Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I suspect that there was a third Administrative Proceeding in the SpongeTech case in October.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-79113.pdf
Quite literally, this is Panama Papers stuff. Foreign banks arranging for Panamanian shell registrations.
Interesting. I seem to recall Judge Irizarry granting permission to travel in this regard.
I wonder if Mary Jo White is leaving the SEC 3 years early because she is fed up with the DOJ's refusal to enforce the law. Or maybe Trump wants her for something. US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York? That might work out pretty well.
Hi, berta! Good to see you.
Issuances made to members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network were fairly highly structured. When I would see an issuance made to Ringer, as in this case, then I could pretty well guess as to what other beneficiaries I would expect to see getting shares in that same transaction. The same applies to the cancellations. The shares issued to the various beneficiaries in a single transaction, would typically all be canceled at the same time time in a subsequent transaction. Not always, but often.
The SEC has now charged three outsiders with selling unregistered shares. The total amount being disgorged is now about $4.5 million.
There are also the four people I talked about in Dec 2011 who made $15 million, according to IIROC, who have not yet been charged by the SEC. But, the gates are finally open, as I expected they would be once Pensley's case was closed (at least for now). I'm still looking for dozens of people to be charged with selling unregistered shares, and a total disgorgement of about $390 million, excluding penalties, for this particular offense.
DENNIS RINGER
Cert # Holder Name Iss. Date Can. Date Denomination
3838 DENNIS RINGER 06/18/2009 06/24/2009 5000000
Spongetech Share Issuance
Selection Criteria AsOf Date: 06/26/2009 Sort Criteria Primary Sort Account Number Ascending Certificate List (Upload Date: 06/26/2009)
http://spngbane.angelfire.com/
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that:
1. Dennis Ira Ringer, 52 years old, is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. Previously,
from 1983 to 1985, Ringer was a registered representative associated with several registered
broker-dealers.
2. From May 2008 through September 2009, Ringer sold 78 million shares of
Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc. (“Spongetech”) stock to the investing public in violation of the
registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act and for profits of $2,152,923.20.
2
3. Ringer obtained these Spongetech shares from a Spongetech affiliate, RM
Enterprises International, Ltd. a/k/a RM Enterprises International, Inc. (“RM Enterprises”). As
noted in Spongetech’s public filings, RM Enterprises was the majority shareholder of Spongetech
and was controlled by Spongetech’s CEO and CFO/COO. Ringer negotiated the purchase of the
shares with Spongetech’s CFO/COO.
4. Ringer purchased the 78 million shares from RM Enterprises in fifteen transactions,
and at discounts from market prices. In many instances, RM Enterprises transferred the shares to
Ringer the same day that it received the shares from Spongetech.
5. After Ringer received the shares from RM Enterprises, he quickly sold the shares in
U.S. public markets. The discount that Ringer received enabled him to immediately sell the
Spongetech shares at a profit.
6. No registration statement was filed as to any of the shares that Ringer sold to the
investing public, and no exemption from the registration requirements was applicable to these
transactions.
7. For example, on May 12, 2008, Ringer signed a subscription agreement with RM
Enterprises to purchase a block of four million Spongetech shares for $80,000, at a price of $.02
per share. The subscription agreement stated that the securities were not covered by a registration
statement. The agreement further stated that the securities were being purchased for investment
purposes and not with a view to distribution or resale.
8. Ringer purchased the shares at a discount to the then current market price. On May
12, 2008, Ringer paid RM Enterprises $80,000 for the four million shares, or $.02 per share. The
market price of Spongetech stock on that day ranged from $0.037 to $0.047 per share.
9. On May 14, 2008, RM Enterprises transferred four million Spongetech shares to
Ringer’s brokerage account. The shares were transferred to Ringer’s account without an
appropriate restrictive legend. On May 16, 2008, after holding the Spongetech shares for only two
days, Ringer began selling the shares in the public market at prevailing market prices. Ringer sold
the four million shares at prices ranging from $0.03764 to $0.05300 per share, resulting in profits of
$93,867.31. These transactions were not registered with the Commission, and no exemption from
the registration requirements applied.
