Throughout the career of a successful and experienced Washington DC Criminal Attorney, it is likely that many of the clients represented have been accused of a variety of criminal offenses including financial fraud charges. Cases represented are similar to a recent large scale fraud investigation, where federal regulators have added charges against Bank of America for allegedly lying to investors during the 2008 financial crisis. However, they have again been forced back to the drawing boards after failing to charge the specific executives and lawyers that signed off on the fraudulent deal.
Originally, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Bank of America of hiding plans to give billions of dollars worth in bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees, prior to asking shareholders to approve a merger of the two firms. The SEC now maintains that Bank of America additionally withheld information about losses mounting at Merrill. A judge recently rejected the $33 million settlement between the SEC and the bank because it did not specifically identify any of the executives or lawyers that were responsible for the key document omissions that were given to shareholders before a vote approving the merger. SEC investigators defend this tack by maintaining that they " found no reason that bank executives or lawyers intended to deceive the public." Instead, omitting important information was considered simply careless on the bank's part.
The new claims made by the SEC state that Bank of America knew prior to the shareholder vote that Merrill Lynch had severe financial losses during the previous year--$4.5 billion in October 2008 alone, and company finances were continuously deteriorating. It is alleged that the bank "erroneously and negligently concluded that no disclosure concerning these extraordinary losses was required as shareholders were called upon to vote on a proposed merger with Merrill Lynch." The agency continued, "The lack of disclosure about the losses deprived shareholders of up-to-date information that was essential to their ability to fairly evaluate whether to approve the merger."
According to analysts, the March 1st trial could raise new questions concerning financial, political, and legal issues regarding the case.
This article is presented by Price Benowitz, LLP, representing clients in Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia. For more information, please visit our Maryland Fraud Lawyer and Virginia Criminal Attorney websites.
