 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISMISS POKROSS JEFFREY POSTPONEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS EXCHANGE COMMISSION OIP PARALLEL CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PREJUDICE RULINGS SECURITIES INSTITUTING RESPONDENT REQUEST CONVICTION REVIEW CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT POSTPONEMENT SET ENFORCEMENT MENTIONING FIRST TIME SETTLEMENT INCONSISTENT TIMELY RESOLUTION RICHARD CANNISTRARO MOTION CAROL FOX FOELAK ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE |
Dismissal Order
Jeffrey D. Pokross
Administrative Proceedings Rulings
Release No. 601 / December 11, 2002
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
FILE NO. 3-9161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
December 11, 2002
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
JEFFREY D. POKROSS
_________________________________________________________________
DISMISSAL ORDER
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated this proceeding with
an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) on October 10, 1996. At the
same time the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
commenced a criminal prosecution against Respondent based on the same
alleged conduct as the OIP. The proceeding has been postponed several
times since then on a finding of good cause because of the parallel
criminal proceeding, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 201.161. See Jeffrey D.
Pokross (A.L.J. Nov. 20, 1996) (unpublished). The most recent
postponement set the hearing to commence December 13, 2002. The
Division of Enforcement (Division) has requested a further
postponement, mentioning, for the first time in eighteen months, the
possibility of settlement.
Six years have passed since the date of the OIP. The undersigned has
previously suggested that the Division move to dismiss the proceeding
without prejudice. See Jeffrey D. Pokross (A.L.J. Sept. 26, 2002)
(unpublished). After six years, any further postponements would be
inconsistent with the timely resolution of the proceeding. Thus, the
undersigned will dismiss the proceeding without prejudice. See Richard
Cannistraro, 53 S.E.C. 388 (1998). If, in the future, Respondent
Pokross is convicted in the parallel criminal proceeding, an
administrative proceeding may be instituted based on the conviction.
IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
