Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frank DiPascali, Jr.

Civ. Doc #09-CV-7085 (2009)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frank DiPascali, Jr.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Civ. Doc #09-CV-7085 (2009)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

[Editor’s Note: This brief summarizes only the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Frank DiPascali, Jr.] Bernard Madoff was the owner of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS), a broker-dealer and investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff). Madoff was charged civilly and criminally with conducting a massive securities fraud at BMIS by falsely claiming to be pursuing a certain investment strategy on behalf of clients and preparing customer confirmations and account statements reflecting trades that never occurred. Frank DiPascali, Jr. (defendant) worked at BMIS for 35 years. The SEC filed a complaint alleging that DiPascali violated the books-and-records requirements of § 17(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 17a-3 thereunder by designing, preparing, and overseeing fictitious books and records to conceal Madoff’s fraud from investors, auditors, and regulators. The SEC alleged that DiPascali (1) helped to fabricate backdated and fictitious trades and record them in investor account records for the purpose of generating fictitious returns; (2) when the volume of investor accounts increased, helped Madoff identify basket trades that achieved a fictitious target rate of return and oversaw the computer system that allocated the fictitious trades to individual accounts and generated the trade confirmations and account statements that were mailed to investors; (3) knew that the trading was fictitious, no securities were ever purchased, transaction prices were picked after the fact to generate fictitious returns, no trade confirmations or account statements came from anywhere outside of BMIS, and investor funds were deposited in a bank account that was not reflected on the books and records of BMIS’s broker-dealer operation; and (4) oversaw the computer system for generating books and records reflecting fictitious trading in BMIS’s advisory accounts. The SEC also alleged that to help avoid detection of the fraudulent scheme during audits and examinations, DiPascali (1) created fake books and records for a small subset of special accounts that concealed the magnitude of the advisory accounts; (2) prepared alternate account statements and records for the special accounts to substantiate Madoff’s claim that securities that were never actually purchased were custodied someplace other than at BMIS; (3) created fake Depository Trust Company reports for those advisory accounts for which BMIS purported to hold custody of the assets; (4) created a list of option counterparties that were unlikely to be approached for verification and false trade blotters that included the counterparty information; and (5) used a random-number-generator program to respond to regulators’ request for order-execution information. The SEC sought injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership