These are some compliance-related stories that recently caught my attention:
Ponzi Scheme and Investment Fraud Red Flags by Tracy Coenen in the Fraud Files Blog
How do you know if you’re considering investing in a Ponzi scheme? The promoters will never come out and tell you they are running a pyramid scheme, so the investors have to be smart enough to recognize them on their own. The good news is it is easy to spot a Ponzi scheme.
Here are some red flags about the “investment” you’re considering that might indicate it is a Ponzi scheme. (There were many red flags related to infamous scammer Bernie Madoff.) You can find out more about spotting Ponzi schemes and investment schemes in my book, Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide.
Four convicted for commercial (not government) bribery by SFO in thebriberyact.com
Amounting to around £70 million, the contracts affected were for engineering and procurement projects based in Iran, Egypt, Sakhalin Island (Russia), Singapore and Abu Dhabi, over the period 2001 to 2009….The confidential information supplied to bidders was held by companies acting as procurement agents for the projects. It is an industry where individuals who work for such companies often do so on a short term basis. Crucially, the defendants had access to inside information which they passed on to targeted bidding companies who either made, or agreed to make, corrupt payments for the information. Disguised as “consultancy services”, the illicit payments were shared out amongst the co-conspirators.”
Riverside’s Hendrickson wins PEI Leadership Award
Pam Hendrickson receives PEI’s Leadership Award for her work as an industry advocate in Washington DC and for her crucial contributions to Riverside as its chief operating officer. Pam Hendrickson, chief operating officer of global mid-market firm The Riverside Company, was last week awarded the 2012 Leadership Award by Private Equity International sister title Private Equity Manager.
Making Sense of Jones by Scott Greenfield in Simple Justice
Since the opinions were released yesterday morning, the blawgosphere has cranked out a ton of posts about what the Jones v. United States decision means. The majority decision was written by Scalia, with concurrences by Alito and Sotomayor. While it was 9-0 on outcome, it was anything but on rationale. …
That one justice of nine seems to have some appreciation of the danger ahead, how poorly law developed to deal with normal-sized coaches and full-height constables applies in the digital age, is better than nothing. But given how the Court broke down here, it’s clearly not good enough.
Does the plant of a GPS device on a car require a warrant? Under the particular facts of Jones, yes. (Addendum: this is the net result, not the holding of the case, which skirted the issue entirely.) Under other facts, who knows. And how does that translate to the next shiny device? Only lone Justice Sotomayor even cares, while the rest seem determined to ignore the digital age at all costs.
