Scherzer Blog

Epidemic of fake websites is real

Cyber crime experts report that fake websites are proliferating at the rate of 60,000+ per week or over 3,100,000 per year. And the fraudsters’ malicious exploitations are getting bold and more sophisticated, creating sites that are difficult to discern from those of legitimate businesses or organizations. From banks (which make up about 68% of fraudulent sites) to regulators and news reporting agencies, no entity is immune.

Recently, several local and national newspapers reported on a publicity campaign by a public relations company that purportedly set up a fake news site to promote one of its clients, a public entity, with positive articles and press releases “written in the image of real news” by “journalists” who allegedly do not exist. Although Web experts note that it is fairly common for celebrities and private-sector businesses to generate buzz or improve sales through news coverage, open government advocates called this stunt an egregious breach of trust and ethical standards.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued warnings a few months ago about scam artists exploiting well-known news organizations by setting up fake news sites to peddle their wares. The sites, which usually display logos of legitimate news organizations, promote everything from bogus weight loss products to work-at-home jobs, anti-aging products and debt reduction plans. The FTC cited several investigations that resulted in charges against the fraudsters, saying that many of the websites are owned by marketers and used to entice consumers to click on links to the sellers’ sites. In its case against acai berry supplement peddlers, the FTC disclosed that the sellers paid the marketers a commission based on the number of consumers they lured to their sites. There was no reporter, no studies, no dramatic weight loss, no satisfied consumers who left comments, and no affiliation with a reputable news source. As a rule, the FTC noted, legitimate news organizations do not endorse products.

The FTC itself, and other regulators have not escaped the fraudsters’ blitz. In April 2011, the FTC brought charges against an individual for multiple violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act for misrepresenting his affiliations with federal agencies, including the FTC, misrepresenting that the services advertised on his websites were government-approved, and making deceptive debt relief claims. The FTC alleged that the individual, a Texas-based “lead generator,” set up several websites through which he associated his business with a fictitious government agency – the “Department of Consumer Services Protection Commission” – that appeared to combine two real government entities, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Among other charges, the FTC stated that to further these scams, the websites depicted the FTC’s official seal, copied language about the fictitious agency’s consumer protection mission from the FTC’s site, and claimed that the fake agency “monitors and researches” member companies that provide financial assistance to American consumers.

The scammers and their fake websites are also busy abroad. Earlier this month, international news sources reported that Russian fraudsters set up a counterfeit site of a popular five-star hotel, complete with the real hotel’s photographs, room descriptions and services. According to published reports, they also paid a fee to Google to ensure that their bogus site was listed before the hotel’s genuine site. The fraudulent website purportedly came to an abrupt end after, among other disparities, it was discovered that the room rates were advertised in dollars.

Another story about a flagrant website invasion came in October 2011 from Belgrade, where Serbian media reported that a mock-up of the official Nobel Prize website was set up purportedly by political activists to promote their causes and views.

Fraudulent websites appear daily and no industry or organization is beyond these fraudsters’ reach. Scherzer International, a provider of specialized background investigations for business transactions and employment decisions, includes comprehensive website reviews in its reports. We know how to spot scams, exaggerated claims and other red flags.

|Educational Series, Fraud|

Department of Justice drops controversial non-disclosure proposal

The DOJ, in a letter dated November 3, 2011, said that it is dropping its proposed regulation that would allow federal law enforcement agencies in certain cases to tell Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesters that the government has no records on a subject, when it actually does. The DOJ indicated that it is now looking at other options to preserve the integrity of sensitive records but allow for public openness.

The letter noted that the DOJ has actually been issuing such denial responses for nearly 25 years, since Attorney General Edwin Meese issued the directive. The DOJ defended this approach and maintained that it did not constitute “lying” as some have suggested, and contended that its proposed regulation was an effort to systematize Meese’s order in federal regulations and to obtain public comments.

While expressly contemplated by statute and, according to the DOJ, necessary to protect vital law enforcement and national security interests, the practice went on for years with much less transparency. Under Meese’s guide, the government could tell FOIA requesters that it had no records if merely confirming their existence would be a tip-off that there was a criminal investigation. Denials of record existence also were permitted in situations legally referred to as “exclusions,” i.e., when federal law enforcement agencies needed to protect the identities of informants and when the FBI was asked for records about foreign intelligence, counterintelligence or international terrorism.

|Legislation|

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.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

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.

|Criminal Activity|

“Ban the box” legislation gains momentum

Across the country, municipalities and states are enacting legislation called “ban the box” which generally prohibits employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on applications. The legislation also makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take any adverse action against an individual on the basis of an arrest or criminal accusation that did not result in a conviction. The states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico have enacted some form of the legislation along with more than 26 cities and counties in Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Washington. (A complete list of municipalities that have “banned the box” is posted at
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2010/BantheBoxcurrent.pdf?nocdn=1).

