LAKSHA BOHRA REVIEW
This complaint was posted on NAS on 4th Jan, 2021 and is a permanent record located here: https://www.nameandshame.com/laksha-bohra-5YCUU/clever-scam-of-laksha-bohra-id5ydoo .
The Clever Scam Of Laksha Bohra
Laksha Bohra tried to play smart with their investors and was caught red handed by none other than U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission.
Latest SEC AAER has shocked Laksha Bohra investors who feel misled and betrayed by the company’s actions. The auditors at SEC are experts at what they do, which is catch financial frauds and this time they outdid themselves by looking into the financial statements of this company.
Even if the suspension gets lifted by the time you read this, it doesn’t guarantee that this company is trustworthy. Remember, the SEC doesn’t put suspensions on a stock until something illegal happens.
On the first glance, their financial statements might seem just fine, but the devil is in the details, and after some thorough analysis, the truth is revealed. Let’s dive deeper and take a look at the official findings:
Detailed Laksha Bohra Scam Report
. Laksha Bohra, age 36, resides in Bothell, in King County, Washington. Bohra served as a Transfer Pricing Manager in the Tax Department of Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) from December 2012 to May 2018, and as a Senior Manager from May 2018 to October 2018. Bohra does not hold a CPA license, but she was a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in India. 2. Amazon was at all relevant times, and currently is, a publicly-traded technology and retail company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Seattle, WA. Amazon’s common stock was at all relevant times, and currently is, registered with the Commission under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker “AMZN.” 3. On October 16, 2020, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent permanently enjoining her from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in a civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Laksha Bohra, et al. (Civil Action No. 20-cv-1434-JCC), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 4. The complaint in the District Court action alleged, inter alia, that, from January 2016 through July 2018, Bohra participated in insider trading with her husband and fatherin-law. The complaint further alleged that Bohra had access to Amazon’s financial reporting databases, and her responsibilities included assisting Amazon’s Accounting Department in calculating and reviewing transfer pricing for intercompany transactions ahead of earnings announcements and throughout the year. Throughout her employment, Bohra had access to highly confidential Amazon financial information before the figures were released to the public in Amazon’s quarterly earnings reports. During the time period set forth in the complaint, on certain occasions, Bohra provided her husband with material, nonpublic earnings information. Bohra or her husband then provided this same information to Bohra’s father-in-law. Ahead of each earnings announcement between January 2016 and July 2018, Bohra’s husband, and, in some instances her father-in-law, traded Amazon stock and options, at least in part, on the basis of the material nonpublic information that Bohra provided. The family together profited by approximately $1.4 million from these Amazon trades. 3 IV. In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Bohra’s Offer. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, effective immediately, that: A. Bohra is suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. B. After five (5) years from the date of this order, Bohra may request that the Commission consider her reinstatement by submitting an application (attention: Office of the Chief Accountant) to resume appearing or practicing before the Commission as:
1. a preparer or reviewer, or a person responsible for the preparation or review, of any public company’s financial statements that are filed with the Commission (other than as a member of an audit committee, as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(58) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Such an application must satisfy the Commission that Bohra’s work in her practice before the Commission as an accountant will be reviewed either by the independent audit committee of the public company for which she works or in some other acceptable manner, as long as she practices before the Commission in this capacity; and/or
2. a preparer or reviewer, or a person responsible for the preparation or review, of any public company’s financial statements that are filed with the Commission as a member of an audit committee, as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(58) of the Securities Act of 1934. Such an application will be considered on a facts and circumstances basis with respect to such membership, and the applicant’s burden of demonstrating good cause for reinstatement will be particularly high given the role of the audit committee in financial and accounting matters; and/or
3. an independent accountant. Such an application must satisfy the Commission that: (a) Bohra, or the public accounting firm with which she is associated, is registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“Board”) in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and such registration continues to be effective; (b) Bohra, or the registered public accounting firm with which she is associated, has been inspected by the Board and that inspection did not identify any criticisms of or potential defects in Bohra’s or the firm’s quality control system that would indicate that the respondent will not receive appropriate supervision; (c) Bohra has resolved all disciplinary issues with the Board, and has complied with all terms and conditions of any sanctions imposed by the Board (other than reinstatement by the Commission); and 4 (d) Bohra acknowledges her responsibility, as long as she appears or practices before the Commission as an independent accountant, to comply with all requirements of the Commission and the Board, including, but not limited to, all requirements relating to registration, inspections, concurring partner reviews and quality control standards. C. The Commission will consider an application by Bohra to resume appearing or practicing before the Commission provided that her Chartered Accountant license is current and she has resolved all other disciplinary issues with the applicable state boards of accountancy. However, if state licensure is dependent on reinstatement by the Commission, the Commission will consider an application on its other merits. The Commission’s review may include consideration of, in addition to the matters referenced above, any other matters relating to Bohra’s character, integrity, professional conduct, or qualifications to appear or practice before the Commission as an accountant. Whether an application demonstrates good cause will be considered on a facts and circumstances basis with due regard for protecting the integrity of the Commission’s processes.
Next Steps For The Investors at Laksha Bohra
It is recommended that you discuss this latest disclosure with your finance advisor as this company has done plain fraud and tried to deceive its investors and stockholders alike. While the company might try to convey that this enforcement action was nothing more than a small-one-time-thing, the reality could not be further from the truth.
Be smart about your decision on whether to work with a company such as this one or not.
If you haven’t entered a contract with this company yet, then it is better to stay away, than risk associating with a possible scammer.
Whenever such disclosures are made public, companies tend to misinform their investors and the public by burying this information. This is why I posted it here at Laksha Bohra NameAndShame. People deserve to know the reality about these guys, especially when they so shamelessly try to hide it.
Don’t Listen To Their White Lies
To save their image and manipulate investors, companies run cold-call campaigns and advertisements after an enforcement action by the SEC. This is mainly done to distract and persuade the investors and stockholders at the company from the horrible reality.
Please do not fall for the white lies companies often tell in order to save face in such situations. From shifting blame, to calling SEC “scumbags”, company representatives will do anything and everything to keep you from changing your mind about them.
I strongly recommend that you take all your investment decisions without any external influences from the company. A logical approach, combined with experience goes a long way. Don’t let their fake smiles be the result of your monetary loss.
Share Your Opinion, Findings & Evidence
If you have helpful information about this company, then please share it in a comment. A single comment can go a long way and it will help shed more light on this case.
Adding solid evidence is possibly the most effective way to help the community see the truth about this company. Please do so by using the Evidence Box down below.
Interested in the full document? We’ve uploaded it down below!