Skip to main content

Long Island Man Pleads Guilty to “Free-Riding” Securities Fraud Scheme

Earlier today, in federal court in Brooklyn, Noor Mohammed of Deer Park, New York, pleaded guilty to a one-count felony information charging him for his role in a "free-riding" securities fraud scheme in which he and others used checks to buy securities in brokerage accounts without having sufficient funds to pay for them. The guilty plea proceedings were held before United States District Judge John Gleeson. Mohammed faces a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years’ incarceration, as well as the payment of restitution to the victims of his crimes.

The guilty plea was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Janice K. Fedarcyk, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office.

To execute the scheme, Mohammed and others opened brokerage accounts with option trading privileges and deposited bad checks ranging from $30,000 to $190,000 into these accounts causing the brokerage firms to credit the accounts in the amount of the checks. Shortly thereafter, Mohammed and others purchased over $1 million worth of short-term option contracts that expired within a day prior to the time that the bad checks bounced. When the option contracts declined in value, Mohammed failed to fund the account, and the brokerage firm was left with the loss. When the option contracts increased in value, Mohammed deposited sufficient funds to cover the purchase price of the option contracts, sold the option contracts, and withdrew the trading profits. The scheme resulted in more than $600,000 in net trading losses to the brokerage firms who were victimized by the scheme.

Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the FBI, the agency responsible for leading the government's investigation, and thanked the United States Securities & Exchange Commission for its assistance. Ms. Lynch added that the investigation is continuing.

The government's case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Klugman and Shannon Jones.

The Defendant:

NOOR MOHAMMED
Age: 47
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more