Automatically monitor regulatory updates to map to your internal policies, procesures and controls. Learn More
-

1558 Enforcement Actions in the U.S. over past 30 days

-

FTC enforcements decreased 55% over the past 30 days

-

SEC issued enforcements: $37,812,859 over the past 30 days

-

50 Final Rules go into effect in the next 7 days

-

49 Mortgage Lending docs published in the last 7 days

-

1670 docs with extracted obligations from the last 7 days

-

new Proposed and Final Rules were published in the past 7 days

-

11906 new docs in pro.compliance.ai within the last 7 days

-

Check out Expert In The Loop Forum OnDemand!

-

Considering RCM Solutions?  Here’s an RFP to get started.

-

Financial-Enforcement-Actions-Week-of-December-14-to-December-20

December 2019 Enforcement Action Summary

FRS

1 Enforcement Document

$0.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A. Paris, France SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE NEW YORK BRANCH New York, New York
Violation: At least between 2011 and 2018, due to inadequate policies and procedures to identify covered transactions or systems to monitor compliance with such policies and procedures, the Branch engaged in transactions with, or benefitting, a non-bank affiliate of the Branch in violation of sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. §§ 371c and 371c-1) and Regulation W of the Board of Governors (12 C.F.R. Part 223)… Read More

FTC

4 Enforcement Documents

$0.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Post Holdings, Inc.’s
Violation: The Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, may substantially lessen competition in the relevant market in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and is an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: “FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.”
Violation: Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 93 are likely to mislead reasonable consumers and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Illumina, Incorporated a corporation, And Pacific Biosciences of California, Incorporated (PacBio) a corporation.
Violation: The Federal Trade Commission authorized an action to block Illumina Inc.’s proposed $1.2 billion acquisition of Pacific Biosciences of California, alleging in an administrative complaint that Illumina is seeking to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in the U.S. market for next-generation DNA sequencing systems by extinguishing PacBio as a nascent competitive threat. The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was 5-0. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on Aug. 18, 2020… Read More

UK-FCA

1 Enforcement Document

£70,000.00 in Fines

Penalties: £70,000
Respondent: Alonso Lopez
Violation: Operated five websites on which the names and logos of five major UK banks were prominently displayed and the domain names of which included the names of these banks (“PPC Bank Websites”)… Read More

SEC

14 Enforcement Documents

$9,368,998.95 in Fines

Penalties: $9,368,998.95
Respondent: S. Paul Kelley, et al.
Violation: The SEC filed a civil injunctive action on May 5, 2014 against Agriogianis and four other individuals alleging that they took two Chinese companies public through reverse mergers with U.S. public shell companies. The group then hid their control over the companies’ stock through a vast network of U.S. and international entities, sold that stock in unregistered distributions, and manipulated trading in the stock, ultimately obtaining millions in profits as a result.The district court previously enjoined Agriogianis from violating the anti-fraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; the securities ownership reporting requirements of Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2 and 16a-3 thereunder; and the securities registration provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, and barred him from participating in the offering of penny stock…. Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Suneet Singal, First Capital Real Estate Investments LLC, First Capital Real Estate Advisors LP, and First Capital Real Estate Trust Inc.,
Violation: First Capital Real Estate Investments, LLC was charged with aiding and abetting Singal’s violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks injunctive relief against all defendants, disgorgement and prejudgment interest from Singal and First Capital Real Estate Investments, LLC, and civil money penalties against Signal, First Capital Real Estate Advisors, LP, and First Capital Real Estate Investments, LLC. The complaint further seeks an officer-and-director bar as to Singal… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: SONGJIANG WANG (A/K/A SAM WANG)
Violation: According to the SEC’s complaint, Wang tipped his close friend, Jason “Schultz” Chan, to trade Merrimack securities in advance of the company announcing positive drug trial results. The SEC further alleges that Chan later returned the favor and tipped Wang with nonpublic information about a successful drug trial conducted by Chan’s employer, Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. The complaint alleges Wang made approximately $108,000 trading Akebia securities based on Chan’s tips. The SEC previously charged Chan with insider trading in connection with this investigation.The SEC’s complaint charges Wang with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Keith Springer and Springer Investment Management, Inc. dba Springer Financial Advisors
Violation: Defendants owed a fiduciary duty of utmost good faith, loyalty, and care to make full and fair disclosures to their clients, including of any conflicts or potential conflicts of interests, as well the duty to act in the clients’ best interests, and not to act in Defendants’ own interests to the detriment of their clients. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to their clients, and engaged in a scheme to violate Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.As a result, Springer and SFA have violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-6(2)], and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate these provisions… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: SCHULTZ CHAN (A/K/A JASON CHAN)
Violation: “Chan engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “”Exchange Act””) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. unless Chan is permanently restrained and enjoined, he will again engage in the
acts, practices and courses of business set forth in this Complaint and in acts, practices and courses of business of similar type and object.”… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Sam A. Antar
Violation: The complaint alleges that Antar told investors that he would use their funds to buy shares in emerging companies whose stock had not yet begun to trade publicly, and then sell those shares to already-identified buyers for a premium in a short period of time. Antar issued promissory notes or other agreements to investors to invest their money and return a profit to them from the purported gains on the stock transactions. In reality, the complaint alleges, Antar never used investor funds to purchase shares of emerging companies, or to make any other investment. Instead, Antar spent investor funds gambling, making gifts to family members, paying for his daughter’s wedding, and making Ponzi-like payments to some early investors.The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in New York, charges Antar with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder…. Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Robert A. Karmann
Violation: The SEC’s complaint alleges that, beginning in late 2014, Karmann advanced the scheme by transferring or coordinating the transfer of funds among the bank accounts of the two Californiabased companies to hide the lack of legitimate lease revenue. He also provided brokers, investors and prospective investors reports and financial statements that he knew contained false information.The SEC’s complaint charges Karmann with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c)… Read More

Click here to see the full list of SEC Enforcement Documents

X