U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 50631 / November 4, 2004

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11628


In the Matter of

STEVEN BOCCHINO, and SHARON HAROSH,



:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT AGAINST STEVEN BOCCHINO AND DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO SHARON HAROSH

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") initiated this proceeding on September 2, 2004, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). Respondent Bocchino was served with the Order Instituting Proceedings ("OIP") on September 7, 2004. The OIP for Respondent Harosh was addressed to Sharon Harosh c/o Steven Kartaganer, Esq., 225 Broadway, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10007. The Post Office's return receipt form was signed by J. Clarke at that address on September 7, 2004. Mr. Kartaganer has not filed a notice of appearance to represent Respondent Harosh as required by Rule 102(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. 17 C.F.R. 201.102(d).

Respondents did not file an Answer and did not participate in the prehearing conference on October 12, 2004. Notice of the prehearing conference was sent to Respondent Bocchino directly and to Respondent Harosh c/o Mr. Kartaganer. Prior to the prehearing conference, Respondent Bocchino received but did not respond to a letter from the Division of Enforcement ("Division") requesting that he communicate with the Division. (Tr. 7.) Mr. Kartaganer, acting for Respondent Harosh, informed the Division that Respondent Harosh was residing in Israel, and that Respondent Harosh would not participate in this administrative proceeding. (Tr. 4-7.)

A second prehearing conference is scheduled for November 12, 2004. On November 1, 2004, the Division informed my office that the procedural posture of the proceeding is unchanged.

Findings of Fact

The OIP specifies that it shall be served on Respondent Harosh personally or by certified mail. The record does not establish that Respondent Harosh has been served with the OIP. Accordingly, I cannot determine whether the allegations in the OIP are true as to Respondent Harosh.

Respondent Bocchino's Answer was due on September 27, 2004. (OIP; 17 C.F.R. 201.220(b).) Respondent Bocchino is in default because he failed to file an Answer and to participate in a prehearing conference of which he had notice. Accordingly, I find the following allegations to be true as to Respondent Bocchino. See 17 C.F.R. 201.155(a), .220(f).

Respondent Bocchino is a thirty-three-year-old resident of East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. From approximately May 1997 through July 1998 ("relevant period"), Respondent Bocchino was a registered representative of Raike Financial Group, Inc., a registered broker-dealer. During the relevant period, Respondent Bocchino participated in offerings of Goldman Lender Co. Holdings ("Goldman Lender") and Traderz Associates Holding Inc. ("Traderz") stock, which were "penny stocks" as that term is used in Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act and defined by Section 3(a)(51)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder.

In May 1998, Goldman Lender was incorporated in the State of Delaware. Goldman Lender has never been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. During the relevant period, Goldman Lender maintained an office at 31 Bay Ridge Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

Traderz was incorporated in the State of Delaware in March 1997. Traderz has never been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. During the relevant period, Traderz operated out of an office at 80 Broad Street in New York, New York.

Respondent Harosh established Blackwell Co. ("Blackwell"), a sole proprietorship, in 1998. Blackwell has never been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. During the relevant period, Blackwell operated out of an office at 110 Wall Street, New York, New York.

On December 8, 2002, Respondent Bocchino was permanently enjoined from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in SEC v. Goldman Lender, 98 Civ. 7525 (S.D.N.Y.) (JGK). The Commission's underlying complaint alleged that Respondents Bocchino, Harosh, and other defendants fraudulently raised approximately $2.1 million through six fraudulent offerings of securities. In various combinations, the defendants allegedly created phony private placements of stock of six issuers, including Goldman Lender, Traderz, and Blackwell-and sold the stock through a series of boiler rooms. Directly or through unregistered salespeople acting at their direction, the defendants used high-pressure sales tactics and false and misleading representations to fraudulently induce investors to buy the stock. In each of the offerings, the primary selling point was the promise of an imminent initial public offering that would allow investors to quickly reap significant profits on their investment in the purported private placements.

Ruling

Based on these factual findings and public interest considerations, I ORDER, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that Steven Bocchino is barred from association with a broker or dealer and from participating in an offering of penny stock.

I FURTHER ORDER that the proceeding is dismissed without prejudice as to Sharon Harosh because the record does not establish that Respondent Harosh was served and therefore he did not have notice and opportunity for hearing on the allegations in the OIP.

The dismissal without prejudice in Richard Cannistraro, 53 S.E.C. 388 (1998) occurred when the Division did not accomplish service seven months after issuance of the OIP. In this situation, the Division did not accomplish service on Respondent two months after the Commission issued the OIP. However, since the ruling in Cannistraro, the Commission has modified the Rules of Practice to make clear that administrative proceedings should move to resolution with expedition. See 17 C.F.R. 201.161(b), .360.

_______________________________
Brenda P. Murray
Chief Administrative Law Judge


http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-50631.htm


Modified: 11/04/2004