SEC SETTLES CHARGES AGAINST ALLEGED PRIME BACK INVESTMENT SCHEME PROMOTER

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Files Settled Charges Against Arizona Resident in Prime Bank Investment Scheme

On June 26, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Cheryl L. Robinson with violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with an advance-fee high-yield investment scam perpetrated by Switzerland-based Malom Group AG ("Malom") and Las Vegas-based M.Y. Consultants, Inc. As alleged in the complaint, Robinson acted as a promoter who recruited investors for Malom Group AG and M.Y. Consultants, Inc. from approximately 2009 to 2011. In this role, Robinson made materially false and misleading statements to investors about, among other things, Malom's background, its financial resources, and history of success. She also failed to inform investors that none of her clients had received any profits from a transaction with Malom and that all had lost their entire investment. Finally, she omitted to tell any of the investors that she would be paid approximately 25% of the investors' advance fees regardless of whether a transaction produced profits. The complaint also alleged that Robinson acted as an unregistered broker dealer and sold unregistered Malom securities. By virtue of this conduct, the complaint alleges Robinson violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and aided and abetted violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Robinson agreed to settle the case against her. The settlement is pending final approval by the court. Specifically, Robinson consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently enjoins her from future violations of Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a), Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 15(a), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; (2) permanently enjoins her from directly or indirectly participating in the issuance, offer, or sale of any security, including but not limited to joint venture agreements, proofs of funds, bank guarantees, medium term notes, standby letters of credit, structured notes, and similar instruments, with the exception of the purchase or sale of securities listed on a national securities exchange; (3) orders that she is liable for disgorgement in the amount of $204,417 and $13,802 in prejudgment interest, for a total of $218,219, and waives that amount based on her demonstrated inability to pay. The Commission also decided to forego a civil penalty based on her demonstrated financial condition.

As part of the settlement, and following the entry of the proposed final judgment, Robinson, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, has consented to the entry of a Commission order, pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15(b)(6), permanently barring her from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, or from participating in an offering of penny stock.

The SEC previously charged Malom Group AG, its principals, and agents with violating the antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws in SEC v. Malom Group AG, et al, 2:13-cv-2280 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2013), SEC v. Erwin et al., 2:14-cv-623 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2014), and SEC v. Smith, 1:14-cv-192 (D.N.H. May 2, 2014). For additional information about these cases, see Litigation Release Number 22890 (Dec. 16, 2013); Litigation Release Number 22978 (Apr. 28, 2014); and Litigation Release Number 22984 (May 2, 2014).

SEC ALLEGES A FRAUDULENT "PRIME BANK" SCHEME

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 8, 2012
SEC Charges Arizona Resident with Securities Fraud
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2102, alleging that Gerald D. Kegley (“Kegley”) and the company he operates, Prism Financial Services, LLC (“Prism”), participated in a fraudulent “Prime Bank” scheme that violated the antifraud and securities and broker dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that from at least April 8, 2010 through at least August 20, 2010, the defendants were directly responsible for introducing six individuals, who invested $1.95 million, to the fraudulent scheme. The complaint alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, the defendants forwarded misrepresentations made by others to investors. These misrepresentations included: 1) that investors could draw upon bank issued guarantees worth millions of dollars without having to repay the withdrawn funds; and 2) that investor funds would be held in escrow until the bank guarantees were issued. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that both of these representations were false because no such bank guarantees existed and investor funds were misappropriated immediately upon receipt.

Defendants also misrepresented that they would be paid commissions only once the investor received the bank guarantee. In fact, defendants were paid commissions relatively soon after the investors transferred the money. Defendants further told investors that they had previously worked on a successful bank guarantee program. Defendants, however, had actually reported this purportedly successful bank guarantee program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they believed it was a fraud.

In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Commission also alleges that defendants aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

SEC ALLEGES FOUR FIVE LLC COMMITTED SECURITIES FRAUD

When a company selling investments touts “risk-free” and “triple digit returns” then most likely the investments are not legitimate. Most fraudsters tout that their way of making fantastic returns is unique and unknown to most people and that is why the returns are so compelling for potential investors. Of course it does not make since that only people working at a certain company know of some secret way to trade markets that always leads to a huge rate of return. Common since dictates that most money managers that have been in the business 20 or 30 years have seen every system legitimate and illegitimate for making money. As such, over long periods of time nothing that generates profits escapes their notice. After all, that is what they have been doing for a living over a 20-30 year period. The following excerpt is from the SEC web site and involves a company called Four Five, LLC:

“The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced the filing of a civil injunctive action in Atlanta, Georgia on June 2, 2011, alleging that Michael L. Rothenberg (“Rothenberg”) and the company he controlled, Four Five, LLC (“Four Five”) operated a fraudulent “Prime Bank” scheme that violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that between at least February 2010 and March 2010, Rothenberg, through Four Five, used misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to induce investors to participate in a secret and allegedly risk-free trading platform or trading facility. This trading platform or trading facility purportedly involved transactions among international banks that would generate substantial return on a recurring basis. Specifically, Rothenberg represented that the trading platform would produce returns in excess of 300% every fourteen days. Rothenberg and Four Five also represented to investors, both orally and in writing, that the majority of their funds would remain at all times in Rothenberg’s attorney trust account, and that all funds invested, along with the profits, would be returned to the investors at the conclusion of the trades. Rothenberg further represented to the investors that the investment was risk-free because their funds would remain in his attorney trust account. Contrary to Defendants’ representations, a risk-free trading process providing the returns promised by Defendants does not exist. Moreover, contrary to Rothenberg’s representations that investor funds would remain in his attorney trust account, Rothenberg began disbursing investor funds within days of receipt of those funds. Between March 2010 and October 2010, at least $210,000 in investor funds were transferred to a bank account designated for contributions to Rothenberg’s judicial election campaign. Rothenberg used another $190,000 of investor funds for personal expenses. Although Rothenberg ultimately returned approximately $910,000 to investors, Defendants have misappropriated at least $800,000 of investor funds.
In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that Rothenberg and Four Five Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.”