1

Case Summaries

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation
 2

SEC v. Marc S. Dreier

SEC v. Mark S. Dreier is case between Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and

New York based attorney Marc Dreier. The commission filed a lawsuit on 8th December 2008

alleging that the defendant (Mark S, Drier) has participated in an elaborate plan where he

committed fraud by selling bogus promissory. As per the SEC, attorney Marc Dreier had raised

more than $113 million from the scheme. At the time, Marc Dreier was head of the Dreier LLP,

a 250-attorny law firm, which has founded in Manhattan (Parten, 2018). Along with lawsuit, the

commission filed an urgent motion that intended to freeze Dreier’s assets, which have acquired

from his client fraudulent, as well as, the sec wanted temporary receiver be put in charge of

Dreier’s wealth.

According to the SEC's lawsuit, Dreier has been selling fraudulent promissory notes to

fund managers as well as other private institutional investors October 2008, incorporating bogus

notes of a New York-based real estate investment corporation, and has completed at least three

deals. Dreier, per the accusation, concocted an intricate ruse to persuade buyers that the

banknotes were authentic (Parten, 2018). He apparently distributed forged financial statements

and audit assessment letters from a prominent accounting company, as well as recruiting

accomplices to pose as agents of legitimate organizations involved in the transactions, including

generating fictitious email accounts and mobile numbers. Dreier ordered two buyers of the

counterfeit bills to wire cash to what looked to be his law company's escrow account, as per the

Commission's complaint. When at least one note buyer detected the deception, he requested and

received compensation of his money. Around $100 million in unaccounted for revenues from the

sale of fake notes has been discovered.

 3

Thus, Marc S. Dreier breached conduct by committing fraud against his clients and he

suspended from the New York Bar on 23, December 2008. And was sentence to 20 years in

prison.

Case2: United States vs Scott Rothstein

The United States prosecuted the accused Scott Rothstein with RICO, financial fraud, and

mailing and criminal breach of trust schemes in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), 1956(h),

and 1349, as well as fundamental wire fraud in infringement of 18 U.S.C. 1343, in a complaint

filed on December 1, 2009 (United States vs Scott Rothstein). There were also claims of criminal

misappropriation in the Data. 

Rothstein entered a guilty plea to all of the counts in the Undertaking on January 27,

2010. Rothstein also consented to relinquish his interest in the assets included in the Declaration

and Bill of Specifics.  As a result, the Court issued a Temporary Judgment of Forfeiture. All of

Rothstein's rights, possession, and ownership in all property engaged in the RICO and financial

fraud schemes, as well as all cumulative effect from mail and wire fraud charges, were

confiscated in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. The purchasers claimed that they all deposited

funds to RRA accounts controlled by Rothstein. Yet, the investors admit that they are unable to

link their funds to the seized homes. As a result, the Owners assert that they are entitled to a

contractual obligation or fair lien on the relinquished assets.

Scott Rothstein, a former lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, was convicted to 50 years'

imprisonment for running a $1.2 billion Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scam that netted him

mansions and racing vehicles while also allowing him to make large payments to Florida

lawmakers (WALTER and MARK SCHONE, 2009). After admitting guilt to two money
 4

laundering charges and three counts of conspiring, Rothstein faced a sentence of up to 100 years

in prison. Judge James Cohn's sentence, on the other hand, is 10 years more than attorneys had

wanted, and 20 decades longer than Rothstein had anticipated for because of his alleged

substantial collaboration with federal authorities.

Case 3: United States v. Blagojevich - 794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015)

Following his convictions, Blagojevich was forbidden from practicing law in Illinois. The

Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission proposed that Blagojevich be

removed from bar in 2020 because of his indictment in several bribery schemes while governor.

Theft or bribery in openly endorsed organizations is prohibited under 18 U.S.C.S. 666. It

is illegal for an employee of a prohibited entity to solicit fraudulently much of anything value in

conjunction with a transactions for $5,000 or more, according to 18 U.S.C.S. 666(a)(1)(B). The

term "corruptly" relates to the recipient's mental state, implying that he regards the contribution

as a reward or kickback. It would be implausible to characterize a political favor exchange as an

endeavor or proposal to bribe the opposing party. The provision as a whole does not applicable

to legitimately fide pay, earnings, charges, or other funds provided, or expenditures paid or

reimbursement, in the ordinary course of business, according to 18 U.S.C.S. 666(c). A genuine

pay is paid for a service done by someone other than a ghost worker, and maneuver is a common

practice in politics.

After two jury trials in federal district court, defendant Rod Blagojevich was found guilty

of 18 felonies. Attempts at coercion from financial backers, corrupt acquisition of cash, wire

fraud, and misrepresenting to federal investigators are among the offenses. The first trial
 5

concluded in a wrongful conviction and a mistrial on the remaining counts because the jury

couldn't agree. On 17 considered, the court hearing resulted in sentences. Blagojevich was

Governor of Illinois at the time of the incident in December 2008, and the state legislature forced

to step down him from office the following month. On the charges with maximum sentences of

20 years, the district court sentenced Blagojevich to 168 months in prison, with lighter sentences

on the other charges. All of the sentences were served at the same time, for a total of 168 months.

Blagojevich filed an appeal (United States v. Blagojevich)

Case 4: UNITED STATES v. Jason Goldfarb, Arthur Cutillo, Emanuel Goffer,

David Plate, Defendants.

In the summer of 2007, Ropes & Gray LLP lawyers Arthur Cutillo and Brian Santarlas

engaged with Jason Goldfarb, an employees' remuneration advocate who had gone to law school

with Cutillo (McCool, 2011). Goldfarb told the Ropes & Gray lawyers that he had a stockbroker

acquaintance who would offer for intelligence on corporate acquisitions. During the trial, the

government instituted that Goffer was this acquaintance. A sequence of "tips" proceeded, in

which Cutillo and/or Santarlas obtained material non-public material and sent it on to Goldfarb,

who then passed it on to Goffer (McCool, 2011). These "pointers," which typically pertained to

future acquisitions, were conveyed to Goffer's friends and partners. Goffer and his accomplices

would buy stock in the targeted companies based on these recommendations, profiting from the

takeover's influence on the stock price.

To prevent discovery, Goffer's group used disposable mobile phones; these phones,

which were used by the lawyers and dealers, were destroyed following each effective tip. On the

telephone, Goffer spoke with accomplices, particularly Kimelman, with caution during the time
 6

period in question. For example, he called the P.F. Chang's tip "a reasonable option" but "not

something I'm going to discuss on the phone." Ex. 145 of the government. When communicating

confidential material, Goffer frequently invited Kimelman to meet the person or "on the sidewalk

(FindLaw's United States second circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)." They also considered

measures and strategies to avoid detection, as they suspected that high-volume trades in small-

cap companies just before their acquisition might raise problems that have arisen. Kimelman

helped Goffer understand the meaning of legal documents related to the purchases, such as

updated merger contracts, settlement contractual arrangements, signing pages, and limited

guarantees, among other things. Due to fraudulent transactions Arthur cutillo lost his attorney

license and was sentenced to 30 months in a prison (FindLaw's United States second circuit case

and opinions. (n.d.).

Case 5: United States V. Samuel Kant

Judge Samuel Kent, that the very first federal judge to be prosecuted with federal sexual

offences the first in Texas in modern years, was convicted on accusations of excessive sexual

intercourse and premeditated severe sexual assault of a female employee. After Kent's former

case assistant, Cathy McBroom, reported that the judge groped her underneath her clothes twice

and made indecent comments even during six years she employed for him, the department of

justice inquiry was opened in November 2007 (Casey, 2021). The three-count accusation against

Kent follows approximately 5 years after the purported event in August 2003, when the justice is

accused of sexually assaulting McBroom in a little-used workout room inside the Galveston

courtroom.
 7

In 1990, Justice Kent was assigned to the federal bench for the Southern District of

Texas, where he presided over a one-judge court. Kent was convicted to 33 months in jail from

May 11, 2009 for tampering with evidence about inappropriately touching two female staff.

Despite a declaration from Kent's lawyers that the judge would seek a disabled retire rather than

resigning, disciplinary procedures commenced shortly after (Casey, 2021). Kent would have

been able to collect his yearly judicial salary for the rest of his life if he had done so. To preclude

Kent from gaining an entire life remuneration, the House moved swiftly to unseat him under

selected sections involving impeachable offenses: two publications premised on Kent's sexual

harassment of two court staff members, one statement reporting on his inaccurate claims in

linkage with the sexual harassment claims, and one opinion piece based on his federal crime

tampering with evidence pertaining to the aforementioned investigation. On June 19, 2009, the

House of Representatives impeached Kent. Kent averted impeachment hearings in the Senate by

delivering a termination notice on June 30, 2009. On July 22, 2009, the impeachment

proceedings were withdrawn.

 8

References

Casey, Ricky (2021, October 22). A federal judge’s crime and how a former San Antonian

touted for the Supreme Court minimized it. San Antonio

Report. https://sanantonioreport.org/a-federal-judges-crime-and-how-a-former-san-

antonian-touted-for-the-supreme-court-minimized-it/

Marc S. Dreier: Lit. Rel. No. 20823 / December 8, 2008. (2008, December 8).

SEC.gov. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20823.htm

Parten, C. (2018, June 19). Diary of a scam: The fall of power attorney Marc Dreier.

CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/id/42572204

FindLaw's United States second circuit case and opinions. (n.d.).

Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1636971.html

McCool, G. (2011, June 30). Thirty months in prison for lawyer in galleon case.

U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-galleon-goffer-lawyer-

idUSTRE75T62B20110630

Rod Blagojevich officially disbarred by Illinois Supreme Court. (2020, May 19). WGN-

TV. https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/rod-blagojevich-officially-disbarred-by-

illinois-supreme-court/

United States v. Blagojevich | Case brief for law school | LexisNexis. (n.d.).

Community. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-

v-blagojevich-141382535
 9

VIC WALTER and MARK SCHONE. (2009, December 1). Scott Rothstein gets 50 years in

$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/scott-rothstein-

50-years-12-billion-ponzi-scheme/story?id=10868086

United States vs Scott Rothstein (09-60331-CR-Cohn) - Case information. (2017, January 11).

U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/victim-witness-

assistance/rothstein