Source: https://prisonist.org/cornell-journal-of-law-public-policy-left-out-in-the-cold-freezing-innocent-spouses-assets-in-s-e-c-actions-by-zoe-e-jones/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:43:43+00:00

Document:
This article was largely inspired by the work we and a talented group of attorneys performed last year on behalf of an innocent spouse and children in obtaining the return of her assets and a recovery from the U.S Receiver. Much of the Analysis and Conclusions Sections below are a direct result of this case.
Securities fraud not only has a large effect on the innocent victims of the fraud but also on the innocent spouses and children of culpable defendants. In some cases, innocent spouses may have their assets fro- zen even when such assets are personal and not traceable to the fraud. This Note suggests potential solutions that would make Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) actions fairer and more efficient without compromising the enforcement goals of the SEC.
While innocent spouses may have equitable remedies available to them—requesting a modification of the temporary restraining order (TRO) or showing that frozen assets are untainted by the fraud—these remedies may not be enough. To pursue any of these remedies, the spouse must have funds to cover attorney’s fees. This may prove impos- sible and effectively prevent the spouse from obtaining relief.
The solution suggested in this Note is to narrow the scope of the TRO granted to the SEC when they bring an action. While the proceed- ing could remain ex parte, the court should require that the SEC make a showing that the assets to be frozen are tainted by the fraud. Such a solution is in the interests of both fairness and efficiency. Furthermore, courts could include a balancing of the hardships that would occur if the TRO is granted. As evidenced by tax fraud provisions, it is possible to maintain an effective system of recovering funds that have been obtained illegally without punishing those who are innocent. Similar concessions can be made to protect innocent spouses in securities fraud cases.
* Candidate for J.D., Cornell Law School, 2015. I would like to thank Professor Marion Bachrach for her advice and guidance in writing this Note and for introducing me to this important issue. I would also like to thank Kevin Quilty for his thoughtful comments and criticisms as I worked toward publication. Finally, thank you to Eric DiMuzio, a Managing Editor of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, for his diligence throughout the edit- ing process.
In a world where securities fraud enforcement actions are increas- ingly common,1 it is important to analyze the impact that such actions have on victims. There are the obvious victims—those who are de- frauded—who often end up losing their hard-earned assets and in some cases their entire life savings. However, there are also victims who are indirectly affected—the innocent spouses and families of culpable de- fendants. Imagine an innocent spouse losing her home, her assets, and any funds she may have had to support herself and her children solely because her husband committed a crime of which she had no knowledge. Undoubtedly, there must be a way of punishing criminals for their wrongdoing without forcing their innocent family members to give up everything they own.
At first glance, it may be easy to assume a defendant’s spouse is equally culpable, reasoning that the spouse “must” or “should” have known. It is even easier to make such an assumption when that spouse may have been living off of the spoils of a defendant’s reprehensible actions. But what about cases where it is uncontested that the spouse is innocent of wrongdoing and had no knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated? Is it fair to deprive a defendant’s spouse of all untainted assets when that spouse is just as blindsided as the defrauded investors?
1 See, e.g., Jean Eaglesham, SEC Cases Climb for the First Time Since 2011, WALL ST. J., Sept. 30, 2014, at C1.
ered to be acting in participation with the defendant. Furthermore, the court can name a spouse as a nominal defendant—even when the court recognizes that spouse as innocent of wrongdoing—and gain access to the spouse’s personal assets for potential recovery.
It is surely true that a defendant should not be allowed to keep the spoils of fraudulent, criminal activity. The thought of allowing a defen- dant to continue living in the lap of luxury while innocent people suffer would enrage most anyone. While in the face of a large-scale securities fraud it is easy to demand that justice be served, we must stop to ask ourselves, at what cost? A defendant may be stripped of liberty and any profit derived from the fraud, but is it fair to punish innocent people simply because they had the misfortune of being a family member of that defendant? Certainly one could think of no other crime where society calls for deprivation of an innocent person’s property to provide restitu- tion to victims.
Depriving an innocent spouse of assets becomes even more illogical in light of the fact that such assets may be frozen even when they were not derived from the proceeds of the fraud. The broad nature of the TRO includes those assets that may have been acquired before the fraud be- gan; bought with funds from a legal source (such as lawful employment); or obtained through an inheritance completely unrelated to the fraud.
