MICHIGAN RESIDENT RECEIVES PRISON SENTENCE FOR DEFRAUDING INVESTORS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 23250 / April 30, 2015
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joel I. Wilson et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-15062 (E.D. Mich.)
Michigan Businessman Sentenced to Up to 20 Years for Defrauding Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 24, 2015, the Honorable Joseph K. Sheeran of the Bay County Circuit Court in Bay City, Michigan sentenced Joel Wilson to concurrent prison terms of 105 months to 20 years and 80 months to 10 years on six criminal counts. The Court ordered that he pay $6.5 million in restitution, plus $11,000 to the Michigan Attorney General's Office for the costs of extraditing him from Germany. Wilson, 32, of Saginaw, Michigan, had been previously found guilty by a jury in March 2015 of fraudulent sale of securities, sale of unregistered securities, and continuing a criminal enterprise or racketeering and larceny.

The criminal charges arose out of the same facts that were the subject of a civil enforcement action that the Commission filed against Wilson on November 15, 2012. According to the Commission's complaint, Wilson defrauded investors who bought unregistered securities offered by his company, Diversified Group Partnership Management, LLC, and sold through his brokerage firm, W R Rice Financial Services, Inc. Wilson raised approximately $6.7 million from approximately 120 investors who bought Diversified Group's securities from September 2009 through October 2012, and used the funds to finance his business of buying, renovating, and selling houses in and around Bay City, the Commission alleged.

Although Wilson promised investors that he would invest their money in real estate that would yield returns of 9.9% per year, he used most of it to make unsecured loans to his real estate business, which did not generate enough income to repay the investors. Wilson also diverted $582,000 of investor money to pay personal expenses, including $75,000 he used to buy W R Rice Financial, $46,780 he spent on travel, and $35,000 for his wife's business. In addition, Wilson used investors' money to pay for a sponsorship and tickets to the Saginaw Sting football team and to buy thousands of dollars worth of tickets to the Detroit Red Wings.

The Commission also alleged that Wilson raised additional funds for his real estate business through stock sales for another of his companies, American Realty Funds Corporation, which traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol ANFDE at the time and is now no longer listed. The complaint alleged that there were misrepresentations and omissions in some of the reports the company filed with the Commission, which Wilson signed, including that American Realty had failed to make loan payments and that its purportedly independent directors have undisclosed personal and business relationships with Wilson.

The Commission's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, charged Wilson and Diversified Group with violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and American Realty with violations of the antifraud and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. When Wilson failed to answer the Commission's complaint, the Court granted the Commission's motion for entry of a default judgment against him. On July 26, 2013, the Court entered a Second Amended Final Judgment against Wilson, which permanently enjoined Wilson from future violations of the federal securities laws and ordered him to pay disgorgement of $6,403,580, prejudgment interest of $290,319, and a civil penalty of $7,500 for a total of $6,701,399. The Commission also entered a final administrative order on October 17, 2014, barring Wilson from associating with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in an offering of penny stock.

SEC SUSPENDS TRADING IN EBOLA RELATED COMPANIES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
11/20/2014 10:30 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading in four companies that claim to be developing products or services in response to the Ebola outbreak, citing a lack of publicly available information about the companies’ operations.

The SEC simultaneously issued an investor alert warning about the potential for fraud in microcap companies purportedly involved in Ebola prevention, testing, or treatment, noting that scam artists often exploit the latest crisis in the news cycle to lure investors into supposedly promising investment opportunities.

The SEC Enforcement Division and its Microcap Fraud Task Force work to proactively identify microcap companies that are publicly disseminating information that appears inadequate or potentially inaccurate.  The SEC has authority to issue trading suspensions against such companies.  The companies whose trading was suspended today are Patchogue, N.Y.-based Bravo Enterprises Ltd., Monrovia, Calif.-based Immunotech Laboratories Inc., Toronto-based Myriad Interactive Media Inc., and Anaheim, Calif.-based Wholehealth Products Inc.

