Iosif Pak, a/k/a Joseph Pak, and Roman Sakharovich, a/k/a Roman Sakh

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 48082 / June 24, 2003

Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-11104

SUMMARY

This Order bars Iosif Pak, a/k/a Joseph Pak (Pak) and Roman Sakharovich, a/k/a Roman Sakh (Sakh) from association with any broker-dealer. Each was convicted of securities fraud and enjoined against violations of the securities laws.

I. BACKGROUND

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued its Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) against Pak and Sakh on May 2, 2003, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The OIP alleges that they were convicted of, and enjoined against, securities fraud, based on their wrongdoing in 1998 and 1999 while associated with a registered broker-dealer. Pak was served with the OIP on May 14, 2003, and Sakh, on May 12. Each failed to file an Answer, due twenty days after service of the OIP, admitting or denying (or stating that he does not have sufficient information to admit or deny) the allegations against him. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.220(b); OIP at 4. A Respondent who fails to file an Answer to the OIP may be deemed to be in default, and the administrative law judge may determine the proceeding against him. See 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a), .220(f). Therefore, on June 6, the undersigned ordered Pak and Sakh each to show cause by June 20 why he should not be held in default and barred from association with a broker-dealer. However, to date, neither filed an Answer addressing the allegations in the OIP.¹ Thus, each is in default, and the undersigned finds that the allegations in the OIP are true.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Pak and Sakh were each convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and are currently in prison. Pak is serving a thirty-six month sentence, and Sakh, a forty-one month sentence. They were also ordered to pay restitution to defrauded investors. See United States v. Bronstein, 00 Cr. 100 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2001). Each was also enjoined from violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. See SEC v. Bronstein, 00 Civ. 1179 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2002). The wrongdoing that underlies their convictions and injunctions occurred while they were associated as registered representatives with Golden Lender Financial Group, Inc., (Golden Lender), a then-registered broker-dealer. During 1998 and 1999, Pak and Sakh, along with others associated with Golden Lender, defrauded unsophisticated investors by soliciting them to purchase unregistered Golden Lender stock by means of a high-pressure sales pitch that included numerous material misrepresentations and omissions.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pak and Sakh have each been convicted, within ten years of the commencement of this proceeding, of a felony that "involves the purchase or sale of any security" and also "arises out of the conduct of the business of a broker [or] dealer" within the meaning of Sections 15(b)(4)(B) and 15(b)(6)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act. Additionally, each has been enjoined "from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection . . . with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of Sections 15(b)(4)(C) and 15(b)(6)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act. Their unlawful conduct was recurring and egregious. There are no mitigating circumstances.

IV. SANCTION

Pak and Sakh will be barred from association with any broker or dealer. This sanction will serve the public interest and the protection of investors, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act. It accords with Commission precedent and the sanction considerations set forth in Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th Cir. 1979), aff'd on other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981).

V. ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that IOSIF PAK, a/k/a JOSEPH PAK, IS BARRED from association with any broker or dealer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ROMAN SAKHAROVICH, a/k/a ROMAN SAKH, IS BARRED from association with any broker or dealer.

Endnote

¹ On June 11, Pak filed a request for discovery, which was denied. See Iosif Pak, Admin. Proc. No. 11104 (A.L.J. June 16, 2003) (unpublished) ("Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 201.230, a Respondent in a Commission administrative proceeding is not entitled to discovery until after he files his Answer to the OIP."). On June 17, Sakh filed a request to postpone the hearing for one year. The postponement request is moot. See Iosif Pak, Admin. Proc. No. 11104 (A.L.J. June 6, 2003) (unpublished) (postponing hearing sine die).