10. Between June 2008 and July 2009, Ringer continued to obtain Spongetech shares
from RM Enterprises at significant market discounts. In each of these instances, after receiving the
shares from RM Enterprises, Ringer promptly resold them in public markets – sometimes within
days of when he received the shares. These transactions were not registered with the
Commission, and did not satisfy any exemption from the registration requirements.
11. In total, Ringer sold 78 million shares of Spongetech in unregistered transactions
and obtained illegal profits of $2,152,923.20.
12. The Respondent used the mails and other means of interstate commerce in
connection with these offers and sales of Spongetech shares.
13. By engaging in the conduct described above, Respondent Ringer violated Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, which prohibit the direct or indirect sale or offer for sale of
securities through the mails or interstate commerce unless a registration statement has been filed or
is in effect, or an exemption from registration is applicable.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
Geesh!
If the SEC is trying to avoid naming Relief Defendants en masse in this case, because they don't want to say that shareholders lost $390 million from this activity, and that they don't want to identify the shareholders, because that would expose the naked short shares, then they should be quite busy with these individual filings in the immediate future.
I'll just reply with what I wrote to a group of shareholders.
"Yet another SPNG Administrative Proceeding filed yesterday, this one against Dennis Ringer.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
When was this case initiated? They don't tell us. Could this go back to the three Litigation Releases that were filed with the details being intentionally omitted? I've said previously that I thought the facts clearly indicated that at least one of those filings concerned SpongeTech.
If the SEC is trying to avoid naming Relief Defendants en masse in this case, because they don't want to say that shareholders lost $390 million from this activity, and that they don't want to identify the shareholders, because that would expose the naked short shares, then they should be quite busy with these individual filings in the immediate future. There should be dozens of people named, and there aren't too many days before the new Administration assumes office, complete with a new SEC Chairman and new Attorney General."
"another $2.5 million"
Which the SEC will most likely keep, and to the extent they don't, none of it is going to anyone who is nott on the restitution list.
Which means recidivist letter-writer to DaCourts, Jay Booth, won't be getting a penny of it in any case - as dat name iznt on the restitution list. Whoops-oops!!!
AND, which is another example that there are no 'naked shorts' who were responsible for the SPNGQ scam. This disgorgement comes from a Moskowitz neighbor/friend who gott the shares directly from the company via Moskowitz's and Metter's RME. Transferred IMMEDIATELY upon issuance via RME - owned and controlled by Mosky - the same Mosky who, as CFO, had to pre-approve the issuance and instruct the TA.
So much for the boolsheet conspiracy theorists.
So much for 'potentially life-saving medical procedures'.
LOL!!! Happy Thanksgiving!
Texas morphine
Another SPNG Administrative Proceeding...another $2.5 million.
"I expect to see dozens of Relief Defendants named as we go on."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
Enjoy the unicorn hunt.
I'm looking forward to the continued progression of this case. I like the two Administrative Proceedings that were filed in this case in the last week or so, and I expect to see dozens of Relief Defendants named as we go on.
Sorry, man, butt that's just so totally wronGGG.
It's OVER, man.
Denial will nott change that FACT.
It doesn't make sense that the SEC would charge the company with selling 2.5 billion unregistered shares, and then only charge two people for their roles in selling a combined 121 million of those shares. This is especially so when a huge number of those 2.5 billion shares were sold to the public by recidivist offenders.
Loretta Lynch's Department of Discretionary Justice is on the hook here, and rightly so. The lack of enforcement is understandable, since Lynch's office was the one that brought the narrowly-focused criminal case in the first place, before she got the nod to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General.
This case is far from over, and I'm not going anywhere. In fact, I've never felt better about our case, especially now that we have a new Administration preparing to take office and "drain the swamp." The plug is in the Eastern District of New York.
Nope, that's nott how it works. The SEC cases re: both Pensley and Kramer are now settled - and for PEANUTS. There are no criminal charges against either of them nor will there be. Well, Kramer might at some point gett nailed for something else, butt nothing related to SPNGQ. That door's closed.
The SEC would never settle a civil case for peanuts if a criminal case was pending or even under consideration, as it would totally undercut any criminal prosecution.
The defense would cite the fact that the SEC settled the cases for peanuts and point ~OUTT that as evidence it was a nothingburger.
Nice try, though.
Time to face the FACTS. SPNGQ is OVER. The money is GONE. The criminal proceedings against the miscreants are OVER.
Facts are facts.
It's like the die-hards who CONtinue to claim that Al Gore won the election in 2000. They can rant as long as they want, butt it's all MOOT. It's over, like SPNGQ - a fait accompli. Fini.
"Pensley financial accounting OVER."
I believe that it's the criminal court judge, not the SEC, who has been waiting patiently, for years, for Pensley's financial accounting. Am I mistaken?
Also, Curt Kramer is one of the dozens of Relief Defendants I expected to see named in this case. He is now only the second non-company defendant named, to date, for selling unregistered shares of SPNG.
I think we could be seeing a whole new chapter beginning to open in this case.
Yup, Pensley is resolved. Case closed.
Renee
Tuesday, 11/01/16 09:52:49 AM
Re: None
Post # 114294 of 114323
Joel Pensley of Spongetech infamy: SEC Admin Proceeding:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-79202.pdf
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Joel Pensley (“Respondent” or “Pensley”) pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Respondent admits the facts set forth in Section III.2, below, acknowledges that his conduct violated the federal securities laws, admits the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings, and consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), as set forth below.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that:
1. Pensley, age 74, is a resident of New York and an attorney licensed to practice law in New York.
2. On May 5, 2010, the Commission filed a complaint against Pensley in SEC v. Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 10-cv-02031-DLI), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 4, 2016, a judgment was entered by consent against Pensley, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Pensley also was permanently enjoined from participating in any offering of penny stock, and from providing professional legal services in connection with the offer or sale of securities pursuant to any exemption from the registration provisions of the Securities Act.
3. The Commission’s complaint alleged that Pensley knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements in attorney opinion letters stating that the restrictive legends could be removed from shares of Spongetech’s common stock. In his opinion letters, Pensley falsely represented that RM Enterprises International, Inc. (“RM Enterprises”), as the parent of Spongetech, was “spinning-off” shares of Spongetech to RM Enterprises’ shareholders, and thus Spongetech’s transfer agent could remove the restrictive legends from the “spun-off” shares. In fact, Pensley was aware at the time that he prepared his opinion letters that: (a) there was no proper basis to remove the restrictive legends from Spongetech’s stock; (b) RM Enterprises was issuing the shares for consideration and that the shares were not being “spun off” pro rata to RM Enterprises shareholders; (c) most recipients identified in the opinion letters were not RM Enterprises shareholders; (d) RM Enterprises had no valid business purpose for the issuances; (e) Pensley himself received shares in these transactions as compensation for his services; and (f) no valid exemption or safe harbor from registration applied to these share issuances.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanction agreed to in Respondent Pensley’s Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, effective immediately, that:
A. Pensley is suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney.
By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields
Secretary
How's the 'case' coming along, Jay?
I love defunct companies like SPNGQ. These scams keep on giving entertainment value long after they're gone.
"Taboada kept a supply of soap-filled sponges made by Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc. in the office, three of the people said. He told them he made millions of dollars trading shares of the company, whose chief operating officer pleaded guilty to securities fraud after it went bankrupt."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-30/wall-street-attracts-chop-shops-20-years-after-wolf
On the topic of NSS and use of State courts:
Understand - as stated time and time again - short selling INCLUDING naked short selling is NOT against any law.
A co-ordinated attack on a company stock to lower its price MAY be...and if that includes naked short selling - maybe yet more so....but here - we've heard it too many times already:
A company making a sponge which costs more to make than it can sell it for, with fraudulent books, fabricated customers, all done as a pump and dump scheme (and condfessed as such by the promoters) is the exact opposite of where short or NSS could even be considered anything except the CORRECT way the market allows someone to take a position. The company was a fraud....a scam ...there can be no damage from shorting something that had only a fake inflated value. Short selling did not take down the value of the company - there was no value...except as part of a scam.
And all the Court did was say really was anyone/thing wanting jurisdiction can have it....basically they don't want anything to do with the whole thing! They did not in any way give any credence to any of the suppositions of the NSS crowd...in fact - the opposite.
First find a state with laws about NSS (only a few even have it)...then try and fit this in (you can't) and more importantly - see if any would ever consider pursuing it either...they won't. They didn't want to in the cases presented opting to say they couldn't - so the lusa's went to the S Court to get the decision that the State can ...but - they won't. Unless it is a real clear stock manipulation.....not a stock fraud.
How about just quietly waiting for the naming (and seizure of assets) of all those affiliated groups from a decade ago - (or whatever you want to call them)...a very infrequently used thing and only then very quickly after an event where those participants and the assets are easily identified, seen and reachable....which is also normally then fought about for a decade in court. Or maybe hold on - the recovery is getting near the $50 a person it takes to disperse. Ooops....fee's for doing so is lowering it!
yeah, that is the only "air shares" there were, for lack of a better term!!!
So, in this case you are defining "air shares" as the shares that were issued by SPNG illegally by using non-existent attorneys to write the fraudulent opinion letters to make the shares freely tradeable
and not the "air shares", that are claimed by the whacked-out tin foilers, that result from naked shorting by the EVIL NAKED SHORT SELLERS FROM MARS...
correct?
and same with "air shares", seems the vast majority (all??) of the time they come from someone looking to exploit the long side as well....as was the case here with the unregistered shares from SPNG themselves....
yep, a fair market allows short selling....logically, it must...
of course, illegal manipulation is, well....illegal!!!...long or short...but seems 99.9% of the time it is to pump up stocks to dump them, such as was the case here....
and same with "air shares", seems the vast majority (all??) of the time they come from someone looking to exploit the long side as well....as was the case here with the unregistered shares from SPNG themselves....
don't get why this is so complicated to understand???
madeindet, there are no more SPNG shareholders. EOM
you realize it was SPNG insiders who ripped people off, right???...not some mythical shorts, gesh.....
"It's a crooked system."
The system needs to be redesigned. Right now, our equity markets are largely governed by:
Self-Regulatory Organizations (SRO's), that have
discretionary authority, but don't have
subpoena power.
Watching over them are unelected bureaucrats, who also have discretionary power, and who also report to a politically-appointed chief.
What could possibly go...right?
It's a crooked system by design.
Fines against market participants should go in a fund that's goes to the shareholders. Ie: UBSS fined for naked shorting, Penson violating reg sho, the Canadian regulator fine against their broker.
Why don't they disclose the companies that were victimized by UBSS and Penson for their violations?? Allow the public and companies to sue for damages. These slap on the wrist fines go to regulators who are far from being the victims. It's a crooked system
This case is exactly where I/aye/eye want it to be right now. It's between those who administer justice, and those who seek justice. Perfect.
Too/to/two badd that the applicable statutes of limitations for state court claims against SPNG and associated parties have long since expired. No claims of this sort (state court claims only) can be brought against anyone for a SPNG-related matter.
This has zero applicability to any Federal court matter involving the SEC or DOJ.
So, this issue is OFF-TOPIC for SPNG, as it has zero applicability.
SPNG promoter Doug Furth (a/k/a 'Soapy Bubbles') just has his home foreclosed on by the bank:
https://www.dln.com/foreclosure/details/ref_index/128417
Date Filed May 31, 2016
Case Number 864049
Case Type Foreclosure
Judge Judge M. Clancy
Defendant
Douglas G. Furth, et al.
6442 Dorset Lane
Solon,, OH 44139
Plaintiff
Filed by.
Fifth Third Bank
9200 Montgomery Rd., Bldg 7b
Cincinnati, OH 45242
I believe that Aguirre is representing one such victimized company in a state court now. I also believe that he will be a formidable force in this effort (assuming that you're quoting comments made by Gary Aguirre).
Naked short cases have been slaughtered in federal courts,” Aguirre said. “Now there’s a crack in the door. But plaintiff lawyers will have to do a lot of creative designing in state courts to open it further.
While that regulation makes it illegal to use naked short sales to manipulate a security, cases against the practice haven’t fared well in federal court, attorneys said. That’s in part because the Supreme Court has required plaintiffs in federal court to cite specific statutes that they believe have been violated, Wharton’s Zaring said.
Under the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, plaintiff attorneys would still have to bring suits in jurisdictions with applicable anti-fraud or securities laws -- which also include California and Georgia -- and avoid conflicts with federal statutes, Aguirre said.
It's an option, maybe especially so here in Texas, where our state's Attorney General has recently gained some experience as the subject of an SEC investigation.
It didn't register with me that this was a unanimous decision on the part of the Supreme Court, to allow lawsuits against naked short sellers to proceed in state courts. The Court is so ideologically split that it seems unanimous decisions are becoming rarer. They didn't say that cases regarding naked short sellers could proceed on an interplanetary basis, though. So if these attacks are launched by Martians, as some here say, we may be out of luck. Otherwise, it would appear that the Supreme Court is unanimous in their opinion that these attacks have nothing to do with criminal actions by Martians.
The criminal court judge has said that the SpongeTech case remains open for further proceedings. I have been saying all along that there should be dozens of Relief Defendants named in this case. All I want is what you said, several years ago. "I think there are still undiscovered people or entities who have not been discovered and charged in this disaster. I want every last person or thing who profited illegally here brought to justice."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59799686
Hey Jayman any traction here?
Naked short sellers squeezed by Supreme Court
Published by AMI Newswire May 16, 2016
In a sweeping blow to Wall Street investment giants, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously allowed lawsuits against "naked" short sellers in state courts to proceed.
The high court ruled unanimously that shareholders are not confined to federal court when seeking recourse for securities violations. Granting due deference to the important role of state courts, the Court reinforced federalist principles while clarifying congressional intentions to limit the federal governments role.
The ruling, which could give a new boost to startups and small companies targeted by short sellers, showed a rare moment of ideological agreement in the court. Justice Elena Kagan authored the Courts opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued a concurrence.
In 2012, businessman Greg Manning sued Merrill Lynch and other financial institutions in New Jersey state court for purposefully devaluing his company through systematic naked short-selling a term used to describe selling a stock a seller does not own and has not borrowed. In standard short sales, traders either borrow a stock or make sure that it can be borrowed prior to selling it short in the hope that its value will fall before the transaction must be covered.
The practice has come under increasing scrutiny and has been banned in Germany and other major economies.
Metter and Moskowitz stole munny from SPNG speculators who lost munny that could have paid for potentially life-saving medical treatments.
Instead, Mosky and Metter blew the munny on tranny hookers in Switzerland and had a good time with that munny. Mosky was pulling ~OUTT $300-600 a day from SPNG accounts from ATMs - wonder what he did with that cash every day?
Darwin works 24/7 on munny and on genes - munny will flow from those who don't take care of it to those who do. It's inevitable.
Great! I need an RMA for my sponge.
SPNGQ will be back in busy-ness in no time (literally - no time).
STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ will be the new CEO.
David Pilon will be the VP, Psychiatric Division
Jay Booth will be Chief of Lost Potentially Life-Saving Treatments and also Conspiracist-in-Chief.
It will be getting the old band back together - the SPNGQ Dream Team.
With all the investigations and Officer/Promoter confessions showing the company was actually a thriving manufacturing business with an exceptional distribution network all the technical things like missing reports (10 Ks, Qs, for all missing periods, other business/corporate filings fee's and taxes) are almost completed. As promised, Deloitte took over and while that means as befits an organization of this type - everything is done to the highest standards (of course that also requires a great deal of money and time to establish on going systems assuring the future security for all).
So no question - everything just really on the edge (a summer vacation or two of the hard working crew coming to an end clearing the backlog and it all happens) -
So finally - SOON!
Is SPNG on Nasdaq yet?
Is the 10K out yet?
Just be sure unlike the idiots that sold them advertising and put it on their walls for all to see that you get a cashiers check. Unfortunatly what does happen all the time is that those who invest in penny stocks need to trade them and not hold on for life.
Sure...happens all the time.
Stock in a scam of a company with no actual marketable product, that went C-7 Bankruptcy with millions and millions of $ more liabilities than the virtually no assets and a no customers behind the made up sales, is liquidated and de-listed, with the criminal and other actions of fraud and more against the promoters and officers proven to provide no recourse - just magically re-appears and distributes wealth to all.
Yup...as you say - many with the wisdom to buy it and stick with it (because it was destined to make them a millionaire) still think it isn't done. Can't be with the proof being - they aren't millionaires yet.
Check back often....make sure "they" have your address to send the check to.
In fact, why not just leave it and your SS#, bank account access code here and they'll deposit it directly.
is still possible a revival of that stock, some people saying its still not done, anyone ??
Was David Pilon still trying to get his $9,000 back from SPNGQ?
Yes that continuation of his fantasy as fact (well now covering a bit by saying "in his opinion") - which absolutely no one of any matter has been able to grant even a drop of credence to...making it BS is an extension of the same type of sickness that made him heads over tails a believer this stock was destined for greatness.
It is the same wacko-ness against all reality that still feels the need to claim that the SPNG product was good, desired and well distributed. All be clear: That whole line was part of the pump and dump....pumping a product that was terrible....and hiding a fraudulent stock with it. (
Those people telling you how great it was - the same telling you how great the investment, management, and other things were. They simply weren't...but sickos (or poor/ignorant investors) need to believe.....and believe they did.
REGARDLESS of how many other actual legitimate companies had competitive products - and were identified in many posts) and how many others failed. There were even people making almost religiously devout testiments to SPNG products which actually were never ever produced....delusionals. Be absolutely 100% clear - as a look back test: If there was amy real commercial demand or viability for this sponge - any number of other manufacturers would have been happy to fill the void. There ain't. (I do understand that dreaded Spongeables Co - does still exist).
No actual distribution "pipeline" - wasn't any need. Virtually no re-orders...and what Unkie Norm didn't buy back had trouble even finding a closeout market. That left in the warehouse at Dicon had NO MARKET at any price. The pipeline? Called "Retail Slotting Fee's"...remember all the posts advising of that - all you do is pay and your product is on the shelf. Sort of the same as what they did to get the stock to your broker.
That's how it works (It is not a distribution system...and As Seen On TV actually makes it even easier to get the space as they are essentially resllers of the retailer space (space is what the Big Box retailers have to sell! They don't really care much about whats in it)......and all that is one of the reasons that so many products appear for a very short while. An overwhelming amount of products on even the biggest retailers racks are gone within a short while. Having shelf space is NOT success.
All said to point - once again - that just about everything these delusional NSS and "everyone in the world let failed and didn't do what they should" says is BS at best. They willingly bought stock in a crappy company with a terrible product and got swept away in the marketing of it all....and have to find some one - or many - to blame.
LOLOL!! So much for the Citi conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat wearing NSS hunters! Sleepy2016 Wednesday, 07/13/16 05:48:13 PM
Re: None
Post # of 110477
New details on the Citigroup bug that resulted in the omission of blue-sheet data for 15 years:
The glitch resided in new alphanumeric branch codes that the bank had introduced in the mid-1990s. The program code filtered out any transactions that were given three-digit branch codes from 089 to 100 and used those prefixes for testing purposes. The report adds, "But in 1998, the company started using alphanumeric branch codes as it expanded its business. Among them were the codes 10B, 10C and so on, which the system treated as being within the excluded range, and so their transactions were removed from any reports sent to the SEC."
https://it.slashdot.org/story/16/07/13/2037222/programming-bug-costs-citigroup-7m-after-legit-transactions-mistaken-for-test-data-for-15-years
A programming blunder in its reporting software has led to Citigroup being fined $7m. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that error [PDF] resulted in the financial regulator being sent incomplete "blue sheet" information for a remarkable 15 years -- from May 1999 to April 2014. The mistake was discovered by Citigroup itself when it was asked to send a large but precise chunk of trading data to the SEC in April 2014 and asked its technical support team to help identify which internal ID numbers they should run a request on. That team quickly noticed that some branches' trades were not being included in the automated system and alerted those above them. Four days later a patch was in place, but it wasn't until eight months later that the company received a formal report noting that the error had affected SEC reports going back more than a decade. The next month, January 2015, Citigroup fessed up to the SEC.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/13/coding_error_costs_citigroup_7m/
LOL!!!!
No, I haven't read any of Hodges' filings.
I agree that there are some well-informed posters on the DD Fraud Board. I've appreciated several discussions with some of those posters. I look forward to more of them.
Yawn. More tiresome bullshit.
You have zero evidence. Your ranting letters have been kicked from every court you've sent them too. Nobody, and I mean nobody on the DD Fraud board places any credence in those BizarroWorld claims.
What you post is quite simply wronGGG and unfounded - totally unsubstantiated by any evidence.
The only thing to find amusing is the futility of this bizarre, quixotic campaign. It is almost exactly the same as Krazy Al Hodges on CMKX.
Have you read Krazy Al's court filings and the courts' responses kicking him to DaCurb with this NSS ranting? I believe that is where one should start.
Seriously.
Of course the SEC has been negligent. If their charges of selling unregistered shares are correct, then there is (in my opinion) about $390 million of ill-gotten gain made by the stock beneficiaries who sold those unregistered shares. That's not counting penalties and interest, which could double or triple the amount charged.
In terms of naked short selling, we have the charges filed against our primary clearing firm for exactly that offense, as you know. We also have FINRA charges against certain brokerages, which I named previously, for violating RegSHO. The record shows that there appears to be significant and sustained violations in the trading of our stock by these very brokerages.
Meanwhile, the case drags on, with an admittance of guilt obtained by the SEC in the Halperin case, but no such admittance of his guilt in the DOJ case. This will likely be seen more frequently, as the SEC continues to be forced to do their job by the implementation of Dodd-Frank reforms.
We're even seeing Congressional efforts to make the DOJ do their job, such as in regards to the lead prosecutor in the SpongeTech case, Loretta Lynch. I find it all amusing, to say the least.
Ah, butt Moskowitz did in fact swindle you, nott the SEC.
The SEC was nott 'negligent', as the SPNG NSS unicorn is a figment of your imagination.
You've had the blue sheets for years now and you still cannot show a single share of the mythical NSS.
So, what is it that you claim cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in opportunity costs while owning stock of criminal enterprise SPNG?
Moskowitz's swindling has NOT cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I never said that it did.
In a search for a contractor to replace my roof I had 5 estimates provided from 5 different companies. STEVEN MOSKOWITZ of Renovex LLC gave me the best price by over a couple thousand dollars. This was too good to pass on, so I hired Renovex to do the job.
Steve immediately demanded 60% of the cost to be paid upfront. I was hesitant so I told him once the material arrives on site I would give him the 60%. He rudely told me "I am not a bank, and I won't lay out that kind of money." We eventually came to an agreement. The following day, 80% of the material arrived and so I paid him in good faith. That was my second mistake. My first mistake was hiring him in the first place. I was initially promised that the entire job would be completed in 3-5 work days. Over the course of 3 weeks I've heard one excuse after the other. It went from bad weather (which never came) to family emergencies, to sick days (6 in a row, with no communication) This company left my roof unprotected which lead to a semi-major leak in multiple areas of my home. I am currently in the process of filing a claim against his insurance, which I'm beginning to think is fraudulent. I have gotten no where. After over three weeks from the start date they were only competent enough to complete 45% of the job. I had finally had enough of the excuses and contacted Steve. I told him I have no other recourse at this point. I need to hire someone else to complete the job. His response was, "Why didn't you tell me that my workers haven't been there in over 5 days? You are just trying to steal my materials and I will see you in court!" As if I'm responsible for managing his labor force. Save yourself the headache, don't use Renovex LLC for ANYTHING! It was a waste of my time and money in the long run. It was the least professional management I've ever dealt with in my entire life. PLEASE DON'T BE TEMPTED BY THE LOW COST, IT IS A FACADE THAT IS WELL WORTH AVOIDING!
Ross G. and 1 other voted for this review
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |