LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v BENJAMIN G. SPRECHER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-38485, Defendant: Benjamin G. Sprecher, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-38485, Sprecher, Securities, Penny Stock, Law Judge, Act, Participation, Commission, Criminal Conviction, Proceeding, Offering, Administrator, Exchange Act, Bar, False Statements, Obstruction, Perjury, Conspiracy, Making False Statements, Government Agency, Post Facto Clause, Remedies Act, Administrative Sanction, Jeopardy Clause, Post Facto, Witnesses, Punishment, Jurisdiction, Broker-dealer Proceedings, Respondent, Enforcement , ContentID: 120247268

Case Documents
1 1997-04-08 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117418
15 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 15 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
PENNY STOCK
LAW JUDGE
ACT
PARTICIPATION
COMMISSION
CRIMINAL CONVICTION
PROCEEDING
OFFERING
ADMINISTRATOR
EXCHANGE ACT
BAR
FALSE STATEMENTS
OBSTRUCTION
PERJURY
CONSPIRACY
MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
GOVERNMENT AGENCY
POST FACTO CLAUSE
REMEDIES ACT
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION
JEOPARDY CLAUSE
POST FACTO
WITNESSES
PUNISHMENT
JURISDICTION
BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
ENFORCEMENT
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C.

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 3-38485 / April 8, 1997

Admin. Pro. File No. 3-8230
___________________________________
                                   :
          In the Matter of         :
                                   :
        BENJAMIN G. SPRECHER       :
                                   :
___________________________________:

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

     BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDINGS

          Ground for Remedial Action

               Criminal Conviction

     Where respondent was convicted in 1992 of conspiracy to sell
     unregistered securities, making false statements to a
     government agency, perjury, and obstruction of justice,
     held, in the public interest to bar him from participating
     in any offering of penny stock.

APPEARANCES:

     Benjamin G. Sprecher, pro se.

     Robert M. Fusfeld and Thomas D. Carter, for the Division of
Enforcement.

Appeal filed:  March 28, 1996
Last brief filed:  May 15, 1996

                                I.

     Benjamin G. Sprecher appeals from the decision of an
administrative law judge.  The law judge found that on January
16, 1992 Sprecher was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of
crimes including conspiracy to sell unregistered securities,
conspiracy to make false statements to this Commission, perjury,
and obstruction of justice. -[1]-  She also found that

SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDINGS
  • Where respondent was convicted in 1992 of conspiracy to sell unregistered securities, making
  • Benjamin G. Sprecher, pro se.
  • Robert M. Fusfeld and Thomas D. Carter, for the Division of Enforcement.
  • Benjamin G. Sprecher appeals from the decision of an administrative law judge.
  • Sprecher's illegal activities had included participation in a penny stock offering whose
  • The instant administrative proceeding was instituted November 19, 1993 pursuant to Sections
  • --The 1992 criminal conviction on which this administrative proceeding was predicated
  • Sprecher appeared only briefly to oppose the Commission's jurisdiction, although he had been
  • Based on Judge Cedarbaum's opinion and on the testimony of two witnesses, the law judge also
  • -- He contends that we lack jurisdiction to impose a penny stock bar based on preRemedies Act
  • He contends that the imposition of a penny stock bar is prohibited by the Ex Post Facto and
  • --Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government cannot bring "a second prosecution for the
  • He cites as support for his argument appellate court decisions concluding that sentencing
  • There have been several appellate decisions recently that have specifically addressed whether
  • allow Administrator to revoke or suspend a DEA
  •    |