Skip to main content

Stanford Financial Group Chief Investment Officer Charged with Obstruction of Justice

federal grand jury in Houston returned a two-count indictment today charging Laura Pendergest-Holt, the chief investment officer of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group (SFG), with conspiring to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proceeding investigating SFG, as well as a substantive count of obstructing the SEC proceeding, Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer and acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Tim Johnson announced.

The federal court in Houston will be issuing an order summoning Pendergest-Holt to appear in the near future for arraignment. Pendergest-Holt has been free on a $300,000 bond since being charged with obstruction in a criminal complaint issued from the Northern District of Texas on Feb. 26, 2009.

According to the indictment, Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL), marketed certificates of deposits (CDs). In a December 2008 monthly report, SIBL purported to have more than 30,000 clients and $8.5 billion in assets. The indictment alleges that investors were not advised of the fact that SIBL internally segregated its investment portfolio into three tiers: "Tier I," which represented cash and cash equivalents; "Tier II," which contained investments with "outside portfolio managers;" and "Tier III," described as "other assets."

Internal SIBL documents show that as of June 30, 2008, Tier III contained more than 80 percent of SIBL’s purported investments, according to the indictment. The indictment also alleges that approximately $3.2 billion of the purported Tier III value included investments in artificially valued real estate and approximately $1.6 billion included notes on personal loans to SFG "Executive A."

The indictment alleges that in December 2008, as part of an ongoing investigation, the SEC made official inquiries of SFG regarding the value and content of SIBL’s purported investments and provided notice that it intended to schedule testimony of witnesses. The indictment further alleges that on or about Jan. 21, 2009, at a meeting in Miami, Pendergest-Holt and SFG Executives "A" and "B" and an attorney for SFG, discussed how to respond to the SEC subpoenas. In addition, the indictment alleges that at a meeting in Houston on or about Jan. 23, 2009, the attorney for SFG requested that the SEC defer the subpoenas to Executives A and B and represented that Pendergest-Holt and the president of SIBL would be better witnesses because, the attorney claimed, Executives A and B were not knowledgeable about the details of SIBL’s assets. The indictment alleges that prior to her SEC testimony, Pendergest-Holt suggested at a meeting in Miami that she only disclose the June 30, 2008, financials as those numbers "looked better," and that she received a phone call from Executive B in which he reminded her to only discuss Tier II. According to the indictment, as early as November 2008, Pendergest-Holt was aware of the current value of Tier III and the real estate holdings in Tier III. The indictment further alleges that just prior to her SEC testimony, Pendergest-Holt participated in preparing a document reflecting the value of Tier III and the assets in Tier III.

The indictment alleges that on Feb. 10, 2009, Pendergest-Holt provided sworn testimony to the SEC in Fort Worth, Texas, where in response to questions by the SEC, she did not disclose the Miami meetings to prepare for her testimony and falsely represented that she did not know the content or allocations of the Tier III assets. The indictment further alleges that on Feb. 12, 2009, after her false testimony, Pendergest-Holt caused $4.3 million in SIBL funds to be wire-transferred to SIBL’s operating account in Houston.

Finally, on Feb. 17, 2009, as the indictment alleges, at a meeting with SEC attorneys in Memphis, Tenn., Pendergest-Holt falsely represented that if she "knew anything about Tier III," she would tell them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...