No person shall offer or sell any security in this state unless (1) it is registered under sections
36b-2 to
36b-34, inclusive, (2) the security or transaction is exempted under section
36b-21, or (3) the security is a covered security provided such person complies with any applicable requirements in subsections (c), (d) and (e) of section
36b-21.
(P.A. 77-482, S. 16; P.A. 81-292, S. 5; P.A. 89-220, S. 5; P.A. 97-220, S. 8, 15; P.A. 10-141, S. 11.)
History: P.A. 81-292 deleted “or from” after “within”; P.A. 89-220 made a technical change; Sec. 36-485 transferred to Sec. 36b-16 in 1995; P.A. 97-220 added Subdiv. (3) re covered securities, effective July 1, 1997; P.A. 10-141 replaced reference to Sec. 36b-33 with reference to Sec. 36b-34, effective June 7, 2010.
See Sec. 3-123ee re exemption for Connecticut Home Care Trust Fund participation, offering and solicitation.
Cited. 233 C. 304. Defendant's claim that her convictions under statute should be reversed because she reasonably relied on advice of legal counsel in selling unregistered securities is unavailing; offense of selling unregistered securities requires proof only that defendant intended to do the act prohibited by statute and no specific intent to violate the law is required. 256 C. 313.
A note that does not require payment until expiration of a 9-month period does not fall within the exemptions from registration provided for in Sec. 36b-21. 77 CA 621.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 2001–2012 · leading case:
State v. Andresen, 773 A.2d 328 (Conn. 2001).
State v. Andresen, 773 A.2d 328 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 22× “to 1995) § 36b-16. 3 On appeal, the defendant concedes that the securi *316 ties were not registered, but contends that there was *317 insufficient evidence presented by the state to prove that the securities were not exempt from registration.”
Lehn v. Dailey, 825 A.2d 140 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 6× “The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that he violated (1) General Statutes § 36b-16 and (2) General Statutes § 36b-5 (a) (2).”
State v. Gonzalez, 15 A.3d 1049 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d 328 (2001) (under General Statutes § 36b-16, state need only prove that defendant sold unregistered securities because exemption from registration requirements is affirmative defense that defendant must prove).”
DeSteph v. Dep't of Banking, 72 A.3d 470 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Based on these findings, the commissioner made the conclusions as follows: First, under CUSA § 36b-16, a person is forbidden to offer a security unless it is registered or exempt from registration.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.