United States v. Singhal
| Decision Date | 11 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Case No. 11–142 (RCL). |
| Citation | 876 F.Supp.2d 82 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Shelly S. SINGHAL, Loretta Fredy Bush, Dennis L. Pelino, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jonathan P. Hooks, Michael K. Atkinson, Seth B. Waxman, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Barbara Ann Van Gelder, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Kristin M. Robinson, Mark A. Srere, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Charles Samuel Leeper, Mark H.M. Sosnowsky, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Earl J. Silbert, Mitka T. Baker, DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, DC, Atlee W. Wampler, III, Joseph R. Buchanan, Wampler, Buchanan, Walker, Chabrow, Banciella & Stanley, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
On May 10, 2011, a grand jury returned a ten-count Indictment against defendants Shelly S. Singhal, Loretta Fredy Bush, and Dennis L. Pelino. The Indictment alleges that defendants engaged in a conspiracy and scheme to defraud the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), investors, and others through a series of undisclosed and disguised related party transactions and insider trading that generated proceeds exceeding $50 million. Indictment ¶ 1. The Indictment reads like a typical U.S. securities fraud case, yet it does not expressly charge any violations of U.S. securities laws, including failure to report related party transactions or insider trading. Count One charges each defendant with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and submit false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counts Two through Five charge each defendant with mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341. Counts Six through Nine charge each defendant with false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Count Ten charges defendant Pelino with false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Before the Court are defendants' Motions [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49] to dismiss the Indictment, defendants' Motion [50] to strike surplusage from the Indictment, and defendants' Motions [51, 52, 53, 54] to compel.
I. FACTSA. Background on Xinhua Finance and the Defendants
According to the Indictment, the alleged conspiracy and scheme to defraud related to transactions involving Xinhua Finance Limited and its wholly-owned affiliate, Xinhua Financial Network Limited (referred to collectively in the Indictment as “Xinhua Finance”). Xinhua Finance provided information products focused on China's financial markets, including market indices, ratings, financial news and analysis, and investor relations. Indictment ¶ 2. Xinhua Finance was organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Shanghai, China. Id.
In October 2004, Xinhua Finance's shares began to trade publicly on the Tokyo Stock Exchange's Mothers Board (market of the high-growth and emerging stocks). Id. ¶ 3. Xinhua Finance was the first Chinese Initial Public Offering in Japan, the first non-Japanese entity to list on the Mothers Board, and the first time a foreign stock traded in Japan through an international settlement agreement, which allowed investors globally to invest in Xinhua Finance. Id.
According to the Indictment, defendant Bush co-founded Xinhua Finance and was its Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of Xinhua Finance's Board of Directors. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant Pelino, Xinhua Finance's other co-founder, served as an independent member of Xinhua Finance's Board of Directors, Chairman of its Compensation Committee, and a member of its Audit Committee and Investment Committee. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Singhal served as an independent member of Xinhua Finance's Board of Directors, Chairman of its Audit Committee, and a member of its Compensation Committee and Investment Committee. Id. ¶ 4. Singhal also provided investment advisory services to Xinhua Finance through his company SBI USA, LLC. Id. ¶ 7.
B. Xinhua Finance's Entry and Involvement in U.S. Capital Markets
According to the Indictment, starting in or around 2003 Xinhua Finance began to raise funds from U.S. investors. Indictment ¶ 3. Rather than register these offerings with the SEC, Xinhua Finance filed notices with the SEC to qualify for registration exemptions under U.S. securities laws. Id. After obtaining its public listing in Japan in October 2004, Xinhua Finance sought increased access to U.S. capital markets. In April 2005, Xinhua Finance began furnishing the SEC with information to establish an exemption from registration for the offer and sale of securities in the United States. Id. To sell ADRs on the U.S. over-the-counter market, Xinhua Finance was required, pursuant to the exemption from the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act upon which it relied, to furnish to the SEC the information: (a) Xinhua Finance made or was required to make public pursuant to the laws of Japan or the Cayman Islands; (b) Xinhua Finance filed or was required to file with and which was made public by the Tokyo Stock Exchange; or (c) Xinhua Finance distributed or was required to distribute to the holders of its securities. Id. ¶ 24; see also17 C.F.R. § 240.12g3–2(b)(1) (2005). In July 2005, Xinhua Finance established in the United States a sponsored Level 1 American Depository Receipt (“ADR”) facility. Id. Xinhua Finance's ADRs traded on the U.S. over-the-counter market using the stock trading symbol “XHFNY.” Id.C. The Alleged Scheme to Defraud
The Indictment identifies various nominees and nominee entities that the defendants used to engage in a number of transactions involving Xinhua Finance. Indictment ¶¶ 8–22. The defendants used the nominees and nominee entities for the following alleged purposes: (1) to obtain cash, warrants, stock, and other things of value from Xinhua Finance; (2) to sell shares of Xinhua Finance stock owned directly and beneficially by Singhal, Bush, and Pelino; and (3) to transfer assets off of Xinhua Finance's balance sheet to minimize potentially negative impacts to that balance sheet. Id. ¶¶ 25–57. The defendants' alleged motivation for using the nominees and nominee entities to engage in the transactions involving Xinhua Finance, rather than engaging in them using their own names or the names of their own companies, was to misrepresent and avoid disclosing the defendants' involvement in the transactions and the sale of their Xinhua Finance shares in statements furnished to the SEC, investors, and others. Id. ¶ 61. According to the Indictment, the defendants and others used the nominees and nominee entities for those purposes and with that alleged motivation to engage in the following transactions involving Xinhua Finance: (1) the Entree Capital transaction; (2) the Bedrock Securities and Bedford transactions; and (3) the Wiremill and Hyperion transactions.
All three defendants were allegedly involved in the Entree Capital transaction. Singhal and Pelino, allegedly through false representations and deceptive practices, obtained a warrant to purchase 6,944 Xinhua Finance shares. Id. ¶¶ 25–27. The Indictment alleges that rather than purchase the shares in their own names or in the name of one of their companies, they used a nominee and a fictitious entity, Brightline Capital LLC, to buy the warrant. Id. ¶ 29. Singhal used nominees, including Robert S. Brown, to exercise the warrant and deposit the 6,944 Xinhua Finance shares into a brokerage account in the name of another nominee entity, Entree Capital LLC (“Entree Capital”). Id. Following a request by Singhal and Pelino, Bush, as Xinhua Finance's CEO, authorized an acceleration of the lock-up period for the Xinhua Finance shares held by Entree Capital, which allowed Singhal—through Entree Capital—to begin selling the Xinhua Finance shares approximately four weeks before investors who held similarly restricted shares. Id. ¶¶ 31, 62(i)-(n).
Singhal and his company, SBI USA, paid Xinhua Finance $1,388,888 of the $5 million exercise price for the 6,944 shares held by Entree Capital. Id. ¶ 32. The Indictment alleges that, with Pelino's assistance, Singhal attempted to have the exercise price for the shares lowered from $0.36 per share to $0.10 per share. Id. ¶ 62(h). If successful, the exercise price for the warrants would have totaled $1,388,888. Although that effort to lower the exercise price of the shares was unsuccessful, the Indictment alleges that Singhal used a nominee, Brown, to direct Xinhua Finance to credit to Entree Capital $3,611,111, which Xinhua Finance purportedly owed originally to Wire Mill Partners II, LLC, a nominee entity controlled by Singhal. Id. ¶¶ 33, 62(p)-(q).
At Singhal's direction, Entree Capital sold the 6,944 Xinhua Finance shares for total proceeds of approximately $21,700,000. Id. ¶ 34. One of Singhal's associates allegedly kept Bush and Pelino apprised of the Xinhua Finance share sales by Entree Capital. Id. ¶¶ 62(r), 62(t). Entree Capital, at Singhal's direction, allegedly distributed the proceeds from the share sales for the principal benefit of Singhal, Bush, and Pelino. Id. ¶ 35.
As a result of the Entree Capital transaction, the defendants allegedly caused Xinhua Finance to furnish statements to the SEC that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) a related party transaction between Xinhua Finance, its CEO (Bush), and members of its Board of Directors (Singhal and Pelino) concerning the acquisition of the warrant, acceleration of the lock-up period, and exercise of the Xinhua Finance shares held by Entree Capital; (b) Singhal, Bush, and Pelino had an ownership interest in the Xinhua Finance shares held by Entree Capital; and (c) Singhal, Bush, and Pelino sold Xinhua Finance shares for proceeds of approximately $21,700,000 through Entree Capital for their personal benefit. Id. ¶ 36.
The Indictment alleges that Singhal assisted Bush and Pelino to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Apodaca
...need' the alleged grand jury instructions demonstrate for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts"); see also United States v. Singhal , 876 F.Supp.2d 82, 99 (D.D.C. 2012) (rejecting disclosure of grand jury materials where"[d]efendants are unable to identify any portion of the Indictment ......
-
Colindres v. U.S. Dep't of State
...of a known criminal organization who would engage in criminal conduct in the United States—"is proscribed." United States v. Singhal , 876 F. Supp. 2d 82, 98 (D.D.C. 2012) ; see also Schall v. Martin , 467 U.S. 253, 278–79, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984) (rejecting a challenge that a......
-
United States v. Apodaca
...discretion). Indeed, "[m]otions to strike surplusage from an indictment are highly disfavored in this Circuit." United States v. Singhal , 876 F.Supp.2d 82, 102 (D.D.C. 2012) ; see also United States v. Jordan , 626 F.2d 928, 930 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1980).2. Analysis According to Agustin, striki......
-
In re Search Multiple Email Accounts Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703 for Investigation of Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956
...were necessary to the success of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States." Id. at 23 ; see also United States v. Singhal , 876 F. Supp. 2d 82, 101 (D.D.C. 2012) (venue proper in the District of Columbia for defendants charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and to defraud S......