 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCHANGE COMMISSION COTTRILL DISTRICT COURT SUBPOENA SECURITIES MASSACHUSETTS ENFORCEMENT BROKER DEALINGS DAVID COTTRILL ACCORDING UNITED STATES DISTRICT MBD MASSACHUSETTS BROKERAGE FIRM FRAUD FORGERY ELDERLY INVESTOR COURT FILING TESTIMONY MUTUAL FUND SALES FUND SALES PRACTICES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ASSERT AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE SELF-INCRIMINATION RESPONSE BOSTON OFFICE COMMISSION STAFF |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
LITIGATION RELEASE No. 16093 / March 22, 1999
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. DAVID COTTRILL (United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, MBD No.
99-10096)
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced
that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
has granted the Commission's application for enforcement of an
investigative subpoena and ordered a broker for a Massachusetts
brokerage firm to answer questions about possible fraud and
forgery in his dealings with an elderly investor. According to
the Commission's court filing, broker David Cottrill had refused
to answer questions about his dealings with the investor when
subpoenaed to give testimony in a Commission investigation of
mutual fund sales practices.
According to the Commission's application for enforcement of its
subpoena to Cottrill, Cottrill refused to answer certain
questions because he claimed to be the subject of a criminal
investigation arising from his dealings with the investor. He
further claimed that he should not be required to assert his
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when
questioned but instead be allowed to provide no response at all.
The court granted the Commission's application to enforce its
subpoena against Cottrill and ordered him to appear at the
Commission's Boston office and respond to questions by the
Commission staff.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