Focusing solely on actions brought under federal law by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this Note will ana- lyze the remedies that innocent spouses may have when their assets are frozen. There are certain steps that a spouse may take after the TRO is issued. If not named as a nominal defendant, the spouse may seek to intervene in the suit. Then the spouse may request a modification to the TRO or request release of funds upon a showing that they are untainted by the fraud. In some situations, a spouse may even seek to strike a deal with the government to retain a certain (limited) amount of assets, or decide to divorce the defendant.
Finding ways around an asset freeze requires time and, most impor- tantly, money. However, inability to access such funds may, in practice, make remedies nearly impossible to obtain. Given that the spouse’s as- sets are inaccessible, the spouse may find it difficult to retain an attorney to pursue available remedies. Moreover, the assets may not be released even when it can be shown that they came from a legal source and were not a product of the fraud. As a result, assets may not be available even when necessary to cover basic living expenses, leaving innocent spouses without any way to support themselves and their children.
the source of the funds prior to issuing the TRO. Furthermore, the cur- rent standard for granting a TRO in SEC actions is much lower than other standards, and in the interest of fairness, the standard could be raised by including a balancing of the hardships.
Part I of this Note explains how and why assets are frozen in a securities fraud case and the remedies that an innocent spouse has to regain access to frozen funds. Part II discusses the difficulties a spouse may have in pursuing different remedies (both equitable and non-equita- ble) and the fairness concerns in freezing all of a defendant’s assets, in- cluding those belonging to the defendant’s spouse.2 Part II advocates that courts should take a lenient approach when deciding whether to un- freeze assets to cover attorney’s fees. Additionally, Part II suggests that a solution to policy and fairness concerns would be the narrowing of the initial TRO against the defendant to exclude untainted assets and include a consideration of the balance of the hardships.
2 This Note will not address the complicated issue of receivership. There is most cer- tainly a fairness concern in allowing a receiver to collect a large payment from the defendant’s frozen assets while refusing to grant assets to an innocent spouse. This issue, however, is beyond the scope of this Note.
3 6 ALAN R. BROMBERG ET AL., BROMBERG & LOWENFELS ON SECURITIES FRAUD § 12:74, at 12-217 to 12-218 (2d ed. 2014).
4 See e.g., SEC v. Gen. Refractories Co., 400 F. Supp. 1248, 1259 (D.D.C. 1975) (“[T]he SEC is seeking the freezing of certain specific assets that are clearly related to the alleged scheme in order to assure a source to satisfy that part of the final judgment which might be ordered specifically by this Court.”).
5 BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 3, at 12-220.
defendant’s assets and noting that “if at some later stage the freeze appears too broad, it can be appropriately narrowed”).
The next section of this Note outlines the potential remedies that an innocent spouse has and whether such remedies are realistic or fair. This Note will then suggest certain changes that could be made to the injunc- tion process so that a balance is struck between the need to ensure that there are assets available to compensate victims of the defendant’s fraud and the need to ensure that the family is not left without adequate means to live.
8 BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 3, at 12-218.
9 See, e.g., Vaskevitch, 657 F. Supp. at 316.
10 BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 3, at 12-218.
11 See id. at 12-219.
13 See id. at 12-224.
junction enjoining a violation of the securities laws, which requires the SEC to make a sub- stantial showing of likelihood of success as to both a current violation and the risk of repetition, an asset freeze requires a lesser showing.”). For the SEC to obtain an injunction freezing a defendant’s assets, it need only show that “it is likely to succeed on the merits.” Id. (quoting SEC v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omit- ted). Additionally, “[u]nlike a private litigant, the SEC need not show that there is a risk of irreparable injury.” Id.
15 See SEC v. Cherif, 933 F.2d 403, 414 (7th Cir. 1991); see also discussion infra Part I.B (discussing how a spouse becomes a party to such an action).
16 See Cherif, 933 F.2d at 414.
17 See Camisha L. Simmons, Defrauded Parties’ Recovery of Funds from Innocent Third Parties: The Relief Defendant, BANKR. LITIG. COMMITTEE (Am. Bankr. Inst., Alexandria, VA), Aug. 2009, available at http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/litigation/vol6num5/ defrauded.html; see also Cherif, 933 F.2d at 414 (explaining the use of a nominal defendant in an SEC action).
18 See, e.g., SEC v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129, 136–37 (2d Cir. 1998) (upholding an in- junction freezing funds in the account of a defendant’s wife that were the proceeds of fraud, even though she was not accused of any wrongdoing).
19 Simmons, supra note 17.
20 Cavanagh, 155 F.3d at 136.
21 See Simmons, supra note 17 (citing Cavanaugh, 155 F.3d at 137).
WL 2696731, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2004) (outlining when an applicant may seek to intervene in an SEC action).
23 It is plausible that a married couple could share all assets, including houses, bank accounts, etc. This scenario may be more likely in cases where the spouse is a homemaker, such as our example spouse, Anne, introduced in Part II.
24 Lefebvre, 2004 WL 2696731, at *2 (quoting United States v. Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002)).
25 Cf. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d at 136–37 (noting that any named defendant, even if named only as a nominal defendant, has a “full opportunity to litigate her rights”).
26 See, e.g., SEC v. Duclaud Gonzalez de Castilla, 170 F. Supp. 2d 427, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (releasing assets to pay for legal expenses).
27 For examples of cases that sought to release frozen funds to pay for attorney’s fees (among other things), see Duclaud Gonzalez de Castilla, 170 F. Supp. 2d at 429 and SEC v. Coates, No. 94 Civ. 5361 (KMW), 1994 WL 455558 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1994).
28 See, e.g., SEC v. Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d 689, 691 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (discussing defen- dant’s request for release of frozen assets for a variety of expenses including mortgage pay- ments, health insurance, and groceries); SEC v. Dobbins, No. Civ.3:04–CV–0605-H, 2004 WL 957715, at *3 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (discussing defendant’s request for release of frozen assets for a variety of expenses including business, living, and accounting expenses).
29 See Dobbins, 2004 WL 957715, at *1, *4 (denying a defendant’s motions where over fifty investors were allegedly defrauded).
30 See discussion infra Part II.B.2.
31 See, e.g., Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 692–94 (weighing the interests of the defendant against those of the defrauded investors).
32 SEC v. Grossman, 887 F. Supp. 649, 661 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d sub nom. SEC v. Estate of Hirshberg, 101 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Coates, 1994 WL 455558, at *3 (declining to modify an asset freeze on investor protection grounds).
33 Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 692 (citing SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1105 (2d Cir. 1972)).
access to funds needed to pay ordinary and necessary living ex- penses . . . against the government’s interest in preventing the depletion of potentially forfeitable assets.”34 The court will look to factors such as the defendant’s current funds, expenses, and the defendant’s ability to obtain financial support from friends and family.35 Often, a court will decline to release assets for living expenses if the defendant does not provide sufficient and detailed documentation.36 Therefore, it is ex- tremely important for defendants to include thorough documentation if they hope for their request to be granted.
34 Dobbins, 2004 WL 957715, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted).
cation of a TRO, see Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 63–94 and Dobbins, 2004 WL 957715, at *3.
to release funds because he did not provide information “sufficient for the Court to determine the legitimacy of the request”).
37 SEC v. Dowdell, 175 F. Supp. 2d 850, 854 (W.D. Va. 2001).
39 See, e.g., Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 694 (denying release of funds to pay for expenses such as satellite television and high-speed internet); SEC v. Duclaud Gonzalez de Castilla, 170 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (partially denying a defendant’s motion, where defen- dant requested funds to pay for living expenses including a monthly expense of “$1,800 for a nanny, housekeeper, handy-man, and nurse”); SEC v. Coates, No. 94 Civ. 5361 (KMW), 1994 WL 455558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1994) (denying a defendant’s motion for release of funds to cover mortgages on three properties, hair care, lawn service, and pool service).
40 See, e.g., Dowdell, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 854–55.
41 See Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 693; cf. SEC v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129, 136 (2d Cir. 1998) (upholding an injunction freezing the proceeds from the sale of stock at issue in a fraud case).
42 Coates, 1994 WL 455558, at *3 (citing United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186, 1203 (2d Cir. 1991)). This standard comes from United States v. Monsanto, in which a crimi- nal defendant was facing drug and conspiracy charges. See 924 F.2d at 1203. The Coates court, however, recognized that many of the reasons for holding a hearing that were cited in Monsanto were equally applicable in a securities fraud case. Coates, 1994 WL 455558, at *3. The reasoning from Monsanto, however, applies only where the SEC brings a companion criminal case. The complexities that arise from a companion criminal case and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel that are implicated, while briefly addressed, are not the focus of this Note.
43 See SEC v. Current Fin. Servs., 62 F. Supp. 2d 66, 68 (D.D.C. 1999) (denying a defendant’s motion to release funds from a freeze because “[n]early all of [defendant]’s sup- porting documentation is inconclusive, or even detrimental, as to his claim that the frozen account contains personal funds”).
44 Forte, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 693.
45 SEC v. Grossman, 887 F. Supp. 649, 661 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d sub nom. SEC v. Estate of Hirshberg, 101 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1996).
46 Id. (upholding a freeze of the personal assets of a defendant’s wife and daughter).
were responsible enough to acquire and maintain personal assets in their marriage.
47 Mark Seal, Ruth’s World, VANITY FAIR, Sept. 2009, at 216, 229, available at http:// www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/09/ruth-madoff200909-2.
48 See, e.g., Aaron Smith, Madoff: ‘I Knew This Day Would Come’, CNN MONEY (Mar. 12, 2009, 3:33 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/12/news/newsmakers/madoff_courtappear ance/index.htm?iid=EL (describing Madoff’s crime as “[o]ne of Wall Street’s biggest swindles”).
49 Complaint at 6, Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 2013) (No. 08-01789), 2009 WL 2730174, at ¶15.
51 See, e.g., David Segal & Alison Leigh Cowan, Madoffs Shared Much; Question Is How Much, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 15, 2009, at A1 (discussing the possibility that Mrs. Madoff had knowledge of the crime).
52 See Seal, supra note 47, at 229.
53 7 ALAN R. BROMBERG ET AL., BROMBERG AND LOWENFELS ON SECURITIES FRAUD § 19:5, at 19-23 (2d ed. 2014).
54 Id.; see also Complaint, supra note 49, at 2.
55 See BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 53, at 19-23.
a deal, however, is that it does not protect the spouse from civil claims.56 Although Ruth Madoff’s deal did not protect her from civil claims, in cases where a spouse’s innocence is uncontested there would likely be no basis for a civil claim. The spouse would likely be able to keep the full sum allotted in the settlement.
Another risk in striking a deal is that the spouse may end up having to settle for assets worth significantly less than those that were allegedly untainted, as was the case in Ruth Madoff’s deal. In deciding whether to enter into a deal, a spouse will have to weigh the value of a lesser lump- sum payment against the potential difficulties in waging a legal battle to show that seized assets were untainted by fraud.
56 Mrs. Madoff’s agreement with the government expressly provided that the trustee for the liquidation of Bernie Madoff’s business would not be precluded from seeking to recover from Mrs. Madoff. Complaint, supra note 49, at ¶3. The trustee did file such a suit, alleging that he was entitled to recover the $44 million that Mrs. Madoff received in fraudulent trans- fers from Bernie Madoff’s business. Id.; accord BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 53, at 19-24 (noting that after Mrs. Madoff’s settlement, she was sued to recover funds that she had alleg- edly improperly received).
57 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Walsh, 658 F.3d 194, 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2011).
61 See id. at 197.
The Second Circuit stated only that a prior finalized divorce decree could cleanse the taint from assets.73 It did not, however, address the question of whether a divorce decree could still cleanse the taint if the divorce occurs after the investigation has begun or if the freeze is already in place. However, this recent ruling would seem to affect only those spouses who have divorced the defendant and received the tainted assets before charges are brought against him. Although a divorce decree cleansing tainted assets would make it much easier for innocent spouses to regain their frozen assets, courts would not likely unfreeze such assets. The obvious reason would be that too many spouses might then abuse the access that a divorce could grant to their assets, and divorces would be encouraged as an easy way to regain frozen assets.
64 See id. at 198. 65 See id. at 197. 66 See id.
68 See id. at 200. 69 See id. at 198. 70 See id.
73 See id. at 196, 198.
zen, at least in New York, given that the Court of Appeals noted that a divorce decree may cleanse tainted assets “at least where the innocent spouse acted in good faith and gave fair consideration.”74 This reasoning opens the possibility that the ruling would apply in such cases, allowing the spouse to move on with her life away from the defendant.
