U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2A— SECURITIES AND TRUST INDENTURES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DOMESTIC SECURITIES

15 U.S.C. § 77x

Penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this subchapter, or the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under authority thereof, or any person who willfully, in a registration statement filed under this subchapter, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Julian S. H. WEINER, Marvin Al Lichtig & Solomon Block, Appellants, 578 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Julian S. H. WEINER, Marvin Al Lichtig & Solomon Block, Appellants, 578 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 4× “He was convicted of six counts of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77x, 77q(a), for accounting practices which fraudulently overstated the income and assets of Equity Funding, and of four counts of willfully making untrue statements to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and…”
United States v. James Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “The Instruction on Willfully Violating the Federal Securities Laws The court gave the following instruction of “willfully” in instructing the jury on the alleged 15 U.S.C. § 77x violation: A person acts “willfully” under the federal securities laws by intentionally undertaking…”
United States v. Richard I. Berger, United States of Am. v. Richard I. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “We begin by noting that the government could have properly charged Berger with making a materially false statement on an S-1 Registration Statement under Section 24 of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77x. Section 24 of the 1933 Act criminalizes the filing of materially false…”
Aaron v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 446 U.S. 680 (1980). · cites it 2× “§ 78u (d), with § 24 of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 77x, and § 32 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,478 United States of Am. v. Robert Edwin Brown, 578 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues that the use of the word “willful” in 15 U.S.C. § 77x, the penalty provision for violations of § 77q, imports the requirement of specific knowledge of the identity of instruments as securities.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris D. ENGLISH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant, 92 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “§ 77 offenses, provides that “[a]ny person who willfully violates” § 77q(a) is subject to fines and incarceration.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Tambone, 550 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 77x; see Naftalin, 441 U.S. at 778 , 99 S.”
United States v. Wenger, 427 F.3d 840 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Section 17(b)’s mens rea requirement belies Wenger’s contention that he did not have fair warning.”
Gervase v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “" (15 U.S.C. §§ 77x, 78ff(a).) "Willfulness in a securities action may be established by showing that a defendant acted with knowledge of or with reckless indifference to the `improper goings-on' in its firm.”
Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010). “15 U.S.C. § 77x, under which Garland was also convicted, specifies the punishment for committing securities fraud under "any of the provisions of this subchapter.”
Hill v. Der, 521 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Del. 1981). · cites it 2× “…for injunctive relief, 15 U.S.C. § 77t, or, *1374 may give rise to criminal liability if the violation is willful, 15 U.S.C. § 77x. The Securities Act by its terms, however, contains express civil damage remedies only in §§ 11 and 12 and does not provide an express private…”
United States v. Charles D. Erb & Franklin S. Deboer, 543 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 77x, 18 U.S.C. § 2 . In each instance, the false statement was that an alleged nominee rather than the defendant was the owner of shares of Xprint.”
Show all 105 citing cases →
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.