“We move quickly to protect investors when we see thinly-traded stocks being promoted with questionable information that make them ripe for pump-and-dump schemes,” said Elisha Frank, Co-Chair of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Microcap Fraud Task Force.  “Fraudsters are constantly exploiting issues of public concern to tout a penny stock company supposedly in the business of addressing the latest crisis.”

Under the federal securities laws, the SEC can suspend trading in a stock for 10 days and generally prohibit a broker-dealer from soliciting investors to buy or sell the stock again until certain reporting requirements are met.  More information about the trading suspension process is available in an SEC investor bulletin on the topic.

According to the SEC’s investor alert, similar to how natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy have given rise to investment schemes for companies purportedly involved in cleanup efforts, con artists may perpetrate investment scams related to Ebola prevention or treatment efforts.  The alert suggests that investors be wary about promises or guarantees of high investment returns with little or no risk, avoid solicitations with pressure to “buy RIGHT NOW,” and beware of unsolicited investment offers through social media.

ATTORNEY SETTLES CLAIMS HE MADE FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO INVESTORS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Settles Claims Against Attorney Retained by Funds Involved in Fraudulent Investment Scheme

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon has entered final judgment against Oregon attorney Robert Custis pursuant to a settlement resolving claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Commission’s complaint alleged that Mr. Custis was retained to perform work for investment funds run by Yusaf Jawed and that he made false and misleading statements to the funds’ investors.

The Commission’s previously-filed complaint alleged that Mr. Jawed and two entities he controlled, Grifphon Asset Management, LLC and Grifphon Holdings, LLC, defrauded more than 100 investors in the Pacific Northwest and across the country as part of a long-running Ponzi scheme that raised more than $37 million.  The complaint alleged that Mr. Custis was retained in 2009 and began sending updates to Mr. Jawed’s investors regarding the status of a purported purchase of the funds’ assets that would allow investors to redeem their shares of the funds for a profit.  The complaint alleges that the statements regarding the asset purchase were false and that the investors were never paid.

Mr. Custis agreed to settle the Commission’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations.  The District Court entered final judgment on February 13, 2014, permanently enjoining Mr. Custis from violating Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.    

On February 27, 2014, pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by Mr. Custis, the Commission issued an order prohibiting Mr. Custis from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney under Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.

SEC ANNOUNCES PRISON TERM AND RESTITUTION PAYMENT ORDER FOR INVESTMENT ADVISOR

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Massachusetts Investment Adviser Sentenced to 36 Months in Jail for Defrauding Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that, on December 11, 2013, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced former Plymouth, Massachusetts investment adviser Jeffrey A. Liskov (Liskov) to serve a prison term of 36 months, followed by a supervised probationary period of 3 years, and to pay $3,003,147 in restitution. The sentence was imposed in connection with Liskov’s guilty plea in July 2013 to a one-count criminal Information charging him with willfully violating Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act).

The Commission previously filed a civil action against Liskov and his former advisory firm, EagleEye Asset Management, LLC (EagleEye), for defrauding their clients in connection with foreign currency exchange (forex) investments. The factual allegations in the criminal Information are substantially similar to those in the Commission’s complaint in the civil case.  The Commission’s complaint, filed on September 8, 2011, alleged that, between at least November 2008 and August 2010, Liskov made material misrepresentations to several advisory clients to induce them to liquidate investments in securities and instead invest in forex. The forex investments resulted in client losses totaling nearly $4 million, while EagleEye and Liskov pocketed over $300,000 in performance fees. The Commission alleged that Liskov’s strategy was to generate temporary profits on client forex investments to enable him to collect performance fees, after which client forex investments invariably quickly declined in value.

According to the Commission’s complaint, Liskov made material misrepresentations or failed to disclose material information to clients concerning the nature of forex investments, the risks involved in forex, and Liskov’s poor track record in forex trading for himself and other clients. The Commission’s complaint further alleged that, as to two clients, without their knowledge or consent, Liskov liquidated securities in their brokerage accounts and transferred the proceeds to their forex trading accounts where he lost nearly all their funds, but not before first collecting performance fees on temporary profits in these clients’ forex accounts. The complaint alleged that Liskov accomplished the unauthorized transfers by using “white out” correction fluid to change dates, amounts, and other data on asset transfer documentation. Liskov also opened multiple forex trading accounts in the name of one client, without obtaining the client’s consent, thereby maximizing his ability to earn performance fees on the client’s forex investments.

As result of the foregoing conduct, the Commission alleged that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The Commission also alleged that EagleEye failed to maintain certain books and records required of investment advisers in violation of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, and that Liskov aided and abetted EagleEye’s violations of these recordkeeping provisions.

After an eight-day trial in the Commission’s civil case, on November 26, 2012, a jury found that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act. After a further hearing, United States District Court Judge William G. Young found that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, concerning recordkeeping obligations relating to EagleEye’s business. On December 12, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment against EagleEye and Liskov in the Commission’s action, ordering that they be permanently enjoined from future violations of the foregoing provisions of the securities laws. The Court also ordered EagleEye and Liskov to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains in the amount of $301,502.26, plus pre-judgment interest on that amount of $29,603.59, and each to pay a civil penalty of $725,000.

On December 27, 2012, the Commission instituted public administrative proceedings against each of EagleEye and Liskov to determine what sanctions against them, if any, would be appropriate and in the public interest. On July 24, 2013, an administrative law judge revoked EagleEye’s registration as an investment adviser and barred Liskov from, among other things, associating with any investment adviser. On September 23, 2013, the Commission issued orders of finality in the administrative proceedings against EagleEye and Liskov.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William F. Galvin’s Securities Division and the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, both of which filed cases against EagleEye and Liskov in September 2011.

THREE SENTENCED FOR ROLES IN $1 BILLION HIGH-YIELD INVESTMENT FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Three Investment Advisors Sentenced in California for $1 Billion High-yield Investment Fraud

Three former investment advisers were sentenced on Nov. 19, 2013 for their roles in attempting to defraud a wealthy investor of $1 billion through a high-yield investment fraud scheme.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California made the announcement.

William J. Ferry, a former stock broker and investment advisor; Dennis J. Clinton, a former real estate investment manager; and Paul R. Martin, a former senior vice president and managing director of Bankers Trust, were convicted on July 31, 2012, of conspiracy, mail fraud and wire fraud.   The investor they attempted to defraud was, in reality, part of an undercover FBI team that posed as wealthy investors and investment managers to stop fraudsters before they actually harmed victims.

Ferry, 71, of Newport Beach, Calif., was sentenced to serve 15 months in prison.  Clinton, 65, of San Diego, Calif., was sentenced to serve 30 months in prison.   Martin, 64, of New Jersey, was sentenced to 30 months in prison.            

Evidence at trial established that from February to December 2006, Ferry, Clinton, Martin and others conspired to promote a high-yield investment fraud scheme that promised an extremely high return at little or no risk to principal.   The defendants claimed their investment program was a “Fed Trade Program” that was regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank, that they had to follow strict Fed guidelines, and that a Fed trade administrator administered their program, with compliance duties handled by a Fed compliance officer.

Investors also were told that once the investment program passed compliance, it would become registered in Washington, D.C., with the Fed.   The defendants falsely represented to FBI undercover agents that they would arrange for them to meet a Federal Reserve official and/or the chairman of the board of a major U.S. bank to confirm the existence of the defendants’ investment program.   The defendants falsely claimed that these Fed investment programs existed primarily to generate funds for project funding and humanitarian purposes, such as Hurricane Katrina relief.   The promised profits from investing in a Fed program had to be divided in equal amounts, with one portion going to some humanitarian purpose, another portion to some kind of project financing and the remainder to the investor.   The defendants represented to the undercover agents that the agents’ offshore bank account would be managed by a Swiss banker who was already managing billions of dollars for the defendants.

Throughout the scheme, Ferry acted as an underwriter and member of the compliance team; Martin acted as a banking expert; and Clinton acted as a trouble shooter during the compliance phase and transfer of funds to the Swiss banker.
           
Another conspirator, Brad Keith Lee, of California, who acted as the contact with the Swiss banker, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud on April 13, 2009, and was sentenced to 24 months in prison on Jan. 11, 2010.   Oregon resident John Brent Leiske, who acted as a trader during the scheme, pleaded guilty in the District of Oregon to conspiracy, mail fraud and wire fraud on Jan. 24, 2012, and was sentenced to 120 months in prison on Feb. 14, 2013.

This continuing investigation is being conducted by the FBI.   This case is being prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel David Bybee and Trial Attorney Fred Medick of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

SEC ANNOUNCES CHARGES AGAINST 10 FORMER BROKERS IN $125 MILLION INVESTMENT SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against 10 former brokers at an Albany, N.Y.-based firm at the center of a $125 million investment scheme for which the co-owners have received jail sentences.

The SEC filed an emergency action in 2010 to halt the scheme at McGinn Smith & Co. and freeze the assets of the firm and its owners Timothy M. McGinn and David L. Smith, who were later charged criminally by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and found guilty.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that 10 brokers who recommended the unregistered investment products involved in the scheme made material misrepresentations and omissions to their customers.  The registered representatives ignored red flags that should have led them to conduct more due diligence into the securities they were recommending to their customers.

“As securities professionals, these brokers had an important duty to determine whether the securities they recommended to customers were suitable, especially when red flags were apparent.  These registered representatives performed inadequate due diligence and failed to fulfill their duties,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.

The SEC’s order names 10 former McGinn Smith brokers in the administrative proceeding:

Donald J. Anthony, Jr. of Loudonville, N.Y.
Frank H. Chiappone of Clifton Park, NY.
Richard D. Feldmann of Delmar, N.Y.
William P. Gamello of Rexford, N.Y.
Andrew G. Guzzetti of Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
William F. Lex of Phoenixville, Pa.
Thomas E. Livingston of Slingerlands, N.Y.
Brian T. Mayer of Princeton, N.J.
Philip S. Rabinovich of Roslyn, N.Y.
Ryan C. Rogers of East Northport, N.Y.
According to the SEC’s order, the scheme victimized approximately 750 investors and led to $80 million in investor losses.  Guzzetti was the managing director of McGinn Smith’s private client group from 2004 to 2009, and he supervised brokers who recommended the firm’s offerings.  The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that despite his knowledge of serious red flags, Guzzetti failed to take any action to investigate the offerings and instead encouraged the brokers to sell the notes to McGinn Smith customers.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the other nine brokers charged in the administrative proceeding should have conducted a searching inquiry prior to recommending the products to their customers.  The brokers continued to sell McGinn Smith notes even after being told that customers placed in some of the firm’s offerings could only be redeemed if a replacement customer was found.  This was contrary to the offering documents.  In January 2008, the brokers learned that four earlier offerings that raised almost $90 million had defaulted, yet they failed to conduct any inquiry into subsequent offerings and continued to recommend McGinn Smith notes.

The SEC’s order alleges that the misconduct of Anthony, Chiappone, Feldmann, Gamello, Lex, Livingston, Mayer, Rabinovich, and Rogers resulted in violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The order alleges that Guzzetti failed to reasonably supervise the nine brokers, giving rise to liability under Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, incorporating by reference Section 15(b)(4).

The SEC’s civil case continues against the firm as well as McGinn and Smith, who were sentenced to 15 and 10 years imprisonment respectively in the criminal case.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by David Stoelting, Kevin P. McGrath, Lara Shalov Mehraban, Haimavathi V. Marlier, Joshua Newville, Kerri Palen, Michael Paley, and Roseann Daniello of the New York office.  Mr. Stoelting, Ms. Marlier and Michael Birnbaum will lead the Enforcement Division’s litigation.

