hiring or contracting data disposal personnel, which includes reference checking, physical inspection of licenses or certificates, and audits.

 

  • The Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”)

The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to adopt reasonable procedures to maintain and report consumer data with confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and reasonable security. CRAs must ensure “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the subject of the report.”

Victims may sue for willful or negligent failure to verify the accuracy of disputed information or correct inaccurate information resulting from a stolen identity. Consumers who report errors or fraudulent transactions are entitled to a “reasonable investigation” and an expectation that errors will be corrected and reported back promptly. The statute provides for attorney’s fees and punitive damages for willful violations. Under the FCRA, identity theft victims may authorize law enforcement agencies to obtain their credit reports and other records without obtaining a subpoena and at no personal cost. The FCRA imposes a two-year statute of limitations that begins when an inaccurate disclosure or report is filed, not when the consumer actually becomes aware of inaccuracies.

The FCRA also includes a “disposal rule” requiring any business that has access to or which utilizes consumer reporting information to dispose of this sensitive information properly.  The FCRA’s disposal rule is broader than FACTA’s in that it targets any company that complies, sells or purchases reports containing private personal or medical information. This includes employment agencies, banks, private investigators, landlords, auto dealers, insurance agents and others. The FCRA disposal rule applies to any information, in any format, and mandates that the disposal method must render the documents or information unreadable and incapable of being reconstructed.

  • The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLBA”)

The GLBA directs eight federal regulatory agencies and the states to administer and enforce the Financial Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule to ensure that financial institutions prevent unauthorized disclosure of consumer financial information, including fraudulent access, by implementing appropriate policies, procedures and controls. Also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the GLBA defines financial institutions as a “business significantly engaged in providing financial services or products for personal, family, or household use.” The GLBA is relevant to traditional banks and credit unions, and also includes check-cashing and payday loan services, non-bank lenders, real estate appraisers, tax preparers, debt collectors, financial advisors, and insurance agents and brokers.

  • The Right to Financial Privacy Act (the “RFPA”)

The RFPA falls under the ambit of the FDIC and targets industrial loan companies, trust companies, savings associations, credit unions and consumer finance institutions. The RFPA creates statutory Fourth Amendment protection for personal bank records by providing that ‘no government authority

[state or federal] may have access to or obtain copies of, or the information contained in the financial records of any customer from a financial institution unless the financial records are reasonably described and the customer authorizes access; there is an appropriate administrative subpoena or summons; there is a qualified search warrant; there is an appropriate judicial subpoena, or there is a written request from an authorized government authority.

The RFPA prohibits banks and other covered entities from requiring customers to release financial records as a condition of doing business, and mandates banks to provide customers with access to records of all disclosures made to third parties.

  • The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (the “HIPAA”)

The HIPAA, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), establishes nationwide security standards for electronic health care information. This ‘security rule’ requires all covered entities to be compliant with specific administrative, technical, and physical security standards and procedures for electronic data. HIPAA rules apply not only to doctors, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, and laboratories, but may also apply to certain collection agencies, health insurers, and lawyers, and also to any businesses that maintain self-insured employee health care plans.

In addition to federal laws, each state has its own law regarding identity theft or impersonation. Twenty-nine states, Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have specific restitution provisions for identity theft. Five states—Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee—have forfeiture provisions for identity theft crimes. Eleven states—Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Virginia—have created identity theft passport programs to help victims from continuing identity theft.

Thirty-four states have introduced or have pending legislation regarding identity theft during the 2012 legislative session, including Louisiana which enacted its Business Identity Theft Prevention Act. For more information on state laws, visit the website of National Council of State Legislatures.

January 7th, 2013|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , |

Social media evolving as new platform for investment scams

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today charged an Illinois-based investment adviser with offering to sell fictitious securities through social media sites. According to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Anthony Fields of Lyons, IL, offered more than $500 billion in fictitious securities, and in some instances, used LinkedIn discussions to promote fraudulent “bank guarantees” and “medium-term notes.”

The SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Fields charges that he made multiple fraudulent offers through his two sole proprietorships – Anthony Fields & Associates (AFA) and Platinum Securities Brokers. Fields allegedly provided false and misleading information concerning AFA’s assets under management, clients, and operational history to the public through its website and in SEC filings. Fields also failed to maintain required books and records, did not implement adequate compliance policies and procedures, and promoted himself as a broker-dealer while he was not registered with the SEC.
Also today, in recognition that fraudsters are now turning to new and evolving platforms to peddle their scams, the SEC issued two alerts to highlight the risks investors and advisory firms face when using social media.

One of these alerts, a National Examination Risk Alert titled “Investment Adviser Use of Social Media,” provides staff observations based on reviews of investment advisers of varying sizes and strategies that use social media. The bulletin addresses issues that may arise from social media usage by firms and their associated persons, and offers suggestions for managing the antifraud, compliance, and recordkeeping provisions of the federal securities laws. The alert notes that firms need to consider how to implement new compliance programs or revisit their existing ones to align with the rapidly changing technology.

In the SEC’s second bulletin, an Investor Alert titled “Social Media and Investing: Avoiding Fraud” prepared by the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, the aim is to help investors be aware of fraudulent investment schemes that use social media, and provide tips for checking the backgrounds of advisers and brokers.

January 4th, 2012|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: , |

Truth is stranger than fiction: fraud came complete with a fake courtroom and costumed employees

Late last year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) filed a consumer protection lawsuit against an Erie debt collection company accusing it of using deceptive tactics to mislead, confuse or coerce consumers. The AG called the company’s actions “an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments or surrendering valuables to the company without following lawful procedures for debt collection.”

According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly used fraudulent civil subpoenas – sometimes served by deputy sheriff impersonators – to summon consumers to its office which included an area referred to as the “courtroom” and was the stage for fictitious proceedings to intimidate consumers into providing access to bank accounts, making immediate payments or surrendering vehicle titles and other assets. The bogus courtroom was set up with furniture and decorations similar to those used in actual courts, including a raised judge’s bench, two tables and chairs in front of the bench for attorneys and defendants, a simulated witness stand, seating for spectators, and shelves with legal books. And in some of the fake hearings, an individual dressed in black was seated as the “judge.” After the staged proceedings, the company’s employees allegedly were dispatched to the consumers’ homes in order to retrieve documents or to compel them to sign payment agreements.

In conjunction with the lawsuit, which seeks restitution for all consumers who have been harmed by the company’s unfair trade practices, the AG filed a petition for, among other remedies, a special and preliminary injunction asking the court to freeze the company’s assets, and prohibit it from engaging in any debt collection. Fast forward to November 2011: the company is now defunct, and the AG’s office is resuming its suit against the former president who several months ago filed for personal Chapter 13 bankruptcy which insulated him from creditors, but not from the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, according to Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti’s ruling.

And there is more. According to published reports, an Erie district judge is suing the publisher of the Erie Times-News, its web server and three reporters for defamation in connection with stories, which allegedly made it appear that he was part of the sham perpetrated by this debt collection agency.

Just like this case, many of the attorney general’s complaints read better than fiction, but these scams are real and cause very real damage to individuals and companies. Many consumers do not realize that state attorney general records are searchable and it is imperative that these records are included in all comprehensive background investigations.

 

December 22nd, 2011|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: |

Department of Justice filed a record number of criminal cases in 2011

Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen in a November 17, 2011 published speech reported that in the fiscal year 2011, the DOJ filed 90 criminal cases — the highest number in the past 20 years. The DOJ agreed to more than $520 million in criminal fines, which is close to the amount in 2010 (which totaled 60 cases.) In this year’s 90 cases, 27 corporations in the real estate, optical disk drives, auto parts, air cargo, and financial services industries were charged along with 82 individuals.

Pozen also disclosed that the DOJ has been conducting an international cartel investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts industry, which already resulted in the guilty pleas of one corporation and three individuals, $200 million in fines, and three jail terms for the executives involved in the conspiracy.

In the real estate industry, Pozen said that the DOJ continues its investigations into bid rigging conspiracies at public real estate foreclosure auctions and tax lien auctions. With the help of the FBI, the DOJ agents ferreted out the ways in which the participants coordinated their bids. To date, 32 defendants have pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges, according to Pozen.

The DOJ remains focused on criminal activity in the financial services sector. Pozen noted that together with several federal and state agencies, the DOJ has been investigating a criminal conspiracy involving bid rigging in the municipal bond investments market, resulting in nine pleas of individuals this year. These investigations, which are ongoing, impelled JPMorgan Chase to enter into an agreement to resolve its role in the conspiracy, and agree to pay $228 million in restitution, penalties, and disgorgement to federal and state agencies. Earlier in the year, UBS AG also agreed to pay a total of $160 million and Bank of America previously consented to $137.3 million.

November 17th, 2011|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: |

Bribing for business: Russia and China score lowest in fighting corruption

According to a survey released on November 3, 2011, by Transparency International, a non-profit, corruption watchdog, Russia and China got the lowest scores in its 2011 Bribe Payers Index, which ranked the top 28 largest economies according to the probability of companies headquartered in these countries practicing bribery. The scores were calculated from responses of 3,016 executives in 30 countries who had business dealings in those economies.

Companies based in China and Russia scored below 7 on a scale of 10, at 6.5 and 6.1, respectively. Mexico, with a 7.0 score, was third from the bottom. Companies in the Netherlands and Switzerland tied for first place with scores of 8.8, with Belgium, Germany, and Japan rounding out the top five.
The survey also ranked the business sectors in which bribery was perceived to be prevalent. Public works and construction were reported as the most pullulated along with oil and gas. Agriculture and light manufacturing were ranked as the cleanest.

The report noted that “there is no country among the 28 major economics whose companies are perceived to be wholly clean and do not engage in bribery.” And the scores, on average, have not improved significantly from the 2008 Bribe Payers Index. The average score of 22 countries increased only 0.1 points to 7.9 in the latest edition.

The survey also found that “international business leaders reported the widespread practice of companies paying bribes to public officials in order to, for example, win public tenders, avoid regulation, speed up government processes or influence policy.” However, companies are almost as likely to pay bribes to other businesses, according to the survey, which looked at business-to-business bribery for the first time. This suggests that corruption is not only a concern for the public sector, but for many businesses, and carries major reputational and financial risks.

November 3rd, 2011|Categories: Criminal Activity, International|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top