Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 50648 / November 9, 2004

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11549


In the Matter of

BRUCE H. BARBERS and CRAIG H. COLWELL,

Respondents.



:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b)(6) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE OF 1934 AS TO CRAIG H. COLWELL

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") issued its Order Instituting Proceedings against Craig H. Colwell ("Colwell" or "Respondent") and Bruce H. Barbers on July 15, 2004, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").

II.

In response to these proceedings, Colwell has submitted an Offer of Settlement ("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. below, which are admitted, Colwell consents to the entry of this Order Making Findings and Imposing Sanctions ("Order"), as set forth below.

III.

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

A. Craig H. Colwell was employed as a registered representative and Managing Director by Sutter Securities, Inc. ("Sutter Securities"), a registered broker-dealer based in San Francisco, California, from December 1992 through April 1998.

B. On February 16, 2000, Colwell pled guilty to a two-count information charging him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and securities fraud, and with engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. United States v. Craig H. Colwell, Criminal Case No. 00-20026-01-D (W.D. TN, Memphis Division 2000).

C. The information alleged, and the plea agreement admitted that, between January 1994 and October 1996, while employed as a registered representative and Managing Director of Sutter Securities, a registered broker-dealer, Colwell conspired with David I. Namer ("Namer") and others to commit mail, wire, and securities fraud by accepting undisclosed payments from Namer as an incentive to sell certain securities provided by Namer to the investing public through Sutter Securities and concealed the payments from customers, brokers and dealers to prevent them from knowing the origin and source of the payments.

D. Craig H. Colwell's criminal conviction, which arose out of his conduct as an associated person of a broker-dealer, Sutter Securities, involved fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, which was an object of the conspiracy. Between January 1994 and October 1996, David I. Namer paid Colwell a total of $90,000. The two agreed that Namer would pay Colwell as an incentive to cause Sutter Securities to purchases certain notes for resale and for Colwell to sell them to investors. Colwell concealed the payments from customers, brokers, dealers and Sutter Securities.

E. Craig H. Colwell's judgment of conviction was entered on December 20, 2002.

IV.

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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Craig H. Colwell 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.

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

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary