The Honorable Eugene A. Ludwig Page 3 able through LEXIS and similar research sources, however, we cannot determine what charges the OCC brought against Ms. Pollard, or what Ms. Pollard stipulated to in the May 1992 order. Accordingly, we request that you provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the record in the occ's Pollard case. In addition, we request that you describe those respects in which the OCC's action overlapped with or differed from the SEC's action of an earlier date. 3. Please provide the Subcommittee with copies of: the Comptroller's Handbook for National Banks, the Comptroller's Handbook for Compliance, and the Comptroller's Handbook for Fiduciary Activities. quest. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this re Sincerely John D. Dingell Subcommittee on Oversight Enclosure CC: The Honorable Dan Schaefer I am responding to your May 10, 1994, letter in which you requested additional information and clarifications concerning the Subcommittee's comparison chart of the treatment of broker-dealers and investment advisers under the federal securities laws. The numerical references in our responses below correspond to those used in your May 10 letter. 1. You have asked if the OCC has determined whether brokerage activities require Decision of the Comptroller of the Currency on Application from American Letter to R.C. Gallagher, President, Kellog-Citizens National Bank of Green 1987 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 85,540. 2. 3. -2 Letter dated July 30, 1985 from Deborah S. Hechinger, Director, Securities & In footnote 1 of your letter you ask whether because the OCC has developed two You have requested that we provide you with the record for In the Matter of Thelma Elizabeth Pollard (1992). Attachment II consists of the Notice of Charges ("Notice") and Stipulation and Consent Order ("Order") for the Pollard case. Since the case settled at an early stage, I am transmitting the Notice rather than the full record, because the Notice fully describes the OCC's action and the record is voluminous and contains material not relevant to your inquiry. You have asked us to describe those respects in which the OCC's action overlapped with or differed from the SEC's action of an earlier date. Both actions were similar, and concerned allegations of securities fraud. Our action was brought under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(e) and alleged violations under § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), stemming from the fraudulent transfer of customer funds from deposit instruments, including federally insured certificates of deposit, and the sale of commercial paper issued by the subject issuing bank's holding company without the customer's knowledge, authority or consent. The SEC's action also alleged violations under § 17(a). The OCC imposed and collected a civil money penalty from Ms. Pollard, and for a two year period from the date of settlement of the case, prohibited her from engaging in activities with or related to depository institutions, as noted on pages 3-5 of the Order. The SEC's release indicates that the SEC entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Ms. Pollard from violations of Section 17(a) of the 1933 Act. Attachment III contains copies of the following requested materials - Comptroller's Handbook for National Banks Comptroller's Handbook for Compliance Comptroller's Handbook for Fiduciary Activities -3 I hope these clarifications and materials provide you and your staff with the information you are seeking. Should you need any additional information, please let me know. Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the Rules of the U.S. House of In connection with your testimony at the Subcommittee 1. 2. Please support and explain your interpretation (Tr. pp.30- 9. You were asked (Tr. p. 34) whether OCC had ever sanctioned |