What are the differences between criminal and civil securities fraud cases?

The differences between criminal and civil securities fraud cases can be found in the severity of the punishment and the burden of proof needed. Securities fraud is the use of false or misleading statements to induce investors to buy or sell securities. Criminal securities fraud cases are those in which the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the fraudulent act. If convicted, a criminal fraud case could result in prison time and high fines. On the other hand, civil securities fraud cases are typically brought by individual investors or the Securities and Exchange Commission. The burden of proof is lower here, as the plaintiff must only show that the defendant is more likely than not to have committed fraud. In California, civil securities fraud cases follow the rules of state securities law, which may offer additional protections. For example, the securities law of California protects against misstatements, omissions, and manipulation of information. These protections are not usually found in criminal cases. The remedies for criminal cases are different as well. In criminal cases, the punishments are primarily in the form of jail time or fines. In civil cases, however, the court may issue orders such as an injunction, a cease and desist order, or restitution. This means that the court can force the defendant to return all of the investor’s money or give the profits from the transactions to the victims. Overall, criminal and civil securities fraud cases differ primarily in the severity of the punishment, the burden of proof, and the remedies available. It is important for both investors and those accused of criminal or civil fraud to understand the differences between the two.

What are the differences between criminal and civil securities fraud cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts