UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert SCHWARTZ, Appellant
464 F.2d 499, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8371 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal conviction for 'willfully' violating a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 under § 32(a) does not require proof of a specific intent to violate a known law; it is sufficient to prove that the defendant intentionally committed the act that constitutes the violation.
Facts:
- Armstrong & Co., Inc. (Armstrong), a broker-dealer, retained attorney Michael Schwartz, who was intimately involved in the firm's business activities.
- Armstrong acted as the underwriter for an 'all or nothing' stock offering for Triangle Instrument Co., Inc. (Triangle), requiring it to sell 150,000 shares within 45 days or return all funds to purchasers.
- During the offering period, Armstrong sold a substantial number of shares to its customers, who paid Armstrong in full for their stock.
- As the 45-day deadline approached, Armstrong had not sold all the shares and lacked the $230,000 necessary to complete the transaction with Triangle.
- At Schwartz's suggestion and through his efforts, Armstrong obtained a $115,000 loan from Sterling Factors to close the deal.
- To secure this loan, Schwartz participated in pledging the entire 150,000 shares of Triangle stock to Sterling Factors, including the shares that had already been fully paid for by Armstrong's customers.
- This pledge subjected the customers' fully paid-for securities to a lien far in excess of any debt the customers owed Armstrong (which was zero), a practice known as unlawful hypothecation.
- Schwartz was fully aware before the loan was finalized that a substantial number of shares had been sold to and fully paid for by Armstrong's customers.
Procedural Posture:
- The government indicted Michael Schwartz in federal trial court for one count of conspiracy to violate § 8(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
- Schwartz filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment and post-indictment delay, which the trial court denied.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury (a bench trial).
- The trial court found Schwartz guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $2,500.
- Schwartz, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal conviction for 'willfully' violating § 8(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 require proof of a specific intent to violate the law, or is it sufficient to prove that the defendant intentionally committed the prohibited act?
Opinions:
Majority - Clarie, District Judge
No. A conviction for willfully violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not require proof of specific intent to violate a known law, but only that the defendant intentionally committed the act prohibited by the statute. The court reasons that the text of § 32(a) of the Act, which allows for a conviction but bars imprisonment if a defendant proves 'no knowledge' of the violated rule, demonstrates that 'willfully' cannot mean 'with knowledge of illegality.' If a 'willful' violation can occur without knowledge of the rule, then specific intent to violate that rule is not a required element. The court characterizes this as a 'public welfare offense,' where the purpose is to protect the public from harm, thus justifying a lower standard of criminal intent. The evidence showed Schwartz intentionally participated in the act of pledging customer securities, subjecting them to the very risk the statute was designed to prevent, which is sufficient for a willful violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the mens rea requirement for criminal liability under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By holding that 'willfully' means intentionally engaging in the prohibited conduct, rather than having a specific intent to violate the law, the court lowers the bar for prosecutors. This aligns securities violations with other 'public welfare offenses,' placing a greater burden on industry professionals to know and comply with regulations, as ignorance of a specific rule is no longer a complete defense. The ruling strengthens investor protection by making it easier to hold accountable individuals who engage in prohibited practices, even if they do not act with a self-aware 'bad purpose' to break the law.
