More

Fewer Defendants Would Deny Guilt Under New SEC Policy

Sec

First Posted: 01/06/12 06:25 PM ET Updated: 01/07/12 09:23 AM ET

In a change of policy that comes after more than two years of public and embarrassing scoldings by a federal judge, the Securities and Exchange Commission will no longer allow some defendants to deny guilt when they settle their case.

Companies and individuals that settle a civil case with the SEC that also have admitted to or been convicted of criminal violations in a related matter will no longer be allowed to say that they "neither admit nor deny" the agency's charges, according to the agency.

The policy would end a practice that allowed such celebrated villains as Bernard Madoff -- who was sentenced to 150 years in prison for masterminding the biggest financial con job in history -- to settle charges with the SEC without admitting or denying wrongdoing. However, it wouldn't affect most SEC settlements, which come independent of any criminal charges.

Prior to the change, the SEC, which has the power to file civil, but not criminal charges, included the boilerplate disclaimer in every settlement deal reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity in an analysis last year.

"This is a logical updating of the commission's enforcement policies" said Thomas Gorman, a Washington partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney, who writes the SEC Actions blog. "But it doesn't signal a fundamental shift in policy that will affect the typical civil enforcement action."

That means that high-profile civil defendants will still be able to settle charges without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. Some recent examples include: Michael Dell, founder of the giant computer manufacturer, who agreed to pay $4 million to settle accounting fraud charges; Steven Rattner, the Obama administration’s one-time auto czar, who agreed to pay $6.2 million to settle pay-for-play charges involving the New York state pension fund; and Paul George Chironis, a broker-dealer at a now-defunct firm, who paid $350,000 to settle charges that he defrauded a group of elderly Sisters of Charity nuns in the Bronx.

It also probably won't do anything to lower the temperature in a public spat between New York Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff and the SEC over whether agency settlements are fair to the public.

In a 2010 ruling, the judge "reluctantly" approved a $150 million agency settlement with Bank of America over its Merrill Lynch acquisition, after having rejected an earlier, smaller deal. He said that allowing defendants to walk away without admitting guilt is a "palpable" disservice to the public interest.

"Here an agency of the United States is saying, in effect, 'Although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not propose to prove it, but will simply resort to gagging their right to deny it,'" he wrote.

More recently, Rakoff rejected a proposed $285 million settlement with Citigroup Inc. over charges that it sold risky mortgage-backed securities without telling investors that it was also betting against the debt. Once again, Rakoff said the "neither admit nor deny" language left him no way to determine whether the settlement was fair.

The SEC is now appealing Rakoff's decision in the Citigroup case.

The SEC's traditional explanation for including the boilerplate language had been that defendants will not agree to settle a case if they have to admit wrongdoing because doing so would expose them to future lawsuits from whoever might claim to have been harmed by their actions.

But this explanation didn't make much sense in instances where that same defendant was already admitting to wrongdoing in a criminal case.

For example, the SEC and the Justice Department announced on the same day last year that Wachovia had agreed to pay $148 million to settle charges that it rigged bids in the municipal securities market. The bank said it "admits, acknowledges and accepts responsibility for" manipulating the bidding process in the Justice Department deal. But it didn't admit any wrongdoing in the SEC settlement.

For its part, the SEC seems to be downplaying the significance of the change in policy and also serving notice that the change doesn't mean it is kowtowing to Rakoff.

"This policy change does not affect our traditional 'neither admit nor deny' approach in settlements that do not involve criminal convictions or admissions of criminal law violations," the agency said in a press release. "In particular, it is separate from and unrelated to the recent ruling in the Citigroup case, which does not involve a criminal conviction or admissions of criminal law violations."

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that more defendants would have to confess guilt under the SEC policy. In fact, more defendants would no longer be able to deny guilt.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
In a change of policy that comes after more than two years of public and embarrassing scoldings by a federal judge, the Securities and Exchange Commission will no longer allow some defendants to deny ...
In a change of policy that comes after more than two years of public and embarrassing scoldings by a federal judge, the Securities and Exchange Commission will no longer allow some defendants to deny ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 573
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
ChasG 03:03 AM on 01/08/2012
What's missing from this article, and from most of the comments, is explanation/comprehension of the difference between civil fraud and criminal fraud.  The article correctly states the SEC is only allowed to prosecute civil fraud.  Criminal fraud is an FBI matter, among the many other crimes the FBI is charged with investigating for prosecution.

The standard of proof for civil fraud is  Read More...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:58 AM on 01/09/2012
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any other law-enforcement agency has any "policy" other than to ENFORCE the Law. "Without fear or favor."
photo
nixthetrix
aiming for the center , being pushed to the left
11:16 PM on 01/08/2012
Here is a change I can support .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:27 PM on 01/08/2012
This type of back room "punishment" is why Ron Paul authored the SEC Transparency Act of 2010.
As president, he would certainly encourage more scrutiny of SEC collusion with insiders.
photo
nixthetrix
aiming for the center , being pushed to the left
11:18 PM on 01/08/2012
Ron is still unelectable because his other positions are an affront to humanity .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:41 AM on 01/09/2012
Which positions are an affront to humanity?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
03:03 AM on 01/08/2012
What's missing from this article, and from most of the comments, is explanation/comprehension of the difference between civil fraud and criminal fraud.  The article correctly states the SEC is only allowed to prosecute civil fraud.  Criminal fraud is an FBI matter, among the many other crimes the FBI is charged with investigating for prosecution.

The standard of proof for civil fraud is much lower than the standard of proof for criminal fraud.  With all frauds, there must be proof that one or more other persons was harmed by the fraudulent actions of the defendant, whereas with criminal fraud the prosecution must also prove criminal intent to cause harm, which is far more difficult to prove in a court of law, and especially before a jury.  A civil fraud does not necessarily implicate an individual in an organization of criminal behavior.  Ineptness, procedural error and the like, such as "robo-signing" can be civil frauds of the organization and yet not criminal frauds by an individual "with intent to cause harm."  Intent to cut-corners is not likely to translate to crimes by individuals with intent to cause harm.

The fifth amendment to the constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination, so what the SEC was allowing was constitutional.  What is at issue here is about public relations, and I whole-heartedly agree that the inclusion of non-admission of guilt or innocence, while constitutionally allowed for someone accused of a crime, is not something the SEC should be participating in regardless of whether anyone has or has not been accused of a crime.  Let those who have been accused of civil fraud defend themselves at their own expense, and that will tilt the tables just a bit towards deterrence.
01:49 AM on 01/09/2012
Thanks for the distinction between civil and criminal fraud, of which I was unaware. I'm less irate now about corporations presumably getting away with fraud by just paying a fine, but I certainly agree with your conclusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
structurequity
structurequity not oppression
02:21 AM on 01/08/2012
We're not done yet with the SEC...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
stargazer13
To Love One Is To Love All
06:22 PM on 01/07/2012
OOOOH MYYYYYY G+D

Really ! how many have admitted guilt under any rules or regs
Hufrelief
All of you matter
03:29 PM on 01/07/2012
Neglect has been so rampid in the past with violations of companies. I will take an aggressive wait and see attitude with the new SEC policies.
Hufrelief
All of you matter
03:25 PM on 01/07/2012
Instead of finding creative ways to move this nation along, then sharing them with the rest of the nation. The Republicans repeat the same old plans of economic diversity. That once upon a time were effective, but we are definitely in a different time zone now, and we are in the process of transition from oil to other fuels and energy. We still need oil, and we will use oil. We even might keep using oil, but not like we use to. You Republicans get your head in the game and stop holding up everything and everyone else. This nation needs innovation, and we are not getting any innovated thoughts or support from you Republicans at all. Everyone has to step up to the plate Republicans, and that means you. I do not know why you Republicans think you do not have to.
maruski
Liberal Lutheran; lean left, save America!
02:32 PM on 01/07/2012
Is it de rigeur for someone who was caught taking money from someone other than through financial instrument fraud to "neither admit nor deny"? The boy caught taking money from a cancer donation jar for example? or embezzling from their employer? Ah heck no--those guys are out for the count.

I don't get why stealing on a huge grand scale with elaborate financial scams is treated so weakly it's practically wink-wink too bad you didn't hide it well enough....
photo
K August
Research alecexposed
06:35 PM on 01/07/2012
This stuff happens when corporate interests have TOO MUCH control.
We really need to get money out of politics and close that revolving door.
photo
Littlewords
My micro bio was outsourced to my nano-bio: I'm me
02:26 PM on 01/07/2012
The Fox guarding the financial hen house will not change its ways unless either dismantled, replaced, or forced to painful and continual public and legal scrutiny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
02:33 PM on 01/07/2012
And that's not going to happen while lobbyists are allowed to decide who gets elected.

Campaign Reform is THE issue.
01:37 AM on 01/09/2012
Yes! I believe we need public financing of elections.
photo
K August
Research alecexposed
06:41 PM on 01/07/2012
True....... look how watered down the healthcare act got when industry spent 380 MILLION to make sure it did!

"Conservatives mounted a fierce opposition to the reform effort, aided by a $380 million lobbying campaign on behalf of the health care industry."

They tried the same thing with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau......instead of having a department head........the GOP/TP wanted to have 5 of them.......why?.....so they could stack the deck with industry friendly ex-politicians and insiders!

Close the revolving door....... if they've been in office DON'T let them lobby for their new industry bosses and don't let ex-industry people get positions in government agencies!
This should apply to both parties.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Horatio Nelson
02:09 PM on 01/07/2012
The whole thing is a net you can drive trucks through. Since Ronald Reagan, cultures of corruption have become acceptable and far too many are walking away from these things Scot-free.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:32 PM on 01/07/2012
"The SEC's traditional explanation for including the boilerplate language had been that defendants will not agree to settle a case if they have to admit wrongdoing because doing so would expose them to future lawsuits from whoever might claim to have been harmed by their actions."

So the SEC has traditionally been used to shield corporate villains from having to account for their wrongdoing.

A prosecutor who is only willing to take plea-bargains would rightly be dismissed. By their own description the SEC are similarly incompetent and furthermore have acted to defeat the means of justice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2garen
01:24 PM on 01/07/2012
So the SEC is there to protect the criminals.. where is Elliot Ness when we need him?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
looneydoone
not a "cookie"
02:42 PM on 01/08/2012
Today's Elliot Ness may well be Gary J Aguirre, former SEC attorney who was fired for trying to do his job in exposing fraud and corruption. He now represents "whistleblowers" from his headquarters in San Diego, CA. His brother Michael Aguirre lost his job as San Diego City Attorney for doing the right thing after the establishment launched a huge smear campaign to have someone more pliable elected to that office. San Diego was given the name "Enron By The Sea" for it's financial shenanigans
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
13th Generation American
It's hard to free fools from the chains they bear
12:10 PM on 01/07/2012
while representing the World Wrestling Federation while with K&L, Santorum argued that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was not an actual sport, rather, entertainment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EHenry
Author of the new book - How We Got Swindled by Wa
12:10 PM on 01/07/2012
Believe me as the former owner of an NASD Member firm, and licensed in the securities business in 1968 - with a series 1 (now called 7) and a series 39 (principals license) I know how the SEC has not enforced its own regulations which would require indictments of so many Wall Streeters!! Of course after appropriate investigations, however the surface of what has occurred is transparent because it is ILLEGAL TO ISSUE SECURITIES WHICH ARE TOO COMPLEX TO EXPLAIN, AND HAVE COMMITTED INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE - which then falls under tons of precedent regarding the omission of significant information.

So this posture by the SEC toward policy rather than substance is only more of the same. And it is far worse than disgusting, but is indicative of how Mary Schapiro ran the NASD, FINRA and emblematic of how many of her predecessors ran the SEC. Further the Fed is complicit as well because it also had/has regulations which make it illegal for Bank Holding Companies to issue "complex securities" which can not be explained well enough to be understood. And the American public remains in the dark will the SEC focuses on "policy changes" which is code for doing nothing to get the culprits. The purpose of my new book is to enlighten the public to protect the public good. to learn more: www.howwegotswindled.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrhandyman3105
Independent Voting Democrat This Year
12:30 PM on 01/07/2012
And yet the GOP is still trying to gut the SEC, Consumer Protection Agency, and National Labor Relations Board. They want corporations and business to run without "any" restrictions or consequences, and no taxes.
04:18 PM on 01/07/2012
Who appointed the latest head to chair the SEC, Mary Schapiro for more of business as usual land look the other way? Yes, POTUS Barack Obama. Judge him by his actions and lack of actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schapiro

Schapiro was appointed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan to fill one of two Democratic seats on the SEC. President George H. W. Bush reappointed her to this position in 1989. President Bill Clinton appointed Schapiro as acting chairman of the SEC, and then appointed her chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1994.

In 2009 She promised that as chair of the SEC to be more vigilant. In 1993 Schapiro said regulating derivatives in order to not stifle the "financial innovation" that would result from "a more flexible regulatory paradigm." [7]

Prior to 2009, Schapiro as a regulator viewed much regulation of financial markets as too burdensome and proposed to work closely with the financial industry to weaken regulations.