fraud

markzuckerbergofficeForeign-exchange traders’ messages on Facebook Inc. are being sought by European Union antitrust regulators as they expand a probe into alleged collusion between banks beyond work e-mails and instant messages, two people with knowledge of the case said. Banks have been asked to supply all communications between traders, including social media, said three people who didn’t want to be named because the EU’s requests are private. The EU suspects that some e-mails and online messages have been erased to destroy signs that traders were illegally swapping information, one of the people said. [Bloomberg]

Back in November, UBS worked out a prettay, prettay, prettay sweet deal for itself re: Libor manipulation. Like many another bank, UBS’s employees had their way with London Interbank Offered Rate. Unlike many other bank, which faced stiff penalties for doing so, the Swiss struck an immunity deal with the EU wherein it paid a relatively small fine and then, in exchange for cooperating with authorities and “turning over information about other banks,” found itself in the clear. Anyway, that worked out so well for UBS last time that it’s decided to take the same approach with a new rate-rigging investigation, and save itself a coupla bucks. Read more »

Has he said “No, I got this” when the time came to compensate the fellow who inked the words “Buy Low Sell High Never Die” in an old-timey font down the left side of your neck and “Mama’s Boy” down the right? Has he paid for the oil changes on your Harley? Has he helped you shop for the most luxurious of cat beds, as well as a set of duchess satin pillowcases to go with, for Mr. Whiskerson, and then winked at you and said “It’s on me” at the register? If you answered no to any of the above, you might want to fire your broker and get in touch with George Carris, who knows how to treat his clients right. Read more »

If you wish to live like a lottery winner, you can take your roughly one in 175 million chance on Wednesday. Alternately, you can go into financial advisory, with much shorter odds of a very long prison sentence. Read more »

Poor guy:

The Securities and Exchange Commission overruled its own enforcement division’s decision to settle a civil case with the high-flying money manager Philip A. Falcone and his flagship hedge fund, a rare reversal that signals a broader crackdown by the agency. … While the deal also included at least a two-year ban from raising new capital, a potential death knell to a hedge fund manager, that punishment came with a number of caveats. And in a a moral victory for Mr. Falcone, the deal also omitted a common provision that prohibits defendants from committing future violations with fraudulent intent.

Apparently SEC Chairman Mary Jo White killed the deal:

White, a former Wall Street defense lawyer, and Democrats Luis A. Aguilar and Elisse B. Walter, in a 3-to-1 vote, were concerned that Falcone wasn’t barred from serving as officer or director of a public company, said the people, asking not to be named because the deliberations aren’t public. The SEC informed Falcone’s Harbinger Capital Partners LLC of the decision yesterday, according to a filing from Harbinger Group Inc.1

Man it’s hard to be the SEC. Presumably they employ a lot of people who do, like, actual work. Read more »

You’re going to have to try a lot harder than strippers, black jack, and a leased Mercedes to impress us. You’re competing with people who’ve spent millions on Caramel Macchiatos and priceless Teddy Bear collections. Think outside the box for once in your life. Read more »

Here’s a strange little SEC securities fraud case. Imaging3 is a small, now-bankrupt medical imaging device company that was developing a 3D scanner (pictured right, with CEO Dean Janes) that certain members of the medical establishment did not like, quite possibly because it didn’t work, hard to tell. Imaging3 sought FDA approval for its scanner and, in October 2010, the FDA rejected its application. On November 1 after the close, the company announced that it had received this rejection and held a conference call with investors. Janes, the CEO, was mad:

Janes informed shareholders and others on the call that the FDA’s rejection of the submission was not based on concerns regarding the device’s technology or image quality or the safety of the device. Instead, at numerous points during the call, he described the FDA’s denial as “ridiculous,” “administrative,” “not substantive,” and”nonsensical.”

During the November 1 call, Janes omitted any mention of the FDA’s specific and substantive concerns. For example, he never explained in any way that the FDA had determined that the use of certain sample images was “scientifically invalid and useless,” or that the FDA had expressed concerns about vibration hazards or overheating of the device.

So a difference of opinion then? Read more »