Skip to Content

STOA Schemes Face Increased Regulatory Scrutiny

Increased SEC and Justice Department prosecution is bad news for stranger-originated annuity (STOA) schemes. The SEC recently announced that enforcement actions were taken against brokers Michael A. Horowitz of California and Moshe Marc Cohen of New York. Both brokers fraudulently obtained confidential health information about terminally-ill patients and used it in a STOA scheme beginning in 2007. After designating the patients as annuitants whose deaths would result in death benefits, the brokers sold the annuity contracts to investors who collected lucrative payouts when the patients died.

To execute their scheme, the two falsified broker-dealer forms, caused insurance companies to issue annuities they otherwise would not have, and ultimately generated more than $1 million in sales commissions for themselves. While SEC litigation continues against Horowitz and Cohen for violations of the securities laws, several others enlisted to help in the scheme have consented to SEC orders alleging securities law violations, settling for a total of $4.5 million.

Similarly, the prosecution of two others who conducted a STOA scheme using the identities of terminally-ill patients recently concluded when the District of Rhode Island ordered Joseph Caramadre and Raymour Radhakrishnan to pay a combined $46 million in restitution to the victims of their crimes, including more than $20 million to insurance companies. Both were sentenced to prison in December 2013 for their roles in a conspiracy to fraudulently gain information from terminally ill patients, arrange investments in variable annuities that would pay benefits when the patients died, and defraud insurance companies and bond issuers out of millions of dollars.

The court refused to limit the victims eligible for restitution to those expressly named in the defendants’ plea agreement and instead held the defendants liable to approximately 50 insurance companies and bond issuers. The considerable payments being made in these two cases could have a chilling effect on future STOA schemes.

©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.