Jump to content

Talk:Securities fraud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elements of the crime

[edit]

I'm concerned about a sentence added to the lead not so long ago:

The elements of the crime include theft of capital from investors and defrauding the accounting companies about a corporation's financial reports.

This was added in this edit last September by 24.17.171.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What concerns me is that elements of a crime is a term of art that seems to have a quite different meaning from the one implied by this usage.

I think it should probably be changed to something like "Examples include theft of capital from investors and defrauding the accounting companies about a corporation's financial reports." --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this whole artice is FUBAR. I am not sure where to begin. Paranthetically, securities fraud would not include defrauding the accountants but would more likely include fraud by the companies and their officers.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a better definition for the layman. It is the number two hit on google: http://www.lawyershop.com/news/practice-areas/criminal-law/white-collar-crimes/securities-fraud/--Bassettcat (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Adding seciton on types of fraud

[edit]

I've begun adding a section on types of securities fraud, borrowing material from other Wiki articles. --Bassettcat (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question

[edit]

Is there not an existing article on the New York Stock Exchange floor trading scandals and, if not, should there be?--Bassettcat (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Characteristics of victims and perpetrators"

[edit]

Hello? Hello? Anyone reading this? Another question: "Characteristics of victims and perpetrators" is an essay and it reads as if it is a synthesis of origial research, and is not really allowed. It has no sourcing. Will anyone get upset if I delete it?--Bassettcat (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of reversion of edits made by sockpuppet

[edit]

I have reviewed and compared the edits made to this article by User:Bassettcat, now-confirmed sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, to the version reverted to by User:Pwntjuice following the revelation of the sockpuppetry. The Bassettcat version contains more references and appears to read as a more thorough article. I am not a financial expert, and would appreciate individuals with experience in this field to review the article in detail. I suggest that any questions relating to my action be discussed on this page; I will keep it on my watchlist and will respond to any questions that I can. Risker (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is suspected of extensive subtle POV-pushing, just "looking better" isn't good enough - the edits need a much more thorough review than that. --Random832 (contribs) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you, Random832; unfortunately, I do not have the knowledge base to drill down further. The sourced information agrees with the reference sources, and I have tagged two unreferenced sections. Incidentally, the choice in this case was which subtly-POV version by which sockpuppet to go with, or to completely stub the article, which didn't seem reasonable either. The watches on this series of articles seem to be deterring knowledgeable editors from participating in their editing. I am certainly open to any suggestions you might have. Risker (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investment fraud based on false claims of inventions or technological breakthroughs

[edit]

Where to classify this type of fraud, for example the one perpetrated by Firepower International in Australia, in which a company attracts investors and government grants/tax breaks through falsely claiming to have invented/developed a product/process with huge market potential (in this case a fuel pill)? Strayan (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection?

[edit]

Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, although I have kept the move box ticked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal or Civil Securities Fraud

[edit]

The article refers to "criminal," "crime," and "illegal" throughout but then talks about SEC investigations and government and private lawsuits almost in the same breath. I think the article would be much stronger and more informative if it drew a clearer distinction between the criminal and civil sides of Securities fraud and better characterized the concepts that attend each, such as liability, culpability, the various investigating agencies and their roles, the separate legal avenues taken, and the statutes that govern each. When the SEC sues a company, the settlement or judgment can be paid by the company. But when the DOJ brings criminal charges, who actually gets charged? It's worth considering that the two sides are different enough (despite having the same name and frequently having some overlap in the investigations) that they may be better as two separate Wikipedia articles that each refer to the other in brief to highlight the broad distinctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honus W Scruggs (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Securities fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future expansion

[edit]

Here are a couple of new sources for new article expansion. Brianhe (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Investor Alert: Binary options and Fraud (PDF), United States Securities and Exchange Commission, June 2013, SEC Pub. No. 148
  • Investor Bulletin: Foreign Currency Exchange (Forex) Trading For Individual Investors (PDF), United States Securities and Exchange Commission, July 2011
  • David Evans (November 12, 2014), "Forex Investors May Face $1 Billion Loss as Trade Site Vanishes", Bloomberg Markets
  • 7 common investment scams, Ontario Securities Commission, 2016
  • Common Frauds and Scams, Canadian Securities Administrators, 2009

Lengthy See also list

[edit]

I moved the following See also-entries to here, because I think the See also list was inconveniently lengthy, so in order for any one of these to be reintroduced, I think they need to be described in prose within the article, explaining why they belong here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Securities_fraud&oldid=1208638236"