Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of April 11 to April 17

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Gary John Gregson
Violation: Mr Gregson acted with a lack of commercial probity and failed to ensure that the firms adhered to guidance issued by the OFT and by the Authority. As a result of his misconduct, Mr Gregson was disqualified by the Court, pursuant to section 6 of the CDDA86, from acting as a company director for a period of 10 years with effect from 7 March 2018… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: SCI Group UK Limited
Violation: SCI failed to respond to seven requests for the provision of information considered by the authority to be necessary to enable the Authority to determine the application. These requests were made over a two mon period, and three the requests included the statement that SCi must contact the authority cannot ensure that satifies and will continue to satisfy, the therehold conditions for the authority regulations committee that SCi would have given the warrenty notice… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Fintech Investment Group, Inc. et al.
Violation: Defendants solicited customers to purchase Compcoin through various means, including a website, written solicitation materials, and verbal communications, that (i) falsely represented the use and function of Compcoin, (ii) falsely claimed that Compcoin would grant customers access to a forex trading algorithm called ART developed by Fintech, (iii) failed to disclose that Fintech was not approved to advise customers on trading forex using ART and could not trade forex for customers using ART until and unless it was approved to do such trading, and (iv) failed to include a disclosure, as required by CFTC Regulation, that Fintech and ART’s forex performance results were based largely or entirely on simulated or hypothetical performance and not actual trading results… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Amada Capital Management, et al
Violation: Defendants violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) (2018), and Regulation 5.2(b)(l) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l), (3) (2018), by cheating and defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, and willfully deceiving, or attempting to deceive, their retail forex clients by, among other things, knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting that client funds would be used to trade individually managed forex accounts opened in the clients’ names~ misrepresenting their profitable trading experience on behalf of clients; providing false account statements to clients; and misappropriating client funds. 72. When Amada committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l) and (3), he was acting within the scope of his agency, employment, and office at ACM; therefore, such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to be those of ACM pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) (2018), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2018)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a Renown Health Products; and James Digeorgia, individually and as an owner, officer, and managing member of Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC
Violation: Promoted its Isoprex supplement to older adults as a miracle cure for pain and joint inflammation has agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that bars the company from continuing to make its unproven claims… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Ponte Investments , LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a SBA Loan Program and d/b/a SBA Loan Program.com, and John C. Ponte, individually and as an officer of Ponte Investments, LLC,
Violation: Falsely claiming to be an approved lender for a federal coronavirus relief lending program and asked a federal court to immediately halt their misrepresentations… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Peggy Jean Doherty-Punderson
Violation: Doherty-Punderson refused to provide information and documents that were requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $300,000.00
Respondent: Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Violation: “Between January 2011 and July 2019, the firm erroneously submitted approximately 380 million reports to the Order Audit Trail System (“”OATS””) that it was not required to report and submitted more than 400 million reports to OATS with inaccurate data in violation of FINRA Rules 7450 and 2010. Furthermore, the firm failed to establish a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with its OATS reporting obligations in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010 and NASD Rule 3010.”… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Gregory John Stouffer
Violation: Respondent refused to provide information and testimony requested by FINRA pursuant to Rule 8210, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Lillian Degasperis
Violation: Degasperis failed to amend her Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4”) to disclose certain material information that she was required to disclose. As a result, Degasperis violated Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA’s By-Laws and FINRA Rules 1122 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Joseph John Mauro
Violation: Between July 2013 and July 2018 (the Relevant Period), Respondent falsified three customers’ signatures on a total of six forms in order to effect withdrawals from the customers’ variable annuities to their personal bank accounts. By falsifying customer signatures, Respondent violated FINRA Rule 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Piero B. DiLorenzo
Violation: Respondent violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 by failing to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Robert Renteria
Violation: Respondent provided false information to FINRA, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Charles J. Euler, Jr.
Violation: Euler refused to appear for on-the-record testimony that was requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. As a result, Euler violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Asante K. Berko
Violation: Defendant Berko violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”), a law that generally prohibits companies whose stock is publicly traded in the United States, and individuals associated with those companies, from paying bribes to foreign officials in order to secure business in foreign countries. Berko, a United States citizen, is a former executive of a United Kingdom-based financial services company (the “Subsidiary”) that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a publicly traded bank holding company based in the United States (the “Holding Company”)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Joseph Fiore, Berkshire Capital Management Company, Inc., and Eat at Joe’s, Ltd. (n/k/a SPYR, Inc.)
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed on June 18, 2018, alleged that between March 2013 and March 2014, Fiore manipulated the market for, and scalped, the stock of microcap issuer Plandai Biotechnology, Inc. According to the complaint, Fiore financed and directed a promotional campaign aimed at public investors that included recommendations to buy Plandai stock without disclosing that Fiore beneficially owned Plandai stock, and that he intended to sell and was selling into the public market millions of shares. The complaint further alleged that Fiore engaged in manipulative trading of Plandai stock through two companies he controlled, Berkshire and SPYR, made false and misleading statements to brokerage firms through which he traded Plandai stock, and failed to disclose his beneficial ownership of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of Plandai stock. In addition, the complaint alleged that SPYR failed to register as an investment company with the SEC… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Attis Industries, Inc.
Violation: ATIS (CIK No. 949721) is a New York corporation located in Milton, Georgia with a class of securities registered with the Commission under Exchange Act Section 12(g). As of October 18, 2019, the common stock of ATIS was quoted on OTC Link (formerly Pink Sheets) operated by OTC Markets, Inc., had two market makers, and was eligible for the piggyback exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). ATIS has failed to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a1 and 13a-13 thereunder because it has not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the period ended June 30, 2018… Read More

Penalties: $98,510.29
Respondent: Schulman Lobel Zand Katzen Williams & Blackman and LLP a/k/a Schulman Lobel LLP
Violation: Section 10A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires each audit to include procedures designed to identify related party transactions that are material to the financial statements or otherwise require disclosure therein. No showing of scienter is necessary to establish a violation of Section 10A of the Exchange Act. As a result of the conduct described above, SL willfully violated Section 10A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act… Read More

Penalties: $265,567.70
Respondent: Boenning & Scattergood, Inc., Craig Burdulis, and Brian Gillespie,
Violation: “Boenning failed to establish policies and procedures that reasonably would be expected to prevent and detect the violations by Burdulis and Gillespie, who were each its associated persons, of MSRB Rule G-17 in connection with their new issue municipal bond activities. In addition, with respect to its new issue municipal bond business generally during the relevant period, Boenning lacked a system that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with MSRB Rule G-17… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Miranda Suen, CPA
Violation: On June 7, 2016, Miranda Suen, CPA (“Suen”) was suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant as a result of settled public administrative proceedings instituted by the Commission against her pursuant to Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.1 This order is issued in response to Suen’s application for reinstatement to appear and practice before the Commission as an accountant responsible for the preparation or review of financial statements required to be filed with the Commission… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Revolutionary Concepts, Inc., et al.
Violation: The SEC’s complaint alleges that Ali, while a Senior Vice President at Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. (REVO), arranged for REVO to enter into several sham transactions with companies that he portrayed as independent. Ali then touted the sham transactions in press releases as being highly lucrative for REVO, and claimed that REVO acquired valuable assets from the deals. In reality, according to the complaint, Ali had close ties to the other companies, the assets REVO acquired were essentially worthless, and Ali’s claim that REVO could earn millions of dollars from the deals was baseless… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Eagle Strategies LLC
Violation: As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent willfully5 violated Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act, which makes it unlawful for any investment adviser, directly or indirectly, to “engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client.” Scienter is not required to establish a violation of Section 206(2), but rather may rest on a finding of negligence. SEC v. Steadman, 967 F.2d 636, 643 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180,194-95 (1963))… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Phillip W. Conley
Violation: The SEC’s complaint alleges that, between January 2014 and September 2018, Conley induced investors to purchase securities by making a series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the legitimacy of the investments and the use of investor proceeds. Conley allegedly failed to invest those proceeds as promised and instead comingled investor funds in bank accounts that he controlled. Conley allegedly used most of the funds for his personal benefit, including, among other things, private jet rentals, luxury purchases, dining, and entertainment, while using the remainder to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors… Read More

Penalties: $2,197,489.00
Respondent: Amir Waldman, et al.
Violation: The SEC’s amended complaint, filed on November 29, 2017, alleged that Waldman, of Israel, made highly suspicious and profitable trades in the securities of Mobileye, N.V., a software and technology developer of an autonomous driving system. According to the SEC’s complaint, the Mobileye founders provided nonpublic information about a tender offer by Intel Corporation to James Shaoul, a close friend of Waldman, who in turn provided the information to Waldman. The amended complaint alleges that Waldman profited by more than $4.5 million by trading on the information in advance of the tender offer… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Solomon RC Ali, a/k/a Richard Marshall Carter, Jr.,
Violation: “Defendant Ali filed a document labeled “Defendants’ [sic] Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Controverting Statement of Facts.” [Doc. 79 – “Def. Resp. PSMF”)]. Ali did not file a separate Statement of Disputed Facts, and his response is largely conclusory and argumentative. For example, preceding his response to each disputed fact is some version of the following: “Plaintiff’s statement is inaccurate, misguided, and Plaintiff has not told the whole story and they have ignored and misstated the facts. Plaintiff’s misstatement is misleading and mischaracterizes the evidence in an attempt to unfairly attribute a wrong intent or motive to Defendant. The evidence cited does not support the Plaintiff’s statement and does not support the position asserted.” [Def. Resp. PSMF, passim]. Ali has largely failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1(B)(2), N.D. Ga., which provides in
pertinent part:”… Read More

Penalties: $400,000.00
Respondent: Eni S.p.A.
Violation: “As a result of the conduct described above, Eni violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires reporting companies to make and keep books, records, and
accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and dispositions of their assets.”… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: James Arthur Young III,
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against James Arthur Young III (“Young” or “Respondent”)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Brian Robert Sodi, CPA
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Brian Robert Sodi, CPA (“Respondent”) pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice… Read More

Click here to see the full list of SEC Enforcement Documents