www.BackgroundNow.com, Informed Networks Corporation RSS Feed
Announcing: The 2008 www.BackgroundNow.com Most Wanted Crime Stories
www.BackgroundNow.com blogs high profile federal criminal and civil cases and readers rank their interest by count of their reading choices. From thousands of blog posts, these are the Top-10 Most Wanted BackgroundNow.com Crime Stories for 2008. Please remember that complaints and indictments are mere accusations and not evidence of guilt. In the United States all defendants are innocent if or until proven guilty.
#10: 22 Michigan Residents, Led by Brian Osburn, Indicted in Huge Marijuana Indoor Grow Investigation
#8: Johnny Mack Brown Captured, U.S. Marshals “15 Most Wanted”
#7 Adult Entertainment Producer, Paul F. Little, Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison on Obscenity Charges
#6 SEC’s Complaint Against Joseph Shereshevsky, Steven Byers, Wextrust And Axela
Now at Amazon.com: The Case Against Joseph Shereshevsky, Steven Byers & Wextrust: Case 1:08-cv-07104-DC Securities and Exchange Commission v. Byers et al (Paperback)
#2 In The Matter Of Petro America Corporation, Owen Hawkins And Martin Roper
Now at Amazon.com: The Fraud Indictment Of Dina Wein Reis, Suzanne Carrico, Sarah Golden, Chaya Cooper, Et. Al
www.BackgroundNow.com Staff Choices:
Now at Amazon.com: USA v The Mongols Outlaw Motorcycle Gang: Two Federal Indictments And Dozens Arrested, The USA’s Efforts To Dismantle The Mongols (Paperback)
Now at Amazon.com: “Bernard L. Madoff Charged In Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme: Complaint Filed In Federal Court And Application For Emergency Relief”
Coming Soon To Amazon.com: “Bernard L. Madoff: The Five Federal Court Cases Filed December 2008 Official Federal Court Case Files”By BackgroundNow.com Staff
This new publication book includes the following content:
CASE #: 1:08-mj-02735-UA-1 USA v. MadoffDOCKET, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, 12/11/2008 HEARING TRANSCRIPTION
CASE #: 1:08-cv-10791-LLS SEC v. MadoffCOMPLAINT, ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, SIPA ORDER, ORDER ON CONSENT IMPOSING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CLASS ACTION CASE 2:2008cv05026 Kellner v. MadoffDOCKET, COMPLAINT, SUMMONS
CLASS ACTION CASE 2:2008cv08260 Michael Chaleff v. Bernard L MadoffDOCKET, COMPLAINT, NEW CASE ORDER
ADVERSARY BANKRUPTCY CASE 1-08-ap-01789Securities Investor Protection CorporationV.Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC.Bernard L. MadoffDOCKET, PLUS FILINGS DATED 12/11/2008 THROUGH 12/30/2008
ISBN / EAN13: 1441429069 / 9781441429063Page Count: 308Binding Type: US Trade PaperTrim Size: 8″ x 10″Language: EnglishColor: Black and WhiteRelated Categories: Law / Court Records
According to regulatory filings, the Madoff firm had more than $17 billion in assets under management as of the beginning of 2008. It appears that virtually all assets of the advisory business are missing.
Madoff founded the firm in 1960 and has been a prominent member of the securities industry throughout his career. Madoff served as vice chairman of the NASD, a member of its board of governors, and chairman of its New York region. He was also a member of NASDAQ Stock Market’s board of governors and its executive committee and served as chairman of its trading committee.
Complaints charge the defendants with violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In addition to emergency and interim relief, the SEC seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and ordering them to pay financial penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest.
The SEC’s investigation is continuing.
“Bernard L. Madoff: The Five Federal Court Cases Filed December 2008″ delivers court documents and transcripts that provide in-depth facts and background regarding Madoff’s business practices — detailed information not found in newspapers or magazines.
About BackgroundNow.comwww.BackgroundNow.com was launched in August 2003 and provides a complete range background checks, custom research, related blogs and publishing of high-profile federal case files. BackgroundNow.com serves hundreds of companies throughout the USA. Call Lee Hill directly, 1 (713) 784-3232 x3142, to discuss any of these services. And go to Amazon.com for “BackgroundNow.com Staff” publications.
Dina Wein Reis, Suzanne Carrico, Sarah Golden, Chaya Cooper, Sheryl Raport, And Steve Manenti Indicted In Fraud
The Federal Court Case Files May Now Be Purchased from he Publisher
The seven-count indictment, unsealed today, was returned by a federal grand jury in Indianapolis on Oct. 22, 2008. New York residents Dina Wein Reis, 44, Suzanne Carrico, 34, Sarah Golden, 36, and Chaya Cooper, 39, and New Jersey resident Sheryl Raport, 41, were arrested today and are scheduled to make their initial appearance today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Steve Manenti, 72, a resident of Chicago, surrendered to authorities and will make his initial appearance today in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois.
The indictment alleges that between January 2000 and October 2008, the defendants obtained consumer goods at discounted prices from manufacturers and distributors of consumer products by falsely informing them that the defendants would donate those products to non-profit organizations for promotional purposes. In fact, the defendants intended to, and did, sell those goods at substantial profit to wholesalers, retail stores and others. According to the indictment, manufacturers of consumer products often set aside a portion of their product to be sold to charitable organizations, to various programs that market and promote the manufacturers’ product and to authorized retailers outside of the United States for substantially discounted prices. Manufacturers often do so to aid humanitarian organizations, to engender goodwill for their product and to increase sales for their product by promoting it to a new sector of the market.
The indictment specifically alleges that the defendants contacted the businesses and claimed that Reis controlled valuable business ventures that could distribute and promote their products to hundreds or thousands of retail outlets to which Reis had exclusive access, such as pharmacies, grocery stores, salons or hardware stores. The defendants allegedly told the businesses that to take advantage of placing their company’s product in Reis’ supposed retail outlets, their companies would have to sell the defendants, at extremely discounted prices, a large quantity of product, which defendants falsely stated would be distributed as free samples to non-profit organizations such as senior living communities, schools and American Indian reservations. The defendants are alleged to have falsely told the businesses that if the samples of their product were favorably received by these potential consumers, demand for their product would increase, and the companies’ products in the future could be promoted, distributed and widely sold through Reis’ purported network of retail stores, which would lead to significant growth in sales and profits for the corporations. Once the defendants received the products they allegedly sold them to wholesalers, retailers and distributors at a substantial profit for themselves rather than provide samples through their purported non-profit program as they claimed.
If the defendants are convicted, the conspiracy charge carries a maximum 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The charge of wire fraud carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The Trend Toward Free Background Checks - Federal, State & Local Governments Open Access to Records
The Center For Democracy & Technology conducts surveys of the practices of federal, state and local courts in making information public via the Internet. It finds a wide variety of practices and policies, and an important, nearly singular trend. Courts and other government background check services are making their records available to anyone via the Internet, often for free.
Free background checks are being offered by many government sources. Are background checks becoming an "open source" service?
Governments are making records available that span statewide background check services to many instances of single jurisdictions, such as county-level courts, providing Internet access to their records. Some governments provide access to both criminal and civil records while others restrict users' access to records that may contain sensitive background check information. And while some governments offer free comprehensive access to their background check services, many others charge users a range of fees for Internet access.
On the one hand, moving to post background check services to the Internet represents a hushed upheaval in transparency and accountability for both individuals and government, part of a rapidly shifting social reality. Public access to electronic court background check services provides a convenient way for the public to broaden government checks and balances and ensure the fairness and equality of its operations.
Concurrent to the trend towards background check transparency, governments are struggling to find balance, such as balancing privacy and accountability. What information should be available Internet? Many governments make judicial opinions at the appellate levels freely available Internet but do not offer Internet access to trial court proceedings, which generally contain more detailed and sensitive evidence. Others offer access to trial court dockets and a variety of other information at the trial level. Should a distinction be drawn between civil cases and criminal background check access? Another set of issues concern cost. Is it appropriate to charge for Internet access? Does a subscription or fee-based system unfairly discriminate against those who cannot afford fees for background check services? Do fees exclude everyday citizens? Questions like these pose a significant challenge to governments attempting to design background check services.
In addition to exclusions that may be caused by background check fees, there's a knowledge gap. Very few citizens are aware that the information is available to them, much less what type or how to find it. Yet, for example, the entire Federal Court System is open to all. A search can lead to the federal government's registry for all federal criminal, civil, bankruptcy and tax cases, for example. The federal registry charges 8-cents per search.
County courthouse websites can be located, many of which offer free searches of criminal, civil and traffic court cases. Also, Secretary Of State records can be accessed, giving users free background check information on business ownership and transactions.
In addition the web offers articles on important issues and laws, such as those surrounding privacy rights. Guideline for conducting background checks can also be found.
It provides anyone with the ability to search and locate individuals and businesses, criminal and civil court records, property records, bankruptcies, liens, judgments, tax cases, business records, employment histories, federal government exclusion lists, OFAC records, FDA debarment records, healthcare sanctions records -- in short, information to conduct a thorough background background check.
There remains quite a bit of secrecy and misunderstanding surrounding background checks. In part because it was long the domain of private investigators who kept the tricks of the trade to themselves, such as the mythology "nationwide criminal records databases" that report criminal records from every jurisdiction in the United States. No such background check exists.
Many commercial background check companies offer database searches that cover many jurisdictions in the majority of states, but they are all incomplete. Commercial nationwide criminal records databases can cover a lot of ground and inexpensively. So, they are worthwhile. However, they may not include the jurisdiction needed. The FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division manages the National Crime Information Center, a database of nationwide criminal records. It is the most complete source of records, yet even it is not perfect. Most misdemeanors are not included in the database and many county and state records never make their way to the FBI. En route to the FBI from counties and states there are breakdowns in the process.
All this to say, you can do your own, free background checks. However, it's not always straightforward, you may need to do some homework to do it right.
Welcome to the Houston Area Privately Held Companies Community on IncBizNet!
Welcome to the community for executives from privately held companies in the Houston metro area! Your business is successful, and you’ve learned a few things on your professional journey. Why not become the moderator of this community? Community moderators are senior managers who lead discussions that take place via blogs and discussion boards here on IncBizNet.com.
Moderating an IncBizNet community will provide additional exposure for your company and offer an excellent opportunity to share your knowledge and interact with an expert audience. As a moderator, your time commitment would consist primarily of leading by posting occasional two to three-paragraph posts to this community’s blog and posting/answering questions to the discussion boards. Executives from executives on IncBizNet are able to post follow-up questions, comments, and other reactions. We also strongly encourage monthly gatherings either in person or via phone (we'll help set up the calls).
We’re excited to provide a collective space where executives from privately held executives can talk about specific issues that affect their businesses! If you’d like to be considered as a moderator for the Houston metro area community, please contact Twanna A. Hines at thines@inc.com.
