Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of February 08 to February 14

Penalties: £603.44
Respondent: The Coffee Counter Ltd
Violation: TCCL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that TCCL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether TCCL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £160.69
Respondent: Sukhvir Tiwana
Violation: Mr Tiwana is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that Mr Tiwana is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether Mr Tiwana managed his business in such a way as to ensure that his affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £410.69
Respondent: Five Star of Formby (ALan Gabrielson trading as)
Violation: Mr Gabrielson is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that Mr Gabrielson is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether Mr Gabrielson managed his business in such a way as to ensure that his affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Paul Michael Grant
Violation: Mr Grant is not a fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm, as his conduct demonstrates a clear and serious lack of honesty, integrity and reputation… Read More

Penalties: £391.48
Respondent: Renewable Technology Group Limited
Violation: RTGL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that RTGL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether RTGL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £391.48
Respondent: Lakes Plumbing & Heating Services Ltd.
Violation: LPHSL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that LPHSL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether LPHSL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £160.69
Respondent: Andrew Maurice Blunt
Violation: Mr Blunt is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that Mr Blunt is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether Mr Blunt managed his business in such a way as to ensure that his affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £327.78
Respondent: John Richards
Violation: Mr Richards is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that Mr Richards is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether Mr Richards managed his business in such a way as to ensure that his affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: £160.69
Respondent: Lakeside Motor Group Limited
Violation: LMGL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that LMGL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether LMGL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Trinity Motors
Violation: TM is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that TM is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether TM managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: I.P.S Aloha (Scotland) Limited
Violation: IPSASL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that IPSASL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether IPSASL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Angela Marie Chatfield
Violation: From January 2016 through July 2017 (the “Relevant Period”), Chatfield engaged in three outside business activities through which she provided accounting and bookkeeping services and acted as office manager and trustee, without providing prior written notice to Thrivent, in violation of FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Ronald W. Hannes
Violation: During an investigation by FINRA into allegations that Hannes converted customer funds, Hannes failed to produce documents and information requested b FINRA staff, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $7,500.00
Respondent: David Francis Dalton
Violation: From June 2011 through December 2014 (the “Relevant Period”), Dalton violated NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010 when he exercised discretionary trading authority in 221 of his Firm customers’ accounts without having first obtained written authorization from the customers or the Firm to treat the accounts as discretionary… Read More

Penalties: $7,500.00
Respondent: David Gray Dalton
Violation: From June 2011 through December 2014 (the “Relevant Period”), Dalton violated NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010 when he exercised discretionary trading authority in 221 of his Firm customers’ accounts without having first obtained written authorization from the customers or the Firm to treat the accounts as discretionary… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Jeffrey Scott Nimmow
Violation: Between February 2016 and December 20 I 7 (”Relevant Period”), Nimmow engaged in the sale of promissory nolcs to 1 S individual investors totaling more than $3 million. The promissory notes were unregistered securities, and Nimmow engaged in these sales without disclosing and receiving approval from his firm for each individual private securities transaction, in violation of FINRA Rules 3280 and 20 I 0. In addition, Nimmow was only registered to sell certain categories of securities and did not possess the proper FINRA registration to sell these promissory notes. Nimmow’s conduct violated NASD Rule 1031 and FINRA Rule 2010… Read More

Penalties: $100,000.00
Respondent: Production Media Company
Violation: They deceptively pitched “exclusive” advertising placements to small businesses and misled them about when the ads would be printed and distributed… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Compassion First and National Veterinary Associates, or NVA
Violation: Compassion First’s proposed $5 billion acquisition of NVA would violate federal antitrust law… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Online Trading Academy
Violation: OTA uses false or unfounded earnings claims to sell “training programs” costing as much as $50,000. OTA has collected more than $370 million from consumers nationwide within the last six years… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: ZyCal Bioceuticals
Violation: The FTC filed a complaint against ZyCal Bioceuticals, a company that marketed a line of joint pain relief products under the brand name Ostinol. The same complaint includes allegations against another company Excellent Marketing Results, Inc. (EMR), which marketed a pill called StimTein through infomercials and online. EMR and its president have agreed to settle the FTC’s complaint, and are prohibited from making health-related product claims unless such claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence… Read More

