Category Archives: Financial Fraud, Procurement Fraud and Grant Fraud Trends by Bradford L. Geyer, Joan E. Marshall and Phillip Zane

Antitrust Division Tax Lien Initiative Continues…

Posted on by

SIX INVESTORS INDICTED FOR THEIR ROLES IN BID RIGGING SCHEME AT
MUNICIPAL TAX LIEN AUCTIONS IN NEW JERSEY

Investigation Has Yielded 20 Charges to Date

WASHINGTON — A federal grand jury in Newark, N.J., returned an indictment against six investors for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids at auctions conducted by New Jersey municipalities for the sale of tax liens, the Department of Justice announced.

The indictment, filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark, charges four individuals, Joseph Wolfson, Gregg Gehring, James Jeffers Jr. and Robert Jeffrey, and two entities, Betty Simon Trustee LLC and Richard Simon Trustee, with participating in a conspiracy to rig bids at tax lien auctions in New Jersey.  According to the indictment, from at least as early as 1998 and continuing until as late as February 2009, the investors participated in a conspiracy to rig bids at auctions for the sale of municipal tax liens in New Jersey by agreeing to allocate among certain bidders which liens each would bid on.  The indictment alleges that the investors proceeded to submit bids in accordance with the agreements and purchased tax liens at collusive and non-competitive interest rates.

Joseph Wolfson, of Margate, N.J., was a part-owner of two entities that invested in municipal tax liens, Betty Simon Trustee and Richard Simon Trustee, both of Northfield, N.J.  Gregg Gehring, of Newton, N.J., was employed by a major tax lien investment company as a vice president.  James Jeffers Jr., of Burlington, N.J., was a bidder for Crusader Servicing Corp., which pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy in September 2012, and also a bidder for Crusader’s successor corporation. Robert Jeffrey, of Bradenton, Fla., was a bidder for both Crusader and its successor corporation.

“The individuals and entities charged today demonstrated a blatant disregard for the competitive process by allocating the purchase of certain municipal tax liens by, from time to time, flipping a coin, drawing numbers out of a hat or drawing from a deck of cards,” said Leslie C. Overton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division.  “The Antitrust Division remains committed to prosecuting those who thwart the competitive bidding process.”

The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition in order to obtain selected municipal tax liens offered at public auctions at non-competitive interest rates.  When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that property, the municipality in which the property is located may attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes.  If the taxes remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at auction.  State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate delinquent property owners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding process, can be driven down to zero percent.  If a lien remains unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to which the lien is attached.  Since the conspiracy permitted the conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher interest rate.  Property owners were therefore made to pay higher interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens been purchased in open and honest competition, the department said.

The indictment alleges, among other things, that from at least as early as 1998 and continuing until as late as February 2009, prior to the commencement of certain tax lien auctions in New Jersey, the investors and their co-conspirators agreed not to compete for the purchase of certain municipal tax liens.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for a Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than the $1 million statutory maximum.

Including today’s charges, 20 individuals and entities have been charged as part of an ongoing investigation into bid rigging or fraud related to municipal tax lien auctions in New Jersey.  To date, 11 individuals – Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta Jr., William A. Collins, Robert W. Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E. Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, David Butler, Norman T. Remick, Robert U. Del Vecchio Sr., and Michael Mastellone – and three companies, DSBD LLC, Crusader Servicing Corp., and Mercer S.M.E. Inc., have pleaded guilty aspart of this investigation.

Today’s charge is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) which was created in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants, including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants.  For more information on the task force, visit www.stopfraud.gov.

This ongoing investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office and the FBI’s Atlantic City, N.J., office.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to municipal tax lien auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office at 212-335-8000, visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm or contact the Atlantic City Resident Agency of the FBI at 609-677-6400.

 

Northern California Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging at Public Foreclosure Auctions; Investigations Have Yielded 38 Plea Agreements to Date

Posted on by
A Northern California real estate investor has agreed to plead guilty for his role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, the Department of Justice announced.

Felony charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland against Chuokee “Joseph” Bo of Pleasanton, Calif.

Bo is the 38th individual to plead guilty or agree to plead guilty as a  result of the department’s ongoing antitrust investigations into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California.

According to court documents, Bo conspired with others not to bid against one another, but instead designated a winning bidder to obtain selected properties at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Alameda County, Calif.    Bo was also charged with conspiring to use the mail to carry out a scheme to fraudulently acquire title to selected Alameda County properties sold at public auctions, to make and receive payoffs, and to divert money to co-conspirators that would have otherwise gone to mortgage holders and others by holding second, private auctions open only to members of the conspiracy.  The department said that the selected properties were then awarded to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids in the second, private auctions.  The private auctions often took place at or near the courthouse steps where the public auctions were held.  Bo is charged with participating in the conspiracies beginning as early as August 2009 and continuing until about October 2010.

“Today’s plea agreement is the latest step in the Antitrust Division’s efforts to preserve open competition in local markets,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “The division remains committed to prosecuting individuals who subvert the competitive process for their own profit.”

The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracies was to suppress and restrain competition and to conceal payoffs in order to obtain selected real estate offered at Alameda County public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices.  When real estate properties are sold at these auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with remaining proceeds, if any, paid to the homeowner.  According to court documents, these conspirators paid and received money that otherwise would have gone to pay off the mortgage and other holders of debt secured by the properties, and, in some cases, the defaulting homeowner.

“This is another example of justice being served in preserving the fairness of public real estate foreclosure auctions as well as the FBI’s commitment in investigating those who take advantage of a competitive marketplace,” said David J. Johnson, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Field Office. “Criminal activity like this takes place in our communities and we continue to rely on the public’s help in seeking those who cheat the system.”

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for the Sherman Act charges may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either amount is greater than $1 million.  A count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.  The government can also seek to forfeit the proceeds earned from participating in the conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

Today’s charges are the latest filed by the department in its ongoing investigation into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, Calif.  These investigations are being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI’s San Francisco Office.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660, visit  www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html or call the FBI tip line at 415-553-7400.

Today’s charges were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it is the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants, including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, please visit  www.StopFraud.gov.

RABOBANK ADMITS WRONGDOING IN LIBOR INVESTIGATION, AGREES TO PAY $325 MILLION CRIMINAL PENALTY

Posted on by

WASHINGTON — Coöperatieve Centrale  Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank) has entered into an  agreement with the Department of Justice to pay a $325 million penalty to  resolve violations arising from Rabobank’s submissions for the London InterBank  Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor), which are  leading benchmark interest rates around the world, the Justice Department  announced today.

A criminal information will be filed  today in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that charges  Rabobank as part of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). The  information charges Rabobank with wire fraud for its role in manipulating the  benchmark interest rates LIBOR and Euribor. In addition to the $325  million penalty, the DPA requires the  bank to admit and accept responsibility for its misconduct as described in an  extensive statement of facts. Rabobank has agreed to continue cooperating  with the Justice Department in its ongoing investigation of the manipulation of  benchmark interest rates by other financial institutions and  individuals.

“For years, employees at Rabobank, often working with traders at other  banks around the globe, illegally manipulated four different interest rates –  Euribor and LIBOR for the U.S. dollar, the yen, and the pound sterling – in the  hopes of fraudulently moving the market to generate profits for their traders  at the expense of the bank’s counterparties,” said Acting Assistant Attorney  General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  “Today’s criminal resolution – which represents the second-largest penalty in  the Criminal Division’s active, ongoing investigation of the manipulation of  global benchmark interest rates by some of the largest banks in the world –  comes fast on the heels of charges brought against three former ICAP brokers  just last month. Rabobank is the fourth major financial institution that  has admitted its misconduct in this wide-ranging criminal investigation, and  other banks should pay attention: our investigation is far from over.”

“Rabobank rigged multiple benchmark rates, allowing its traders to reap  higher profits at the expense of their unsuspecting counterparties,” said  Deputy Assistant Attorney General Leslie C. Overton of the Justice  Department’s Antitrust Division. “Not only was this conduct fraudulent,  it compromised the integrity of globally-used interest rate benchmarks –  undermining financial markets worldwide.”

“Rabobank admitted to manipulating LIBOR and Euribor submissions which  directly affected the rates referenced by financial products held by and on  behalf of companies and investors around the world,” said Assistant Director in  Charge Valerie Parlave of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “Rabobank’s  actions resulted in the deliberate harm to counterparties holding products  referencing the manipulated rates. Today’s announcement is yet another  example of the tireless efforts of the FBI special agents and forensic  accountants who are dedicated to investigating complex fraud schemes and,  together with prosecutors, bringing to justice those who participate in such  schemes.”

Together with approximately $740 million in criminal and regulatory  penalties imposed by other agencies in actions arising out of the same conduct  – $475 million by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) action, $170  million by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) action and approximately  $96 million by the Openbaar Ministerie (the Dutch Public Prosecution Service) –  the Justice Department’s $325 million criminal penalty brings the total amount  to be paid by Rabobank to more than $1 billion.

According to signed documents, LIBOR is an average interest rate,  calculated based upon submissions from leading banks around the world and  reflecting the rates those banks believe they would be charged if borrowing  from other banks. LIBOR serves as the primary benchmark for short-term  interest rates globally and is used as a reference rate for many interest rate  contracts, mortgages, credit cards, student loans and other consumer lending  products. The Bank of International Settlements estimated that as of the  second half of 2009, outstanding interest rate contracts were valued at  approximately $450 trillion.

LIBOR is published by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), a trade  association based in London. At the time relevant to the conduct in the  criminal information, LIBOR was calculated for 10 currencies at 15 borrowing  periods, known as maturities, ranging from overnight to one year. The  LIBOR for a given currency at a specific maturity is the result of a  calculation based upon submissions from a panel of banks for that currency (the  Contributor Panel) selected by the BBA. From at least 2005 through 2011,  Rabobank was a member of the Contributor Panel for a number of currencies,  including United States dollar (dollar) LIBOR, pound sterling LIBOR, and yen  LIBOR.

The Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) is published by the European  Banking Federation (EBF), which is based in Brussels, Belgium, and is  calculated at 15 maturities, ranging from overnight to one year. Euribor  is the rate at which Euro interbank term deposits within the Euro zone are  expected to be offered by one prime bank to another at 11:00 a.m. Brussels  time. The Euribor at a given maturity is the result of a calculation based  upon submissions from Euribor Contributor Panel banks. From at least 2005  through 2011, Rabobank was also a member of the Contributor Panel for  Euribor.

According to the statement of facts accompanying the agreement, from as  early as 2005 through at least November 2010, certain Rabobank derivatives  traders requested that certain Rabobank dollar LIBOR, yen LIBOR, pound sterling  LIBOR, and Euribor submitters submit LIBOR and Euribor contributions that would  benefit the traders’ trading positions, rather than rates that complied with  the definitions of LIBOR and Euribor.

In addition, according to the statement of facts accompanying the  agreement, from as early as January 2006 through October 2008, a Rabobank yen  LIBOR submitter and a Rabobank Euribor submitter had two separate agreements  with traders at other banks to make yen LIBOR and Euribor submissions that  benefitted trading positions, rather than submissions that complied with the  definitions of LIBOR and Euribor.

The Rabobank LIBOR and Euribor submitters accommodated traders’  requests on numerous occasions, and on various occasions, Rabobank’s  submissions affected the fixed rates.

According to the statement of facts, Rabobank employees engaged in this  conduct through electronic communications, which included both emails and  electronic chats. For example, on Sept. 21, 2007, a Rabobank Yen  derivatives trader emailed the Rabobank Yen LIBOR submitter at the time with  the subject line “libors,” writing: “Wehre do you think today’s libors are?  If you can, I would like 1mth libors higher today.” The submitter  replied: “Bookies reckon 1m sets at .85.” The trader wrote back: “I have  some fixings in 1 mth so would appreciate if you can put it higher mate.”  The submitter replied: “No prob mate let me know your level.” The trader  responded: “Wud be nice if you could put 0.90% for 1mth cheers.” The  submitter wrote back: “Sure no prob. I’ll probably get a few phone calls but no  worries mate!” The trader replied: “If you may get a few phone calls then  put 0.88% then.” The submitter responded: “Don’t worry mate – there’s  bigger crooks in the market than us guys!” That day, as requested,  Rabobank’s 1-month Yen LIBOR submission was 0.90, an increase of seven basis  points from its previous submission, whereas the other panel banks’ submissions  decreased by approximately a half of a basis point on average. Rabobank’s  submission went from being tied as the tenth highest submission on the  Contributor Panel on the previous day to being the highest submission on the  Contributor Panel.

On Nov. 29, 2006, a Rabobank dollar derivatives trader wrote to  Rabobank’s Global Head of Liquidity and Finance and the head of Rabobank’s  money markets desk in London, who supervised rate submitters: “Hi mate, low 1s  high 3s LIBOR pls !!! Dont tell [another Rabobank U.S. Dollar derivatives  trader] haa haaaaaaa. Sold the market today doooooohhhh!” The money  markets desk head replied: “ok mate , will do my best …speak later.”  After the LIBOR submissions that day, Rabobank’s ranking compared to other  panel banks dropped as to 1-month dollar LIBOR and rose as to 3-month dollar  LIBOR. Two days later, on Dec. 1, 2006, the trader again wrote to the money  markets desk head: “Appreciate 3s go down, but a high 3s today would be nice…  cheers chief.” The money markets desk head wrote back: “I am fast turning  into your LIBOR bitch!!!!” The trader replied: “Just friendly  encouragement that’s all , appreciate the help.” The money markets desk  head wrote back: “No worries mate , glad to help ….We just stuffed ourselves  with good ol pie , mash n licker !!”

In an example of an agreement with traders at other banks, on July 28,  2006, a Rabobank rate submitter and Rabobank trader discussed their mutual  desires for a high fixing. The submitter stated to the trader: “setting a  high 1m again today – I need it!” to which the trader responded: “yes pls  mate…I need a higher 1m libor too.” Within approximately 20 minutes, the  submitter contacted a trader at another Contributor Panel bank and wrote: “morning  skipper…..will be setting an obscenely high 1m again today…poss 38 just  fyi.” The other bank’s trader responded, “(K)…oh dear..my poor  customers….hehehe!! manual input libors again today then!!!!” Both  banks’ submissions on July 28 moved up one basis point, from 0.37 to 0.38, a  move which placed their submissions as the second highest submissions on the  Contributor Panel that day.

As another example, on July 7, 2009, a Rabobank trader wrote to a  former Rabobank yen LIBOR submitter: “looks like some ppl are talking with each  other when they put libors down. . . quite surprised that 3m libors came down a  lot.” The former submitter replied: “yes deffinite manipulation – always  is tho to be honest mate. . . i always used to ask if anyone needed a favour  and vise versa. . . . a little unethical but always helps to have friends in  mrkt.”

By entering into a DPA with Rabobank, the Justice Department took  several factors into consideration, including that Rabobank has no history of  similar misconduct and has not been the subject of any criminal enforcement  actions or any significant regulatory enforcement actions by any authority in  the United States, the Netherlands, or elsewhere. In addition, Rabobank  has significantly expanded and enhanced its legal and regulatory compliance  program and has taken extensive steps to remediate the misconduct.  Significant remedies and sanctions are also being imposed on Rabobank by  several regulators and an additional criminal law enforcement agency (the Dutch  Public Prosecution Service).

This ongoing investigation is being conducted by special agents, forensic  accountants, and intelligence analysts of the FBI’s Washington Field  Office. The prosecution of Rabobank is being handled by Assistant Chief  Glenn S. Leon and Trial Attorney Alexander H. Berlin of the Criminal Division’s  Fraud Section and Trial Attorneys Ludovic C. Ghesquiere, Michael T. Koenig and  Eric L. Schleef of the Antitrust Division. Deputy Chiefs Daniel Braun and  William Stellmach of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, Criminal Division  Senior Counsel Rebecca Rohr, Assistant Chief Elizabeth B. Prewitt and Trial  Attorney Richard A. Powers of the Antitrust Division’s New York Office, and  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric Glover and Liam Brennan of the U.S. Attorney’s  Office for the District of Connecticut, along with Criminal Division’s Office  of International Affairs, have provided valuable assistance in this  matter.

The investigation leading to these cases has  required, and has greatly benefited from, a diligent and wide-ranging  cooperative effort among various enforcement agencies both in the United States  and abroad. The Justice Department acknowledges and expresses its deep  appreciation for this assistance. In particular, the CFTC’s Division of  Enforcement referred this matter to the department and, along with the FCA, has  played a major role in the investigation. The department has also worked  closely with the Dutch Public Prosecution Service and De Nederlandsche Bank  (the Dutch Central Bank) in the investigation of Rabobank. Various  agencies and enforcement authorities from other nations are also participating  in different aspects of the broader investigation relating to LIBOR and other  benchmark rates, and the department is grateful for their cooperation and  assistance. In particular, the Securities and Exchange Commission has  played a significant role in the LIBOR investigation, and the department  expresses its appreciation to the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office for its  assistance and ongoing cooperation.

This  prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial  Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency  Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and  proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task  force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies,  regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement  who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil  enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts  across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to  investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and  effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat  discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for  victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force  visit: www.stopfraud.gov.

 

Former USAID Senior Official Conflict of Interest

Posted on by

David Ostermeyer, who retired from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2012, will pay the government a $30,000 penalty to settle allegations that he participated in a matter in which he had a financial interest that conflicted with his duties when he was Chief Financial Officer of the agency, the Justice Department announced today.

We expect government officials to earn and maintain the trust of taxpayers by acting with the This requires, at a minimum, that they do their work free of prohibited conflicts of interest. The ” The government alleged that shortly before Ostermeyer retired from USAID, he helped the a position that Ostermeyer intended to apply for after he retired. In an effort to ensure he would be awarded the position, Ostermeyer allegedly tailored the solicitation to his specific skills and experiences.  Federal conflict of interest laws prohibit executive branch employees from participating personally and substantially in matters in which they have a financial interest. Since Ostermeyer had a financial interest in the contract solicitation, the government alleged that he could not participate in drafting it and, therefore, violated 18 U.S.C. § 208(a).
“To maintain public trust in our institutions, it is vital that those in government adhere to the highest standards of integrity,” said Michael Carroll, Acting Inspector General for USAID. “The exceptional work of the investigators and attorneys on this case reflects our resolve to uphold these standards.”  This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Justice Department’s Civil Division and USAID’s Office of Inspector General. The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

LIBOR update: Wall Street Journal Ordered Not to Divulge Libor Names

Posted on by

Journal Ordered Not to Divulge Libor Names

U.K. Prosecutors Win Injunction Amid Investigation

“A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper’s European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government’s ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.”

Sacramento Bee: “Patricia Davis, former Assistant Director, USDOJ Civil Division, joins GeyerGorey LLP”

Posted on by

Sacramento Bee: “Patricia Davis, former Assistant Director, USDOJ Civil Division, joins GeyerGorey LLP”

ICAP Brokers Face Felony Charges for Alleged Long-Running Manipulation of LIBOR Interest Rates

Posted on by
Two former derivatives brokers and a former cash broker employed by London-based brokerage firm ICAP were charged as part of the ongoing criminal investigation into the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), the Justice Department announced today.

Darrell Read, who resides in New Zealand, and Daniel Wilkinson and Colin Goodman, both of England, were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud in a criminal complaint unsealed in Manhattan federal court earlier today.  They each face a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for each count upon conviction.

“By allegedly participating in a scheme to manipulate benchmark interest rates for financial gain, these defendants undermined the integrity of the global markets,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “They were supposed to be honest brokers, but instead, they put their own financial interests ahead of that larger responsibility.  And as a result, transactions and financial products around the world were compromised, because they were tied to a rate that was distorted due to the brokers’ dishonesty.  These charges underscore the Justice Department’s determination to hold accountable all those whose conduct threatens the integrity of our financial markets.”

“These three men are accused of repeatedly and deliberately spreading false information to banks and investors around the world in order to fraudulently move the market and help their client fleece his counterparties,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  “Our criminal investigation of the manipulation of LIBOR by some of the largest banks in the world has led us from New York to London, to Tokyo, and other financial hubs around the globe.  These important charges are just the latest law-enforcement action in the Criminal Division and Antitrust Division’s global LIBOR investigation, and reflect the Department’s continued dedication to detecting, and prosecuting, financial fraudsters who affect U.S. markets, whether they work at a bank, or a brokerage, and whether they carry out their fraud from a desk in the United States, or abroad.”

“The complaint unsealed today charges Colin Goodman, Daniel Wilkinson and Darrell Read for conspiring to manipulate benchmark interest rates that determined the profitability of their client’s trades,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “In exchange for bigger bonus checks, the three defendants undermined financial markets around the world by compromising the integrity of globally used interest rate benchmarks.  The Department continues to demonstrate its commitment to protecting the interest of American citizens in free and fair financial markets.”

