SEC v. Raymond M. Marker; and United States Private Investment Fund (USPIF), No. LR-17949, Middle District of North Carolina (Jan. 24, 2003) — Press Release
raw: Raymond M. Marker, et al.
Raymond M. Marker, et al., No. LR-17949 (Jan. 24, 2003)
Raymond M. Marker and his investment fund USPIF defied court orders by destroying and removing documents, fleeing North Carolina, and failing to appear at a hearing, prompting the SEC to seek contempt sanctions including daily fines or incarceration.
The SEC filed an application seeking a contempt order against Raymond M. Marker and his investment fund, USPIF, for violating court orders issued on December 20, 2002, and January 3, 2003, which froze assets and required preservation of documents and submission of an accounting by January 8, 2003. Marker removed substantially all contents from his Greensboro office and left the state, while also failing to appear at the mandatory January 8 hearing despite proper service of a subpoena. The SEC requested the court find Marker and USPIF in contempt and impose daily fines or incarceration until compliance is achieved, with no financial restitution yet ordered.
Raymond M. Marker and his investment fund, United States Private Investment Fund (USPIF), were targeted by the SEC for willful defiance of federal court orders issued in December 2002 and January 2003, which mandated the preservation of documents and submission of a full financial accounting by January 8, 2003. Despite being properly served with these orders and a subpoena to appear at the January 8 hearing, Marker removed nearly all contents from his Greensboro, North Carolina office and fled the state, effectively obstructing the SEC’s investigation. The SEC filed an application in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina seeking a contempt order against both Marker and USPIF for their noncompliance. The agency requested that the court issue an order to show cause why Marker and USPIF should not be held in contempt, and further asked that daily fines or incarceration be imposed for each day of continued violation. No criminal charges or monetary restitution were yet imposed at the time of filing, as the proceedings were focused solely on enforcing judicial compliance. The SEC emphasized that Marker’s actions—destruction of evidence, flight from jurisdiction, and refusal to appear—constituted a direct challenge to the authority of the court. The application underscored the urgency of holding Marker accountable to prevent further obstruction and to preserve the integrity of the ongoing securities enforcement action.
Extracted insights
- agency Securities and Exchange Commission
- agency the sec's application
- Securities and Exchange Commission filed an application in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
- Securities and Exchange Commission seeks an order to show cause
- Marker and USPIF violated the Court's December 20, 2002 Order and January 3, 2003 Order Freezing Assets of Defendants Marker and USPIF and Directing an Accounting
- the Court's December 20, 2002 Order and January 3, 2003 Order prohibited defendants from destroying or transferring documents from their office at 701 Green Valley Road, Suite 306, Greensboro, North Carolina 27429 until the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing on the Commission's motion for a temporary restraining order and other equitable relief
- the Court's December 20, 2002 Order and January 3, 2003 Order required the defendants to submit to the Court and the Commission an accounting on or before January 8, 2003
- Marker removed substantially all contents within his offices
- Marker left the state of North Carolina
- the Commission served Marker with a subpoena requiring him to appear at the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing
- Marker failed to appear
- the SEC's application requests that the Court issue an order to show cause
- the SEC's application requests that the Court find that Marker and USPIF have acted in contempt of the Court's December 20, 2002 and January 3, 2003 Orders and the Commission's subpoena
- the SEC's application requests that the Court direct that fines and/or incarceration will be imposed for every day in which Marker and USPIF are found to be in contempt in the future
Litigation Release No. 17949 / January 24, 2003 SEC v. Raymond M. Marker, et al., Case No. 1:02-CV1109 (M.D.N.C. ). SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS CONTEMPT ORDER AGAINST GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA BUSINESSMAN AND HIS INVESTMENT FUND On January 14, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an application in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina seeking an order to show cause why United States Private Investment Fund ("USPIF"), a purported international fund doing business in North Carolina, and its principal, Raymond M. Marker should not be held in contempt. The application states that Marker and USPIF violated the Court's December 20, 2002 Order and January 3, 2003 Order Freezing Assets of Defendants Marker and USPIF and Directing an Accounting. Those orders (1) prohibited defendants from destroying or transferring documents from their office at 701 Green Valley Road, Suite 306, Greensboro, North Carolina 27429 until the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing on the Commission's motion for a temporary restraining order and other equitable relief and (2) required the defendants to submit to the Court and the Commission an accounting on or before January 8, 2003. Although defendants were served with the Orders, they have not complied with these requirements. Instead, Marker removed substantially all contents within his offices and left the state of North Carolina. Morover, the Commission properly served Marker with a subpoena requiring him to appear at the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing, but Marker failed to appear. The SEC's application requests that the Court: (i) issue an order to show cause; (ii) find that Marker and USPIF have acted in contempt of the Court's December 20, 2002 and January 3, 2003 Orders and the Commission's subpoena; and (iii) direct that fines and/or incarceration will be imposed for every day in which Marker and USPIF are found to be in contempt in the future.Litigation Release No. 17949 / January 24, 2003 SEC v. Raymond M. Marker, et al., Case No. 1:02-CV1109 (M.D.N.C. ). SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS CONTEMPT ORDER AGAINST GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA BUSINESSMAN AND HIS INVESTMENT FUND On January 14, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an application in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina seeking an order to show cause why United States Private Investment Fund ("USPIF"), a purported international fund doing business in North Carolina, and its principal, Raymond M. Marker should not be held in contempt. The application states that Marker and USPIF violated the Court's December 20, 2002 Order and January 3, 2003 Order Freezing Assets of Defendants Marker and USPIF and Directing an Accounting. Those orders (1) prohibited defendants from destroying or transferring documents from their office at 701 Green Valley Road, Suite 306, Greensboro, North Carolina 27429 until the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing on the Commission's motion for a temporary restraining order and other equitable relief and (2) required the defendants to submit to the Court and the Commission an accounting on or before January 8, 2003. Although defendants were served with the Orders, they have not complied with these requirements. Instead, Marker removed substantially all contents within his offices and left the state of North Carolina. Morover, the Commission properly served Marker with a subpoena requiring him to appear at the Court's January 8, 2003 hearing, but Marker failed to appear. The SEC's application requests that the Court: (i) issue an order to show cause; (ii) find that Marker and USPIF have acted in contempt of the Court's December 20, 2002 and January 3, 2003 Orders and the Commission's subpoena; and (iii) direct that fines and/or incarceration will be imposed for every day in which Marker and USPIF are found to be in contempt in the future.