Penalties: $55,965.00
Respondent: Timothy W. Crawford, et al
Violation: Cardinal, an oil-and-gas penny stock company based in Dallas, Texas, lost control of its interest in two oil-and-gas leases in mid-2017 that accounted for nearly all of the company’s revenue. Following the bad news, the complaint alleges that Cardinal and Crawford filed quarterly reports with the SEC that misrepresented to investors that the company still expected the leases to be part of its future business plans. While concealing the setback to the business, Cardinal and Crawford allegedly raised additional money from investors and misreported Crawford’s stock ownership… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal, Brad Purdy and Ashik Desai,
Violation: The SEC’s amended complaint alleges that Desai, of Pennsylvania, and three other executives engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which they falsely portrayed Outcome Health as an overwhelming success to investors, clients, and auditors. As part of this scheme, Outcome Health allegedly overstated its revenue in its audited financial statements for 2015 and 2016 by millions of dollars while raising approximately $487 million from investors, who relied on the false financial statements and false representations about the company’s growth… Read More

Penalties: $927,107.00
Respondent: BPU Investment Management, Inc.
Violation: Respondent willfully 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 a violation 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: Michael Ackerman
Violation: The SEC’s complaint alleges that Ackerman misled investors about the performance of his digital currency trading, his use of investor funds, and the safety of investor funds in the Q3 trading account. The complaint further alleges that Ackerman doctored computer screenshots taken of Q3’s trading account to create the illusion that Q3 was highly invested in cryptocurrencies and was extraordinarily profitable, holding assets of as much as $310 million. In reality, as alleged, at no time did Q3’s trading account hold more than $6 million and Ackerman was personally enriching himself by using $7.5 million of investor funds to purchase and renovate a house, purchase high end jewelry, multiple cars, and pay for personal security services… Read More

Penalties: $28,935.00
Respondent: The Nutmeg Group LLC, Randall Goulding, and David Goulding,
Violation: In an order issued on January 21, 2020, the court found that Goulding aided and abetted Nutmeg’s violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The court found that Goulding helped Nutmeg commingle investor funds with personal assets, misled investors about the value of their investments, oversaw flawed internal systems and methods for valuing and reporting investments, and transferred investor money to companies controlled by his family. The court also found that Goulding acted recklessly by taking on his compliance role despite “his complete lack of qualifications for that job.” Goulding – who earlier was enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 204, 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Criterion Wealth Management Insurance Services, Inc., Robert Allen Gravette, and Mark Andrew MacArthur
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges Criterion, Gravette, and MacArthur with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC’s complaint further charges Criterion and Gravette with violations of Section 207 of the Advisers Act, and Criterion with violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. The complaint also charges Gravette and MacArthur with aiding and abetting Criterion’s violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act and Gravette with aiding and abetting Criterion’s violation of Section 207 of the Advisers Act… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Martin J. Kinchloe
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”) against Martin J. Kinchloe (“Respondent”)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Marc A. Celello, Esq.
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 Marc A. Celello (“Respondent” or “Celello”) pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice… Read More

Click here to see the full list of SEC Enforcement Documents

Penalties: $1,083,974.33
Respondent: Matthew R. White and M.W. Global Futures LLC.
Violation: The Comission finds that, during the Relevant Period, Respondents White and MWGF violated Sections 4b(a)(1), 4o(1) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1), 6o(1), 6m(1) (2012), and Respondent White violated 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6K(2) (2012)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Capital Investment Ltd. and Breonna S. Clark
Violation: fraudulently solicited and received at least $534,829 from at least seventy-two individuals (“pool participants”)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Joshua Christian McDonald and Perfection PR Firm LLC.
Violation: Defendants have engaged, are engaging, and/or are about to engage in acts and practices in violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A), (B) (2012), and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 4.20(a)- (c), 4.41(a), and 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)-(c), 4.41(a), 5.2(b) (2018)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Michael Ackerman, Q3 Holdings LLC., and Q3 I, LP.
Violation: Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) by, among other things, in connection with contracts of sale of a commodity in interstate commerce (i.e., virtual currencies), using or employing or attempting to use or employ deceptive devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, and engaged or attempted to engage in acts, practices, or courses of business, which operate or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, by soliciting customers with false and misleading statements about Q3’s trading activity, providing Q3 customers with false account statements and screenshots, and misappropriating Q3 customers’ funds. 49. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above intentionally or recklessly. 50. By this conduct, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)… Read More