Loading...
Loading...
Browse all stories on DeepNewz
VisitWhat type of high-profile SEC case will first demand a jury trial post-ruling?
Insider Trading • 25%
Market Manipulation • 25%
Accounting Fraud • 25%
Other • 25%
Court records and SEC announcements
Supreme Court Rules 6-3: SEC Must Use Jury Trials in Fraud Cases
Jun 27, 2024, 10:45 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot use in-house judges for civil fraud complaints, mandating that defendants are entitled to a jury trial in federal court. This decision, reached with a 6-3 majority, significantly impacts the SEC's enforcement capabilities. The ruling in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy asserts that the SEC's practice of using administrative law judges violates the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in fraud cases. This landmark decision curbs the SEC's power to unilaterally impose fines and could lead to increased litigation as defendants now have the right to present their cases to a jury of their peers.
View original story
Conviction • 33%
Acquittal • 33%
Mistrial • 33%
Defendant acquitted • 33%
Defendant found guilty • 34%
Case settled out of court • 33%
Financial Fraud • 25%
Public Corruption • 25%
Cyber Crime • 25%
Other • 25%
Ryan Salame's Sentence Reduced • 25%
Michelle Bond Indicted • 25%
New Charges Against Another Executive • 25%
No Further Actions • 25%
Financial fraud case • 25%
Public corruption case • 25%
Cybercrime case • 25%
Other type of case • 25%
SEC wins • 25%
States win • 25%
Settlement reached • 25%
Case unresolved • 25%
Kraken wins • 25%
SEC wins • 25%
Settlement reached • 25%
Other outcome • 25%
Judge Analisa Torres • 25%
Judge Jed S. Rakoff • 25%
Judge Sarah Netburn • 25%
Other • 25%
Announce new rulemaking • 25%
Appeal the decision • 25%
No immediate action • 25%
Other action • 25%
Trial verdict • 25%
Plea deal • 25%
Case dismissed • 25%
Ongoing investigation • 25%
Further appeals by SEC • 25%
Settlement reached • 25%
Case closed with no further action • 25%
Other legal developments • 25%
More aggressive enforcement • 33%
Less aggressive enforcement • 33%
No significant change • 34%