 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DIBELLA DISTRICT SUBPOENA COURT INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT FORMER CONNECTICUT TESTIMONY BOSTON DISTRICT OFFICE WILLIAM MASSACHUSETTS ACCORDING FILING COMMISSION STAFF APPEARANCE ASSERT PRIVILEGE SELF-INCRIMINATION INVESTED STATE PENSION STATE PENSION FUNDS PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM LEGAL AUTHORITY SUBPOENAED WITNESSES PROPER BASIS AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE REVIEWING PARTIES |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
LITIGATION RELEASE No. 16646 / August 8, 2000
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. WILLIAM A. DIBELLA (United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, MBD No.
00-10235)
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the
Commission's application for enforcement of an investigative subpoena
against former Connecticut state senator William A. DiBella. The Court
ordered DiBella to appear for testimony at the Commission's Boston
District Office by August 11, 2000. According to the Commission's
papers, DiBella's testimony was sought in connection with an
investigation of payments DiBella received for his work as an alleged
consultant or finder on a deal in which former Connecticut Treasurer
Paul J. Silvester invested state pension funds with a private equity
firm.
According to the Commission's court filing, Commission staff issued an
investigative subpoena to DiBella for his appearance and testimony at
the Boston District Office. The Commission has the legal authority to
have its subpoenaed witnesses either testify substantively or state a
proper basis for their refusal. In his appearance, however, DiBella
refused either to answer the questions posed by Commission staff or to
assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Instead, DiBella's attorney attempted to assert DiBella's privilege
against self-incrimination, ostensibly on DiBella's behalf. As a
result of DiBella's refusal to comply with the subpoena, the
Commission filed its application for subpoena enforcement on July 3,
2000. After reviewing the parties' filings, the court granted the
Commission's application to enforce its subpoena against DiBella and
ordered him to appear at the Commission's Boston District Office and
comply with the Commission's investigative subpoena.
_________________________________________________________________
Modified 08/11/2000
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
