U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20350 / October 30, 2007
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2748 / October 30, 2007
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ramoil Management Ltd. et al., Case No. 01 CIV 9057 (SC) S.D.N.Y
Court Orders Civil Penalty, Injunctions Against Corporate Attorney Who Submitted False Filings to Commission
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on October 25, 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Decision and Order finding Defendant Moneesh K. Bakshi, former corporate counsel to Ramoil Management Ltd., liable for securities fraud for having submitted false and misleading documents to the Commission. Following a trial, the Court found Bakshi violated the federal securities laws, and aided and abetted Ramoil's violation of the securities laws, by (1) submitting a false and misleading Form10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999, which included a phony audit opinion; and (2) filing four false and misleading Forms S-8, which fraudulently issued shares of Ramoil stock to four offshore consulting firms in exchange for non-existent "consulting services," and included false attorney opinion letters by Bakshi. These filings were available to the public on the Commission's EDGAR database.
In the filings, the Court found that Bakshi "was intentionally misrepresenting material information." The Court ruled that Bakshi violated Sections 17(a), 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and aided and abetted Ramoil's violation of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 15d-1 thereunder.
The Court enjoined Bakshi from future violations of the securities laws, ordered him to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, and enjoined Bakshi from representing clients before the Commission and filing any documents with the Commission. "Bakshi knowingly violated numerous securities laws, and did so repeatedly," the Court concluded. "While he testified that he has no intention of practicing in the securities field in the future, he did not acknowledge the wrongfulness of what he has already done. The Court therefore finds injunctive relief appropriate."