“Corporate and securities fraud involving the manipulation of these rates causes a worldwide impact on trading positions and erodes the integrity of the market and confidence in Wall Street,” said Assistant Director in Charge Valerie Parlave of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.  “Unraveling such complex financial schemes is difficult and time consuming.  Today’s charges are the result of the hard work of the FBI special agents and forensic accountants who dedicated significant time and resources to investigating this case.”

According to the criminal complaint, LIBOR is an average interest rate, calculated based on submissions from leading banks around the world, reflecting the rates those banks believe they would be charged if borrowing from other banks.  LIBOR is published by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), a trade association based in London.  At the time relevant to the criminal complaint, LIBOR was calculated for 10 currencies at 15 borrowing periods, known as maturities, ranging from overnight to one year.  The published LIBOR “fix” for a given currency at a specific maturity is the result of a calculation based upon submissions from a panel of banks for that currency (the contributor panel) selected by the BBA.

LIBOR serves as the primary benchmark for short-term interest rates globally and is used as a reference rate for many interest rate contracts, mortgages, credit cards, student loans and other consumer lending products.  The Bank of International Settlements estimated that as of the second half of 2009, outstanding interest rate contracts were estimated at approximately $450 trillion.

According to allegations in the criminal complaint filed in this case, between July 2006 and September 2010, Wilkinson was a desk director employed in the London office of ICAP, where he supervised a group of derivatives brokers – including Read – specializing in Yen-based financial products.  Generally, the desk’s clients were derivatives traders at large financial institutions, and the transactions brokered by Wilkinson, Read and others on the desk essentially consisted of bets between traders on the direction in which Yen LIBOR would move.  Between July 2006 and September 2009, the desk’s largest client was a senior trader at UBS (UBS Trader) in Tokyo, to whom Read spoke almost daily.  Because of the large size of the client’s trading positions, even slight moves of a fraction of a percent in Yen LIBOR could generate large profits.  For example, UBS Trader once told Read that a 0.01 percent – or one basis point – movement in the final Yen LIBOR fixing on a specific date could result in $3 million profit for his trading positions.  A significant part of both Read’s and Wilkinson’s compensation was tied to the brokerage fees generated by UBS Trader and paid to ICAP.

Goodman was a cash broker at ICAP’s London office during the relevant time period.  In addition to brokering cash transactions, Goodman distributed a daily email to individuals outside of ICAP, including derivatives traders at several large banks as well as those responsible for providing the BBA with LIBOR submissions at certain banks.  Goodman’s email contained what was termed his “SUGGESTED LIBORS,” purported predictions of where Yen LIBOR ultimately would fix each day across eight specified borrowing periods.  Read and Wilkinson, along with Goodman himself, often referred to Goodman as “lord libor.”

The complaint alleges that Read, Wilkinson and Goodman, together with UBS Trader, executed a sustained and systematic scheme to move Yen LIBOR in a direction favorable to UBS Trader’s trading positions.

According to the criminal complaint, the primary strategy employed by Read, Wilkinson and Goodman to execute the scheme was to use Goodman’s “SUGGESTED LIBORS” email to disseminate misinformation to Yen LIBOR panel banks in hopes that the banks would rely on the misinformation when making their own respective Yen LIBOR submissions to the BBA for inclusion in the published fix.  Rather than providing good faith predictions as to where Yen LIBOR would fix, Goodman instead often used his daily email to set forth predictions which benefitted UBS Trader’s trading positions.

Beginning in or about June 2007, Goodman was paid a bonus through the desk Wilkinson supervised, allegedly intended, at least in part, to reward Goodman for his role in their effort to influence and manipulate the published Yen LIBOR fix.

As a second strategy, Read and Wilkinson allegedly further agreed to contact interest rate derivatives traders and submitters employed at Yen LIBOR panel banks in an effort to cause them to make false and misleading submissions to the BBA at UBS Trader’s behest.

As alleged in the charging document, Read, Wilkinson, Goodman, UBS Trader, and other co-conspirators often executed their scheme through electronic chats and email exchanges.  For example, on June 28, 2007, in an email message, Read told Wilkinson: “DAN THIS IS GETTING SERIOUS [UBS TRADER] IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE PROGRESSING . . . CAN YOU PLEASE GET HOLD OF COLIN AND GET HIM TO SEND OUT 6 MOS LIBOR AT 0.865 AND TO GET HIS BANKS SETTING IT HIGH. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECA– — USE [UBS TRADER] IS QUESTIONING MY (AND OUR) WORTH.”

The complaint alleges that the defendants were aware of the effects that Goodman’s false and fraudulent “SUGGESTED LIBORS” had on submissions by Yen LIBOR panel banks.  For example, on Nov. 20, 2008, Read asked UBS Trader, “you have a really big fix tonight I believe? if Colin sends out 6m at a more realistic level than 1.10 [%] i reckon [the two panel banks] will parrot him, it might mean 6m coming down a bit.” On the following day, Nov. 21, 2008, Goodman moved his suggestion for 6-month Yen LIBOR down by nine basis points.  The two other banks mirrored Goodman’s suggestion, moving their 6-month Yen LIBOR submissions down by nine basis points.

According to allegations in the complaint, Read counseled UBS Trader how to most effectively manipulate Yen LIBOR.  For example, UBS Trader told Read in a July 22, 2009, electronic chat that “11th aug is the big date…i still have lots of 6m fixings till the 10th.”   Read responded to UBS Trader, “if you drop [UBS’s] 6m dramatically on the 11th mate, it will look v fishy… .  I’d be v careful how you play it, there might be cause for a drop as you cross into a new month but a couple of weeks in might get people questioning you.”  UBS Trader replied, “don’t worry will stagger the drops…ie 5bp then 5bp,” and Read told UBS Trader, “ok mate, don’t want you getting into [expletive].”  UBS Trader again assured Read that UBS and two additional panel banks would stagger their drops in coordination, and Read concluded, “great the plan is hatched and sounds sensible.”

A criminal complaint is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence.  A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until convicted.

The investigation is being conducted by special agents, forensic accountants, and intelligence analysts of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.  The prosecution is being handled by Deputy Chief William Stellmach and Trial Attorney Sandra L. Moser of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Trial Attorneys Eric Schleef and Kristina Srica of the Antitrust Division.  Trial Attorneys Alexander Berlin and Thomas B.W. Hall, Law Clerk Andrew Tyler, and Paralegal Specialist Kevin Sitarski of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, along with Assistant Chief Elizabeth Prewitt and Trial Attorney Richard Powers of the Antitrust Division, and former Trial Attorney Luke Marsh have also provided valuable assistance.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs has provided assistance in this matter as well.

The broader investigation relating to LIBOR and other benchmark rates has required, and has greatly benefited from, a diligent and wide-ranging cooperative effort among various enforcement agencies both in the United States and abroad.  The Justice Department acknowledges and expresses its deep appreciation for this assistance.  In particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Enforcement referred this matter to the Department and, along with the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, has played a major role in the investigation.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has also provided valuable assistance for which the Department is grateful.  The Department also expresses its appreciation to the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office for its assistance and ongoing cooperation.  Various agencies and enforcement authorities from other nations are also participating in different aspects of the broader investigation, and the Department is grateful for their cooperation and assistance as well.

Finally, the Department acknowledges ICAP’s continuing cooperation in the Department’s ongoing investigation.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.  The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

FORMER ALABAMA REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO MAKING FALSE STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH REAL ESTATE FORECLOSURE AUCTION INVESTIGATION

Posted on by

WASHINGTON — A former investor in the Alabama real estate foreclosure auctions  industry pleaded guilty today to one count of making false statements, the  Department of Justice announced.

Ali Forouzan, of Mobile, Ala., pleaded guilty in the U.S. District  Court for the Southern District of Alabama in Mobile to making materially false  and fictitious statements to a Special Agent of the FBI and a Department of  Justice Antitrust Division prosecutor.   The false statements were in regard to his knowledge of, and  participation in, bid rigging and other fraudulent schemes in the Alabama real  estate foreclosure auction industry.

According to the charge, in February 2012, Forouzan was interviewed, with  counsel present, about the fraudulent schemes under investigation.  Forouzan was aware of the nature of the  investigation and knew that it was material for the FBI and the Antitrust  Division to obtain his full knowledge of such unlawful acts as bid-rigging  agreements and other fraudulent schemes relating to real estate foreclosure  auctions; unlawful payoffs that he and others made and received in furtherance  of such schemes; and secret, second auctions in which Forouzan and others  participated.  However, Forouzan willfully  and knowingly provided false and fictitious information during his interview.

“The Antitrust Division views attempts to compromise the integrity of its  investigations as a serious offense,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney  General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “Today’s filing should send a clear signal  that the Antitrust Division is committed to prosecuting vigorously attempts to  cover-up illegal, anticompetitive conduct.”

“The success of this investigation exemplifies  the FBI’s continued commitment to fight fraud in the real estate industry and  serves to deter those who wish to illegally profit from fraud schemes,” said  Stephen E. Richardson, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Mobile Field  Office.  Special Agent in Charge  Richardson praised the perseverance of agents and prosecutors in this complex  investigation.

Including Forouzan, to date, nine individuals and two companies have  pleaded guilty as a result of the department’s ongoing investigation into the  Alabama real estate foreclosure auction industry.

Forouzan faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, three  years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine.

The charge against the defendant  arose from an ongoing investigation into bid rigging and other fraudulent  schemes in the Alabama real estate foreclosure auctions industry.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging  or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should call  404-331-7116 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

Today’s charges  were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement  Task Force.  The task force was  established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to  investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S.  Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of  law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat  fraud.  Since its formation, the task  force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and  prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among  federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending  and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial  institutions and other organizations.  Over  the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000  financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than  2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.

Texas-Based School Chain to Pay Government $3.7 Million for Submitting False Claims for Federal Student Financial Aid Schools Located in Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Oklahoma

Posted on by

ATI Enterprises Inc. will pay the government $3.7 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it falsely certified compliance with federal student aid programs’ eligibility requirements and submitted claims for ineligible students, the Justice Department announced today.

“Federal financial aid is meant to help students obtain a quality education from an eligible institution, and the Department of Justice is committed to ensuring colleges comply with the rules to make certain that happens,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

Allegedly, ATI Enterprises knowingly misrepresented to the Texas Workforce Commission and to the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges its job placement statistics to maintain its state licensure and accreditation. To participate in federal student aid programs, as authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title IV), schools must enter into a contract with the Secretary of Education called a Program Participation Agreement, in which they agree to a number of terms. For example, if an institution advertises its job placement rates as a means of attracting students to enroll, it must make available to prospective students its most recent and accurate employment statistics to substantiate the truthfulness of its advertisements. The government alleged that, by misrepresenting its job placement statistics, ATI Enterprises fraudulently maintained its eligibility for federal financial aid under Title IV.

The government further alleged that ATI employees engaged in fraudulent practices to induce students to enroll and maintain their enrollment in the schools. This falsely increased the schools’ enrollment numbers, and consequently, the amount of federal dollars they received at the expense of taxpayers and students, who incurred long-term debt.

“Misuses of the federal student aid system must not be tolerated, for the sake of the taxpayers and of the innocent individuals who are seeking a quality education,” said Sarah R. Saldaña, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, where some of the ATI campuses involved in the lawsuit are located.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida said: “Federal financial aid is there to help students attain their dreams and goals, and misuse of these funds to increase corporate profits is unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that federal student aid is used for the benefit of students.”

The settlement amount will be paid from funds supporting three letters of credit that ATI provided to the Department of Education. In addition to the False Claims Act settlement, the Department of Education will disburse from the letter of credit funds $2 million for student loan refunds in relation to cases students filed against ATI in Texas state courts and other related arbitrations.

“Federal student aid exists so that students can make the dream of a higher education a reality. That’s why misuse in any way of these vital funds cannot be tolerated,” said Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education. “I’m proud of the work of OIG special agents for holding ATI Enterprises accountable and for protecting the integrity of federal education dollars.”

The settlement resolves allegations made in two separate complaints against ATI Enterprises Inc., and related entities filed under the False Claims Act’s qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions, which permit a private individual to file suit for false claims to the government and to share in any recovery. The first complaint, U.S. ex rel. Aldridge, et al. v. ATI Enterprises Inc., et al., was filed in July 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The second complaint, U.S. ex rel. Ramirez-Damon v. ATI Enterprises Inc., was filed in July 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

This matter was investigated by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, and the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Justice Department Announces Charges Filed Against Two Derivatives Traders in Connection with Multi-Billion Dollar Trading Loss at JPMorgan Chase & Company Defendants Hid More Than Half-a-Billion Dollars in Losses Resulting from Derivatives Trading in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office A Third Trader, Bruno Iksil, Entered a Non-Prosecution Cooperation Agreement

Posted on by
Justice Department Announces Charges Filed Against Two Derivatives Traders in Connection with Multi-Billion Dollar Trading Loss at JPMorgan Chase & Company
Defendants Hid More Than Half-a-Billion Dollars in Losses Resulting from Derivatives Trading in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office A Third Trader, Bruno Iksil, Entered a Non-Prosecution Cooperation Agreement

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and Assistant Director-in-Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office George Venizelos announced the unsealing of criminal complaints against Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout for their alleged participation in a conspiracy to hide the true extent of losses in a credit derivatives trading portfolio maintained by the Chief Investment Office (CIO) of JPMorgan Chase & Company (JPMorgan).  Martin-Artajo served as a Managing Director and Head of Credit and Equity Trading for the CIO, and Grout was a Vice President and derivatives trader in the CIO.

“Our financial system has been hurt in recent years not just by risky bets gone bad, but also, in some cases, by criminal wrongdoing,” said Attorney General Holder.  “We will not stop pursuing those who violate the public trust and compromise the integrity of our markets. I applaud U.S. Attorney Bharara, his colleagues in the Southern District of New York, and all of our partners on the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force for their longstanding commitment to combating all forms of financial fraud. And I pledge that we will continue to move both fairly and aggressively to bring the perpetrators of financial crimes to justice.”

“As alleged, the defendants, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, deliberately and repeatedly lied about the fair value of billions of dollars in assets on JPMorgan’s books in order to cover up massive losses that mounted month after month at the beginning of 2012, which ultimately led JPMorgan to restate its losses by $660 million,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.   “The defendants’ alleged lies misled investors, regulators, and the public, and they constituted federal crimes.  As has already been conceded, this was not a tempest in a teapot, but rather a perfect storm of individual misconduct and inadequate internal controls.  The difficulty inherent in precisely valuing certain kinds of financial positions does not give people a license to lie or mislead to cover up losses; it does not confer a license to create false books and records or to make false public filings.  And that goes double for handsomely-paid executives at a public company whose actions can roil markets and upend the economy.”

“The complaints tell a story of a group of traders who got in over their heads, and to get out, doubled down on a series of risky positions,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos.  “In the first quarter of 2012, boom turned to bust, as the defendants, concerned about losing control to other traders at the bank, fudged the numbers on their daily book, and in some cases completely made them up.  It brought a whole new meaning to cooking the books.”
In a separate action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced civil charges against Martin-Artajo and Grout.

According to the allegations in the criminal complaints unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

JPMorgan’s CIO, is a component of the bank’s Corporate/Private Equity line of business, which, according to the bank, exists to manage the bank’s excess deposits – approximately $350 billion in 2012.  Since approximately 2007, the CIO’s investments have included a so-called Synthetic Credit Portfolio (SCP), which consists of indices and tranches of indices of credit default swaps (CDS).  A credit default swap is essentially an insurance contract on an underlying credit risk, such as corporate bonds.  CDS indices are collections of CDSs that are traded as one unit, while CDS tranches are portions of those indices, usually sliced up by riskiness.

Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and according to JPMorgan policy, CDS traders were required to value the securities in their portfolios on a daily basis.  Those values, or “marks,” became part of the bank’s daily books and records.  Because CDS indices and tranches are not traded over an exchange, traders are required to look to various data points in order to value their securities, such as actual transaction prices, price quotations from market makers, and values provided by independent services (such as Totem and MarkIT).   JPMorgan’s accounting policy, which used the same methodology employed by the independent services, provided that the “starting point for the valuation of a derivatives portfolio is mid-market,” meaning the mid-point between the price at which market-makers were willing to buy or sell a security.  Through about January 2012, CIO traders generally marked the securities in the SCP approximately to this mid-point, which they sometimes referred to as the “crude mid.”

The SCP was extremely profitable for JPMorgan – it produced approximately $2 billion in gross revenues since its inception – but in the first quarter of 2012, the SCP began to sustain consistent and considerable losses.  From at least March 2012, Martin-Artajo and Grout conspired to artificially manipulate the SCP marks to disguise those losses.  They did so, among other reasons, to avoid losing control of the SCP to other traders at JPMorgan.

Although Martin-Artajo pressured his traders, including Grout, to “defend the positions” in early 2012 by executing trades at favorable prices, the SCP lost approximately $130 million in January 2012 and approximately $88 million in February 2012.  In March 2012, when the market moved even more aggressively against the CIO’s positions, Martin-Artajo specifically instructed Grout and the head SCP trader, Bruno Iksil (who has entered a non-prosecution agreement), not to report losses in the SCP unless they were tied to some identifiable market event, such as a bankruptcy filing by a company whose bonds were in the CDS index.  Martin-Artajo explained that “New York” – meaning, among others, JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Officer – did not want to see losses attributable to market volatility.

By mid-March 2012, Grout was explicitly and admittedly “not marking at mids.”  He maintained a spreadsheet that kept track of the difference between the price that Grout recorded in JPMorgan’s books and records, on the one hand, and the “crude mids,” on the other.  By March 15, 2012, according to Grout’s spreadsheet, the difference had grown to approximately $292 million.  In a recorded on-line chat the same day, Grout explained that he was trying to keep the marks for most of the SCP’s positions “relatively realistic,” with the marks for one particular security “put aside.”  That is, Grout mispriced that one particular security, of which the SCP held billions of dollars’ worth, by the full $292 million.  The following day, Iksil told Martin-Artajo that the difference had grown to $300 million, and “I reckon we get to 400 [million] difference very soon.”  In a separate conversation, Iksil remarked to Grout that “I don’t know where he [Martin-Artajo] wants to stop, but it’s getting idiotic.”

In the days that followed, Grout at times ignored Iksil’s instructions on how to mark the positions, and instead, followed Martin-Artajo’s mandate to continue to hide the losses.  By March 20, 2012, Iksil insisted that Grout show a significant loss: $40 million for the day.  In a recorded call, Martin-Aartajo excoriated Iksil, finally emphasizing, “I didn’t want to show the P&L [the profit and loss].”  Throughout the remainder of March 2012, while Iksil continued to try to insist that Martin-Artajo acknowledge the reality of the losses, Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s instructions, continued to hide them.  As of March 30, 2012 – the last day of the first quarter of 2012 – Grout continued to fraudulently understate the SCP’s losses.  These incorrect figures in the SCP were not only integrated into JPMorgan’s books and records, but also – as Martin-Artajo and Grout were well aware – into the bank’s quarterly financial filing for the first quarter of 2012 with the SEC.

During the course of the mis-marking scheme carried out by Martin-Artajo and Grout, the CIO’s Valuation Control Group (VCG) was supposed to serve as an independent check on the valuations assigned by traders to the securities that the traders were marking at month-end.  The VCG, however, was effectively only staffed by one person and did not perform any independent review of the valuations.  Instead, the VCG tolerated valuations outside of the bid-offer spread as presented by Martin-Artajo and other CIO traders.

In Aug. 2012, after Martin-Artajo and Grout were stripped of their responsibilities over the SCP and their scheme was discovered, JPMorgan restated its first quarter 2012 earnings, and recognized an additional loss of $660 million in net revenue attributable to the mis-marking of the SCP.  JPMorgan announced that it was restating its earnings because it had lost confidence in the “integrity” of the marks submitted by Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s direction.

Martin-Artajo, 49, a Spanish citizen, and Grout, 35, a French citizen, are charged in one count of conspiracy; one count of falsifying the books and records of JPMorgan; one count of wire fraud; and one count of causing false statements to be made in JPMorgan’s filings with the SEC.  They each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy count, and 20 years in prison on each of the three remaining counts in the complaints, and a fine of the greater of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss as to certain of the offenses.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.

The case was investigated by the FBI.  The SEC and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs were also involved.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eugene Ingoglia and Matthew L. Schwartz are in charge of the prosecutions.

The charges contained in the complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.