Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Russian traders and investors in cryptocurrencies have been waiting with baited breath for many months for the Russian government to regulate its cryptocurrency industry. While leading banks and financial institutions in Russia have voiced their willingness to work with cryptocurrencies – due largely to increased demand from Russian investors – the government has opted to remove all mention of ‘cryptocurrency’ terminology from its legal documentation.
Plans to implement a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in Russia have been put on the back burner for some time now. The framework was originally scheduled for adoption in July when three bills were submitted in the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, as ordered by President Putin. Nevertheless, government deputies battled in vain to synchronise and combine the draft bills into a unified piece of legislation.
Russian lawmakers have instead confirmed that a revised framework for “digital financial assets” will be unveiled for public discussion later in the autumn, with the aim of securing regulatory adoption by the end of 2018 for Russia’s crypto investors. The term ‘cryptocurrency’ has presented plenty of headaches for lawyers, who’ve been recently attempting to create new legal definitions for the industry in Russia. According to Izvestia, a daily broadsheet in Russia which claims to have seen the latest version of the government’s draft bill, they have sought to remove the mention of cryptocurrency altogether.
Instead, the draft describes cryptocurrency as the issuance of digital tokens designed to attract capital investments; a definition that looks well-aligned to that of initial coin offerings (ICOs). The government has been under increasing pressure to provide a regulatory framework since a group of Russia’s largest business enterprises – the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE) – published an ‘alternative bill’ granting “special status” to cryptocurrency. Russians will continue to buy and sell cryptocurrency regardless. There is an ever-increasing option of trading platforms and a great choice of options to deposit into cryptocurrency exchanges too. It's not just Bitcoin that alternative deposit methods favour either. For those looking to buy Ethereum PayPal is now a legitimate option, removing the need for a traditional bank account to be involved with buying and selling these digital assets.
Russia-based cryptocurrency enthusiasts can even exchange crypto coins for the nation’s fiat currency, the ruble, and receive funds direct to their bank accounts and their cryptocurrency and fiat e-wallets. The service called Best Change now allows Russian investors to get the best possible exchange rate for their digital assets by listing the verified online exchanges capable of accepting the desired transaction.
The Federal Financial Monitoring Service of Russia commissioned an analytical tool designed to provide a clear overview of all crypto transactions completed, with a primary focus on Bitcoin. It is clear that the Russian government has been keen to gain a greater understanding of the crypto landscape for some time. By the end of this year, it is hoped the tool will be active, with the ability to store data on specific Bitcoin transactions and the wallet addresses of those sending and receiving digital assets. The Russian government hopes the tool will help to counter financial fraud in a more effective manner.
Facebook Inc. is built into the daily lives of most westerners, whether in social life, business or communities. Going a day without Facebook is a challenge and many can very easily admit they couldn’t live without it.
On the other hand, there is a rising group of people who are unhappy with the supposed exploitation of information, user engagement and sales opportunities from Facebook’s part. The #deletefacebook movement is on the rise, and those invested in their own privacy are increasingly concerned about using the social media platform, sharing their photos or adding their personal details to their page.
Even Brian Acton, ex-boss of WhatsApp, another social messaging app that was bought by Facebook in 2014 for $19 billion, joined in with #deletefacebook.
https://twitter.com/brianacton/status/976231995846963201
Some even believe Facebook is always listening… The propagation of smart and appropriate user directed ads on Facebook ahs led many users to misunderstand the systems Facebook has implemented to show the right ads to the right people. Many seem to think Facebook hears your conversations and tries to sell you on the back of them.
In extreme cases, some have gone as far as trying to sue Facebook for misuse of their data or likeness. But is such a thing even possible? And even if you did sue Facebook, would you have a leg to stand on?
In the first quarter of 2018, Facebook was hit with a major scandal that really pushed worldwide privacy worries over the edge; Cambridge Analytica. The ordeal that took place led to government investigations into Facebook’s processes, in particular regards to political campaign ads, and severely angered many users, to the point some threatened and tried to sue. One group got together to present a 27-page letter to Facebook, threatening a lawsuit on the grounds of breaching British data privacy regulations. In the US, many businesses and individuals filed very real lawsuits against Facebook, but the social media giant stood to defend them.
This is one of many lawsuits Facebook has faced on the back of its data policies, ad monitoring, and political campaign advertising operations. Let’s take a look at some others.
In March 2018, three users brought a lawsuit to Facebook claiming it had been documenting their calls and text messages, facts which Facebook acknowledged but said the users had opted in on via their smartphones.
In April 2018, popular journalist and TV star Martin Lewis sued Facebook for defamation, on the basis that it is a publisher, over the use of his face in Bitcoin ads. Though Lewis tried many times to stop Facebook allowing scammers to use his face in ads without permission, Facebook failed to eradicate the issue.
In June 2018, Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Facebook with claims it had failed to maintain legal standards for political campaign ads ran in Washington state dating back to 2013.
In July 2018, one of Facebook’s shareholders, James Kacouris, sued the company following the largest drop in stock price in wall Street history. The shareholder accused Facebook of misleading statements regarding its user figures and operations.
In August 2018, hundreds of social media users in India had their social media details submitted to the Delhi High Court on the back of PepsiCo’s lawsuit against Facebook (and Twitter & YouTube) for allowing the circulation of ‘defamatory and disparaging’ posts against one of its brands, Kurkure.
More recently, Facebook has been sued by the Trump Administration, which joined a suit filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance for violating the Fair Housing Act and allegedly diverting housing ads away from potential tenants.
https://twitter.com/newsworldforev4/status/1030747484019146753
As of time of publication, none of the above lawsuits have concluded, meaning only time and hard evidence will tell us whether the law is greater than Facebook, and whether in the long run, it is at all possible to sue Facebook.
Though, in the case of data privacy law and damages to the user, Marc Pettigrew, a specialist in IT Law from Waterfront Solicitors, had this to say: “In relation to breach of the Data Protection Act, if an individual suffers damage, they may be entitled to claim some form of compensation. ‘Damage’ could be in the form of a financial loss and/or showing that the individual has suffered some form of distress. To claim compensation, the individual would need to be ready to prove the level of damage claimed to have been suffered and it would be for the courts to decide whether that level of compensation is appropriate.
“There is also the potential of collective action claims, which are on the rise here in the UK (often referred to as the ‘class action suits’ we often hear about in the US). This is the concept of a number of individuals combining their claims to bring an action against a common defendant. Previous examples include actions against the supermarket chain Morrisons and Google. If Facebook is found to have been in breach, one wonders whether it will be next in line.”
Make of that what you will, but it is clear that a lot of evidence, time and money will be spent pursuing justice if you decided to try and sue Facebook.
Sources: https://www.cnet.com/news/deletefacebook-hashtag-trends-twitter-facebook-users/ https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/class-action-lawsuits-against-facebook-consolidated-creating-one-of-the-largest-data-privacy-lawsuits-2018-08-23 https://dataprivacylawsuit.com/ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/three-facebook-users-sue-over-collection-of-call-and-text-history.html https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2018/04/martin-lewis-to-sue-facebook/ https://www.shortlist.com/news/sue-facebook-data-cambridge-analytica-lawyer/352704 https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-files-campaign-finance-lawsuits-against-facebook-google https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/30/shareholder-sues-facebook-after-stock-plunges/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f22f4ac79b08 https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/23/17271454/facebook-cryptocurrency-bitcoin-scam https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/18/opening-salvo-trump-administration-sues-facebook-fair-housing-act-violations/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/fmcg/pepsi-sues-facebook-twitter-and-youtube-hc-orders-take-down-of-posts-that-allege-kurkure-contains-plastic/articleshow/65174482.cms
A recent decision of the High Court has seen the claims advanced by a widow against her late husband's estate, dismissed some 28 years after his death. Below, will disputes expert at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth, Sarah Smith discusses the case.
Mr Kashinath Bhusate died intestate on 28 April 1990. A year later his third wife, Mrs Shanatabi Bhusate, obtained a grant of Letters of Administration in his estate. In 1991, the net estate was valued at £137,449.70 with the main asset in the estate comprising of Mr Bhusate's property in North West London, where Mrs Bhusate lived. The property is now likely to be worth 6x this figure.
At the date of her husband's death, Mrs Bhusate was entitled to £75,000 and a life interest in half of the residue estate, under the rules of intestacy. In the following years the property was marketed but it was not sold. Mrs Bhusate remained living in the property with her son, the Sixth Defendant in the proceedings. The estate remained un-administered.
Mrs Bhusate subsequently brought a claim against her husband's estate with the hearing taking place in June 2018, nearly 27 years after the grant was issued to her. She claimed the following:
(1) That she is now the sole beneficial owner of the property;
(2) Alternatively, she and the Defendants (being the children of the Deceased) became equitable co-owners of the property;
(3) In the further alternative, she is entitled under the rules of intestacy to her statutory legacy and a capitalised life interest, plus interest at 6% per annum since her husband's death.
The Claimant also issued a secondary application under Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, to bring a claim against her husband's estate for financial provision some 26 years out of time. It was agreed at the hearing in June 2018 that this application would not be determined until after judgment of the primary claims set out above.
What did the Court decide?
The Master held that if the primary claims were struck out "not only does the Claimant have no interest in the property but, also, she has lost her entitlement to her statutory legacy and capitalised life interest. She will have lost her home and will obtain no benefit from Mr Bhusate's estate aside from having lived at the property for many years."
This is the situation the Claimant found herself in, with her case dismissed in its entirety including her entitlement under intestacy, as she was out of time. She was also removed as the personal representative of the estate. The Master held that ignorance or poor advice did not excuse the Claimant's failings to administer the estate properly. In respect of the delay, as the Master notes in the judgment:
"Had a sale proceeded in 1994 at £120,000 the Claimant would have been entitled to the entirety of the equity in the property pursuant to her entitlement in the deceased's estate including accrued interest."
In order to receive any share of the Deceased's estate, the Claimant must convince a Court that the relevant period, being 6 months after a grant is issued, should be extended by 26 years to allow her to bring a claim under the Inheritance Act. We will have to watch this space to see if such application is successful.
At companies and institutions around the world, pensions are collapsing and vulnerable consumers are paying the price. Lloyds Banking Group, for example, is in the midst of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that alleges that women received fewer benefits than their male counterparts. At the same time, Future Income Payments, a private pension fund based in the US, shut its doors after their operation proved to be little more than a Ponzi scheme that preyed on retirees. Below Lawyer Monthly hears from Anastasia Andrianova, ex Lehman Brothers and now CEO and Founder of Akropolis, on the impending severity of pension reform.
On the current state of private pensions, The Wall Street Journal reports: “The blow-up shines a light on the boom in opaque private markets, to which investors have flocked in the hope of doing better than they can in traditional stock and bond markets.”
The timing couldn’t be worse. Aging populations and a broad lack of retirement saving are stressing retirement infrastructures like never before. According to CNBC, half of Americans don’t have any retirement savings, and the Economy Policy Institute concludes that 401K style retirement plans have failed most workers as an investment vehicle for retirement.
While glaring budget deficits and chronic underfunding contribute to this global crisis, the current fiscal pipeline for pensions is too often ripped to shreds by inefficiencies, inaccessibility, and in some cases outright fraud. It is so dysfunctional, in fact, that fixes to the current system are no longer viable. Instead, the pension crisis can only be solved by a complete overhaul. As with many other decaying industries, that overhaul is arriving in the form of the blockchain.
Blockchain Basics
Originally built as the record-keeping system supporting and recording Bitcoin tokens and transactions, distributed ledger technology is finding new applications in everything from agriculture to payments. A blockchain, aptly named, takes shape by grouping verified transactions into “blocks" and linking those together, much like a chain.
By tying these transactional groups to one another, a blockchain ledger provides heightened data integrity, regardless of the application. To alter one block, every prior block would have to also be falsified, requiring near-impossible levels of computing power. Thus, data entered into this system retains its validity to a previously-unattainable degree.
Maximizing Efficiency
The essence of the blockchain lies significantly in its streamlined approach to data input and storage protocols. Rather than relying on convoluted, multi-tiered storage in centralized repositories,
Improving Accessibility
In addition to the root-level deficiencies in the current pension system’s operating principles, it is shockingly unclear and opaque in conduct, with Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, admitting that he doesn’t understand either workplace or High Street pensions. Clearly, then, there is significant need for a new system. Offenses like discrimination and mismanagement are made currently possible by this demonstrably opaque nature of the current solutions, but the blockchain specializes in transparency, and can renew confidence in a wilting industry. Even in perfectly anonymous platforms, the ledger provides a clear and easily searchable database of transactions. With no extra interference, consumers on a blockchain pensions system could access previous changes to their accounts with total reliability and clarity.
