85 Year-Old Went 45 Years Between Frauds But Apparently That Doesn't Count For Anything

Well, 45 years between getting caught, to be accurate.
Put it up for sale! By AgnosticPreachersKid (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

via Wikimedia Commons

Back in 1971, Thomas Conrad was banned from the investment industry and probably abided by the terms said ban for at least a few years, if not longer (probably). Four decades passed, he presumably stayed out of trouble (presumably) and in 2008 an opportunity to allegedly commit fraud again presented itself, this time with his son. Perhaps with the idea in mind that he should get credit for not breaking the law for all those years, along with the opportunity for family bonding,* he apparently jumped at the chance, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Thomas D. Conrad Jr. and his son, Stuart P. Conrad, also of Alpharetta, defrauded investors in a group of hedge funds they managed that held $10.7 million. Conrad suspended payouts to investors for more than four years starting in 2008, according to the SEC’s complaint. But he continued to pay out cash to himself, his son, other relatives and certain favored investors from the investment fund, the agency said in a civil complaint filed last week in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Conrad’s funds also ran into trouble when one large investment turned out to be a Ponzi scheme run by another money manager, the SEC said...The SEC said the elder Conrad also violated federal securities law by failing to disclose to investors that he had been barred from the investment industry in a disciplinary action in 1971.

Decades after ban from industry, Alpharetta man again accused of fraud [AJC]

*And maybe also the whole, f*ck it, I'm 77 aspect.


Appellate Court Willing to Entertain the Possibility that Citi Was Not Committing Fraud

I've had some fun these last few days proposing counterintuitive theories for why Citi might not suck as much as you probably think it does and it's nice to see others joining in the pastime, even if this sounds a little far-fetched: The district court’s logic appears to overlook the possibilities (i) that Citigroup might well not consent to settle on a basis that requires it to admit liability, (ii) that the S.E.C. might fail to win a judgment at trial, and (iii) that Citigroup perhaps did not mislead investors. That piece of rank conjecture is from the Second Circuit's opinion on an appeal* of Judge Rakoff's rejection of the settlement between the SEC and Citi over some mortgage-backed securities. Here's DealBook: