I agree (assuming I have interpreted your post correctly) that many more securities fraud cases should result in criminal charges. More importantly, Richard Walker, the head of the SEC's enforcement division also sees this need. In a recent Dow Jones Newswire article titled "SEC 'Cops' See More Criminal Prosecutions Ahead" by Judith Burns it was noted that:
Top cops at the Securities and Exchange Commission expect to collaborate more closely with criminal prosecutors to combat securities fraud.
"There definitely has been an increase in criminal prosecutions" of securities fraud cases, Richard Walker, director of the SEC's enforcement division, said Friday during a panel discussion at the annual "SEC Speaks" conference here.
Walker said the trend toward criminal prosecution reflects the fact that "civil remedies are ineffective" in stopping the worst offenders. "We need more to achieve deterrence" in such cases, he said.
Securities industry professionals may be intimidated by civil charges brought by the SEC, but outright criminals are not, agreed Valerie Caproni, regional director of the SEC's Los Angeles office, speaking to the same group. She said the most egregious offenders need "handcuffs and jail time," not a cease-and-desist order. ...
Of course, how this is to carried out using the limited SEC resources* available remains a puzzle. However, I suspect putting more effort into criminal prosecutions should have a marked deterrent effect.
* Tomorrow's WSJ has a disheartening article by Andrew Fraser with the headline "Regulators Struggle to Keep Up With Explosion of Online Fraud" concerning the limitations of current SEC resources:
interactive.wsj.com
|
