[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 93 (Thursday, July 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S6681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURITIES FRAUD
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, over the course of the last 6 months,
the longstanding, systemic fraudulent activities of numerous
corporations have been exposed in America and around the world. This
fraud has cost American investors massive amounts, perhaps hundreds of
billions of dollars, perhaps more. Beyond the tangible losses, investor
confidence in the integrity of our capital markets has also taken a
tremendous hit, as the Presiding Officer knows.
As we move forward to address the shortcomings in the oversight of
our financial markets, we must carefully consider the true impact of
what has occurred. Thousands of people have lost billions of dollars.
Thousands of people have lost jobs. Millions of people have lost or are
losing faith in our capital markets every day.
The fact is, none of this is made any easier because of the manner in
which this has happened. Americans don't feel better because the
mugging took place in the boardroom rather than the back alley. In many
ways, what has happened is even worse. Because of the sheer size and
number of participants in our markets, the corporate scams have been
much more efficient and much more effective than the average boiler
room fraud.
The bottom line is this: Real people are facing tremendous losses,
and confidence in our system is eroding.
I believe we must address this situation with concrete measures.
Fraud, even if committed by white-collar individuals--indeed,
especially if committed by white-collar individuals--needs to be
severely punished with criminal sanctions.
I commend the efforts to create new, tough penalties for people who
commit fraud through our securities markets. I supported that, as most
of the people in the Senate did.
Additionally, I believe there is more that we can do to stop or slow
down the kinds of conduct that lead to situations where investing
Americans are swindled out of hundreds of billions of dollars. The fact
is, in one key area, the appropriate disincentives for participating in
securities fraud are just not in place today.
Since 1994, after the Supreme Court ruling in the Central Bank case,
there has been no liability for secondary actors who aid and abet
securities fraud in America. Think about that. Since 1994, there has
been no liability for secondary actors who aid and abet securities
fraud. In effect, the decision in the Central Bank case led to legions
of accountants, lawyers, and other security specialists who play a
vital yet behind-the-scenes role in securities transactions, off the
hook for down-the-line fraud in the sale of securities.
Think of it like this: The guys who procure the getaway car before
the robbery, tune it up, fill it up with gas, put air in the tires, and
sometimes even drive it away, face no financial liability for their
involvement.
Does that make any sense? Not to me. I believe not to the majority of
the Senate, if we could get a vote on the Shelby-Durbin amendment. And
we will someday because this is not an issue that is going to go away.
When attorneys, accounting firms, and other securities professionals
know that assisting securities fraud is nothing to worry about, as it
is today, there is no wonder there has been a proliferation of audit
failures, restatements, Enrons, Global Crossings, WorldComs, and many
more to come. Civil and criminal penalties are important and necessary,
but they are not sufficient. They serve a separate but important
purpose of punishing fraudulent behavior. But they do nothing to ensure
that investors, the victims, have an opportunity to seek financial
redress. Civil liability supplements criminal and civil penalties and
acts as a further disincentive to engage in or assist fraudulent
activities.
Here are a couple of basic questions we all need to answer. Why
shouldn't investors--that is, so many million in America--be able to
recover losses from aiders and abettors of securities fraud? What
public interest do we serve by inoculating aiders and abettors of
securities fraud from civil liability? Why should this type of tort,
this fraud, not give rise to a civil claim, particularly when the loss
to the investor and impact on the markets is so great, as it is today?
Investors are intentionally being defrauded. Yet they have no remedy
at the moment to seek monetary redress from those who aid and abet
these crimes. Why? The answer is, aiders and abettors play a vital role
in allowing primary actors to commit fraud. They should, accordingly,
be held proportionately liable for their participation in these
fraudulent schemes.
I believe for our capital markets to function properly, it is not
sufficient that financial information is accurate. The public must also
have full faith and confidence that it is honest, that we have
integrity there.
Accountants, lawyers, and other securities professionals perform, by
design, a gatekeeping function within our securities markets. It is
unacceptable, I believe, that those upon whom so many rely--all of us--
those whose activities can literally move markets, are not held to the
highest standards. Something is wrong.
Forty years ago, at a time when securities transactions were
considerably less sophisticated than they are today, Judge Henry
Friendly, a distinguished jurist remarked:
In our complex society, the accountant's certificate and
the lawyer's opinion can be instruments for pecuniary lost
more potent than the chisel or the crowbar.
Today's staggering shareholder losses demonstrate that over time
legal and accounting gimmicks have only grown more potent.
I believe we must create greater disincentives for those who would
assist securities fraud. Restoring liability for aiders and abettors of
securities fraud should make securities professionals think once,
twice, even three times before they put their seal of approval on
information sent to the marketplace. Such carefulness will serve
investors and our markets well in the future.
Our economy has provided the best material standard of living in the
world because our capital markets have traditionally favored clarity
over complexity, disclosure over dissembling, and fairness over
favoritism. For the sake of future economic growth and prosperity, I
believe we must put those principles back into practice.
Senator Durbin and I are going to continue to pursue our amendment.
As I said earlier, this is not going to go away because there are going
to be more scheduled. I wish we could have done it on this bill. I
yield the floor.
____________________