Eliminating Fraud and Looking Forward
By far the most impactful element of the blockchain in a pension application is its fraud elimination potential. As discussed earlier, the construction protocol for each link in the chain unbreakably ties it to surrounding blocks, thereby making post-entry alteration by dishonest means almost impossible. Only approved rights-holders, then, would be allowed access (by private key) to their data.
By addressing the 3 most pressing issues plaguing the pensions systems in place today, a totally novel rebuild with blockchain as the operating framework provides the best path forward. On a global scale, such an application would provide scalable traceability and accessibility of funds, solving the cash sinkhole that is fraud. Consumers also benefit from increased autonomy and accessibility of data, with a clearer path to discovery and dramatically improved authenticity.
Following John McDonnell’s suggestion that the Big Four auditing firms (Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers) be split up, Professor Paolo Quattrone, Chair in Accounting Governance and Social Innovation at the University of Edinburgh Business School, argues that unless the public function of auditing is restored, auditing will continue to regularly fail and that greater choice (rather than greater competition) is the solution.
“Recent accounting scandals have raised concerns about the auditing industry and its arrangements. For many, including Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, the concentration of auditing services in the hands of the so called ‘Big Four’ is the major cause of poor auditing. The solution, it is thought, is to split the big auditing firms to create more competition and therefore better services.
“This superficially sensible chain of though rests on a faulty assumption in so far as it misses the big elephant in the auditing room. The industry faces the problems it does because of the belief that certain services can only be provided through market competition. The elephant is that it is an anomaly that the auditees have to pay for certifying the quality of their financial reports. Auditing firms need clients and to find them the best strategy is to please them. Yet, in the past, auditing fees were paid by the party interested in the quality of financial reports (the user) not the preparer of such reports. That made more logical sense but it no longer describes what auditing has become: a huge legitimation industry. Auditors are supposed to certify the true and fair nature of accounting values and this leads to a huge check-boxing exercise where no actors, either individual or institutional, really question the validity of accounting numbers.
“Breaking up the Big Four will only generate a greater race to please clients. If anything, the Big Four’s negotiating power could potentially give them more independence, given their almost monopolistic role. It is because of this elephant that no-one really acts as a spokesperson for the public interest (in fact, financial reports are currently drawn-up in the interest of a very specific stakeholder, shareholders).
“Unless the public function of auditing is restored, auditing will continue to regularly fail. Accounts should not be prepared with the shareholder in mind, but with broader stakeholders in mind. It is quite paradoxical that the Labour party, a supposedly left-wing party, proposes a neo-liberal solution (market competition) which has instead caused the gradual concentration of auditing services in the hands of a few private providers.
“Greater choice (rather than greater competition) is the solution but we have to break the contractual nexus between auditee and the auditor. The establishment of an auditing fund, financed by the auditees which then pays the auditors, is one potential solution.”
(Source: University of Edinburgh Business School)
Law firms and small businesses will continue to be victims of cyber-attacks unless they radically change their approach to security. Below David Blundell, Managing Director at CyberHive, points out the risks and dangers for legal practices in today’s digital age.
Reports from the National Cyber Security Centre that £11 million of client money has been stolen from law firms in the last year and that 60% of legal practices have suffered cyber-attacks confirm that it is no longer a case of “if” but “when” a breach happens.
Although there is generally a high level of security awareness among law firms, IT resources are limited and often outsourced. With a vast array of compliance and system-management matters to deal with, cyber-security expertise can be in short-supply.
Whatever their IT set-up, law firms need to change their mindset to defend themselves against the growing sophistication of cyber-attacks. They must shift from defending themselves against predictable external attacks using outdated, anti-virus technology to adopting fail-safe solutions that identify more sophisticated attacks as rapidly and as accurately as possible. Instead of placing their faith in easily-breached perimeter defences they must acquire the capability to shut down an attack before any damage is inflicted.
It is the human element that leaves law firms vulnerable
Most cyber-attacks begin either through a security slip-up by an employee or as the result of some clever social engineering in a phishing email that looks convincing but is entirely malign. This is how hackers and organised crime groups insert malicious code inside the defences of even the most heavily protected organisation.
When thousands of emails are exchanged every day with clients, third-party business partners and prospective customers, it is almost inevitable that a member of staff will click on a macro or link that triggers the download of a new malware variant that AV cannot identify and which may go undetected for months.
While the malware is hiding in the system it will be siphoning off highly confidential data, stealing cash or waiting to use the firm’s servers as a backdoor into the systems of important clients.
Although email filters will eliminate most phishing attacks, many still get through. Filters are also largely ineffectual against spear-phishing that targets a specific individual with cunningly crafted emails, using data to create a personalised lure.
The vulnerabilities of legal IT
The majority of mid-sized law firms still rely on conventional on-premises data storage – using servers in their own offices. As business has evolved, however, it has become necessary to access data from anywhere, which can be a combination that increases vulnerability. When a firm hosts its own servers, it creates the need to update, patch and secure them, while at the same time they must of necessity be accessible from the internet by many of the firm’s employees.
Law firms also use third-party software for their customer management. Being hosted on their own servers, this may well open up further holes in security.
The alternative is to move entirely to cloud-based data-storage, enjoying all the enormous benefits of scalability, flexibility and lower overheads. Yet this is no trivial question for law firms, since security is a paramount consideration. A single breach can be sufficient to inflict catastrophic damage on a practice’s reputation. These understandable security fears are why law firms often ban staff from using cloud-based applications such as Dropbox.
Security among cloud-service providers is by no means certain, either. Security breaches can be instituted by malign cloud employees who place unauthorised software on a server or those who simply fail to follow protocols.
Failing legal approaches to security
Despite the worsening record of both current and next-generation AV, the legal sector still regards perimeter security as the best form of defence, with two-factor authentication and encrypted VPN access as standard. Yet even if access to data-handling inside the system is restricted, it will not provide any protection if the device being used to access the data is compromised.
Alternatives such as security based on network traffic analysis technology, which identifies suspicious patterns of data-use to enable rapid investigation, has proved to be difficult to implement and liable to excessive numbers of false positives. Law firms are left with the option of either lowering their alert thresholds and increasing their risk-exposure, or of operating with technology that could lock down access to systems at time-critical moments.
More effective solutions should now be adopted by the legal sector
To counter these attacks, law firms need to secure themselves from human error by deploying far more effective technology and better staff training. Staff-training will go some way to reducing the dangers of employees clicking open socially-engineered emails, exchanging details that are valuable to criminals, or of failing to follow system management protocols.
Yet this can only ever be a starting-point. To protect themselves, law firms now need to drop their adherence to out-dated perimeter defences and deploy more advanced solutions that will defend their servers from intrusion or lapses, whether in the cloud or on-premises.
These solutions are based on the power and integrity of chips on the motherboards of every server. They check the status of servers every five seconds, monitoring the security of servers using a combination of hardware-based cryptography and whitelisting technology. This protects servers from all unauthorised activity and malware in a way that conventional solutions are simply unable to match.
The chip is impervious to hacking and the solution guarantees that no person or organisation can tamper with servers, falsify verification data or bypass server security.
For law firms facing rapidly growing cyber-attacks, reliance on AV and perimeter security is no longer sufficient. The legal sector needs to protect itself from the devastating effects of security lapses by deploying such solutions that successfully defeat all the threats being devised by cyber criminals.
The ACLU says Facebook's ad targeting system lets employers discriminate against women in job postings.
We're excited to announce that we're hiring. We currently have an opening for a talented and experienced Legal Recruitment Consultant to head up our new Lawyer Monthly Jobs business. For full job details and information on how to apply see below.
Lichfield
Competitive Salary plus uncapped commission and benefits OTE 40 - 50k plus
We’re looking for an experienced Legal Recruitment Consultant to join our business and head up the new UK Legal Recruitment Business for our respected legal publication.
This is an ideal opportunity for a Legal Recruitment Consultant who is looking to take the next step into management and team leadership, or for an existing team leader to spearhead a new and exciting project from the ground-up. As the team leader, the prospects of the position are only limited by your ambition as we aim to expand this area of the business rapidly.
Working closely with the marketing team and directors to ensure the success of the new venture for a successful legal and business media company, you will need to be experienced, ambitious and an excellent communicator. You will be joining a friendly and ambitious company located in the popular market town of Lichfield.
Job role:
What We Offer
To be considered, the successful candidate should have:
To apply please send a covering letter and your CV.
A Miami-Dade County jury awarded $6.5 million last week to the estate of Miami man who died following 20 years of cigarette smoking. Jurors found that an addiction to Kool cigarettes from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company led to Glenn Simmons’ cancer and contributed to his eventual death.
In a unique twist, attorneys believe this is the first tobacco trial ever to be tried under the Stuart v. Hertz causation theory. This allows a plaintiff to recover for injuries or damages from subsequent errors in medical treatment that became necessary because of the negligent act of the original wrongdoer.
“Like so many before him, Mr. Simmons became addicted to smoking and eventually developed cancer,” said Justin R. Parafinczuk, with law firm Koch Parafinczuk Wolf Susen, which represented Mr. Simmons’ estate and personal representative, Hanifah Harewood, his only child. “When he sought treatment, he died from complications. However, the law was on his side and ensured justice was done.”
During the two-week trial, the six-member jury learned about Mr. Simmons’ life and suffering. The Detroit native worked in Michigan automobile factories before moving to Miami a generation ago.
A pack-a-day smoker of R.J. Reynolds’ Kool brand cigarettes, Mr. Simmons developed squamous cell carcinoma and oral cavity cancer. Mr. Simmons had surgery to remove the cancer and was essentially cancer free. But follow-up radiation was required.
The radiation caused transverse myelitis, a rare neurological condition in which the spinal cord becomes inflamed. Mr. Simmons suffered in tremendous pain until his death in 2003.
“He was over-radiated,” said Parafinczuk, who tried the case with firm partner Austin Carr. “A line on the verdict allowed for a zero verdict if the jury found that Mr. Simmons acted unreasonably in seeking the physician to treat him and did not follow the physician’s instructions for treatment. It’s difficult to get a jury to buy into that and assign liability to the tobacco company. But they were attentive, listened to the testimony, and realized Mr. Simmons actively sought out the best care in hopes of saving his own life. Although he died, ultimately the law was on his side.”
The four-count complaint alleged strict liability, negligence, fraud by concealment, and civil conspiracy fraud by concealment. Ms. Harewood suffered loss of his parental companionship, loss of his parental instruction, loss of his parental guidance, and mental pain and suffering. The jury returned no punitive damages.
This case was considered an Engle progeny case. Named for the disbanded class-action settlement, plaintiffs under Engle were freed from the class to pursue their own lawsuits if they could prove addiction to cigarettes and that smoking was the cause of their illnesses. Parafinczuk has tried several Engle cases and has several cases pending.
(Source: Koch Parafinczuk Wolf Susen, P.A.)
Last week, in remarks at an industry conference, Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division Co-Head Stephanie Avakian described the SEC’s approach to Initial Coin Offering (ICO) enforcement as calibrated to avoid stifling innovation while sending a clear message that unregistered securities offerings and fraud would not be allowed.
She cited the Munchee ICO as an example of cooperation between the SEC and an issuer to address an unregistered offering, with the SEC halting the ICO before it was completed, Munchee returning proceeds to investors, and the SEC declining to seek a penalty.
“What Ms. Avakian did not say, but which is widely known in enforcement circles, is that SEC enforcement staff are being inundated with referrals relating to ICOs,” says O’Melveny White Collar partner Ben Singer, former Chief of the Department of Justice’s Securities & Financial Fraud Unit.
“This has placed pressure on an enforcement staff that has been reduced, in some offices, substantially, by a hiring freeze and is dealing with the highly technical nature of these new products. Nevertheless, Ms. Avakian’s remarks, which echo recent statements from SEC leadership, show that ICOs are a top priority for SEC enforcement for the foreseeable future.”
As Chief of the DOJ’s Securities & Financial Fraud Unit, Ben oversaw approximately 50 federal prosecutors investigating complex securities, commodities, and other corporate fraud and corruption offenses, including market manipulation, spoofing, insider trading, accounting fraud, procurement fraud, money laundering, environmental crimes, antitrust offenses, and bribery.
(Source: O’Melveny)