However, except for Hawaii and Massachusetts, the legislation has been limited to public employers, or public employers and vendors and contractors serving public entities. The city of Philadelphia, which is the most recent addition to this growing list, is the first municipality to pass a law that covers private employers with 10 or more employees. Below are some jurisdictional highlights of the enacted legislation:

Hawaii and Massachusetts private and public employers cannot consider felony convictions that are more than 10 years old. And in Massachusetts, employers are not permitted to consider misdemeanor convictions that are more than five years old.
Hawaii and the cities of Chicago, Hartford, and Cincinnati allow an employer to ask about an applicant’s criminal record only after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston require a public employer denying employment on the basis of a conviction to justify its decision based on EEOC’s guidelines which include the nature and gravity of the crime, the time that has passed since the conviction, and the relativity of the crime to the position.

Proponents of “ban the box” are confident that the legislation will be a significant factor in lowering recidivism rates, as it will allow applicants to demonstrate their skills and qualifications prior to disclosing criminal histories. And many experts say that such laws will expand beyond the borders of the United States in the very near future.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Paying for ambiguity: the myths of instant background checks and national databases

The cottage industry of data-collection agencies that provide inexpensive background information is flourishing even in this tough economy. Many prospective employers with tight budgets believe they can save money by relying on the “national” records that are spewed out within minutes of entering a credit card number. So just what do you get for $19.99? Not much. Or a lot…a lot of worthless data, that is. Unverified name-match only records come up by the hundreds if the name is fairly common. And it is nearly impossible to determine case details or duplicate filings, as the cryptic printouts often require specialized knowledge that is specific to each state, municipality or records venue.

Many subjects who are flagged as criminals in these databases have never been convicted of a crime. In fact, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics for felony defendants in large urban counties, one-third of felony arrests never lead to a conviction. And there is no standardized process for reporting arrests and dispositions or updating the records at the various court levels. Some reported offenses are not actually violations of the criminal code in the particular state, but may still show up in these databases.

There are few regulations governing the use of background information beyond the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not mandate that data aggregators provide guidance on how to properly interpret their records. The only possible value of these so-called national databases is to serve as an indicator that a record may exist, and use the search results to supplement a full investigation. Since the FCRA requires that all “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information are followed” and that “the information is complete and up-to-date,” searches for employment purposes must be conducted either manually or through direct access in the particular court where the record is filed.

Employment experts at a July 2011 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing urged the Commission to consider the comprehensive recommendations put forth by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in its report on the effect of criminal background checks in employment decisions. Among its recommendations, the NELP suggested that the EEOC revise its now 20-year-old guide on conviction records in view of the “intervening proliferation of instant computerized background information…” The EEOC should also address the “use of arrest records and third-party databases that are considered a part of the hiring process.”

|Educational Series|

SEC charges green-product company with running a $26 million Ponzi scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced today that it obtained an emergency court order to halt a Ponzi scheme that promised investors high returns on water-filtering natural stone pavers but bilked them of approximately $26 million over a four-year period.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC alleges in its complaint that between 2006 and 2010, convicted felon Eric Aronson and others defrauded about 140 individual investors in PermaPave Companies, a group of firms based on Long Island, NY, and controlled by Aronson. According to the complaint, the investors were told that PermaPave had a tremendous backlog of orders for pavers imported from Australia, which could be sold in the U.S. at a substantial mark-up, yielding monthly returns of 7.8% to 33%. But in reality, the complaint states, there was little demand for the product, and the cost of the pavers far exceeded the revenue from sales.

In their Ponzi scheme, Aronson and two other PermaPave executives, Vincent Buonauro Jr. and Robert Kondratick, used the new funds to make payments to earlier investors and then siphoned off much of the rest for themselves, buying luxury cars, gambling trips, and jewelry, according to the complaint. Aronson also allegedly used the investors’ money to make court-ordered restitution payments to victims of a previous scheme to which he pleaded guilty in 2000.

The complaint further states that when investors began demanding their money, Aronson accused them of committing a felony by lending the PermaPave Companies money at the interest rates he promised them, which he suddenly claimed were usurious. Aronson and his attorney, Fredric Aaron, then allegedly made false statements to persuade investors to convert their securities into ones that deferred payments for several years.

