## Facts

- Stanley Cohen had been subject to an SEC order that barred him for life from supervisory responsibilities in the securities industry.
- Stanley Cohen later worked at a broker-dealer firm, Renaissance Securities Financial Corporation, owned or operated by the other defendants; he was hired to run the retail sales division.
- Evidence at trial showed Stanley Cohen exercised substantial control over trading policies and strategies and over day-to-day management and finances, including authorizing payments and directing operations from the New York office.
- NASD opened an investigation into Renaissance’s trading practices and supervisory structure, including whether Stanley Cohen was acting in a supervisory capacity despite the bar.
- In sworn NASD testimony given in New York, defendants denied that Stanley Cohen supervised Renaissance’s retail sales operation.
- A jury convicted all defendants of first-degree perjury based on the NASD testimony; Stanley Cohen was also convicted of securities fraud and related counts.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (among other points) that New York lacked jurisdiction to prosecute perjury arising from NASD proceedings and that the evidence was insufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether New York may prosecute perjury based on false sworn testimony given in NASD proceedings conducted in New York.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient, and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence, to prove that defendants’ sworn denials of Stanley Cohen’s supervisory role were false and material.
3. Whether alleged trial-management, evidentiary, and sentencing errors required reversal or modification.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed all judgments of conviction.
- New York had jurisdiction to prosecute perjury based on false sworn testimony in NASD proceedings occurring in New York.
- The evidence was legally sufficient, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that Stanley Cohen exercised supervisory authority and that defendants’ contrary sworn testimony was false and material to NASD’s investigation.
- Defendants’ remaining claims, including evidentiary and sentencing challenges, were rejected.

## Legal Principles

- A state may prosecute perjury for false sworn testimony given in proceedings of a private self-regulatory organization, even where the organization operates under federal oversight and enforces federal securities regulation, absent preemption or exclusivity.
- NASD proceedings are not treated as exclusively federal for perjury purposes because NASD is a private, nongovernmental entity, and its investigatory and disciplinary functions may implicate both state and federal law.
- Perjury requires proof that the statement was made under oath, was false, and was material to the proceeding; materiality is satisfied where the falsehood concerns a subject central to the regulator’s inquiry (e.g., supervisory responsibility).
- Appellate review of sufficiency and weight gives deference to the jury’s credibility determinations where the record supports the elements of the offense.

## Conclusion

The court upheld perjury convictions based on false sworn NASD testimony, holding that New York may exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over perjury committed in NASD proceedings held in New York and that the proof supported findings of falsity and materiality regarding Stanley Cohen’s barred supervisory role at the firm.


People v. Cohen, 9 A.D.3d 71, 773 N.Y.S.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2004)