The U.S. Supreme Court then granted a writ of certiorari to determine the meaning of the language "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" (Reed, O. Shedd, P. Morehead, J. & Pagnattaro, M. 2008).
What argument did the security dealer make in seeking to have the civil complaint dismissed?
Zandford's defense in this matter was particularly interesting as he does not deny his involvement in the "simple theft of cash or securities in an investment account" (Reed, O. Shedd, P. Morehead, J. & Pagnattaro, M. 2008). For Zandford the issue is not that he sold the securities which he contends "were perfectly lawful," rather that the fraudulent activity of "misappropriation of the proceeds is desultory from the actual sale of the securities. If Zandford's argument is believable then the sales of securities would have been aligned with the investment strategy designed to...
Zandford's contention falls squarely on the premise that the securities transactions were legitimate sales and not concomitant with intent to defraud.
What does the Supreme Court Conclude with respect to the language "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security?
The question of "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" invariably falls to the Court's interpretation of the circumstance surrounding the Zandford transactions. The Court rejects Zandford's argument that the sales and the transfers of funds from Wood's account to Zandford's were separate and disconnected. Zandford's argument falls apart because the sales "throughout the two-year period" (Reed, O. Shedd, P. Morehead, J. & Pagnattaro, M. 2008) reflect a deliberate and concerted effort to "convert the proceeds of the sales of the Woods securities to his
