The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced an asset freeze against a Chicago-area money manager and his hedge fund advisory firm that the SEC charged with lying to prospective investors in their startup quantitative hedge fund. A federal court today entered a preliminary injunction order in the case, which was unsealed earlier this week.

The SEC alleges that Belal K. Faruki of Aurora, Ill., and his advisory firm Neural Markets LLC solicited highly sophisticated individuals to invest in the “Evolution Quantitative 1X Fund,” a hedge fund they managed that supposedly used a proprietary algorithm to carry out an arbitrage strategy involving trading in liquid exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Faruki and Neural Markets falsely represented the existence of investor capital and that trading was generating profits when, in fact, losses were being incurred. They defrauded at least one investor out of $1 million before confessing the losses, and were soliciting other wealthy investors before the SEC obtained a court order to halt the scheme.

“Faruki and Neural Markets lied throughout this elaborate scheme in order to attract capital from sophisticated investors,” said Bruce Karpati, Co-Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Even sophisticated institutional investors should be wary of unscrupulous hedge fund managers who cloak their misrepresentations in lofty pitches about a complex investment strategy.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Faruki and Neural Markets told investors that their hedge fund began trading in 2009. From January 2010 until at least October 2010, Faruki and Neural Markets distorted the hedge fund’s performance track record, misrepresented that wealthy investors had invested $5 million in the fund, and misstated that it had engaged a top-tier auditor to assist in preparing the fund’s quarterly and annual financial statements. Faruki also falsely told investors that he had invested his own money in the hedge fund so that his interests were aligned with the other supposed investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Faruki boasted that he was making his investors rich at a time when he actually had no investors. He falsely stated that the names of other wealthy investors had to remain confidential because they did not want their identities revealed. The lone investor in the hedge fund has unsuccessfully attempted to redeem his investment and recover the remaining balance of his funds from Faruki and Neural Markets, who in turn threatened that they would use the investor’s funds to defend themselves if help was sought from regulators.

The SEC filed its complaint under seal on Aug. 10, 2011, and that same day the court granted the SEC’s request for emergency relief including a temporary restraining order and asset freeze. The court lifted the seal order on August 29, and the preliminary injunction order entered today with the defendants’ consent continues the terms of the temporary restraining order until the final resolution of the case. Click Here for a copy of the SEC’s Complaint.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Florida men with operating a Ponzi scheme disguised as a purported private equity fund that fraudulently raised approximately $22 million from more than 100 investors, many of whom were Florida teachers or retirees.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, James Davis Risher of Sanibel was responsible for handling the fund’s trading operations, and Daniel Joseph Sebastian of Lakeland distributed offering materials and solicited investors for the fund. Risher boasted to investors that he had substantial experience in trading equities and providing wealth and asset management services. In reality, Risher had no such experience but rather a lengthy criminal history, spending 11 of the last 21 years in jail instead of growing a thriving retail brokerage business as he claimed.

The SEC alleges that Risher and Sebastian falsely told investors that the fund earned annual returns ranging from 14 percent to 124 percent by investing in public equity securities through a broker-dealer. They sent investors fabricated account statements indicating such high returns to support their false claims. Only a fraction of the money raised was actually invested, and Risher instead misspent investor funds on such personal purchases as jewelry, gifts, and property in North Carolina and Florida. Risher and Sebastian also paid themselves millions of dollars in phony management and performance fees.

“Risher, who masqueraded as a highly successful equity trader, teamed up with Sebastian to tout sophisticated trading strategies they claimed would generate substantial profits for investors. Instead, Risher and Sebastian used investors’ life savings and retirement nest eggs to line their own pockets,” said Eric Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Risher and Sebastian marketed the fund under the names Safe Harbor Private Equity Fund, Managed Capital Fund, and Preservation of Principal Fund. They described themselves in fund offering documents as “two unique individuals” who used their expertise to “create an investment vehicle that would allow investors to capitalize from both bull and bear markets.”

The SEC alleges that Sebastian often solicited his former customers at his prior job as an insurance broker. He primarily pitched the investment opportunity to educators, retirees, and members of several churches in Florida, but also solicited investors in California, other states, and Canada. Sebastian persuaded former customers to roll over money in their insurance and annuity products into the fund. He told them the fund would provide a higher rate of return than they could receive from the products he had previously sold them. At least one investor liquidated an annuity she had purchased from Sebastian and invested the proceeds in the fund.

The SEC alleges that Risher and Sebastian made a number of material false statements and omissions to investors about Risher’s criminal history, the fund’s investment strategy, the fund’s investment returns, the safety of investors’ principal, and the existence of audited financial statements. Risher misrepresented that the fund was registered in Bermuda, and he and Sebastian falsely claimed that the fund was audited annually by a Bermudan auditor. Sebastian verbally told investors during telephone calls and meetings that they would never lose their principal investments in the fund. He even provided some investors with written guarantees from a company he owned that would reimburse any loss. In reality, Sebastian knew that the company had no assets to reimburse investors for losses, making his guarantee meaningless.

The SEC charged Risher and Sebastian with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC further charged Risher with violating Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and Sebastian with aiding and abetting Risher’s violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and financial penalties against Risher and Sebastian. Click here for a copy of the SEC Complaint.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, which conducted a parallel investigation of this matter, has filed criminal charges against Risher. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Postal Inspector Service, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and Florida Office of Financial Regulation.

 The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced this week that a federal court in California entered an order freezing the assets of defendants Douglas Elsworth Wilson of Poway, Calif., and three California companies that he controls and manages, Elsworth Berg Capital Management LLC (EBCM), Elsworth Berg Inc., and Elsworth Berg FX LLC (collectively, Elsworth Berg). The order also prohibits the destruction of their books and records.

The order arises out of a CFTC civil complaint filed on July 27, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the defendants solicited at least $4.4 million from over 60 customers to trade commodity futures contracts and foreign currency (forex). The defendants allegedly misappropriated customer funds, committed solicitation fraud, and issued false statements in the commodity futures and forex scheme.

In connection with their fraud, defendants allegedly misrepresented to customers and prospective customers that regardless of Elsworth Berg’s commodity futures or forex trading results, the return of customers’ investment principal was guaranteed at the end of a five-year period through use of a purportedly innovative “Collateral Reserve” structure, which owned life insurance policies on third-parties.

Wilson and EBCM also allegedly issued false statements to some customers that overstated the value of their investments. Wilson and EBCM misappropriated approximately $72,000 in customer funds and used the money for purposes other than trading, according to the complaint.

In its continuing litigation against the defendants, the CFTC seeks restitution to defrauded customers, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against further violations of federal commodities law.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced the filing of a complaint charging Blue Sky Capital Management Corp. of Lebanon, Tenn., and its principal, Gregory M. Schneider of Mount Juliet, Tenn. The CFTC alleges they made false statements to the National Futures Association, the futures industry self-regulatory organization, which operates under CFTC oversight.

The CFTC complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleges that Blue Sky and Schneider willfully concealed material facts from and/or made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations to the NFA in connection with an NFA audit of Blue Sky conducted on or about October 21-23, 2008. At the time, Blue Sky was registered with the CFTC as a Commodity Pool Operator and a Commodity Trading Advisor, and Schneider was registered as Blue Sky’s sole Associated Person.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants falsely represented that Blue Sky had only managed 10 customer accounts with an aggregate equity of approximately $20,000, that Blue Sky had managed customer accounts only since March 2008, and that Blue Sky had received no customer complaints. However, according to the complaint, the defendants failed to disclose that Blue Sky had managed approximately 80 other customer accounts in 2007 with an aggregate equity of approximately $1.2 million, which had net losses of approximately 30 percent of invested equity. Defendants also allegedly failed to disclose that a customer had complained to defendants repeatedly about his Blue Sky account prior to, and even during, the NFA audit. When confronted by the NFA in January 2009, the defendants allegedly made additional false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements regarding their failure to disclose the 2007 accounts and the customer complaint.

In its continuing litigation against the defendants, the CFTC seeks permanent trading and registration bans, a civil monetary penalty, and permanent injunctions against further violations of federal commodities law.

Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission today charged St. Louis-based brokerage firm Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and a former senior executive with defrauding five Wisconsin school districts by selling them unsuitably risky and complex investments funded largely with borrowed money.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Milwaukee, the SEC alleges that Stifel and Senior Vice President David W. Noack created a proprietary program to help the school districts fund retiree benefits by investing in notes linked to the performance of synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The school districts established trusts that invested $200 million in three transactions from June to December 2006, paid for largely with borrowed funds. According to the SEC’s complaint, Stifel and Noack misrepresented the risk of the investments and failed to disclose material facts to the school districts. In the end, the investments were a complete failure, but generated significant fees for Stifel and Noack.

“Let this be a teaching moment for sellers of complex financial products,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “The sale of these products to school districts or similar investors must meet well-established standards of suitability and accurate disclosure. Stifel and Noack violated these standards and jeopardized the ability of the school districts to fund operations and provide a quality education to students.”

Elaine C. Greenberg, Chief of the SEC Division of Enforcement’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, added, “Stifel and Noack abused their longstanding relationships of trust with the school districts by fraudulently peddling these inappropriate products to them. They were clearly aware that the school districts could ill afford to bear the risk of catastrophic loss if these investments failed.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, the five school districts are Kenosha Unified School District No. 1, Kimberly Area School District, School District of Waukesha, West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, and School District of Whitefish Bay. The SEC alleges that Stifel and Noack made sweeping assurances to the school districts, misrepresenting that it would take “15 Enrons” — a catastrophic, overnight collapse — for the investments to fail. They also misrepresented that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the top 800 companies in the world would have to fail before the school districts would suffer a loss of their principal.

The SEC alleges that among material facts that Stifel and Noack failed to disclose were the portfolio in the first transaction performing poorly from the outset, credit rating agencies placing 10 percent of the portfolio on negative watch within 36 days of closing, and certain CDO providers expressing concerns about the risks of Stifel’s proprietary program and declining to participate in it.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Stifel and Noack sold the school districts an unsuitable product that did not meet their investment needs. The school districts had no prior experience with investing in CDOs and related instruments. Stifel and Noack knew that the school districts lacked the requisite sophistication and experience to independently evaluate the risks of the investment, and knew that the school districts relied on Stifel and Noack’s recommendations. The school districts contributed $37.3 million toward the $200 million investment and borrowed the remaining $162.7 million.

The SEC alleges that the heavy use of leverage and the structure of the synthetic CDOs exposed the school districts to a heightened risk of catastrophic loss. The investments steadily declined in value in 2007 and 2008 as the CDO portfolios suffered a series of downgrades. By 2010, the school districts learned that the second and third investments were a complete loss and that the lender had seized all of the trusts’ assets. The school districts suffered a complete loss of their investment and suffered credit rating downgrades for failing to provide additional funds to the trusts they established.

The SEC alleges that Stifel and Noack violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC also alleges that Stifel violated and Noack aided and abetted violations of Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted jointly by the Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit led by Elaine Greenberg and Mark R. Zehner and the Structured and New Products Unit led by Kenneth Lench and Reid Muoio. The investigative attorneys were Kevin Guerrero, Keshia W. Ellis and Ivonia K. Slade in Washington D.C. and Jeffrey A. Shank and Anne C. McKinley in the Chicago Regional Office. The broker-dealer examinations team of Marianne E. Neidhart, Scott M. Kalish, George J. Jacobus and Daniel R. Gregus of the Chicago Regional Office assisted the investigation. Steven C. Seeger and Robert M. Moye of the Chicago Regional Office will lead the SEC’s litigation.

The SEC’s investigation is continuing. Click Here for a copy of the SEC Complaint.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged a California-based biopharmaceutical company, three shareholder companies, and four senior executives for fraudulently misleading investors about the regulatory status of the company’s sole product. Three of the executives were additionally charged with insider trading.

The SEC alleges that Immunosyn Corporation misleadingly stated in various public filings from 2006 to 2010 that its controlling shareholder – Argyll Biotechnologies LLC – either planned to commence or had commenced the U.S. regulatory approval process for human clinical trials for SF-1019, a drug derived from goat blood that was intended to treat a variety of ailments. The public filings failed to disclose that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had already twice issued clinical holds on drug applications for SF-1019, prohibiting clinical trials from occurring. The SEC alleges that Immunosyn also misleadingly stated that the regulatory approval process in Europe for human clinical trials for SF-1019 was imminent or underway, when in fact Argyll never submitted an application in Europe to conduct human clinical trials.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Chicago on August 1, Immunosyn’s CFO Douglas McClain Jr., Argyll’s Chief Scientific Officer Douglas McClain Sr., and Argyll’s CEO James Miceli engaged in insider trading by raising approximately $20 million from their sale of Immunosyn shares while knowing that misrepresentations were being made about the regulatory status of SF-1019. They sold most of these shares through Argyll and two other shareholders named in the SEC’s enforcement action: Argyll Equities, which McClain Jr. and Miceli jointly owned, and an offshore entity Padmore Holdings Ltd., which McClain Jr., McClain Sr., and Miceli jointly owned. Immunosyn’s CEO Stephen D. Ferrone also is charged by the SEC in the securities fraud scheme.

“These executives routinely authorized public filings that told investors a story about the status of the company’s prized drug that was far different from the behind-the-scenes reality,” said Merri Jo Gillette, Regional Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. “Three of these executives went one step further to illegally profit from their tall tales by selling their company stock and reaping more than $20 million while repeatedly misleading investors about the drug.”

For example, according to the SEC’s complaint, McClain Sr. made misstatements about the regulatory approval status of SF-1019 in a video on Immunosyn’s website and in a 2008 presentation in which he sold Immunosyn stock he owned through Padmore to patients at a Texas holistic clinic, some of whom were terminally ill. The SEC alleges that McClain Sr. raised approximately $300,000 from these patients, but never gave them the shares they bought.

The SEC’s complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, ordering each defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and pay financial penalties, and barring Ferrone, McClain Jr., McClain Sr. and Miceli from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Click Here for a copy of the Complaint.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota filed criminal charges against Jason Bo-Alan Beckman, Gerald Joseph Durand, and Patrick Joseph Kiley for their roles in a $194 million fraudulent foreign currency trading scheme orchestrated by Trevor Cook. The U.S. Attorney’s Office previously charged Cook and Christopher Pettengill for their involvement in the fraud. In August 2010, Cook entered a guilty plea to mail fraud and tax evasion and was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $155 million in restitution. On June 21, 2011, Pettengill agreed to plead guilty to securities fraud and awaits sentencing.

In November 2009, the SEC filed a civil injunctive action against Cook and Kiley and in March 2011, filed an injunctive action against Beckman. The SEC’s actions against these defendants, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, arose out of the same facts that are the subject of the criminal case. The SEC’s complaints allege that from at least 2006 through 2009, Cook and Kiley with the help of Beckman and others raised at least $194 million from at least 1,000 investors through the unregistered offer and sale of investments in a purported foreign currency trading venture (the “Currency Program”). According to the SEC’s complaints, the defendants told investors that each investor’s money would be invested in the Currency Program, their money would be held in a segregated account, there was little or no risk to their money, they would receive guaranteed returns ranging from approximately 10% to 12% per year, and they could withdraw their money at any time. The SEC alleges that these representations were false. According to the SEC’s complaints, a significant portion of the investors’ funds were never invested in the Currency Program but instead were used to make purported interest and return of principal payments to other investors and also diverted to certain of the defendants and their companies. None of the funds were ever placed in segregated accounts at banks or foreign currency trading firms and the funds sent to the trading firms sustained significant losses.

The SEC’s complaints against Cook, Kiley, and Beckman charge them with violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint against Beckman also charges him with violating Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. On August 27, 2010, the court entered an order of permanent injunction against Cook prohibiting him from future violations of the federal securities laws and ordering him to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty to be set by the court at a later date. The SEC’s against Kiley and Beckman remain pending. For additional information, click on Litigation Releases.

Released today by the Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Markus Walder, former head of North America Offshore Banking at an international bank headquartered in Zurich; Susanne D. Rüegg Meier, a former manager with the international bank; Andreas Bachmann, a former banker at a subsidiary of the international bank; and Josef Dörig, the founder of a Swiss trust company, have been charged with conspiring with other Swiss bankers to defraud the United States, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today.   The four are charged in a superseding indictment together with four other defendants (Marco Parenti Adami, Emanuel Agustino, Michele Bergantino and Roger Schaerer) who were charged in an indictment returned on Feb. 23, 2011.            

According to the superseding indictment, the international bank’s managers and bankers engaged in illegal cross-border banking that was designed to assist U.S. customers evade their income taxes by opening and maintaining secret bank accounts at the bank and other Swiss banks.   As of the fall of 2008, the international bank maintained thousands of secret accounts for U.S. customers with as much as $3 billion in total assets under management in those accounts.   The conspiracy dates back to 1953 and involved two generations of U.S. tax evaders including U.S. customers who inherited secret accounts at the international bank. 

Moreover, according to the superseding indictment, the conspirators utilized a representative office in New York City to provide unlicensed and unregistered banking services to U.S. customers with undeclared accounts.   Walder, Schaerer, their co-conspirators and others allegedly made false statements and provided misleading information to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and to the IRS in order to conceal the international bank’s U.S. cross-border banking business and the role of the New York representative office in that business. 

The superseding indictment alleges that Walder supervised the U.S. cross-border banking business, including the New York representative office headed by Schaerer, a Geneva-based team of bankers led by manager Marco Parenti Adami and a Zurich-based team of bankers led by manager Rüegg Meier.   Rüegg Meier was a member of senior management at the international bank and also served as a private banker, providing unlicensed and unregistered banking services to U.S. customers with undeclared accounts at the bank.   The superseding indictment further alleges that Bachmann was a private banker for a wholly-owned subsidiary of the international bank who traveled to the United States to assist U.S. taxpayers in evading their U.S. taxes through the use of secret bank accounts.   It is further alleged that Dörig, founder of a Swiss trust company, was a preferred provider of the international bank who assisted U.S. customers in forming and maintaining nominee tax haven entities and opening secret accounts at the international bank and its subsidiaries in the names of the entities. 

According to the superseding indictment, the defendants and their co-conspirators solicited U.S. customers to open secret accounts because Swiss bank secrecy would permit them to conceal from the IRS their ownership of accounts at the international bank and other Swiss banks.   It is further alleged that they provided unlicensed and unregistered banking services and investment advice to customers in the United States in person while on travel to the United States, including at the international bank’s representative office in New York City and by mailings, email and telephone calls to and from the United States.   It is further alleged that the international bank’s employees destroyed statements and other account records that were sent via email or facsimile to the representative office in New York so that records regarding the undeclared accounts would not be maintained in the United States. 

The superseding indictment alleges that the defendants and their co-conspirators caused U.S. customers to travel outside the United States to conduct banking related to their secret accounts; opened secret accounts in the names of nominee tax haven entities for U.S. customers; accepted IRS forms that falsely stated under penalties of perjury that the owners of the secret accounts were not subject to U.S. taxation; advised and caused United States customers to structure withdrawals from their secret accounts in amounts less than $10,000 in an attempt to conceal the secret accounts and the transactions from American authorities; mailed bank checks in amounts less than $10,000 to customers in the United States; and advised U.S. customers to utilize offshore charge, credit and debit cards linked to their secret accounts and provided the customers with such cards, including cards issued by American Express, Visa and Maestro. 

According to the superseding indictment, after the bank decided to close the secret accounts maintained by U.S. customers, the defendants encouraged and assisted U.S. customers to transfer their secret accounts to other foreign banks as a means of continuing to hide their assets from the IRS and discouraged the customers from disclosing their secret accounts to the IRS through the IRS’s Voluntary Disclosure Program. 

Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; John A. DiCicco, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division; and Douglas H. Shulman, Commissioner of the IRS, made the announcement. 

A criminal indictment is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If convicted, the defendants each face a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. 

U.S. Attorney MacBride and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General DiCicco commended the investigative efforts of the IRS agents involved in this case, as well as Senior Litigation Counsels Kevin M. Downing and John E. Sullivan and Trial Attorneys Mark F. Daly, Tino M. Lisella, Michelle M. Petersen and Melissa Siskind of the Tax Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Lytle, who are prosecuting the case. 

Click Here for a copy of the release published by the Department of Justice.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Armor Holdings, Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by participating in a bribery scheme from 2001 through 2006 to obtain contracts to supply body armor for use in United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping missions. The SEC also charged Armor Holdings, a Florida-based manufacturer of military and law enforcement safety equipment, with failing to properly account for more than $4 million in commissions from 2001 through 2007 in violation of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws.

Armor Holdings agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying nearly $5.7 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties. Armor Holdings also agreed to pay a $10.29 million fine to settle a parallel criminal investigation announced by the U.S. Department of Justice today. Since 2010, the SEC has filed 32 FCPA cases, including the case against Armor Holdings, and obtained more than $600 million in penalties, disgorgement and interest.

“Illicit payments to U.N. officials are no less reprehensible than bribes to foreign government officials,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “The important process of selecting body armor for peace keepers should not be affected by which company pays the best bribes.”

Gerald W. Hodgkins, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, added, “Armor failed to maintain adequate internal controls to prevent its subsidiary from making illegal payments to win U.N. supply contracts. Just as troubling, Armor improperly accounted for sales commissions for several years even after being warned that the accounting treatment was wrong.”

The SEC’s complaint alleges that certain agents of Armor Holdings caused its U.K. subsidiary to wire at least 92 payments, totaling approximately $222,750 to a third-party intermediary, with the understanding that part of these payments would be offered to a U.N. official who could help steer business to Armor Holdings’ U.K. subsidiary. The complaint alleges that agents of Armor Holdings caused its U.K. subsidiary to enter into a sham consulting agreement with the intermediary for purportedly providing legitimate services in connection with the sale of goods to the U.N. The complaint alleges that, through this bribery scheme, Armor Holdings derived gross revenues of $7,121,237, and net profits of $1,552,306.

The SEC alleges that another Armor Holdings subsidiary disguised in its books and records commissions paid to intermediaries who brokered the sale of goods to foreign governments. Even after being warned by internal and external accountants that this practice violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, Armor Holdings’ subsidiary continued the improper accounting practice. As a result, approximately $4 million in commissions was not properly disclosed in the books and records of the company.

On July 31, 2007, after the conduct alleged in the SEC’s complaint had occurred, Armor Holdings was acquired by BAE Systems, Inc., an indirect wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Britain’s BAE Systems PLC. Accordingly, Armor Holdings is no longer an issuer of securities.

The SEC’s complaint charges Armor Holdings with violating Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Armor Holdings consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against further violations and agreed to pay $1,552,306 in disgorgement, $458,438 in prejudgment interest, and a civil money penalty of $3,680,000. Armor Holdings also agreed to comply with certain undertakings regarding its FCPA compliance program. The settlement is subject to court approval. Armor Holdings conducted a thorough investigation to determine the scope of the improper payments and cooperated with the SEC’s inquiry.

Click Here for a complete copy of the SEC Complaint.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on July 11, 2011, it filed a settled civil action in the United States District Court in Philadelphia against John N. Irwin (“Irwin”), a certified public accountant, and his consulting firm, Jacklin Associates, Inc. (“Jacklin”). The Commission alleges that, from at least February 1995 through December 2008, Irwin and Jacklin participated in a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme orchestrated and run by Joseph S. Forte (“Forte”) through his limited partnership Joseph S. Forte, LP (“Forte LP”). In December 2008, Forte confessed to federal authorities that, for over a decade, he had been operating a Ponzi scheme in which he fraudulently obtained approximately $50 million from roughly 80 investors through the sale of securities in the form of limited partnership interests in Forte LP. Subsequent investigation of Forte’s confession has revealed over 100 investors who collectively invested over $75 million. Forte and Forte LP solicited investors by making misrepresentations regarding, among other things, use of invested funds, investment returns, and investor account balances. On January 7, 2009, the Commission and the United States Commodities Futures Trading Commission filed civil actions against Forte and Forte LP and successfully sought emergency relief that, among other things, froze their assets and enjoined further illegal conduct. SEC v. Forte, et al., 09-CV-0063 (E.D. Pa.); CFTC v. Forte, 09-CV-0064 (E.D. Pa.). In parallel criminal proceedings, Forte pled guilty to charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud and money laundering and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. U.S. v. Forte, 09-CR-304 (E.D. Pa.).

The Commission’s complaint against Irwin and Jacklin alleges that they participated in Forte’s scheme by soliciting investors for Forte LP. In doing so, Irwin relied exclusively on Forte’s misrepresentations about Forte LP’s stellar performance and, without performing any due diligence, passed along to investors through Jacklin materially false and misleading information about, among other things, Forte LP’s current value and growth, historical performance, rapid-trading strategy, and retention of an accountant. Irwin, through Jacklin, also performed back office and bookkeeping functions for Forte LP, including creating and issuing to investors false quarterly statements and tax documents prepared based on the false information provided by Forte. In communicating the fraudulent information to investors, Irwin disregarded red flags that should have alerted him that the information that he was passing on was false. Over the course of the fraud, Irwin, through Jacklin, received ill-gotten gains exceeding $5 million in purported fees and trading profits.

Irwin and Jacklin agreed to settle the Commission’s charges, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint. Under the settlement, which is subject to the court’s approval, Irwin and Jacklin consented to a judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The judgment also orders the defendants to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and permits the Commission to ask the court to impose civil penalties, the amounts of which will be determined at a later date. As part of the settlement, Irwin agreed to the entry of an order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.

Click Here for a copy of the original SEC Complaint.