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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16641 / AUGUST 2, 2000

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. SANJAY SAXENA AND MUMTAZ SAXENA, Civil Action No. 98-11918-EFH (D. Mass.)

SEC WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR FOR VIOLATING A COMMISSION BAR ORDER AND FRAUDULENTLY SELLING UNREGISTERED SECURITIES

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today that on July 25, 2000, the District Court in Massachusetts entered a final judgment against Defendants Sanjay Saxena and Mumtaz Saxena enjoining them from further violations of the registration provisions and the general antifraud and investment advisor antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The judgment also directed the Saxenas to pay disgorgement in the total amount of $304,703 plus prejudgment interest in the total amount of $62,501 and to pay civil monetary penalties in the total amount of $354,703.

On September 18, 1998, the Commission filed a complaint alleging that in 1995 the Commission barred Sanjay Saxena from the securities industry due to prior securities law violations. Months later, Saxena and his wife, Mumtaz Saxena, implemented a scheme to evade the bar by setting up an investment adviser, Saxena Capital Management Inc., and two investment companies, Index Timing Fund L.P. and Saxena Growth Fund, for which Mumtaz Saxena was nominally the principal. In reality Sanjay Saxena was actively associated with these entities from the outset and their investment decisions tracked the recommendations in newsletters that he published over an Internet website entitled "Vital Information." The Commission alleged that Sanjay Saxena violated the bar by associating with the entities as well as by continuing to receive fees under a separate consulting agreement with a broker-dealer. Further, the Saxenas made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors in their companies and they failed to register the two investment companies with the Commission. Accordingly, the Saxenas violated the anti-fraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 by offering and selling unregistered securities. Sanjay Saxena also violated Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. On June 30, 2000, the Commission filed a motion for summary judgement against the Saxenas which the Court granted on July 18, 2000.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16641.htm


Modified:08/04/2000