U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 17344 / January 29, 2002

People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey Honigman, No. 3325-99, Supreme Court, New York County

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that on January 25, 2002, New York State Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel sentenced Jeffrey S. Honigman ("Honigman") to a prison term of 3-9 years. Honigman, a former top producing broker at now-defunct brokerage Duke & Co. ("Duke"), as well as a supervisor and part owner of Duke, was prosecuted by the New York County District Attorney's office. Honigman pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit enterprise corruption in September 1999.

Honigman was prosecuted for some of the same conduct that underlies a civil complaint filed by the Commission against Honigman, along with co-defendants Victor M. Wang, Gregg A. Thaler, and Charles T. Bennett. As part of his settlement with the Commission, Honigman agreed to an injunction and to pay disgorgement of $302,286 (including pre-judgment interest), which represented Honigman's ill-gotten gains. But Honigman then paid only a portion of that judgment and claimed a financial inability to pay the remainder. The staff rejected Honigman's claim of financial hardship because Honigman had made substantial transfers of assets to his parents that could be used to pay the Commission's judgment in full.

The staff of the Commission made a submission to Justice Wetzel detailing Honigman's failure to pay the judgment and his earlier transfer of assets.

In rejecting a request for leniency and sentencing Honigman to 3-9 years, Justice Wetzel took note that Honigman had transferred $750,000 in assets to his parents after the Commission began its investigation and that those assets subsequently were transferred to an offshore account in the Channel Islands. In imposing sentence, although he took note of Honigman's cooperation in the criminal prosecution of Duke, Justice Wetzel nevertheless termed Honigman's transfer "suspicious" and stated that those assets would have been made available to defrauded investors if Honigman felt true remorse for his crimes.

The Commission acknowledges the outstanding work of the Office of the New York County District Attorney in the Duke criminal actions.

For further information about the Commission's action, see Litigation Release No. 16256.