OWNER, EXECUTIVES AND BCI AIRCRAFT LEASING INC., ALL CONVICTED OF FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 20, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced that on March 14, 2012, a federal jury convicted Brian Hollnagel and BCI Aircraft Leasing Inc. on seven criminal counts, including fraud and obstruction charges for engaging in a fraudulent financing scheme that raised more than $50 million from investors and lenders. Brian Hollnagel, 38, of Chicago, the owner, president, and chief executive officer of BCI Aircraft Leasing Inc., and the corporation itself were each convicted of six counts of wire fraud and one count of obstruction of justice for obstructing the Commission’s 2007 lawsuit against them. As part of this verdict, Hollnagel and BCI were convicted of committing fraud and obstruction in connection with the provision of fraudulent court-ordered accountings of investor LLCs to the SEC during that litigation. U.S. v. Brian Hollnagel et al., Criminal Action No. 1:10-cr-0195 (N.D. Ill.) (St. Eve., J.).

On August 13, 2007, the Commission filed a civil injunctive complaint alleging that Defendants Hollnagel and BCI, from approximately 1998 through 2007, raised at least $82 million from approximately 120 investors as part of a fraudulent scheme in which the Defendants commingled investor funds, used investor funds to pay other investors, and failed to use investor funds as represented. The Complaint alleged that, as a result of their conduct, the Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission’s action remains pending.

FORMER BOARD CHAIRMAN ALLEN STANFORD CONVICTED OF INVESTMENT FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Allen Stanford Convicted in Houston for Orchestrating $7 Billion Investment Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON – A Houston federal jury today convicted Robert Allen Stanford, the former Board of Directors Chairman of Stanford International Bank (SIB), for orchestrating a 20-year investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion from SIB to finance his personal businesses.

The guilty verdict was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas; FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the Criminal Investigative Division; Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration Phyllis C. Borzi; Chief Postal Inspector Guy J. Cottrell; Special Agent in Charge Lucy Cruz of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI).

Following a six-week trial before U.S. District Judge David Hittner, and approximately three days of deliberation, the jury found Stanford guilty on 13 of 14 counts in the indictment.

Stanford, 61, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  The jury found Stanford not guilty on one count of wire fraud.

At sentencing, Stanford faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years for the count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, each count of wire and mail fraud, and the count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five years for the count of conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation and the count of obstruction of an SEC investigation.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Houston Field Office, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the IRS-CI and the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration.  The case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief William Stellmach of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Costa of the Southern District of Texas and Trial Attorney Andrew Warren of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.”

INVESTMENT ADVISOR TO PAY FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: September 29, 2011 ‘The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on September 21, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a judgment against Defendant Alfred Clay Ludlum, III in the matter captioned Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alfred Clay Ludlum, III, et al., Civil Action No.10-cv-7379 (E.D. Pa.). Ludlum is the founder, president, chief compliance officer, and sole individual in control of Printz Capital Management, LLC (Printz Capital), which was registered with the Commission as an investment adviser from September 19, 2006 until its registration was revoked on June 27, 2011. Ludlum also wholly controls Printz Financial Group, Inc. and PCM Global Holdings LLC (together with Printz Capital, the Printz Entities). In a civil action filed on December 20, 2010, the Commission alleged that Ludlum and the Printz Entities made fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to investors, including Printz Capital advisory clients, concerning unregistered offerings of equity and debt securities in the Printz Entities. These investors were told that their funds would be used for working capital and to grow and operate the businesses of the Printz Entities when, in fact, Ludlum used most of these funds to support lifestyle, pay his personal expenses, and repay other investors. The Commission also alleged that Ludlum fraudulently obtained loans from one advisory client and made unauthorized transfers of funds belonging to three advisory clients to accounts that he controlled. The complaint further alleged that Ludlum failed to register the securities offerings in the Printz Entities with the Commission, even though no exemption from registration applied, and that Printz Capital, aided and abetted by Ludlum, violated additional provisions governing investment advisers. To settle the SEC’s charges, Ludlum, without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, except as to jurisdiction, consented to the entry of a judgment that: (i) permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act), and from aiding and abetting any violations of Sections 203, 204, and 207 of the Advisers Act; and (ii) provides that Ludlum will be ordered to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties in amounts to be determined by the court, upon motion by the Commission. Based on the entry of these injunctions, on September 29, 2011 the SEC issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Notice of Hearing against Ludlum. Previously in this matter, a final judgment was entered by default against the Printz Entities on March 15, 2011,, which permanently enjoined them from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, permanently enjoined Printz Capital from violating Sections 206(1), 206(2), 203A, 204, and 207 of the Advisers Act, and permanently enjoined Printz Financial Group, Inc. from violating Securities Act Rule 503(a) of Regulation D. Pursuant to the final judgment, the Printz Entities were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, $735,617 in disgorgement, $49,817 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $735,617. No part of this judgment has been paid to date. The Commission subsequently instituted administrative proceedings against Printz Capital pursuant to Section 203(e) of the Advisers Act, and Printz Capital consented to the issuance of an order on June 27, 2011 revoking its registration with the Commission as an investment adviser.”

SEC CHARGES MAN AND FIRMS WITH MISAPPROPRIATING $8.7 MILLION DOLLARS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:

July 12, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Sam Otto Folin (Folin), his Philadelphia-based registered investment adviser, Benchmark Asset Managers LLC (Benchmark) and its parent company, Harvest Managers LLC (Harvest) with misappropriating approximately $8.7 million from advisory clients, friends and family through material misrepresentations and omissions.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, from approximately 2002 through October 2010, Folin, Benchmark and Harvest offered and sold securities in Harvest, Benchmark, and Safe Haven Portfolios LLC (Safe Haven), a pooled investment vehicle, promising investors that their funds would be invested in public and private companies with “socially responsible” goals and purposes. Instead, the complaint alleges that Folin, Benchmark and Harvest diverted a portion of the invested funds to pay previous investors as well as to sustain Benchmark’s and Harvest’s expenses which included paying Folin’s salary.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that Benchmark and Harvest issued various “notes” to advisory clients, friends and family promising guaranteed above-market interest rates. Folin, Benchmark and Harvest assured investors that such notes were conservative and safe. According to the complaint, Folin, Benchmark and Harvest failed to disclose the true uses of those funds and continually misrepresented the value of the notes on quarterly statements.
In addition, the complaint alleges that in August 2004 Folin and Benchmark formed Safe Haven which purported to offer investments in several different portfolios, including the Private Fixed Income Portfolio, the Hedged Equity Portfolio, the Green Real Estate Portfolio and the Sustainable Enhanced Cash Portfolio. The complaint also alleges that Folin and Benchmark caused Benchmark’s advisory clients to invest in Safe Haven and that Folin and Benchmark also acted as investment advisers to Safe Haven. From 2006 through 2009, the complaint alleges that Folin and Benchmark caused Safe Haven to pay over $1.7 million to Benchmark and Harvest under the guise of “development costs.” The complaint alleges that these “development costs” did not relate to any actual expenses incurred by Harvest or Benchmark in connection with the formation or offering of Safe Haven securities. Rather, the complaint alleges, the payments coincided with Harvest’s and Benchmark’s need for funds to pay previous investors, expenses and Folin’s salary. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Folin and Benchmark improperly amortized the development costs rather than expensing them as incurred in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) thereby causing the reported net asset values of the Safe Haven portfolio to be overstated on statements provided to advisory clients and investors.
The complaint also alleges that Folin and Benchmark caused Safe Haven to make loans to Harvest and Benchmark in excess of $3.9 million. The complaint further alleges that Folin and Benchmark did not disclose these loans. Moreover, the complaint alleges that these loans violated several provisions of Safe Haven’s investment criteria including, among other things, that: (1) they were not supported by adequate collateral, (2) they violated the 5% net exposure requirement, and (3) they caused the portfolios to violate the “no leverage” provision. In addition, the complaint alleges that the financial statements provided by Folin and Benchmark to investors did not comply with GAAP. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the financial statements improperly valued the Safe Haven loans to Harvest and Benchmark at face value, rather than fair value or net realizable value. Finally, the complaint alleges that Folin and Benchmark failed to disclose to their advisory clients Benchmark’s dire financial situation and inability to sustain itself but for the monies it received under the guise of “development costs” and the loans from Safe Haven.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Folin and Benchmark have consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining them from future violations of Sections 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Harvest has consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining it from future violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Folin, Benchmark and Harvest have also consented to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of $8,706,620 plus prejudgment interest of $1,454,177. In addition, Folin has consented to pay a civil penalty of $150,000 and Harvest and Benchmark have consented to pay civil penalties of $750,000 each. The settlements are subject to court approval.
Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Folin also consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions which bars him from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, transfer agent, municipal advisor, or nationally recognized statistical ratings organization based upon the entry of the final judgment. Similarly, without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings, Benchmark consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(e) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions which revokes its investment adviser registration based upon the entry of the final judgment.”

