SEC Fines Family In Offering Fraud
MASSACHUSETTS – A judge in Massachusetts has awarded the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) $15.6 million over the agency's claims that two companies operated by the same family conducted an offering fraud and misappropriated approximately $14 million of investor proceeds.
The SEC had filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Gene Gilman, Steven Gilman and companies they operated for the alleged fraud, said to have been committed between December 1998 and October 2003.
The complaint alleges that Gene Gilman and his son Steven Gilman solicited approximately $20 million from 40 people who invested funds with Arbor Securities, an unregistered broker dealer and investment adviser located in Needham, Massachusetts.
According to the complaint, the Gilmans funnelled investor proceeds to their personal use through Financial Links, a registered broker-dealer controlled by Gene Gilman but headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Instead of establishing the individual accounts and investing customer funds into Arbor Securities, the Gilmans transferred the funds into several foreign and domestic bank and brokerage accounts in the names of Arbor Securities, including accounts at Financial Links.
"From those accounts, Steven Gilman transferred customer funds to himself, to Gene Gilman, and to private companies controlled by Gene Gilman, including TradeTek, Ltd and Commonwealth Financial Holdings, Inc," the complaint said.
On June 19, 2006, Hon. William Young, US District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, ordered the defendants to pay joint and several disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the respective amounts of $14,000,000 and $1,681,718.26.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive