A Florida District Court judge has entered final judgments in the SEC’s case against a former executive and several companies involved in a fraudulent viatical investment scheme. The scam defrauded roughly 39,000 investors out of more than $1 billion.

The court’s final judgments were levied against Ft. Lauderdale-based Mutual Benefits Corporation (MBC), a viatical settlement provider, former MBC vice president Steven Steiner, and two entities he controlled, Camden Consulting, Inc., and SKS Consulting, Inc. The court initially found the defendants and liable for prejudgment interest and disgorgement in the amount of $5,000,000. But it ordered them to pay $3,925,000, based on their financial condition.

In April, the SEC filed for a dismissal of the charges against relief defendants Viatical Benefactors and Viatical Services because they were under the control of a court-appointed receiver, responsible for distributing the companies’ assets to defrauded investors.

The SEC’s pursuit of the MBC viatical scheme stretches back to 1998, when a final judgment of permanent injunction was ordered against Steiner’s brothers Joel and Leslie Steinger, the de facto principals of MBC. In May of 2004, the Commission obtained an emergency action to halt MBC’s billion-dollar fraudulent offering. The action charged MBC, the Steinger brothers, and Peter Lombardi, MBC’s then-president, with running a fraudulent viatical investment scheme from 1994 through 2004.

The defendants were charged with raising assets by falsely promising investors fixed annual returns between 12% to 72%. The life expectancy of each insurance-policy holder, or viator, was a key factor in determining the maturity date of the investment, the rates of return, and the amount of funds that needed to be escrowed for the payment of future premiums on the policies. The defendants told investors that the life expectanciy figures were determined by independent physicians. But in reality, the doctors hired by MBC did not actually review any of the viators’ medical records. Instead, they merely signed off on life expectancy statements created by Joel Steinger.

The Steinger brothers also failed to disclose that at least $26 million in funds collected in the offering was paid out to themselves and their relatives in the form of “consulting” fees.

In June of 2005, the Commission added Steven Steiner as a defendant in the case. The regulator charged Steiner with securities violations in connection with MBC’s fraudulent offering. According to the SEC’s complaint, Steven Steiner was the “public face” of MBC who ran most of sales training sessions and regularly met with existing and potential investors.

He touted the humanitarian nature of viatical investments and assured investors and agents that the life expectancies were determined by doctors prior to being ascribed to a given policy. What Steiner failed to tell any of their investors was that 90% of the viatical settlements his firm invested in were beyond the projected life expectancies that had been promised to investors. As a result, shortfalls in escrowed premium funds forced the defendants make payments to investors using monies escrowed for future obligations of other investors. That created a Ponzi-sceme situation.

Steiner also failed to inform investors that his brothers and fellow defendants were the principals of MCB, had a disciplinary history with the Commission and the Commodities Future Trading Commission, and of the numerous cease-and-desist orders against MBC.

On December 1, 2005, the SEC agreed to a $25 million settlement in its civil action against MBC, the Steinger brothers, and Lombardi. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Leslie and Joel Steinger and Lombardi also consented to an injunction against future securities violations.

Leslie and Joel agreed to pay $9 million each in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $500,000 civil penalty. Lombardi agreed to pay $5,880,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $120,000 civil penalty. In late January of this year, Lombardi was sentenced to twenty years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his involvement in the MBC fraud.

In March, the Commission charged two other brothers with bilking investors through a fraudulent viatical investment offering. According to the regulator, Keith and Jesse LaMonda raised over $100 million from roughly 4,000 investors through Texas-based ABC Viaticals from June 2001 through November 2006.

The LaMonda brothers made numerous false claims to investors regarding ABC’s offering, including failing to disclose that they had taken $6.5 million of investor funds for themselves and their own entities. A Texas District Court granted the SEC’s request for an asset freeze, preliminary injunction, and the appointment of a receiver, among other relief.

Source: CCH Wall Street

For more Viatical Information and Life Settlement Information, visit LifeSettlementInfo.com, URL is http://www.lifesettlementinfo.com/
If you would like numerous Life Settlement Quotes, visit LifeSettlementQuotes.com – They are are currently offering numerous Life Settlement Quotes for your life insurance policy and will quote on many face sizes, even as low as 100k face value! URL is http://www.lifesettlementquotes.com/

Statement: Life Insurance Finance Association Will Oppose State Adoption of Revised NAIC Viatical Settlement Model

ATLANTA–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has adopted amendments to its Viatical Settlements Model Act. “This action was taken despite the fact that the model was poorly drafted, did not meet the stated objectives of the regulators and was expedited without having fully considering the issues raised by all industry sectors,” according to Scott J. Cipinko, executive director of the Life Insurance Finance Association (LIFA).

In addition, the adopted changes do not recognize how the life insurance industry and the secondary markets actually operate. “This is just unsettling. The rights of the consumers were not actually considered, and the changes will impair the rights of many life insurance consumers that the Model Act was aimed at protecting,” continued Cipinko.

Consumer groups, a number of other trade associations including the Life Insurance Settlement Association, Life Settlements Institute and the Institutional Life Markets Association, life insurance premium finance lenders and many life insurance agents have objected strenuously to the amendments to the Model Act. In addition, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) recently adopted a resolution urging the NAIC to delay final adoption of its amendments to the Model Act until December 2007 so NCOIL would be allowed an opportunity to fully discuss and consider its own model law on the subject.

The New York Department of Insurance was a participant in the discussions throughout the process. However, even the department did not support this Model Act, citing concerns about process and the belief that the Model Act falls short in the area of privacy protections. In addition, Nevada, Montana, Washington and Virginia also abstained.

LIFA believes that the adoption of this Model Act is harmful to consumer rights and does little, if anything, to prevent the abuses in the market referred to as Stranger Initiated Life Insurance (SILI) that the changes were purportedly drafted to address. LIFA continues to support the efforts of state policymakers to eliminate such abusive transactions, but while LIFA believes premium-finance lenders must be subject to reasonable regulation, it also advocates strongly for the protection of consumer rights. The Model Act as adopted does not adequately consider those essential rights.

The revised Model Act would interfere with a property right of consumers by prohibiting the sale of a life-insurance policy in the secondary market for five years from the date of its issuance due to the type of financing secured by a consumer even in the event of severe financial distress. A consumer who sought a certain type of premium financing will find himself or herself forced to lapse the policy or retire it for its minimal cash surrender value if he or she is unable to pay the premiums prior to the five-year date. He or she will be prohibited from realizing its market value — antithetical to consumer protection — and at the same time fails to accomplish its intended purpose for the policy. This interference with a basic consumer right is one of the most dangerous provisions ever adopted by the NAIC. The adoption was accomplished while ignoring testimony from consumer advocates, banking, premium finance and legal experts as well as economists who all stated clearly that the five-year prohibition will do nothing to prevent abusive practices, but will have the detrimental effect of preventing certain consumers from purchasing needed life insurance coverage.

LIFA will continue to support the rights of all consumers to purchase and sell life insurance policies and will oppose this legislation in any state and calls upon the state legislatures to reject this anti-consumer Model Act.

The Life Insurance Finance Association is a nonprofit, professional trade association and its members are comprised of individuals and companies involved in the life insurance premium finance industry. LIFA was founded to provide an open dialogue between and among life insurers, premium finance lenders, life insurance agents, brokers and insurance regulators, to provide consumer advocacy, and to foster a better understanding among participants in the life insurance and premium finance marketplace, state and federal policy makers, and the general public. For additional information, visit www.lifaorg.org.

Call 1-888-973-8377 to explore premium financing solutions.