{"id":4626,"date":"2008-06-27T11:12:17","date_gmt":"2008-06-27T11:12:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2008\/06\/connecticut_brokerage_aide_mus"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:42:32","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T20:42:32","slug":"connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and disgorgement to settle charges he engaged in a scheme to take part in unauthorized securities trades<\/a>, which caused prices to rise dramatically.<\/p>\n

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that Joshua Eudowe, who worked at a brokerage firm owned by his stepfather, Lawrence Goldstein, was not a registered representative but was brought in to help with marketing and research efforts. <\/p>\n

In 2006, the SEC says that he made several unauthorized purchases of CreditRiskMonitor.com Inc. and FRMO Corp. stocks in client accounts of investment partnerships managed by his stepfather. Eudowe also is accused of hacking into the company Web site and using Goldstein’s password to engage in unauthorized securities trades without permission. <\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and disgorgement to settle charges he engaged in a scheme to take part in unauthorized securities trades, which caused prices to rise dramatically. The Securities and Exchange Commission says that Joshua […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3741],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-securities-fraud"],"yoast_head":"\nConnecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 27, 2008<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and — June 27, 2008\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 27, 2008\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and — June 27, 2008\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 27, 2008","description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and — June 27, 2008","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 27, 2008","twitter_description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and — June 27, 2008","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades","datePublished":"2008-06-27T11:12:17+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:42:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/"},"wordCount":267,"articleSection":["Securities Fraud"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/","name":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 27, 2008","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-27T11:12:17+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:42:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered a Connecticut man to pay $58,825 in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and — June 27, 2008","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/connecticut-brokerage-aide-mus\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Connecticut Brokerage Aide Must Pay $58,825 To Settle Charges He Made Unauthorized Securities Trades"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1cC","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4626"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4626\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20389,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4626\/revisions\/20389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}