LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v JOHN FRANCIS DACQUISTO Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: IA-1696, Defendant: John Francis DAcquisto, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>IA-1696, Investment Adviser, Law Judge, Commission, Securities, District Court, Advisers Act, Registered Investment, Appeals, Permanent Injunction, Exchange, Associating, Evidence, John, Administrative Law Judge, Violating, Revoke, Bar, Sanction, Investors, Remedial Action, Antifraud Provisions, Federal Securities Laws, Doubleday Trust, Judgement, Sheridan Asset Management, Future Violations, Wire Fraud, Form Adv-w, Allegations, Conviction , ContentID: 120247240

Case Documents
1 1998-01-21 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117390
14 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 14 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LAW JUDGE
COMMISSION
SECURITIES
DISTRICT COURT
ADVISERS ACT
REGISTERED INVESTMENT
APPEALS
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EXCHANGE
ASSOCIATING
EVIDENCE
JOHN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
VIOLATING
REVOKE
BAR
SANCTION
INVESTORS
REMEDIAL ACTION
ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS
FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
DOUBLEDAY TRUST
JUDGEMENT
SHERIDAN ASSET MANAGEMENT
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
WIRE FRAUD
FORM ADV-W
ALLEGATIONS
CONVICTION







SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

     INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
     Rel. No. 1696 / January 21, 1998

     Admin. Proc. File No. 3-8899


                                                      :
                         In the Matter of                  :
                                                      :
                    JOHN FRANCIS D'ACQUISTO           :
                                                      :



     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

          INVESTMENT ADVISER PROCEEDINGS

          Ground for Remedial Action

               Permanent Injunction

          Registered investment adviser was permanently enjoined from
          violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

          Held, it is in the public interest to revoke his registration as
an
          investment adviser and to bar him from associating with an
investment
          adviser.

     APPEARANCES:

          John F. D'Acquisto, pro se.

          James A. Howell and Marianne Wisner, for the Commission's Division
of
     Enforcement.
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • Ground for Remedial Action
  • Registered investment adviser was permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud
  • it is in the public interest to revoke his registration as an investment adviser and to bar
  • John F. D'Acquisto, a registered investment adviser, appeals from the decision of an
  • The law judge found that a district court had permanently enjoined D'Acquisto from violating
  • Based on this injunction and consideration of the public interest, the administrative law
  • On September 20, 1995, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
  • D'Acquisto acted through entities he controlled, D'Acquisto Financial Group, Inc. and
  • The district court entered the permanent injunction pursuant
  • to a grant of partial summary judgment for the Commission.
  • judgment entered in Sheridan Asset Management,
  • to Alliance and Geisselmann that his companies were experienced money managers; that these
  • This administrative proceeding brought under Sections 203and 203of the Investment Advisers
  • D'Acquisto admits that the permanent injunction entered against him provides sufficient
  • no evidence to support this claim.
  • not filed a Form ADV-W.
  • The evidence that the Division produced amply supported the factual allegations contained in
  • The law judge also determined that D'Acquisto failed to acknowledge his wrongful conduct, and
  • security and to commit wire fraud in violation of 18
  • His conviction and sentence, which have been upheld on appeal, permit the inference that if
  •    |