SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10980)1/22/2003 12:24:19 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
TIME TO PAY THE PIKER ISAAC->Operation No safe haven
There's $400 billion in unregulated money stashed in offshore hedge funds. It's time to expose this Crescent of Corruption.

By Christopher Byron
January 17, 2003

We know of a fellow who claims to be running a more than half-billion-dollar offshore hedge fund empire from an office in downtown Boston. He's got himself a seat on the board of directors of what looks to be a cutting-edge high-tech company. He's got a $1 million apartment on Beacon Street, an Ivy League diploma hanging on the wall, and a Web site that broadcasts his accomplishments to the world.


Unfortunately, not a whole lot of what our man claims--about himself or anything else--seems to bear up under scrutiny. Everybody likes our friend, with his winning ways and that smile as big as all outdoors. But look carefully at that Ivy League diploma and it turns out to be from the university's equivalent of night school. As for his teams of analysts, who are said to spend their days peering into rows of flat-panel Bloomberg terminals, searching for nuggets of equity gold, well, has anyone ever seen them? Even one of them? Or seen an audited statement of one of his funds? Or spoken to someone at a Wall Street clearing house who's handled a trade for him?

When they tire of such a fellow in Texas they say of him, "All hat and no cattle," and let it go at that. But our friend is in a line of work--the offshore hedge-fund game--where things have suddenly gotten more serious, and the stakes a lot higher. In short, where it's ceased being cool to talk of having a business in Tortola, Nevis, or even Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.

In the post-September 11, 2001, predicament of a world on permanent high alert, the words "offshore money" no longer sound exotic. Now the mystery comes tinged with insecurity and even menace, and in Washington, D.C., the questions have begun: Where did all these offshore hedge funds come from anyway? What's their game, and who's behind them? Aren't they answerable to anyone?

Just as Winston Churchill said of Russia, the world of offshore money is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. And though the denizens of the hedge fund world may wish it to stay that way, change is in the air: like it or not, the most rapidly growing, freewheeling, and least understood part of the U.S. capital markets is about to feel the lash of government regulation.

Closed Books
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, pressure has been building in Congress and elsewhere to draw back the curtain on this mystery world that lies just over the horizon--and not just concerning hedge funds. Incoming Senate Finance chairman Chuck Grassley (R: Iowa) is sponsoring two separate bills designed to stop U.S. companies and individuals alike from using offshore havens to avoid U.S. taxes. More narrowly, an investigation is underway within the Bush administration to develop a base level of information about the workings of actual hedge funds, both offshore and domestic.

The reason for the interest was put succinctly last March by the seven-nation Financial Stability Forum, which is based in Basel, Switzerland, and is composed of the top finance officials of the G-7 nations. In a report on global financial issues following September 11, the forum warned that unregulated international hedge funds may have already developed, at the margins, into financial Laundromats for global terrorism.

Unfortunately, more than a year after Congress passed the USA Patriot Act to prevent the hot money of global crime from gaining access to the U.S. banking system, the door into and out of America's capital markets through the hedge fund laundromat remains as wide open as ever.

One widely cited set of data--from a research unit of New York-based Dome Capital Management, which has been tracking hedge-fund growth since the '80s--puts the current number of offshore hedge funds operating in the U.S. markets at 3,500--quadruple the number of just six years ago. The folks at Dome estimate that offshore funds under management have soared from $91 billion to more than $400 billion over that time. McFall Lamm, chief investment strategist for Deutsche Bank, figures hedge funds in the aggregate may now account for as much as $1 trillion--an amount equal to 10 percent of the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Because no one really knows much about the funds, both the Securities & Exchange Commission and the National Association of Securities Dealers have launched extensive formal studies of hedge funds and their growing presence in the U.S. capital markets. "I'll tell you the truth," says a top market surveillance official at the NASD, "we don't know the first damned thing about these funds. But we're going to find out."

Hedge funds are a mystery because they are exempted from regulation by both the Securities Act of 1933, which covers the offering of shares to the public, and the Investment Act of 1940, which covers mutual funds. The theory is that the customer base for hedge funds--investors who make more than $200,000 a year in gross income and have a personal net worth in excess of $1 million--should have enough financial savvy to look out for itself.

So, stock promoters looking to raise investment funds from such people get a regulatory break, and neither have to register the deals as stock offerings under the 1933 Act nor report on their activities later under the 1940 Act. The result is an almost total lack of regulatory oversight of the funds' actual activities. In the past three years, the SEC has brought only ten enforcement actions against hedge funds--and usually only in the case of outright fraud.

Craven Havens
As a result, offshore hedge funds, which are likewise exempt from U.S. oversight and regulation, have been able to operate with impunity from one of the most historically suspect business environments on earth. These offshore tax-haven countries girdle the globe like a Crescent of Corruption, from the Pacific island sandbar-nation of Vanuatu in the west, to the Channel Islands off the coast of Britain.

The passage of the Patriot Act was intended to staunch the flow of illicit dollars into and out of the United States through these countries. Nearly all have the status of sovereign nations in international affairs, though many have no apparent purpose other than to provide a false nose and mustache for the money-laundering activities of drug smugglers, arms dealers, and even the financiers of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Not all offshore funds fall into that category, of course, and many are set up quite legitimately to facilitate investing by U.S. institutions that are already tax-exempt. But enough of what goes on in this world is truly worrisome.

Consider the Pacific island of Nauru. At 21 square kilometers in size, Nauru is the third-smallest country on earth, after Vatican City and Monaco. Nauru's 12,300 inhabitants must share a mere 2,000 telephone lines and 500 TV sets, on an island with no arable land where almost everything has to be imported. But Nauru does have super-accommodating bank secrecy laws, which explains why in 1998 (the latest year for which data is available) the offshore banks of this country functioned as the spin cycle for more than $70 billion in hot money from the crime-drenched economy of Russia.

In a similar spirit, consider the pseudo-state of Montenegro, which lies north of Albania on the Adriatic coast. Montenegran banks attract the secrecy-obsessed by billing the locale as "the most private jurisdiction in the world," offering anybody a "private coded account, which is no longer allowed even in Switzerland." For about $1,000, Montenegro's Maranatha Bank will set up a shell company for you in Panama. Throw in an additional $500 or so and the bank will even provide a hand-picked board of directors, and you'll be protected behind the secrecy laws of not just one, but two, sovereign members of the Crescent of Corruption. Your ultimate line of defense: a board of see-no-evil directors who don't even know who you are.

The Patriot Act targets such operations by requiring that all U.S. banks doing business with foreign financial institutions determine who specifically is behind any specific account before conducting transactions of any sort with it.

This has already brought the so-called brass plate banking business (tax-haven private banks that consist of nothing but a brass name plate) to a standstill in a number of countries. "I know lawyers in the Cayman Islands who have seen their entire practices crumble before their eyes," says Jack Blum, the former special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1987 to 1989 and a leading authority on the underworld empire of offshore finance. "The American bankers are now all afraid to death of going to jail so they've stopped dealing with correspondent banks, period. In that sense at least, the Patriot Act is proving a big success."

Offshore Thing
Unfortunately, there's still a gaping hole in the system. Offshore hedge funds provide an end run around the entire crackdown by allowing money to be moved anonymously in and out of the United States without ever going near a U.S. bank. Instead of using banks for laundering, offshore hedge funds can use the stock market, turning listed companies and U.S. investors into unknowing participants in the spin cycle of dirty money. And because the law specifically exempts the funds from registration or disclosure requirements of any sort, there is no way to know whether the individual funds themselves are legitimate operations.

In some cases, suspicion is inevitable. That is especially so when the funds turn up as investors in companies in which yet another form of identity-hiding offshore finance--tax-haven shell companies--appear as big investors as well. The secrecy of the shell companies combined with that of the hedge funds, makes it impossible to determine whether the owners of those shell companies are also limited partners in the offshore hedge funds, which in turn may be using their capital to invest in U.S.-traded companies in which the shells already hold hidden interests (see "Shell Game").

A New York mafia figure named Salvatore Mazzeo made more than $17 million in the '90s running variations on this scam, using a brokerage firm he controlled called Westfield Securities and a Vancouver operation named Pacific International Securities. Two top international lawyers--Montreal's Harry Bloomfield and London-based Stuart Creggy--are currently on trial in New York and face up to 15 years in prison for setting up shell companies in Liberia and Belize for Mr. Mazzeo.

Last summer, in the culmination of a three-year undercover operation dubbed Bermuda Short, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 58 U.S. and Canadian stock brokers and hedge fund operators for yet more stock swindles in the Crescent. Among those arrested: a notorious Canadian penny-stock promoter, Mark Valentine, who was accused last spring by Canadian regulators of fostering a "culture of noncompliance" at his now-defunct investment firm, Thomson Kernaghan.

Into the Unknown
Sources on the SEC staff say that the hedge-fund study, begun last May at the direction of then-chairman Harvey Pitt, is now drawing to a conclusion, and that its results could be released soon. The best bet as to what the commission will recommend is that not just offshore funds, but all funds, be treated as mutual funds under the Investment Act of 1940.

Such a move wouldn't reveal the identities of investors in the funds, any more than current law requires companies to publish lists of their own shareholders unless a shareholder owns 10 percent or more of a company's stock (owners of 5 percent or more shares have to file forms of their own in which they identify themselves). But treating hedge funds like mutual funds would mean that hedge funds' holdings would be revealed publicly--albeit as much as six months after the fact. That's information that really should be public, and making it so would help reveal to all U.S. investors just how much influence these murky entities are gaining over the capital markets of the United States.

Christopher Byron is a syndicated radio commentator and writer living in Connecticut. He is also the author of Martha Inc.: The Incredible Story of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.

Write to Christopher Byron.



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10980)1/22/2003 3:38:30 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19428
 
The big selloff is coming->2:58pm 01/22/03 Dow loses 500 in 5 days, now sits below Dec. 31 close ($INDU) By Tomi Kilgore
The Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) is off 105 points to 8,338, which is 505 points below where it closed last Wednesday. The blue-chip barometer is now 4 points below the level at which it closed on Dec. 31.



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10980)1/24/2003 2:09:06 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
DJ IN THE MONEY: DTC Stops Move By Cos. To Physical Delivery

By Carol S. Remond A Dow Jones Newswires Column

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A tool some small companies have used to make it difficult for investors to short their stock has just been taken away. The Depositary Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC) has decided companies that clear and settle through it cannot exit DTC's global electronic system for the purpose of moving to physical delivery of stock. After allowing six development stage companies to exit its electronic clearing and settlement system, the DTCC said that shareholders, not issuers, have the right to determine how to hold securities, in electronic form or physical form. Actually having to deliver stock certificates between buyers and sellers would make short selling difficult, if not impossible. The decision by DTCC is sure to anger a dozen or so small companies that have said they want to exit the electronic clearing system, known as book entry. These companies say they want to revert to using physical stock certificates in order to fight what they call illegal short selling of their stocks. But DTCC said that, after consulting with the Securities and Exchange Commission, it will not allow any more companies to exit its stock clearing system managed by one of its subsidiaries, DTC. "If the shareholders of any company wish to have their shares withdrawn from DTC and hold them in certificated form, they should submit that request to their broker and when that request is forwarded to DTC, it will be handled in the ordinary course of business in accordance with DTC's procedures," DTCC said in a statement to Dow Jones Newswires. "DTC does not have any procedures for acting upon withdrawal requests by issuers," DTCC said in the statement, adding that the "Uniform Commercial Code provides that it is the shareholder that has a right to determine how his or her shares should be registered, not the issuer." Following an "In the Money" column on the subject, several companies last week insisted that they companies had a right to exit DTC. "A group of (Over The Counter) Bulletin Board listed companies that have exited the DTC system and have subsequently been the target of a media campaign that questions the validity and legality of the procedure have jointly confirmed the precedence for the use of this method and support by all governing bodies concerned," Investor Communications International, or ICI, said in a press release. ICI represents at least six publicly traded companies that have either exited, or said they would exit, DTC, including GeneMax Corp. (GMXX) of Blaine, Wash. GeneMax has been the subject of three other "In the Money" columns. Those columns questioned whether insiders would benefit most from limits on short selling and GeneMax's connection to consultant ICI. The move by some small companies to exit DTC contrasted sharply with global efforts to streamline securities trades clearing and settlement and do away with some of the costs associated with paper certificates. A spokesman for Wall Street's main trade group, the Securities Industry Association, said last week that the securities industry "is trying to move away from certificates all together." In fact, the SIA is launching a publicity blitz this year to do away with paper stock certificates. So far, one company, AT&T Corp. (T) has dropped paper certificates all together. A spokesman for the SEC declined to comment Friday on DTC's decision not to allow companies to exit its electronic clearing system. But asked whether the SEC was concerned about the recent moves out of DTC, SEC spokesman John Heine said earlier this week that the SEC is "concerned with any trend that runs counter to immobilization and dematerialization," two words used to describe the move to electronic clearing of securities. Companies looking to exit DTC all blame short sellers for their depressed stocks. Short sellers sell borrowed securities in the hope of replacing them later at a lower price. Short selling is generally limited by the ability of borrowing a stock at the time of the sale. That rule, known as affirmative determination, limits the ability of investors to short the stock of companies with small amount of free trading shares since their stock is often difficult to borrow. Only shares held in margin accounts can be loaned out. Shares held in cash accounts cannot be loaned out. The DTCC insisted in a statement to Dow Jones that the companies' claim that the move out of DTC helps fighting short selling is without merit. "The rules governing short selling are the same in a physical environment as they are in a book-entry environment. Moving to physical securities does not inhibit short selling in any way," DTCC said in its statement. Companies that have officially made the move out of the DTC system are: GeneMax; Ten Stix Inc. (TNTI); BlueBook International Holding Co. (BBIC); MidasTrade.com (MIDS); MSM Jewelry Corp. (MSMJ) and Make Your Move Inc. (MKMV). In addition the following companies have said that they would exit, or that they were considering exiting DTC: Reeds Holdings Corp. (RDHC); Nutra Pharma Corp. (NPHC); Critical Home Care Inc. (CCLH); Hadro Resources Inc. (HDRS); Jag Media Holdings Inc. (JGMHA); InternationalBioChemical Industries Inc. (IBCL); SunComm Technologies Inc. (STEH); Bentley Communications Corp. (BTLY); Nutek Inc. (NUTK); ITIS Holding (ITHH) ; FreeStar (FSTI) and Sionix (SINX). By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones News; 201 938 2074; carol.remond@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10980)1/25/2003 7:57:17 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
Ex-CEO no-show for fraud sentence

Arrest order issued after ex-Countrymark chief David Swanson fails to appear in court



By J.K. Wall

jk.wall@indystar.com

January 25, 2003

The former chief executive who swindled $2.7 million from Countrymark Cooperative faced the prospect of a long prison sentence Friday.

The only problem: David H. Swanson didn't show up.






Attorneys and about 25 spectators talked quietly among themselves in court as they waited for Swanson to appear.

A little more than an hour later, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a bench warrant for Swanson's arrest and ordered U.S. marshals to find him.

U.S. Marshal Jim Kennedy said the marshals consider the 60-year-old a fugitive.

"I seriously doubt he's in close proximity to the courthouse," Kennedy said.

Swanson faced a maximum of 130 years in prison and $4.75 million in fines after a jury found him guilty last fall on 19 felony counts of pocketing $2.7 million in 1996-'97 from Countrymark, then a three-state farm co-op based in Indianapolis.

Charges included wire fraud, receiving stolen funds, money laundering and evading $966,645 in income taxes.

Swanson, of Amenia, N.Y., checked in Thursday night at the Omni Severin hotel Downtown, his attorney, Jim Voyles, told Barker. But Voyles said he couldn't find Swanson Friday morning and said he hadn't checked out of the hotel.

"We have had no contact with him (today)," Voyles said.

The attorney said Swanson met with him Thursday night, then had dinner at St. Elmo Steak House with his brother, Kenneth.

Swanson's wife, Cari, said that he phoned her in New York about 11 p.m. Thursday but that she did not know his whereabouts Friday.

"I think there must be foul play at hand here. I don't think he willfully disappeared," Cari Swanson said. "He's a very smart man, and if he were going to try to escape, he would not have flown to Indiana, slept all night in the Omni hotel, gotten up in the morning and left."

Hotel employees told The Star on Friday evening that Swanson stayed at the Omni Thursday night and checked out Friday.

After his conviction, Swanson was placed on probation and had his travel restricted to Dutchess County, N.Y.; New York City; and Indianapolis. He also had to surrender his passport.

No-shows happen periodically but not often, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison.

He said Swanson was unlikely to get the maximum penalties at Friday's sentencing.

But he said that if Swanson has fled, "It's a factor the court will consider" at a future sentencing date.

About 20 former Countrymark employees came Friday to witness Swanson's sentencing. Some said they were disappointed not to get closure.

Several hundred people lost their jobs during Swanson's tenure at Countrymark.

One of those employees, Cindy Andrews, said she was upset when she learned that Swanson had missed his sentencing.

"I was relieved at the guilty verdict, and I was hoping for a long sentence," Andrews said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett News Service contributed to this report. Call Star reporter J.K. Wall at 1-317-444-6287.



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10980)1/29/2003 9:08:24 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
Port Orange man charged with fraud in securities scam


STAFF REPORT
Last updated: Jan 28, 11:07 PM

DAYTONA BEACH-- A Port Orange man has been arrested on charges he bilked area residents out of more than $135,000 by convincing them they were investing in a new company.
Michael D. Burgess, formerly an independent contractor with Raymond James Financial Services in Daytona Beach, was arrested Monday on one count of securities fraud and one count of grand theft over $100,000.

Burgess, 44, is being held at the Branch Jail on $150,000 bail.

Investigators believe Burgess duped at least 15 people, but only five victims have come forward so far, said State Attorney's Office spokeswoman Linda Brinker.

From May 2001 until last month, Burgess was telling clients that they could get at least a 10 percent return on their investment, investigators said. One local couple, a retired doctor and his wife, gave Burgess $115,000, according to court documents.

Investors got little or nothing from Burgess, and one victim was forced to file for bankruptcy, records indicate.

Court records show the company that clients thought they were investing in -- Venture Capital Corp. -- is not a legal Florida corporation.