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. 50638 / November 5, 2004

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11632


In the Matter of

DAVID ABISH, CHRISTOPHER BETTS, MARK CHARVAT, JAMES CORCORAN, PAUL FEENY, ROBERT PRATT, MARIO RODRIGUEZ, SCOTT SIEGEL, ANDREW TURSI and DAVID WEEKS,

Respondents.



:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS TO DAVID ABISH, CHRISTOPHER BETTS, MARK CHARVAT, ROBERT PRATT, MARIO RODRIGUEZ, SCOTT SIEGEL AND ANDREW TURSI

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") instituted public administrative proceedings on September 3, 2004, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against David Abish ("Abish"), Christopher Betts ("Betts"), Mark Charvat ("Charvat"), James Corcoran, Paul Feeny, Robert Pratt ("Pratt"), Mario Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), Scott Siegel ("Siegel"), Andrew Tursi ("Tursi") and David Weeks.

II.

Following institution of this proceeding, Abish, Betts, Charvat, Pratt, Rodriguez, Siegel and Tursi (collectively, the "Settling Respondents") submitted Offers of Settlement (the "Offers"), 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 Sections III.B. through III.H. below, which are admitted, the Settling Respondents consent to the entry of this Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act (the "Order"), as set forth below.

III.

On the basis of this Order and the Settling Respondents' Offers, the Commission finds that:

A. Each of the Settling Respondents was a registered representative associated with Sterling Foster & Company, Inc. ("Sterling Foster") between October 1994 and February 1997. Sterling Foster was registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act.

B. On January 23, 2002, Abish pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Abish, 00 CR 91. On October 29, 2002, Abish was sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay $157,738 in restitution.

C. On December 19, 2000, Betts pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, three counts of securities fraud, in violation of Title 15 United States Code, Section 78j(b), and one count of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1341 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Betts, 00 CR 91. On October 29, 2002, Betts was sentenced to 12 months home confinement and ordered to pay $1,335,068 in restitution.

D. On March 14, 2001, Charvat pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371 and one count of securities fraud, in violation of Title 15 United States Code, Section 78j(b) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Charvat, 00 CR 91. On October 29, 2002, Charvat was sentenced to 6 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,124,023 in restitution.

E. On March 30, 2001, Pratt pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Pratt, 00 CR 91. On December 10, 2001, Pratt was sentenced to 28 months in prison and ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution.

F. On April 5, 2002, Rodriguez pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, one count of securities fraud in violation of Title 15 United States Code Section 78j(b), and one count of concealing assets and making a false oath or claim in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 152 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Rodriguez, 00 CR 191. On October 31, 2002, Rodriguez was sentenced to 366 days in prison and ordered to pay $1,185,287.50 in restitution.

G. On April 4, 2001, Siegel pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Siegel, 00 CR 91. On October 28, 2002, Siegel was sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay $727,931 in restitution.

H. On April 25, 2001, Tursi pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Tursi, 00 CR 91. On October 28, 2002, Tursi was sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,120,816 in restitution.

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in the Settling Respondents' Offers.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, Settling Respondents Abish, Betts, Charvat, Pratt, Rodriguez, Siegel and Tursi be, and hereby are, barred from association with any broker or dealer.

Any reapplication for association by any of the Settling Respondents 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 a Settling 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 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 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 Order.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary


http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-50638.htm


Modified: 11/05/2004