HIGH SPEED ACCESS {HSAC} Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : HIGH SPEED ACCESS {HSAC}

HSAC 13.88

-5.4%

Dec 18 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mary Baker who wrote (227)	6/23/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) of 963

I knew what you were doing and it is a violation of the '33 Securities Act. You are putting no money down in order to buy stock. The '33 Act was created because Congress believed a major contributor to the stock market crash of '29 was purchasing stock on 10% or less margins. Congress also created a wall between banks and securities houses so that a pyramid of credit wasn't possible. In recent years the lines of separation have been blurred between all these financial entities such that brokers act like bankers and banks act like brokers. The net effect is to enable the public to escape the intent of the law. Etrade is in direct violation for failure to comply, negligence, and are subject to SEC fine and censure, possible loss of securities license as a broker/dealer and possible expulsion from the NASD. The credit card securing bank is also negligent and in violation of banking laws about extending credit to buy stock on margin under the '33 Act and are subject to censure and fine. The credit card company is negligent and in violation of misrepresentation of promotional financial instruments. The check issuing bank will have to cease this activity immediately. You had better contact a lawyer and find out how to protect yourself from all these financial entities which will try to prove that you intended to defraud them. I don't believe that you're guilty. They are guilty of a form of inadvertent entrapment. They want you to use these checks to spend on non-securities purchases. They did not say that you were not to buy securities with them. At least I would guess they didn't. Etrade will argue that they can't distinguish between a check on a debit balance and one on a demand deposit balance so they can't be held responsible. The credit card company will sit on the securing bank and the bank will claim they have made caveats in the fine print. This activity is similar to check kiting and if intent to defraud can be shown, it is a felony. Since I'm not a lawyer, I strongly suggest you contact one knowledgeable about securities law.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next