LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v BARRY L. KING Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15406, CourtName: UNITED STATES V. BARRY L. KING (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE, Defendant: Barry L. King, Plaintiff: SEC, State: MA Massachusetts, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15406, King, Investors, Commission, Scheme, Securities, Exchange, United States, District, Mortgage, Fraud, Indictment, Funds, Act, Barry, Massachusetts, Restitution, Payments, Bankruptcy, Assets, Boca Raton, Florida, Gorton, Representing, Prohibiting, Credit, Charges, Monies, Expenses, Bar , ContentID: 120242654

Case Documents
1 1997-07-07 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105748
4 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTORS
COMMISSION
SCHEME
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
MORTGAGE
FRAUD
INDICTMENT
FUNDS
ACT
BARRY
MASSACHUSETTS
RESTITUTION
PAYMENTS
BANKRUPTCY
ASSETS
BOCA RATON
FLORIDA
GORTON
REPRESENTING
PROHIBITING
CREDIT
CHARGES
MONIES
EXPENSES
BAR





                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15406 / July 7, 1997

     UNITED STATES v. BARRY L. KING (United States District Court for the
     District of Massachusetts C.A. No. 95-10220NMG)

          The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced
that,
     on July 1, 1997, Barry L. King ("King"), formerly of Wellesley,
     Massachusetts and presently residing in Boca Raton, Florida, was
sentenced
     by the Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Court for the
     District of Massachusetts, to serve a term of 46 months in federal
prison,
     followed by a three-year term of supervised release.  In addition,
Judge
     Gorton ordered King to pay restitution of $8,724,656 to defrauded
     investors, representing their losses as a result of a fraudulent
mortgage
     pooling scheme.  King was prohibited from incurring new credit charges
or
     opening new lines of credit unless he is current in making
restitution
     payments pursuant to a schedule to be determined by the U.S.
Probation
     Office.  King was also barred from seeking employment in a financial
     position that would incur third-party risk.

          On March 4, 1997, King pleaded guilty to 32 counts of mail fraud
     relating to a Ponzi scheme and one count of bankruptcy fraud for
concealing
     his assets in a bankruptcy proceeding.  The indictment alleged that,
     between late 1986 and 1989, King solicited over $11 million from
former
     clients, many of whom were elderly, to invest their monies in secured
     mortgages in return for guaranteed interest payments.  Contrary to
his
     representations, King pooled the investor funds and loaned their money
to
     non-creditworthy borrowers on distressed properties.  The indictment
also
     alleged that King kept his mortgage investment scheme afloat by using
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • UNITED STATES v. BARRY L. KING (United States District Court for the District of
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on July 1, 1997, Barry L. King,
  • Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to serve
  • Gorton ordered King to pay restitution of $8,724,656 to defrauded investors, representing
  • King was prohibited from incurring new credit charges or opening new lines of credit unless
  • On March 4, 1997, King pleaded guilty to 32 counts of mail fraud relating to a Ponzi scheme
  • The indictment alleged that, between late 1986 and 1989, King solicited over $11 million from
  • The indictment also alleged that King kept his mortgage investment scheme afloat by using
  • According to the indictment, King used the remaining investor funds to support his lavish
  • On September 28, 1990, the Commission filed an injunctive action alleging that King violated
  • In December 1990, King was enjoined from further violations of these provisions, ordered to
  • On March 8, 1991, the court granted the Commission's further application for an Order
  •    |