The SEC had just posted three new conclusions in relation with the administrative proceedings of two famous immigration lawyers, and also for a third lawyer. They say one party has apparently earned $450,000 in commissioning from an EB-5 benefactor. The coercion is nothing new. Last year, we noticed that many EB 5 lawyers in San Francisco were subjected to the same sanctions and proceedings. The accusations are resonantly familiar with a violation of the securities exchange act. There are more to expect when it comes to this SEC coercion activity.
Immigration Lawyers as EB 5 Gatekeepers
The SEC emphasizes a strong interest in pursuing legal actions to any securities laws by gatekeepers of securities markets.
Immigration lawyers are considered gatekeepers to the EB 5 Program. So let’s try to know what it is? In the context of securities law, this gatekeeper will hold a position of trust to look out for the interests of a particular securities market. The idea is that the integrity of the market is reviewed by experts charged with imposing their responsibilities. Lawyers, accountants and auditors are often the gatekeepers of the securities marketplace.
The SEC wishes to hold out offenders of the securities laws as instances for commercial enterprises. There is no solace for the EB 5 lawyers in San Francisco to face forceful ejection and sanctions, but it does imply that SEC prioritizes and emphasizes investigations and why they consider these lawyers important. Lawyers who are high in profile for the EB 5 enterprise are mostly engaged in offering investors for localized centers or who are engaged in marketing. Those lawyers who takes a finder’s fee from localized centers at one time. The SEC also prosecutes minor violations specifically by gatekeepers to set an example for the commercial enterprise. One of the lawyers in today’s proceeding have accepted $37500 in finder’s fees. This is evident enough that SEC will impose administrative sanctions and proceedings. It’s actually a warning for these immigration lawyers that even though they are working as gatekeepers for SEC laws, they are still liable to the law, and should not enforce high finder’s fees to clients.