Scherzer Blog

A look into money laundering

In U.S. law, money laundering is the process of engaging in financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of illegally gained money. It is believed that the term “money laundering” originated from the Mafia’s ownership of Laundromats whereby large sums of money were made through illegitimate activities that showed origination from a legitimate-appearing business.

The U.S. Criminal Code contains more than 100 predicate offenses to the crime of money laundering, which include drug trafficking, smuggling, prostitution rings, illegal arms sales, embezzlement, insider trading, bribery, and computer fraud. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considers money laundering a “tax evasion in progress.” And when no other crimes could be pinned to Al Capone, the IRS obtained a conviction for tax evasion. Leaving the courthouse, Capone said, “This is preposterous. You can’t tax illegal income!” Had the money laundering statutes been in effect in the 1930s, Capone also would have been charged with this crime. However, since October 1986, with the passage of the Money Laundering Control Act, organized crime members and many others have been convicted of both tax evasion and money laundering.

One of the most notable money laundering cases was settled in March of this year. Wachovia Bank, which is owned by Wells Fargo & Co., reached a $160 million settlement with the Justice Department over allegations that a failure in bank controls enabled drug traffickers to launder drug money by transferring $420 billion from Mexican currency-exchange houses to the bank. Under a deferred-prosecution agreement, Wachovia “admitted failure to identify, detect, and report suspicious transactions in third-party payment processor accounts.”

And money laundering has even reached the Vatican. Media reports from the past week say that the Vatican Bank, along with its chairman Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and director general, Paolo Cipriani, have been targeted for alleged violations of money laundering laws. Italian authorities temporarily froze 23 million euros ($30 million) from an account registered to the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) a.k.a. the Vatican Bank. The investigation was opened after the Bank of Italy, adhering to anti-money-laundering directives issued by the European Union, alerted officials to two suspicious transfers on September 6, 2010. The Holy See expressed surprise at the allegations.

September 28th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Decisions in two cases to set precedence for auditors’ fraud liability

It all started in 1905 with the lawsuit Smith v. London Assurance Corporation whereby an auditor was held liable for failing to audit its client’s branch office and detecting embezzlement.

Now more than 100 years later, the legal liability of auditors in detecting corporate fraud will be decided in two cases that were heard on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, in the New York Court of Appeals, potentially increasing the Big Four accountants’ exposure to multibillion-dollar shareholder lawsuits for malpractice. In both cases, the court will rule whether auditors can rely on the legal doctrine of in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) to reject claims for fraud allegedly committed by company insiders. The doctrine prevents someone from recovering damages from a defendant if that someone is also at fault. The argument is whether the shareholders, as owners of the company, can be held at fault for frauds committed within the company and barred from suing its auditors for not discovering the wrongdoing.

The first lawsuit facing scrutiny was filed by the shareholders of AIG against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the insurer’s auditor. The shareholders claim that PwC failed in its job as auditors in the early 2000s, when various AIG officers and directors, including ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions to pad AIG’s bottom line. Authorities subsequently caught the fraud, and AIG had to restate years of financial statements that “eventually reduced stockholder equity by $3.5 billion.” AIG ended up paying more than $1.5 billion in fines, and the shareholders say that since PwC missed the fraud, they should be allowed to sue PwC for malpractice. The Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed their request to sue PwC, and the case was appealed in Delaware’s Supreme Court. That court asked the New York’s Court of Appeals to decide whether the shareholders have a claim under New York law.

The second case relates to protracted litigation by the bankruptcy trustee of Refco Inc., the failed futures broker, seeking damages from a number of the firm’s professional advisers, and auditors including Grant Thornton, KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mayer Brown, LLP, et al. The trustee alleges that Refco’s outside counsel Mayer Brown, and several other insiders are liable for defrauding Refco’s creditors by helping the defunct company conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollectible debt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trustee’s argument to revive claims against the corporate insiders raised unresolved questions concerning his standing under New York law to sue third-parties for Refco’s fraud.

September 17th, 2010|Fraud, Judgment|

FTC proposes changes to improve credit reporting notices

The Federal Trade Commission announced on August 16, 2010 that it is proposing revisions to the notices that consumer reporting agencies provide to consumers, and to users and furnishers of credit report information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires the FTC to publish model notices for several forms that must be provided by consumer reporting agencies. The proposed changes are designed to reflect new rules that the FTC and other financial regulators have enacted under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and to make the notices more useful and easier to understand.

In addition to revising the general Summary of Rights notice, which informs consumers about their FCRA rights, such as how to obtain a free credit report and dispute inaccurate information, the FTC is proposing improvements to the notices that credit

reporting agencies provide to users and furnishers of credit report information.

The FTC is accepting public comments on the proposed changes until September 21, 2010.

(The FTC contact is Pavneet Singh, Bureau of Consumer Protection, at 202-326-2252.) See http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2010/august/100816fcranotice.pdf for the full text of the proposed revisions.

August 19th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

Common securities fraud schemes on the Internet

Pump and Dump: These types of schemes are quick manipulations of the stock price. The schemers buy thinly traded stocks and then transmit optimistic messages about the stocks, which cause investors to buy, thus driving up the price. The ownership interest that the schemers have in the particular stock is not disclosed. The schemers then sell the stock for significant gains. Their messages are transmitted through official looking e-mails, bulletin board posts or Web sites.

Dump and Diss: This is the pump and dump scheme in reverse. The schemers short-sell a stock and then transmit negative messages to investors causing the investors to sell, which in turn drives down the price. No disclosure is made of the negative position that the schemers have in the stock. They then buy the lower valued stock to fill their earlier sell orders and make a profit on the difference.

Insider Trading: The recipients of non-public information use the insider information to trade ahead of the information’s release, and subsequently realize profits.
Unregistered Offerings: Purported issuers of securities offer and/or sell securities through the Web without being registered or exempt from federal and state securities laws.
Pre-IPO Offerings: Purported issuers offer and/or sell shares of their company to investors based on the premise that the company soon will be going public. Some of these companies do not exist or are marginally successful.

Private Placement Offerings: Purported issuers offer and/or sell shares of their company with the usual promise of high returns, with the help of slick promotional materials. The companies turn out to be nonexistent.

Prime Bank Offerings: Purported sellers offer and/or sell interests in some type of prime bank instrument. The investors are advised to put their money into the prime banks of Europe in a program that generally is available only to the very wealthy, but because there is a “shortage” for the particular program, it is being offered for a smaller minimum investment. Prime bank instruments do not exist.

July 30th, 2010|Educational Series, Fraud|

Navigating through civil case jurisdictions in state and federal court systems

Courts within the federal judicial system:

Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. District courts, as all federal courts, are also courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning that they have the authority to hear cases of a particular type or relating to a specific subject matter, primarily based on federal questions and diversity of parties. The statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides that the district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. This jurisdiction is not exclusive; state courts also can hear claims based on federal law. The statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, provides the district courts jurisdiction in actions that meet two requirements: 1) complete diversity – no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and 2) amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Federal courts also have removal jurisdiction, which is the authority to try cases removed by defendants from state courts.

Circuit courts are courts of appellate jurisdiction as they are authorized only to review decisions on appeal from district courts, certain specialized federal courts or federal administrative agencies. There are thirteen federal circuit courts; twelve for each one of the geographic circuits and one designated as the Federal Circuit which hears appeals from various specialized federal courts. Appeals from many of the administrative agencies are held in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and actions in which states are parties. Its appellate jurisdiction over all other types of cases is mostly discretionary.

Courts within the state judicial system

Courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction are authorized to hear specific types of cases, such as small claims, traffic, landlord-tenant, or probate.

Courts of original and general jurisdiction hear all cases not exclusively apportioned to courts of limited jurisdiction, such as state claims and federal questions that also could be brought in federal district courts. State courts of general jurisdiction are often at the county level, and vary in their designations, e.g., Superior Court in California, Circuit Court in Virginia, Court of Common Pleas in Ohio and Supreme Court in New York. In some states, courts of general jurisdiction also hold appellate jurisdiction over cases originally tried in courts of limited jurisdiction.

Intermediate appellate courts exist only in more populous states. In some jurisdictions, the decision of the intermediate appellate court is final for most fact-bound and “routine” cases, such as domestic relations, and subject to discretionary appeal for constitutional questions.

Courts of appellate jurisdiction are variously called the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or, in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court, and have the authority to change decisions and rulings of lower courts. Depending on the case type and original decision, an appellate review may consist of an entirely new hearing (a trial de novo), a hearing whereby the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court, or a review of specific legal rulings of the lower court (an appeal on the record.) An appeal from the intermediate appellate court to this higher court is mostly by permission, with the exception of a small number of cases selected by legislatures, such as administrative law actions.

To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject-matter jurisdiction (defined previously) and either personal jurisdiction (defined as having the power to render a judgment against a particular defendant) or territorial jurisdiction (defined as having the power to render a judgment involving events that occurred within a well-defined territory) along with adequate notice (a requirement that the parties be aware of the legal process affecting their rights, obligations and duties.)

July 28th, 2010|Educational Series|

Federal Trade Commission’s Red Flags rule enforcement for accountants and other professionals is postponed

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Institute of Public Accountants (AICPA) all have brought legal actions against the FTC on the Red Flags rule. In the most recent suit filed on May 21, 2010 by the AMA, the American Osteopathic Association, and the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, the groups argued that the FTC will require them to start verifying their patients’ identities before they agree to treat them. In August 2009, in a suit brought by the ABA, the district court barred the FTC from applying its Red Flags rule to lawyers. The FTC appealed the ruling in February 2010. A decision in the appeal is pending.

The AICPA’s suit, filed on behalf of its members on November 10, 1009, charged in part that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority by extending the rule to regulate accountants and public accounting firms. The AICPA said that “it did not believe there is any reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft when CPA clients are billed for services rendered.” That suit is now linked to the outcome of the appeal of the ABA ruling. AICPA members have been granted a 90-day grace period – a 90-day delay of enforcement of the rule – from the date on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit renders an opinion in the ABA’s case against the FTC.

On May 28, 2010, the FTC announced that it again delayed the implementation until December 31, 2010 of a proposed Final Rule relating to Identity Theft Red Flags under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. The proposed “Red Flags” rule is designed to help prevent identity theft among credit providers and financial institutions.

July 26th, 2010|Educational Series, Judgment|

Resources for information about fraud

Fraud is defined as any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage. Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, telephone, written instruments, and the Internet. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have the discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge by the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent by the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Below are several Web sites that provide information about various types of fraud, including tips for protecting yourself and filing formal complaints.

July 25th, 2010|Educational Series, Fraud|

FINRA will make more information about brokers and former brokers available to the public

On July 13, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it will be implementing changes to its free online BrokerCheck service. With recent approval by the Securities & Exchange Commission, the amount of information available to the public about current and former securities brokers will expand significantly in the coming months, including the number of customer complaints reported publicly. The public disclosure period for the full record of a broker who leaves the industry will be extended from two years to 10 years, and certain information, such as criminal convictions and selected civil injunctive actions and arbitration awards, will be on record permanently. The changes will also formalize a process for current and former brokers to dispute or update the information disclosed through BrokerCheck.

“This additional information will benefit investors who are considering whether to conduct or continue to conduct business with a particular securities firm or broker,” said FINRA chairman and CEO Rick Ketchum. “Just as important, it will provide valuable information about persons who have left the securities industry, often not of their own accord, and who have established themselves in other segments of the financial services industry and can still cause great harm to the investing public.”

July 22nd, 2010|Educational Series|

What is the difference between an expunged criminal record and a sealed record?

The words “expunged” and “sealed” often are used interchangeably. A ”sealed” record means that the record is hidden from the general public. An “expunged” record means that the record has been destroyed. In most states, arrests and convictions for serious, violent felonies usually cannot be expunged or sealed.

Each state has its own rules and laws for expungement, and some states label expungement as “expunction,” “removal,” or “destruction” (of criminal records.) But the record may not completely disappear and may be available to law enforcement and the federal government. In most states, for adults, arrest and conviction records are not automatically expunged or sealed after a period of years. For juveniles, court and arrest records are sealed automatically once the juvenile is arrested and a trial or “adjudication” begins.

The rules and laws for the sealing of criminal records also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most instances, a court order to unseal a record is required. Some states order the records to be destroyed after they have been sealed. Further, once a record is sealed, in certain states, the contents/crime are legally considered never to have occurred and are not acknowledged by the state.

In most states, but with some exceptions, after a record is sealed or expunged, the subject may truthfully state that he/she has never been arrested, charged, or accused of a crime. However, as noted above, the federal government does not have to honor an expungement and an expungement of a conviction does not relieve a person from having to disclose it on an application for public office or on certain professional license applications.

July 21st, 2010|Educational Series|

Decoding criminal records in the UK

In the UK, a criminal record is technically any conviction in a court of criminal offence. However, many motor vehicle offences are not deemed as crimes for criminal record purposes, since such offences carry fixed penalties and are not considered criminal convictions. Offences that are prosecuted by local authorities are sometimes classified as criminal offences, although they are unlikely to be in the Police National Computer (the “PNC”). Even if an individual has accepted a “police caution” as an alternative to prosecution, this would count as a criminal conviction.

The Criminal Records Bureau standard and enhanced disclosures contain information about convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings retained in the PNC and the equivalent systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For the purposes of CRB disclosures, a caution, reprimand, or warning that has been entered into the PNC will constitute a criminal record.

Criminal convictions also are labeled as “spent” and “unspent.” A “spent” conviction is removed from public records, meaning that the defendant has served time and passed through a rehabilitation period. Until then, the conviction is “unspent.” Some convictions, such as crimes with a prison sentence of more than 2.5 years, remain “unspent” indefinitely, regardless of the elapsed time. For convicted minors under 18 years of age, the “unspent” period is cut in half.

During the “unspent” time, the conviction must be disclosed when applying for jobs and on other applications. And for certain jobs such as law enforcement, some roles in the financial services sector, prison services, health services, private security, and for work with children, the elderly, and disabled, “spent” convictions also must be disclosed.

July 20th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, International|