SEC MAKES CHARGES MAM WEALTH MANAGEMENT WITH FRAUD

On the Securities and Exchange Commission web site the SEC announced it has filed investment fraud charges as follows:

“U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 21921 / April 7, 2011
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. MAM WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, MAMW REAL ESTATE FUND GENERAL PARTNER, LLC, ALEX MARTINEZ, AND RAPHAEL R. SANCHEZ, Civil Action No. CV 11-2934 SJO (JCx) (C.D. Ca.)]
SEC CHARGES INVESTMENT ADVISER, FUND MANAGER AND TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH SECURITIES FRAUD INVOLVING CLIENT FUNDS
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the filing of a civil injunctive action in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California against MAM Wealth Management, LLC (MAM), MAMW Real Estate General Partner, LLC (MAMW), Alex Martinez and Ralph Sanchez, alleging fraud in connection with client investments in a $10.3 million risky real estate venture. According to the Commission's complaint, from July 2007 through March 2009, Martinez, a MAM and MAMW principal, and Ralph Sanchez, a MAM registered representative and MAMW principal, had 50 of their advisory clients invest in MAM Wealth Management Real Estate Fund, LLC (Fund). The complaint alleges that Martinez and Sanchez misrepresented to some clients that the Fund was a safe, relatively liquid investment, was earning 9% per year, and would show profits in three years. The complaint alleges that they used their discretionary authority over other clients’ funds to invest them in the Fund, even though it was unsuitable for their conservative investment goals. The complaint alleges that many accounts were retirement accounts and that the Fund was an unsuitable investment for clients who did not have the ability and willingness to accept the risks of losing their entire investment. The complaint further alleges that the defendants caused the Fund to use client funds to make risky mortgage loans.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, including violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by MAM, MAMW, Martinez and Sanchez and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act by MAM and Martinez and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act by Sanchez. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and monetary penalties.”

SEC CHARGES SKIN CARE COMPANY CFO WITH COOKING THE BOOKS

Fraud is so common in the American investment community that it is a wonder that the DJIA trades above 1,000 points. Financial statements are rendered worthless because so many accountants are willing to take bribes and falsely report income and losses (commonly known as cooking the books). So what is an investor to do? Well, based upon the performance of the stock market this year, most have choose to put their money under their mattress and wait and see if someone will ever get serious about stopping the rampant fraud throughout our economy. The following is an excerpt from the SEC blog which tells the tale of a company that allegedly defrauded investors with the help of an accounting firm:

“Washington, D.C., Aug. 9, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the former chief financial officer of a Seattle-area skin care retailer with fraudulently boosting earnings by reporting sales of anti-aging products promoted through Home Shopping Network infomercials while the products still sat unsold in the company’s warehouse. The agency also separately settled charges against the company and began administrative proceedings against the company’s outside auditors for professional misconduct.

The SEC alleges that Karl Redekopp, the former CFO of International Commercial Television Inc. (ICTV), turned millions of dollars of quarterly losses into profits by falsely accounting for ICTV's sales of the Derma Wand, a skin care appliance that purports to reduce wrinkles and improve skin appearance. Redekopp fraudulently recognized revenue before the Home Shopping Network had actually sold or delivered the product to viewers. He also improperly recognized revenue before a free trial period offered by the company had expired, and failed to reverse revenue from products that had been returned. Redekopp's misconduct caused the company to falsely report millions of dollars in excess revenue in 2007 and 2008.

"Redekopp violated fundamental principles of accounting to fraudulently boost ICTV's bottom line and conceal its true financial health from investors," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "Unfortunately, ICTV's auditors turned a blind eye to the company's financial irregularities and failed to fulfill their role in investor protection."

The SEC's complaint against Redekopp, filed in federal district court in Tacoma, Wash., alleges that Redekopp recorded "sales" of products that had not been shipped or that the customer was not obligated to pay for. Redekopp's fraudulent accounting resulted in ICTV adjusting net sales by more than $3.7 million over a five-quarter period in 2007 and 2008, negating all originally reported net income for those periods to restated net losses. For example, for year-end 2007 alone, ICTV restated its originally reported net income of $1.5 million to a net loss of $1.1 million after correcting the fraudulent reporting.

The SEC's complaint charges Redekopp, who lives in Vancouver, B.C., with violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC seeks a permanent injunction, a financial penalty, and an order barring him from serving as an officer of a public company.

In a separate complaint, the SEC charged ICTV for its misleading financial statements. Without admitting or denying the allegations, ICTV agreed to settle the charges by consenting to a final judgment permanently enjoining the company from future violations of the reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.
The SEC instituted administrative proceedings against ICTV's former outside auditors Steven H. Dohan, Nancy L. Brown and their Miami-area firm Dohan + Company CPAs as well as Erez Bahar, a Canadian Chartered Accountant who lives in Vancouver.

According to the SEC's order, Dohan, Brown, and Bahar were responsible for the issuance of an unqualified audit report stating that ICTV's financial statements were fairly reported in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and that the audit had been conducted in accordance with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) auditing standards. The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that the former auditors failed to identify the material accounting deficiencies and violations of GAAP that formed the basis of the SEC's enforcement action against Redekopp. The Division of Enforcement alleges that Dohan, Brown, Bahar, and Dohan + Company CPAs engaged in improper professional conduct under Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. An administrative hearing will be scheduled to determine whether remedial sanctions are appropriate.”

This is another case where the SEC is taking action but, where is the Department of Justice? It seems that white collar crime is legal in the eyes of prosecutors. The theft of investment funds by fraudsters may well be recognized by historians as the reason for our current economic mess and also as the reason for our nation’s long term demise. Printing money to pour into the bottomless pit of Wall Street fraudster's pockets will cure nothing in the long run.

The government can only do so much to stimulate the economy. Before the economy can improve the general population must have a positive attitude toward business. For big business executives to simply blame the government for everything and then rail against any legislation that gets tough on fraudsters’ shows to the American public that business is not to be trusted any more than government. After all, if a business executive is not committing fraud then why is he against prosecuting those who are fraudsters? Perhaps “birds of a feather” do flock together.

For government and business to believe that doing nothing to clean up the horrific fraud in our economy caused by government and business, will somehow make things get better over time is ridiculous. Relying on luck or divine intervention to fix things will fix nothing because it was not a divinity or bad luck that caused this economic fiasco. To misquote Shakespeare, the economic problem that government and big business have isn’t in their stars, it’s in themselves.