Assuming that Anne is entitled to one or more of the aforemen- tioned remedies, she will need an attorney in order to pursue any of them. In reality, however, attorney’s fees can be a crippling cost that may prevent Anne from pursuing any of these remedies.
75 See Simmons supra note 17.
in real life. See, for example, the case of Maria Gonzalez-Miranda. Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion by Maria Gonzalez-Miranda for Interim Relief and Modification of the Temporary Order Freezing Assets, SEC v. Illarramendi, No. 3:11-CV-00078 (JBA), 2011 WL 2457734 (D. Conn. June 16, 2011). In that case, all of Ms. Gonzalez-Miranda’s assets were frozen when the SEC charged her husband. See id. at 2. Ms. Gonzalez was left with no funds to “feed, clothe, and educate her children and heat the home where she [resided].” Id. at 1 (note that she was seeking to heat her home in November in Connecticut). Ms. Gonzalez- Miranda was rendered so destitute that she was awarded state-provided assistance, specifically “food stamps, HUSKY insurance, and fuel.” Id. at 3.
78 BROMBERG ET AL., supra note 3, at 12-221.
quests by defendants.79 The reasoning behind this is that the frozen as- sets may represent funds that belong to those who have been defrauded, and the defendant has no right to use “other people’s money” to retain the attorney of his choice. For example, the Seventh Circuit has stated, “Just as a bank robber cannot use the loot to wage the best defense money can buy, so a swindler in securities markets cannot use the vic- tims’ assets to hire counsel who will help him retain the gleanings of crime.”80 This may effectively leave spouses such as Anne with no pos- sibility of paying an attorney to help her to obtain any of these equitable remedies.
Although the argument against using “other people’s money” in a securities fraud case is appealing, upon further analysis, the logic is cir- cular. Assuming that some of the frozen assets are untainted, a defendant would require an attorney to make a showing that the assets are un- tainted. Yet such a showing could not be made without having funds released to pay for an attorney in the first place.
80 SEC v. Quinn, 997 F.2d 287, 289 (7th Cir. 1993). 81 175 F. Supp. 2d 850 (W.D. Va. 2001).
86 521 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
87 In E-Gold, the government obtained an ex parte seizure warrant to seize for forfeiture the funds in the defendant companies’ accounts, after indicting the defendants for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Id. at 412–13.
88 See id. at 415–16.
89 Id. at 416 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)).
Second Circuit in recognizing the right to counsel of choice where assets have been seized. Id. at 416 (noting that the Second Circuit’s precedent was “instructive”). As noted above, the Sixth Amendment is only implicated where the SEC brings a companion criminal case, and therefore does not apply in all situations that might arise in this Note. See supra note 42.
92 Id. at 418 (quoting United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 726 (7th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
that it is entirely possible to release reasonable funds from an assets freeze to cover attorney’s fees. Given the compelling circumstances of nominal defendants such as Anne, courts should be more lenient in re- leasing assets. Courts should follow the rationales set forward in cases such as Dowdell, which advocate for consideration of the unfairness of denying defendants the assets necessary to cover reasonable attorney’s fees.
93 The due process violation would be the deprivation of property without the due pro- cess of law. U.S. CONST. amend. V.
94 See United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186, 1192 (2d Cir. 1991). 95 Id.
96 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
97 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
98 See discussion supra Part II.A.
99 Monsanto, 924 F.2d at 1192 (quoting Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 629 (1989)).
It is necessary to consider the rationale behind ordering broad TROs that prevent spouses from accessing joint assets that may be necessary for them to live off of. There is an interest in assuring that victims of the fraud are compensated. If, however, there were to be a later showing that some assets were untainted, in many cases those assets would be released and would not be used towards the payment of any penalties. Therefore, it seems excessive to freeze such assets from the start of the case.
There is a strong argument that society does not benefit when un- tainted funds are frozen. In extreme cases, spouses might be rendered so helpless that they qualify for help from the state.102 Thus taxpayers sup- port individuals who would otherwise be able to support themselves, if it were not for their funds being frozen due to a broad TRO.
