Order Holding Yu-Cheng Lin in Contempt of Court
Order Holding Yu-Cheng Lin in Contempt of Court, No. 2:17-cv-000875 (May 31, 2017)
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a motion against Yu-Cheng Lin (a/k/a Believe Lin) for contempt of court for violating a February 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a motion against Yu-Cheng Lin (a/k/a Believe Lin) for contempt of court for violating a February 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) in a securities fraud case. The court found that Lin had willfully dissipated assets, refused to repatriate funds, and failed to comply with discovery requirements, despite clear notice of the court orders. As a result, Lin was sanctioned with $1,000 per day until full compliance and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The asset freeze remained in effect, and Lin was ordered to be detained in custody until further court order.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a motion against Yu-Cheng Lin (a/k/a Believe Lin) for contempt of court for violating a February 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) in a securities fraud case. The court found that Lin had willfully dissipated assets, refused to repatriate funds, and failed to comply with discovery requirements, despite clear notice of the court orders. As a result, Lin was sanctioned with $1,000 per day until full compliance and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The asset freeze remained in effect, and Lin was ordered to be detained in custody until further court order. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a motion for contempt against Yu-Cheng Lin (a/k/a Believe Lin) for violating a February 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) in a securities fraud case. The court found that Lin willfully dissipated assets, refused to repatriate funds, and failed to comply with discovery requirements, despite clear notice of the court orders. As a result, Lin was held in contempt and sanctioned with $1,000 per day until full compliance, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The court ordered his immediate arrest and detention until further judicial action.
Extracted insights
- $1K $1,000 <$10K
- organization Court
- agency United States Securities And Exchange Commission
- organization United States Securities And Exchange Commission
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed motion for Order to show cause why Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin should not be held in contempt
- Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued order requiring Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin to show cause why he should not be held in contempt
- Court entered TRO freezing assets, enjoining destruction of evidence, ordering repatriation, and authorizing expedited discovery
- Court entered preliminary injunction extending provisions of the TRO
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin violated TRO and preliminary injunction by dissipating assets, refusing to repatriate funds, and failing to participate in discovery
- Court found Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin in contempt of February 9 and February 24, 2017 Orders
- Court sanctioned Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin with $1,000 per day fine until compliance
- Court ordered issuance of arrest warrant for Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin for failure to obey court orders
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed motion for Order to show cause why Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin should not be held in contempt and sanctioned
- Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued Order requiring Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin to show cause why he should not be held in contempt
- Court entered TRO freezing assets, enjoining destruction of evidence, ordering repatriation, and authorizing expedited discovery
- Court entered preliminary injunction extending provisions of the TRO
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin violated TRO and preliminary injunction by dissipating assets, refusing to repatriate funds, and failing to participate in discovery
- Court found Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin in contempt of February 9 and February 24, 2017 Orders
- Court sanctioned Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin with $1,000 per day until compliance with prior orders
- Court ordered Clerk of Court to issue warrant for arrest of Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed motion for an Order to show cause
- The Court entered February 9, 2017 Temporary Restraining Order
- The Court entered preliminary injunction against Defendant on February 24, 2017
- Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued Order Requiring Defendant To Show Cause
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin violated the TRO and the PI
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin dissipated assets
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin refused to repatriate funds
- The Court finds Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is in contempt
- Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is sanctioned $1,000 per day
- Clerk of Court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Plaintiff, vs. YU-CHENG LIN, a/ic/a BELIEVE LIN, Defendant. ORDER OF CONTEMPT This matter is before the Court on the motion of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) for an Order to show cause why Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin a/k/a Believe Lin (“Defendant”) should not be held in contempt and sanctioned (the “Motion”) and Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson’s April 24, 2017 Order Requiring Defendant To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (ECF No. 37). The Court, having considered the findings set forth in the April 24, 2017 Order and all of the papers filed by the SEC in this matter, makes the following findings: WHEREAS, the Court entered the February 9, 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 5) freezing certain assets, enjoining Defendant from destroying evidence, ordering repatriation and providing other emergency relief, including expedited discovery; WHEREAS, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against Defendant on February 24, 2017 (‘TI”) (ECF No. 11), extending the relevant provisions of the TRO; WHEREAS, on April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued an Order Requiring Defendant To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (ECF No. 37), which made factual findings regarding Defendant’s violations of the TRO and P1 and ordered Defendant to personally appear before this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt; WHEREAS, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Defendant had actual notice of the TRO at the time of events described in the Motion and the memorandum in support; (2) Defendant had actual notice of the PT at the time of the events described in the Motion and the memorandum in support; (3) Defendant was provided with adequate notice of the April 24, 2017 order, (4) the TRO and PT clearly and unambiguously ordered Defendant to freeze all assets, except for those assets required to be repatriated, prohibited Defendant from dissipating assets, and authorized the SEC to engage in expedited discovery; (5) the evidence is clear and convincing that Defendant has intentionally violated the TRO and the PT by dissipating assets, refusing to repatriate funds, and failing to participate in discovery; and (6) the evidence is clear and convincing that Defendant has failed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt; and, WHEREAS, the Court is authorized to grant the relief requested in the Motion pursuant to its inherent power to punish contempt, the Court finds as follows: The Court finds that, based on the evidence presented to this Court, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is in contempt of the Court’s February 9 and February 24, 2017 Orders. Therefore, the asset freeze instituted as part of this Court’s February 9, 2017 Order (ECF No. 5) and February 24, 2017 Order (ECF No. 11) shall remain in full force and effect until further Order of this Court. Furthermore, this Court having found Defendant Yu Cheng Line in contempt, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is hereby sanctioned in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day from the issuance of this Order until such time as this Court determines that Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is in full compliance with this Court’s prior orders; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin for his failure to obey this Court’s February 9 and February 24, 207 Orders. Any United States Marshal, or any person authorized by the federal government including (but not limited to) U.S. Customs and Border Control or BICE to arrest and incarcerate a person pursuant to any lawfully issued arrest warrant, shall have the authority to arrest Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin and incarcerate Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin at the nearest federal detention center; and it is further ORDERED that, upon his arrest, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin shall be brought forthwith before this Court for any appropriate further judicial action at said time; and it is further ORDERED that the United States Marshal or other any arresting officer shall immediately notify this Court and Plaintiff’s attorneys of the fact of Defendant Yu Cheng Lin’s arrest; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin shall be detained in custody until otherwise ordered by the Court. Dated:_____________ ________________________ JOE. LINARES 5’U’NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Plaintiff, vs. YU-CHENG LIN, a/ic/a BELIEVE LIN, Defendant. ORDER OF CONTEMPT This matter is before the Court on the motion of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) for an Order to show cause why Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin a/k/a Believe Lin (“Defendant”) should not be held in contempt and sanctioned (the “Motion”) and Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson’s April 24, 2017 Order Requiring Defendant To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (ECF No. 37). The Court, having considered the findings set forth in the April 24, 2017 Order and all of the papers filed by the SEC in this matter, makes the following findings: WHEREAS, the Court entered the February 9, 2017 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 5) freezing certain assets, enjoining Defendant from destroying evidence, ordering repatriation and providing other emergency relief, including expedited discovery; Case 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Document 44 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 825 WHEREAS, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against Defendant on February 24, 2017 (‘TI”) (ECF No. 11), extending the relevant provisions of the TRO; WHEREAS, on April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued an Order Requiring Defendant To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (ECF No. 37), which made factual findings regarding Defendant’s violations of the TRO and P1 and ordered Defendant to personally appear before this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt; WHEREAS, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Defendant had actual notice of the TRO at the time of events described in the Motion and the memorandum in support; (2) Defendant had actual notice of the PT at the time of the events described in the Motion and the memorandum in support; (3) Defendant was provided with adequate notice of the April 24, 2017 order, (4) the TRO and PT clearly and unambiguously ordered Defendant to freeze all assets, except for those assets required to be repatriated, prohibited Defendant from dissipating assets, and authorized the SEC to engage in expedited discovery; (5) the evidence is clear and convincing that Defendant has intentionally violated the TRO and the PT by dissipating assets, refusing to repatriate funds, and failing to participate in discovery; and (6) the evidence is clear and convincing that Defendant has failed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt; and, WHEREAS, the Court is authorized to grant the relief requested in the Motion pursuant to its inherent power to punish contempt, the Court finds as follows: Case 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Document 44 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 826 The Court finds that, based on the evidence presented to this Court, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is in contempt of the Court’s February 9 and February 24, 2017 Orders. Therefore, the asset freeze instituted as part of this Court’s February 9, 2017 Order (ECF No. 5) and February 24, 2017 Order (ECF No. 11) shall remain in full force and effect until further Order of this Court. Furthermore, this Court having found Defendant Yu Cheng Line in contempt, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is hereby sanctioned in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day from the issuance of this Order until such time as this Court determines that Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin is in full compliance with this Court’s prior orders; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin for his failure to obey this Court’s February 9 and February 24, 207 Orders. Any United States Marshal, or any person authorized by the federal government including (but not limited to) U.S. Customs and Border Control or BICE to arrest and incarcerate a person pursuant to any lawfully issued arrest warrant, shall have the authority to arrest Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin and incarcerate Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin at the nearest federal detention center; and it is further ORDERED that, upon his arrest, Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin shall be brought forthwith before this Court for any appropriate further judicial action at said time; and it is further ORDERED that the United States Marshal or other any arresting officer shall immediately notify this Court and Plaintiff’s attorneys of the fact of Defendant Yu Cheng Lin’s arrest; and it is further Case 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Document 44 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 827 ORDERED that Defendant Yu-Cheng Lin shall be detained in custody until otherwise ordered by the Court. Dated:_____________ ________________________ JOE. LINARES 5’U’NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:17-cv-00875-JLL-JAD Document 44 Filed 05/23/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 828