2. In 2017, Respondent was charged in Ecuador with being an accomplice to the crime of extortion pursuant to Article 264, subsection 2, of the Ecuadorian Penal Code in the matter of Dr. Carlos Ramon Polit Faggioni, case no 00204-2017, Tribunal de Garantías Penales de la Sala Especializada de lo Penal Militar, Penal Policial y Tránsito de la Corte Nacional de Justicia (August 8, 2017).3. On June 6, 2018, Respondent was found guilty of being an accomplice to the crime of extortion in the matter of Dr. Carlos Ramon Polit Faggioni, case no 00204-2017, Tribunal de Garantías Penales de la Sala Especializada de lo Penal Militar, Penal Policial y Tránsito de la Corte Nacional de Justicia (June 6, 2018).4. In connection with that conviction, a court of competent jurisdiction found that from at least 2009 through 2015, Respondent assisted another defendant, at the time Ecuador's Comptroller General, in concealing bribes received from a Brazilian construction company in exchange for granting that construction firm Ecuadorian government contracts and favors. As a result of his conviction, on July 23, 2018, Polit was sentenced to three years in prison in Ecuador.5. The misconduct underlying the criminal charges occurred during the period in which Respondent was associated with a broker-dealer and investment adviser registered with the Commission.
[T]he National Court of Ecuador had "reversed the conviction of the Respondent and no further proceedings are contemplated" and that "[b]ecause the basis for this proceeding was Respondent being convicted of a crime in Ecuador and the conviction has now been reversed by the highest court of appeal, the Division believes it prudent for the Commission to dismiss this matter. . . .
[T]he proceeding be expressly dismissed "with prejudice," and that the Commission "also amend its webpage showing the institution of this proceeding with an appropriate legend indicating that the proceeding has been dismissed because the verdict of guilty was annulled or reversed, and containing a link to the order of dismissal." . . .
[T]here is no basis for continuing the proceeding against Polit pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15(b) or Advisers Act Section 203(f) on the record before us. Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the proceeding.3 As to the question of whether the proceeding should be dismissed expressly "with prejudice," we have stated that "[o]ur Rules of Practice . . . do not distinguish between dismissing proceedings with or without prejudice." 4 As a result of this dismissal, we may not reinstitute this proceeding.= = = = =Footnote 3: See, e.g., Evelyn Litwok, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3438, 2012 WL 3027914 (July 25, 2012) (dismissing a follow-on administrative proceeding after the court of appeals reversed or vacated and remanded convictions that were the basis of the proceeding); John M. Lucarelli, Exchange Act Release No. 56075, 2007 WL 2031556, at *2 (July 13, 2007) (dismissing a proceeding based on a jury verdict after the district court judge entered judgmentof acquittal notwithstanding the verdict).Footnote 4: Richard L. Goble, Exchange Act Release No. 68651, 2013 WL 150557, at *2 & n.13(Jan. 14, 2013) (citing Lucarelli, 2007 WL 2031556, at *2).
[O]ur Rules of Practice do not provide for such a request, and Polit does not identify any instance where the Commission's website has been appended in the way he requests. Indeed, none of the examples cited above where we dismissed an administrative proceeding because of the reversal of the conviction or injunction that provided the basis for the administrative proceeding have such a legend on the Commission's website with a link to the OIP in the relevant case. Further, the OIP, as noted above, merely instituted proceedings to determine if the allegations contained therein were true and made no findings that they were true. Therefore, Polit's claims that the "lingering webpage [containing the OIP] . . . has lost its validity" and that the OIP "establishes a presumption that Mr. Polit was 'convicted' of a serious crime in Ecuador" lack merit. This order, which expressly finds that there is no longer a basis for the proceeding and therefore dismisses it, will be published on the Commission website. We therefore deny Polit's request that we "amend the webpage showing the institution of this proceeding with an appropriate legend indicating that the proceeding has been dismissed because the verdict of guilty was annulled or reversed, and containing a link to the order of dismissal."5= = = = =Footnote 5 :We deny Polit's request for oral argument because the "decisional process" would not be "significantly aided by oral argument." Rule of Practice 451(a), 17 C.F.R. § 201.451(a)