An alternative option, the one advocated for by this Note, is to re- quire a showing that the assets to be frozen are tainted at the ex parte hearing—before the TRO is granted. Although the SEC must have power to ensure a recovery, a freeze on an innocent spouse’s untainted assets is surely an overreach. Because in most cases the defendant has not been perpetrating the fraud for his entire career, there are very likely untainted assets that are being frozen. The court should be required to make a preliminary inquiry into—and the SEC should be required to present evidence of—what assets are untainted and to leave those assets out of the TRO. While it may be simple for the court to freeze one hundred percent of a defendant’s assets, it would not be overly inefficient to require the court to make an inquiry into what assets are untainted before granting the order. Such an inquiry would prevent spouses like Anne from being deprived of all joint assets in cases where some assets are untainted.
process.”). There may be an argument that the seizing of funds necessary to pay for housing, food, and childcare may constitute the type of deprivation that was found to require a pre- termination hearing in Goldberg. Id. at 262.
102 See supra note 76.
103 See discussion supra Part I.B.2.
is fair because it would not cause innocent spouses like Anne to be de- prived of the funds they need for trial and would still freeze tainted funds that rightfully belong to the defrauded investors.
Another option that would lead to less unfairness in granting the TRO would be for the court to include a consideration of the hardships that would be placed on innocent spouses when granting the TRO. It is unrealistic to disregard dependents who will be impacted. In some cases, spouses may be deprived of their homes and funds to pay for their most basic living expenses. This is even more relevant in cases, such as that of Anne, where the defendant has young children.
Granted, the nature of securities fraud cases may not make them conducive to only a balance of the hardships test for a preliminary in- junction. The interests of the defrauded investors may require a lower standard for granting the TRO to protect against a defendant hiding a large amount of tainted assets. There is room, however, for some consid- eration of the hardships, especially when freezing the assets of innocent spouses like Anne. Furthermore, a balance of the hardships would be very pertinent for spouses whose personal assets have been frozen, even though they are innocent.
104 See supra note 14.
105 SEC v. Hede ́n, 51 F. Supp. 2d 296, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (quoting SEC v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
107 Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 808 (4th Cir. 1991) (quoting Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189, 195 (4th Cir. 1977)).
109 See, e.g., Dan Caplinger, Married Filing Separately: When Does It Make Sense?, DAILY FINANCE (Mar. 29, 2014), http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/03/29/taxes-married-fil ing-separately/ (noting that for the “vast majority” filing joint tax returns saves money).
110 I.R.S. Publication 971 (July 17, 2012), at 1, available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- pdf/p971.pdf.
111 Jason Alderman, “Innocent Spouse Relief” Protects Against Tax Fraud, HUFFINGTON POST, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-alderman/innocent-spouse-relief_b_1631665.html (last updated Aug. 28, 2012).
112 I.R.S., supra note 110, at 2.
114 I.R.C. § 6015(b) (2012) (a timeliness requirement also applies).
derstated tax may take the form of either unreported income or an incorrect deduction, credit, or basis).
117 § 6015(b)(1)(C) (2012); see also Erdahl v. Comm’r, 930 F.2d 585, 590 (8th Cir. 1991) (“The standard we adopt for innocent spouse cases asks ‘whether a reasonably prudent tax- payer under the circumstances of the spouse at the time of signing the return could be expected to know that the tax liability stated was erroneous or that further investigation was war- ranted.’” (quoting Stevens v. Comm’r, 872 F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir. 1989))). Whether a spouse had reason to know of an understated tax is based on the facts and circumstances of the situation. Considerations may include the claimant’s financial situation, her educational back- ground, any failure to inquire, and departures from a recurring pattern, among other things. I.R.S., supra note 110, at 6.
118 § 6015(b)(1)(D) (2012). Facts and circumstances to be taken into consideration in- clude whether the claimant spouse received a benefit from the understated tax and whether the non-claimant spouse has left or divorced the claimant spouse. I.R.S., supra note 110, at 6.
The fact that the law has recognized an exception for innocent spouses in tax fraud cases suggests that the same could be possible in securities fraud cases. In both situations, an innocent spouse faces liabil- ity for the fraudulent actions of her spouse. Furthermore, in both situa- tions the innocent spouse would be liable to a third party—to defrauded investors and to the government. Requiring courts to consider undue hardships caused to innocent spouses in fraud cases seems analogous to the “out” given to innocent spouses based on the unfairness that would result if they were held liable for an understated tax. Given the feasibil- ity of granting Innocent Spouse Relief in federal tax fraud cases, a hard- ship inquiry prior to granting a freeze of assets in a securities fraud case is certainly possible.
Innocent Spouse Relief in the tax fraud context also suggests an- other pathway to protecting the innocent spouse in securities fraud cases: legislation. While this Note argues mainly for change through the judi- cial process, protection through legislation is also a viable option. Be- cause legislators felt it was necessary to codify innocent spouse protections in IRS law, legislators may also be open to protecting inno- cent spouses through changes to SEC statutes. Legislators could put in place a clearly defined burden of proof for the innocent spouse, akin to the IRS’s innocent spouse relief. Such a rule would make it easier for innocent spouses to understand what is required to prove their innocence and would solve the procedural and financial burdens surrounding the release of untainted assets.
The increased occurrence of securities fraud enforcement necessi- tates a reevaluation of how such cases affect innocent spouses. In fact, such cases may have a large effect on not only the innocent victims of the fraud, but also the innocent spouses and children of culpable defend- ants. In some cases, spouses may have their assets frozen even when they have not been accused of any wrongdoing and where such assets are personal and not traceable to the fraud.
119 I.R.S., supra note 110, at 7.
120 Id. at 8; see also Alderman, supra note 111 (discussing the leeway granted under Equitable Relief, including the IRS’s elimination of the two year filing requirement, which aids innocent spouses who were unaware of the fraud, or were afraid to come forward for reasons such as domestic abuse).
Innocent spouses may have equitable remedies available to them— requesting a modification of the TRO or showing that frozen assets are untainted by the fraud. But these remedies may not be enough. Courts are often unwilling to modify a TRO, even in cases where the defendant has made a showing that the assets are untainted by the fraud. Innocent spouses may also be able to enter into a deal with the government to retain some assets; however, the amount of assets retained may be very limited. Such a deal also may not protect the spouse from civil claims. Moreover, even if spouses like Anne divorce the defendant, they will likely be unable to retain any assets granted in the divorce decree if they are deemed to be tainted by fraud.
Furthermore, to pursue any of the equitable remedies that spouses such as Anne may have available requires that the spouse have funds to cover attorney’s fees. For many this may prove very difficult, even im- possible. Thus, a spouse may be effectively prevented from pursuing any remedies. Although some courts have realized that this is inherently unfair, other courts continue to refuse to allow assets to be released from a freeze. While denial of a motion to release assets may be fair where the assets are tainted, maintaining a freeze on the untainted assets of an innocent spouse is an overreach that should be remedied.
The solution suggested in this Note is to narrow the scope of the TRO granted to the SEC when they bring an action. This Note recog- nizes that there is a strong interest in maintaining an ex parte proceeding so that the defendant will not find a way to hide any assets before they are served with the order. However, the proceeding could still require that the SEC make a showing that the assets are tainted by the fraud. Currently, the SEC would have to make such a showing in a later prelim- inary hearing upon the defendant’s request; therefore, this simply moves up the timing.
Such a solution is in the interests of both fairness and efficiency. The solution is fair because it allows an innocent spouse to make a show- ing that the assets frozen are untainted without preventing the spouse from using those very assets to pay an attorney. Furthermore, this solu- tion would be in the interest of efficiency because it could reduce the need for a later hearing to show that the assets are untainted.
The court could also raise the standards for granting a TRO. Cur- rently, the standard is very low in comparison with injunctions in other contexts. Raising the standard to include a balancing of the hardships that would occur if the TRO is granted would help to remedy some of the unfairness experienced by spouses such as Anne.
way to do so in other situations, namely in cases of tax fraud. Innocent spouses are granted multiple forms of relief if, unbeknownst to them, their spouse commits tax fraud. Surely, if such broad exemptions have been made in the context of tax fraud, concessions can also be made to protect innocent spouses in securities fraud cases.
In conclusion, there are multiple ways that the court could protect the interests of innocent spouses in securities fraud cases. Furthermore, the ex parte nature of the proceedings could be maintained, thereby guarding against the possibility of the defendant hiding assets, while of- fering more fairness in the scope of the assets frozen—granting reasona- ble attorney’s fees. Most importantly, these potential solutions offer a way to make SEC actions fairer and more efficient without forfeiting the key goals of the SEC.

References: § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6015
 § 6015
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6015