The SEC also charges that the defendants used some of the money raised through the Ponzi scheme to purchase a publicly traded company, Interlink-US-Network, Ltd. Several months later, the SEC said that Interlink issued a Form 8-K, signed by Kondratick, which falsely claimed that LED Capital Corp. had agreed to invest $6 million in Interlink. According to the complaint, LED Capital Corp. did not have $6 million and had no dealings with Interlink.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, which conducted a parallel investigation, filed criminal charges against Aronson, Buonauro, and Kondratick.

|Green Technology|

More states are restricting credit reports for employment purposes

Connecticut has joined five other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) that, with some exceptions, prohibit the use of credit reports in employment decisions. Effective October 1, 2011, S.B. 361 will ban many employers from using credit information in determining whether to deny employment to an applicant, terminate an employee, decide compensation, or evaluate other terms and conditions of employment. Financial institutions, as well as employers who are required to obtain credit reports under federal or state law, are excluded from the Act’s provisions

There are certain exceptions to the S.B. 361 prohibitions. Employers may request or use credit reports when such information is related to a “bona fide purpose that is substantially job-related.” The bona fide purpose exception generally applies to positions involving money handling or other sensitive job duties. If an employer requests or uses credit information for a bona fide purpose, it must disclose its intent to do so in writing to the employee or applicant.

As in Connecticut’s S.B. 361, employers in the other states that have passed employment-related credit report restriction laws need to ensure that their hiring, retention, and promotion practices fall within the guidelines of their legislation.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Risk-based approach to employment screening rates high on value chain

In today’s world just about every company knows that an effective employment screening program is invaluable for hiring qualified individuals, reducing turnover, deterring fraud and other criminal actions, and avoiding or mitigating litigation.

Recognizing that a “bad” hire is a threat to the bottom line, many companies, from investment bankers to law firms, are taking a risk-focused approach to background investigations and deciding what is appropriate or how much should be done to ensure organizational success. For example, obtaining a credit report or checking civil records for an entry-level applicant with low risk responsibilities may be of limited use, while reviewing such record histories for someone who will handle money or have access to sensitive information may be imperative in assessing his/her suitability for a position of trust.

Best practices in both the government and in the private sector indicate that a risk designation should be determined for every position, based on its description of duties and responsibilities. The risk grade should be commensurate with the employee’s assigned trust level, financial accountability, access to sensitive and confidential information and critical data systems, autonomy, discretionary authority, and potential opportunity for misconduct.

To be effective and non-discriminatory, employment screening policies need to specify a uniform set of background investigation elements for all position/assignment levels, including new hires, temporary workers, interns, transferred and promoted employees, contractors and volunteers.

SI has a full suite of employment background investigation products. Please visit our website at https://scherzer.co/ to learn more or order an investigation.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Risk Management|

New FINRA rule for reporting requirements

FINRA’s Rule 4530, modeled after NASD Rule 3070 and NYSE Rule 351, went into effect on July 1, 2011. The rule requires all member firms to:

report to FINRA certain specified events and quarterly statistical and summary information regarding written customer complaints, and
file with FINRA documents of certain criminal actions, civil complaints and arbitration claims.

A member firm has 30 calendar days to report to FINRA violations of any securities, insurance, commodities, financial or investment laws, rules, regulations or standards of conduct committed by the firm or its associated persons. The 30-day period begins when the firm has concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that a violation has occurred. Below is a summary of the provision.

Firms are not required to report every instance of non-compliant conduct, but they must report conduct that has widespread or potential widespread impact to the firm, its customers or the markets, or conduct that arises from a material failure of the firm’s systems, policies or practices involving numerous customers, multiple errors or significant dollar amounts.
Violative conduct by an associated person must be reported only when it has widespread or potential widespread impact to the firm, its customers or the markets; conduct that has a significant monetary result on a member firm(s), customer(s) or market(s); or multiple instances of any violative conduct.
The “reasonably should have concluded” standard is applied on a good faith basis (by the firm) if a reasonable person would have concluded that a violation has occurred; if a reasonable person would not have concluded that a violation occurred, then the matter is not reportable. Firms must establish who, within the firm, is responsible for making such determinations. Stating that a violation was of a nature that did not merit consideration by the responsible person is not a defense to a failure to report such conduct.
The reporting obligation and internal review processes set forth under other rules – eg., FINRA Rule 3130 – are mutually exclusive.
While internal review processes may point to a firm’s determination that a specific violation has occurred, they do not by themselves lead to the conclusion that the matter is reportable – e.g., FINRA would not view a discussion in an internal audit report regarding the need for enhanced controls in a particular area, standing alone, as determinative of a reportable violation. An internal audit finding would serve only as one factor, among others, that a firm should consider in determining whether a reportable violation occurred.
Certain disciplinary actions taken by a firm against an associated person must be reported under a separate provision, rather than under the internal conclusion provision.

In addition to the above “internal conclusions” obligations, the new rules for “other reportable events” as per NASD Rule 3070 and NYSE Rule 351, have been modified somewhat in Rule 4530. For example, more customer disputes may have to be reported, as the new rule will now include attorney’s fees and interest penalties in customer settlements or awards with damages against a broker of $15,000 or more and against a firm of $25,000 or more, thus lowering the calculations threshold for reporting requirements.

|Legislation|

Previous 484950 Next