Matter of Steven Bocchino and Sharon Harosh

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 50739 / November 26, 2004

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11628

In the Matter of STEVEN BOCCHINO, and SHARON HAROSH, Respondent.

: : : : : : : : :

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT

I dismissed this proceeding as to Sharon Harosh ("Harosh") without prejudice on November 4, 2004, because the record did not establish that Harosh was served with the Order Instituting Proceedings ("OIP"), issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") on September 2, 2004. Steven Bocchino and Sharon Harosh, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50631 (Nov. 4, 2004).

On November 19, 2004, the Division of Enforcement ("Division") filed (1) a motion requesting reconsideration of my dismissal order and for entry of an order defaulting Harosh ("Motion"), and (2) a memorandum in support of the Motion. The basis for the Motion is that the Division obtained a Notice of Appearance, signed by Steven Kartagener on November 8, 2004, stating that Mr. Kartagener, an attorney authorized to practice before the courts of the State of New York, appears for Harosh in this proceeding. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.102. The Division submitted a copy of the Notice of Appearance with the Motion.

Ruling

Based on these facts, I GRANT the Division's Motion, and I find that Harosh was served with the OIP on September 7, 2004, by service on Steven Kartagener, and that Harosh is in default for not filing an Answer to the OIP, and for not appearing at the prehearing conference on October 12, 2004. Accordingly, I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true. See 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a), .220(f), .221(f); OIP at 3.

Harosh, currently a 30-year-old resident of Israel, was president of Goldman Lender Co. Holdings ("Goldman") and the sole proprietor of Blackwell Co. ("Blackwell"), firms which operated as unregistered broker-dealers. From approximately May 1997 through July 1998, Harosh participated in the offerings of Goldman and Blackwell, which were "penny stocks" as that term is used in Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and defined by Section 3(a)(51) of the Exchange Act and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder.

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

Traderz Associates Holding Inc. ("Traderz") was incorporated in Delaware in March 1997, and has never been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. In 1997 and 1998, Traderz operated out of an office at 80 Broad Street, New York, New York.

In 1998, Harosh established Blackwell as a sole proprietorship. Blackwell has never been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. In 1997 and 1998, Blackwell operated out of an office at 110 Wall Street, New York, New York.

On July 15, 2002, Harosh 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 civil complaint alleged that 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, Traderz, and Blackwell, and sold the stock through a series of boiler rooms. Directly or through unregistered salespeople acting at their direction, Harosh and the other 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.

In May 2002, on the basis of his guilty plea in a related criminal case, judgment was entered against Harosh for one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, one count of securities fraud, two counts of wire fraud, five counts of money laundering, and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(b) and 77x, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1342, 1343, 1956(a)(2)(B), and 1956(h) by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. United States v. Sharon Harosh, 01 CR. 244 (S.D.N.Y.) (LAP). The counts of the criminal information to which Harosh pled guilty alleged, among other things, that he defrauded investors and obtained money and property by means of materially false and misleading statements in connection with some of the fraudulent offerings at issue in the civil case.

Order

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