Tag: Deferred Prosecution Agreements

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Announces First-Ever Criminal Bank Secrecy Act Charges Against a U.S.-Based Broker-Dealer

On December 19, 2018, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Central States Capital Markets, LLC (“CSCM”), a Prairie Village, Kansas-based broker-dealer. CSCM was charged with a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) based on its willful failure to file a suspicious activity report (“SAR”) in connection with the illegal activities of one of its customers. The charge against CSCM represents the first criminal BSA charge ever brought against a United States-based broker-dealer.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office also announced that CSCM had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement under which it agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct, forfeit $400,000, and enhance its BSA / Anti-Money Laundering(“AML”) compliance program. If CSCM complies with the terms of the agreement,the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to defer prosecution for a period of two years, after which time the government will seek to dismiss the charge.

According to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office, one of CSCM’s clients (the “Client”) was convicted of racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering for his role in perpetrating a multibillion dollar payday lending scheme. In furtherance of his criminal scheme, the Client opened investment accounts at CSCM for multiple companies that he controlled and used in connection with the scheme. In connection with opening the accounts, CSCM failed to follow its written customer identification procedures. CSCM also failed to verify various statements by the Client regarding his businesses and his reasons for opening accounts at CSCM. Moreover, after opening accounts for the Client, CSCM became aware of other red flags, including the Client’s prior criminal record and an action brought against the Client by the Federal Trade Commission. Nevertheless, CSCM failed to act on these red flags and instead relied on explanations proffered by the Client. Finally, CSCM failed to appropriately monitor transactions involving the Client’s accounts. Specifically, whileCSCM’s AML monitoring tool generated alerts involving the Client’s accounts,CSCM never checked the alerts. In addition, numerous suspicious transactions went undetected and unreported by CSCM.

The announcement of criminal charges against CSCM should serve as a reminder that there can be significant consequences if broker-dealers are not mindful of their BSA / AML obligations. As U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated: “Today’s charge makes clear that all actors governed by the Bank Secrecy Act – not only banks – must uphold their obligations to protect our economy from exploitation by fraudsters and thieves.”

In addition, CSCM reached a separate settlement with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, which included, among other things, a censure and a requirement to hire a compliance consultant.

SEC Affirms Commitment to FCPA Enforcement Actions

Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the Division of Enforcement, reaffirmed the SEC’s focus on FCPA enforcement actions at the International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Mr. Ceresney’s speech focused on companies’ need to self-report violations.

Mr. Ceresney stated that the SEC uses “a carrot and stick approach to encouraging cooperation,” where self-reporting companies can receive reduced charges and deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, while companies that do no self-report do not receive any reduction in penalties. Mr. Ceresney warned that “companies are gambling if they fail to self-report FCPA misconduct.”

Mr. Ceresney gave examples of how this policy has benefited companies recently. Mr. Ceresney highlighted the SEC’s decision not to bring charges against the Harris Corporation after it self-reported violations and mentioned to examples where the SEC entered into non-prosecution agreements as a result of self-reporting.

Mr. Cerseney stated that the SEC’s “actions have sent a clear message to the defense bar and the C-Suite that there are significant benefits to self-reporting [to] and cooperation with the SEC” and that he expects “the Division of Enforcement will continue in the future to reinforce this message and reward companies that self-report and cooperate.”

Mr. Cerseney also spoke about recent cases that highlight “the Enforcement’s Division’s renewed emphasis on individual liability in FCPA cases[,]” noting that seven actions in the past year involved individuals. Mr. Cerseney stated that “pursuing individual accountability is a critical part of deterrence and . . . the Division of Enforcement will continue to do everything we can to hold individuals accountable.”

Mr. Cerseney’s remarks demonstrate that the Division of Enforcement does not expect to change its recent focus on FCPA violations and individual liability as it transitions to the new administration.

SEC Enters Into First NPA With An Individual

In 2010, the SEC implemented a Cooperation Initiative designed to encourage individuals and companies to cooperate with SEC investigations. See SEC Announces Initiative to Encourage Individuals and Companies to Cooperate and Assist in Investigations, SEC Press Release No. 2010-6 (Jan. 13, 2010). Although the Division of Enforcement authorized SEC staff to “use various tools to encourage individuals and companies to report violations and provide assistance to the agency,” including cooperation agreements, deferred prosecution agreements (“DPA”), and non-prosecution agreements (“NPA”), the staff has made limited use of the cooperation tools with individuals.

In fact, in April, the SEC announced its first NPA with an individual in connection with an insider trading case involving GSI Commerce Inc.’s (“GSIC”) merger with eBay. See SEC v. Saridakis,Civil Action No. 14-2397 (E.D. Pa.). According to the SEC, prior to GSIC’s public announcement of its merger with eBay, Inc., the CEO of its marketing solutions division, Christopher D. Saridakis, provided material nonpublic information about the transaction to friends and colleagues, and he suggested they immediately purchase GSIC stock. For example, according to the SEC’s complaint, co-defendant Jules Gardner received a series of text messages from Saridakis suggesting that he should “own” GSIC “shares” “soon.” Saridakis and Gardner shared this information with several other individuals who traded GSIC stock in or around the time of the merger and further passed along the confidential merger information to people the SEC referred to as “downstream” individuals. According to the SEC, on the day of the merger announcement, the closing price for the GSIC stock increased significantly, resulting in more than $300,000 in illegal profits to the individuals who traded on the insider information.

The SEC reached an agreement with Saridakis and a number of “downstream” individuals. To resolve the SEC’s complaint against them, Saridakis agreed to an officer-and-director bar and to a substantial monetary penalty while Gardner agreed to cooperate and to disgorge all the profits he obtained. The remaining individuals each settled in separate administrative proceedings on a neither admit nor deny basis. These individuals agreed, among other things, to disgorge profits and/or to pay civil monetary penalties.

The Saridakis case is another example of the SEC’s recent and ongoing efforts to encourage individuals to come forward with information relating to alleged securities violations and to cooperate with the SEC’s investigations of such violations. See, e.g., SEC Announces First Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Individual, SEC Press Release No. 2013-241 (Nov. 12, 2013); see also article in Business Law Today. The director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Andrew J. Ceresney, explained, “The reduction in penalties for those tippees who assisted us, together with the non-prosecution agreement for one of the traders, demonstrate the benefits of cooperating with our investigations. The increased penalties for others highlight the risks of impeding our work.”

Although the SEC did not disclose the identity of the individual who received an NPA, it appears that he or she received the material nonpublic information third hand. In addition, Ceresney explained that the “individual provided early, extraordinary, and unconditional cooperation.” Unlike the DPA that the SEC entered into with an individual and the DPAs and NPAs that the SEC has entered into with entities, the SEC did not publicize this NPA, so it is difficult to evaluate what the SEC considered extraordinary cooperation. The fact that the SEC did not disclose the NPA may signal that the individual may be cooperating with the criminal authorities as well.

Expect more cooperation agreements with individuals to come.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy