The SEC launched an investigation to determine whether U.S. financial firms made unlawful payments in connection with obtaining or seeking to obtain investments from sovereign wealth funds – payments which might have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA” or “Act”).
The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, which channels Abu Dhabi’s oil profits into investments – are
large pools of cash that governments draw from their reserves to make investments. The SEC’s investigation, although in an early stage, appears to focus on whether certain U.S.- based banks, hedge funds and private equity firms – either directly or indirectly – made illegal payments to employees or representatives of sovereign wealth funds.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
India's Reliance in emerging financial fraud case....
A legal battle in London has revealed that a conglomerate controlled by Anil Ambani, the Indian telecoms tycoon, used a Mauritius-based fund to make covert investments in one of its own companies, triggering calls in India for a full investigation.
UK regulators have found that Mr Ambani’s Reliance Group, spanning interests from financial services to infrastructure, invested $250m in the offshore fund that in 2007 bought securities linked to one of the companies within the group, in violation of Indian law.
The complex chain of investments, long the subject of media speculation in India, is now at the centre of a disciplinary action brought by the UK’s Financial Services Authority against the former private bankers at UBS who set up the investment fund.
The long-running case has already established serious compliance failings at UBS, the Swiss bank whose flagship wealth management arm competes fiercely for the business of billionaires such as Mr Ambani. The bank paid an £8m fine in 2009 for control weaknesses on its “Asia II” private banking desk based in London, which dealt with “mega clients” such as Mr Ambani and several other Indian tycoons.
So far, only Mr Ambani’s group has been publicly identified as using this structure. But one Indian investor with knowledge of the vehicle claimed that as many as 25 Indian businessmen had used similar funds.
UK regulators have found that Mr Ambani’s Reliance Group, spanning interests from financial services to infrastructure, invested $250m in the offshore fund that in 2007 bought securities linked to one of the companies within the group, in violation of Indian law.
The complex chain of investments, long the subject of media speculation in India, is now at the centre of a disciplinary action brought by the UK’s Financial Services Authority against the former private bankers at UBS who set up the investment fund.
The long-running case has already established serious compliance failings at UBS, the Swiss bank whose flagship wealth management arm competes fiercely for the business of billionaires such as Mr Ambani. The bank paid an £8m fine in 2009 for control weaknesses on its “Asia II” private banking desk based in London, which dealt with “mega clients” such as Mr Ambani and several other Indian tycoons.
So far, only Mr Ambani’s group has been publicly identified as using this structure. But one Indian investor with knowledge of the vehicle claimed that as many as 25 Indian businessmen had used similar funds.
Monday, November 28, 2011
neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest = Too big fail "yes" but not too BIG to be CONVICTED!!!
A judge on Monday rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the top U.S. market regulator over the sale of toxic mortgage debt and ordered a trial.
In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff said the proposed settlement was "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."
The rejection was not a surprise since the judge had made clear at a November 9 hearing that he had major problems with the proposal.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Citigroup of selling a $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation, Class V Funding III, in 2007 as the housing market was beginning to collapse, and then betting against the transaction.
One Citigroup employee, director Brian Stoker, was also charged by the SEC. He is contesting those charges.
Representatives of Citigroup and the SEC could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is SEC v Citigroup Global Markets Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07387.
In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff said the proposed settlement was "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."
The rejection was not a surprise since the judge had made clear at a November 9 hearing that he had major problems with the proposal.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Citigroup of selling a $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation, Class V Funding III, in 2007 as the housing market was beginning to collapse, and then betting against the transaction.
One Citigroup employee, director Brian Stoker, was also charged by the SEC. He is contesting those charges.
Representatives of Citigroup and the SEC could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is SEC v Citigroup Global Markets Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07387.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
If you have nothing to (hide) transparency is your friend!
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action against Shanghai-based Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. for failing to produce documents related to an investigation of its former auditing client Longtop Financial Technologies Limited.
D&T Shanghai hasn’t provided any documents to the SEC, which issued subpoenas to the firm on May 27, the agency said in a statement today, citing a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington. As a result, the SEC has been unable to access “critical” information in its probe of possible fraud at Longtop, the statement said.
Longtop, based in Hong Kong, said in May that D&T Shanghai quit because of errors in the company’s financial records. The SEC also began an investigation. In July, the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board met with counterparts in China to discuss cross-border oversight.
Today’s action “essentially is a battle between the SEC and Chinese regulators forcing D&T Shanghai to assert Chinese law as an explanation for why it cannot produce records,” Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC lawyer now with Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA in Potomac, Maryland, said in an interview. “Auditing firms know that the SEC has the right to subpoena and review and consider audit work papers. This is about bringing to a head the dispute over access to information relating to audits of Chinese companies.”
In order to compete fairly we must have transparency; otherwise we'll all be guilty of doping our domestic businesses to the detriment of the competion.
D&T Shanghai hasn’t provided any documents to the SEC, which issued subpoenas to the firm on May 27, the agency said in a statement today, citing a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington. As a result, the SEC has been unable to access “critical” information in its probe of possible fraud at Longtop, the statement said.
Longtop, based in Hong Kong, said in May that D&T Shanghai quit because of errors in the company’s financial records. The SEC also began an investigation. In July, the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board met with counterparts in China to discuss cross-border oversight.
Today’s action “essentially is a battle between the SEC and Chinese regulators forcing D&T Shanghai to assert Chinese law as an explanation for why it cannot produce records,” Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC lawyer now with Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA in Potomac, Maryland, said in an interview. “Auditing firms know that the SEC has the right to subpoena and review and consider audit work papers. This is about bringing to a head the dispute over access to information relating to audits of Chinese companies.”
In order to compete fairly we must have transparency; otherwise we'll all be guilty of doping our domestic businesses to the detriment of the competion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)