Insider trading "appears to be rampant" among Wall Street securities professionals, she added.

Alice Fisher, assistant attorney general with the Justice Department's criminal division, echoed Thomsen's sentiment and said: "The number of insider trading cases don't seem to be going away."

In the past year, SEC enforcement lawyers have brought increasing numbers of insider trading lawsuits and settlements. Recent high-profile cases include charges against a husband and wife in Hong Kong for trades in Dow Jones & Co Inc shares ahead of News Corp's $5 billion takeover bid, and guilty pleas from three former Countrywide Financial Corp executives for trading company shares ahead of a disappointing profit report.

Also, in March U.S. prosecutors charged 13 people, including employees at top Wall Street banks UBS, Morgan Stanley  and Bear Stearns Cos Inc in what they called one of the most pervasive trading rings since the 1980s. The SEC also brought civil charges against 11 people, as well as against three hedge funds.

Insider trading involving hedge funds is the focus of one of the four internal working groups the SEC has set up to tap expertise and coordinate efforts throughout the agency. The $1.8 trillion hedge fund industry guards its secrecy and complex trading strategies.

Abreu was the director of records at the medical examiner's office. Her co-defendant and former boss, Natarajan Venkataran, was scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 26. Abreu was Venkataran's assistant.

Abreu was responsible for supporting computer systems used to track and identify forensic evidence, including DNA, from crime scenes, prosecutors said. After the Sept. 11 attack, the office needed more computer services to identify victims through evidence collected at ground zero.

The two, charged in 2005, steered more than $13 million in computer service contracts and purchase orders between 1999 and 2004 in exchange for cash payments to companies that did little or no work, according to U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia.

The two also directed millions of dollars to three shell companies they created, withdrew cash and made payments to personal accounts and transferred money overseas, prosecutors said.

Many of the office's Sept. 11-related expenses were reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which forwarded more than $46 million to the office in 2002 and 2003, federal authorities said.

Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party.

The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower court's ruling which said that the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively.

Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."

Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment" and that Wilson's crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children."

The state Supreme Court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state's appeal of a Monroe County judge's decision to reduce Wilson's sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice."

Dissenting justices wrote that the state Legislature expressly stated that the 2006 change in the law was not intended to affect any crime prior to that date.

They said Wilson's sentence could not be cruel and unusual because the state Legislature decided that Wilson could not benefit from subsequent laws reducing the severity of the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

They called the decision an "unprecedented disregard for the General Assembly's constitutional authority."

A spokeswoman for Wilson's lawyer said his legal team received no advance notice of the decision.

The Internal Revenue Service intends to improve international tax administration in an effort to reduce the tax gap.

As part of that effort, the IRS said it would increase its outreach to international taxpayers, as well as taxpayers in U.S. territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while it beefs up enforcement. "We are challenged by a lack of information reporting on many cross-border transactions," said the IRS in a page recently posted on its Web site.

The IRS intends to strengthen its information reporting and withholding systems, enhance its access to international data, and "ensure adherence to professional standards by tax professionals."

The IRS also wants to improve its cooperation with treaty partners to identify inappropriate tax arbitrage and abusive schemes, and provide greater transparency on cross-border transactions. One goal is to detect financial criminal activity involving offshore entities.

Modernization of technology, staff and business processes will play a role in the effort. The IRS hopes to improve its systems for capturing and using information reported by treaty partners to improve U.S. taxpayer compliance.

The agency intends to identify the workforce skills it needs to address emerging international issues and develop training for its employees so they can get these skills. The IRS will also improve its forms and processing systems, and assess its referral systems and resources to make sure that high-risk issues are dealt with in a timely way.

Beginning in 2006, certain corporations that had assets greater than $50 million were required to file their basic tax forms electronically. Approximately 15,500 of them filed their returns electronically last year. Starting in 2007, certain businesses with assets of more than $10 million had to file electronically.

"Corporations of all sizes are seeing the long range advantages of integrating their tax filing in an electronic environment along with their tax and financial accounting," said IRS Treaty Administration Director Elvin Hedgpeth. "While large and mid-size corporations are required to e-file, many small corporations are seeing the advantages of e-filing voluntarily."

Attorney Advertising. Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aetna Inc. ("Aetna" or the "Company") (NYSE: AET) between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Aetna securities through your Aetna retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the second half of 2005 Aetna touted its expanding membership rolls as a primary reason for an increase in operating income.

During the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in Aetna's medical cost ratio ("MCR"), which is the percentage of dollars a company spends on healthcare, including physician reimbursement, and is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as September 2005 defendants had in their possession information that contradicted, or rendered false, statements made by the defendants throughout the Class Period.

On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR coupled with large membership growth meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a decline of $9.43 per share, or more than 20 percent, representing a loss in market capitalization of $5.4 billion.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, which is between October 27, 2005 and April 26, 2007, inclusive. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transactions or continue to hold the securities, you may wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you purchased Aetna securities during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 2007.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the proposed lead plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other class members, and that the proposed lead plaintiff will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 30 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Los Angeles.