Supt. of Insurance v. Bankers Life Cas. Co.

Holding that a violation of Rule 10b-5 can occur even when the deception does not occur alongside the purchase or sale of securities

S.E. C. v. Capital Gains Bureau

Holding that an investment adviser who purchases a security for his own account and then recommends the same security to his client without disclosing that ownership violates the antifraud provision of the Act and breaches his fiduciary duty

Jordan v. De George

Holding that defrauding the United States of tax on distilled spirits is a serious crime involving moral turpitude

Securities Exch. Com'n v. Commonwealth Sec.

In SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), aff'd, 574 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1978) the SEC brought a suit against an investment adviser and two of its principal officers and directors, Messrs. Drucker and Klienman, who were also officers and directors of two funds which had an agreement with the adviser, and who were further affiliated with a broker-dealer, Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc. ["Commonwealth"] which was a "best-efforts" underwriter of securities of Beneficial Labs, Inc. ["Beneficial"].

Hirsch v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv

Holding that a federal statute prohibiting false statements was not a CIMT because “the jury could convict if it found that petitioner had ‘knowingly’ but without evil intent, made a ‘false’ but not ‘fraudulent’ statement”

Brice v. Pickett

Holding that due process does not require that an alien being deported for a foreign conviction be permitted to challenge the conviction collaterally

United States v. Reimer

In United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 113 F.2d 429 (1940), and Maita v. Haff, 116 F.2d 337 (1940), courts of appeals specifically decided that the crime of conspiracy to violate the internal revenue laws by possessing and concealing distilled spirits with intent to defraud the United States of taxes involves moral turpitude.

Mercer v. Lence

United States v. Brown

In United States v. Brown (5 F. Supp. 81, 88, decided Nov. 23, 1933) the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, cited the dissenting opinion of Judge MILLER in Ottinger v. Bennett (144 App. Div. 525), upon which the Court of Appeals (in 203 N.Y. 554) reversed, and said that the test of fair dealing is the one to be applied in determining whether the scheme set forth in the indictment is fraudulent.

Rudolph v. United States

In Rudolph v. United States, 55 App. D.C. 362, 6 F.2d 487, 40 A.L.R. 1042, a similar question arose relating to the conviction in a court of Maryland of a retired police officer of the District of Columbia for the unlawful possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act.

Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Section 77q - Fraudulent interstate transactions

Prohibiting the use of "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the offer or sale of any security

Section 1251 - Transferred

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable