SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 49139 / January 28, 2004

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11384


In the Matter of

Ronald W. Pinto,

Respondent.


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Ronald W. Pinto ("Respondent").

II.

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings, and the findings contained in Section III.2 and III.4 below, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions ("Order"), as set forth below.

III.

On the basis of this Order and Respondent's Offer, the Commission finds that:

1. From 1987 to 2000, Respondent was a registered representative at Nomura Securities International, Inc. ("Nomura"), a broker-dealer registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act.

2. On January 21, 2004, Respondent was permanently restrained and enjoined by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Anthony Dong-Yin Shen, et al., Civil Action Number 01 Civ. 2438 (GBD)) from violating, directly or indirectly, and aiding and abetting any violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

3. The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that Respondent engaged in a scheme in which he gave kickbacks, cash payments, and other improper gifts and gratuities to Anthony Dong-Yin Shen ("Shen") and Srinivas Anumolu ("Anumolu"), bond traders at New York Life Insurance Company, Inc. ("New York Life"). In return, Shen and Anumolu sent Respondent a flow of securities transactions on behalf of New York Life, frequently at prices that favored his employer, Nomura, at the expense of New York Life.

4. On May 8, 2002, Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud in violation of, among other provisions, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Ronald Pinto, 01 Cr. 249 (SWK). The count of the criminal indictment to which Respondent pleaded guilty charged him with willfully employing manipulative and deceptive devices in the kickback scheme with Shen and Anumolu, which operated as a fraud and deceit upon New York Life in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. On November 13, 2002, a judgment in the criminal case was entered against Respondent, and he was sentenced to a prison term of 21 months.

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanction specified in Respondent Pinto's Offer.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent Pinto be, and hereby is, barred from association with any broker or dealer.

Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against the Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary