LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v EDWARD E. BAO Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-44274, Defendant: Edward E. Bao, Plaintiff: SEC, State: OR Oregon, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-44274, Bao, Act, Commission, Securities, Exchange Act, Account, Advisers Act, District Court, Pursuant, Investment Advisers, Judgement, Divert, Administrative Proceedings, Findings, Violating, Scheme, Customer Accounts, Gecon Account, Complaint, Funds, Dividend, Diverted Assets, Misleading, Indictment, Assertion, United States, Incorporates, Broker-dealer, Southern District, York , ContentID: 120244014

Case Documents
1 2001-05-08 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110748
3 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 3 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACT
COMMISSION
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT
ACCOUNT
ADVISERS ACT
DISTRICT COURT
PURSUANT
INVESTMENT ADVISERS
JUDGEMENT
DIVERT
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
FINDINGS
VIOLATING
SCHEME
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
GECON ACCOUNT
COMPLAINT
FUNDS
DIVIDEND
DIVERTED ASSETS
MISLEADING
INDICTMENT
ASSERTION
UNITED STATES
INCORPORATES
BROKER-DEALER
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

   SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   Release No. 44274 / May 8, 2001

   INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
   Release No. 1942 / May 8, 2001

   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
   File No. 3-10477
     _________________________________________________________________


     ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC
   In the Matter of                ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
     PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b)(6)
   Edward E. Bao, OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
     ACT OF 1934 AND SECTION 203(f) OF
   Respondent. THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT
     OF 1940, MAKING FINDINGS, AND
     IMPOSING SANCTIONS
     _________________________________________________________________


                                     I.

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it
   appropriate and in the public interest to institute public
   administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Section 203(f) of
   the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act") against Edward E.
   Bao ("Bao").

                                    II.

   In anticipation of the institution of these administrative
   proceedings, Bao has submitted an Offer of Settlement which the
   Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these
   proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the
   Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without
   admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the entry of
   the injunction and the conviction as set forth in Section III.B. and
   D. below, and as to the jurisdiction of the Commission over him and
   the subject matter of the proceeding, which are admitted, Bao consents
   to the entry of this Order Instituting Public Administrative
   Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  • Edward E. Bao, OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
  • THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to
  • In anticipation of the institution of these administrative proceedings, Bao has submitted an
  • Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf
  • Gruntal was a broker-dealer registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 15of the
  • On May 20, 1999, a Final Judgment was entered by the United States District Court for the
  • 2515, which permanently enjoins Bao from violating Section 17of the Securities Act of 1933,
  • The Final Judgment was entered by the District Court after a trial on stipulated facts.
  • The Commission's Complaint in alleged that, beginning in 1984 and continuing through late
  • Bao and others diverted approximately $5 million to fictitious customer accounts and then
  • The Complaint alleged that, from 1985 through the third quarter of fiscal 1987, as a result
  • The Judgment was imposed subsequent to the District Court's acceptance of Bao's plea of
  • Inc. account for the period ending April 30,
  • As asserted in the Indictment, the Gecon account was one of several fictitious customer
  • Count Fourteen incorporates the Indictment's assertion that, in or about April 1993 and
  •    |