Archive for July, 2007

Global Finance & Investments, Lucre Fund, JTA Enterprises Sued by SEC

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Global Finance & Investments, Inc., Charles R. Davis, Lucre Fund, LLC, JTA Enterprises, William H. Clark, Level Par Investments, LLC, Kelly G. Rogers, Sterling Meridian LLC, Ronald J. Linn Glenn Maske and William F. Dippolito, Defendants, and USAssets & Funding Corp., Nevada Sentry Service Corp., Wells Ventures LLC, Triquestra Management Corp., and CMR Mngt. Group, LLC, Relief Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:07cv346, (United States District Court; Eastern District of Texas; Sherman Division)
SEC Sues Promoters of High Yield Investment Programs For Fraud and Seeks Appointment of a Receiver on Behalf of Investors
Read the rest of this entry »

Comments

$45 Million Ponzi Halted by The SEC

SEC HALTS $45 MILLION PONZI-LIKE PROMISSORY NOTE SCHEME

The Commission, on July 12, filed an emergency action to halt an
ongoing $45 million securities offering that the SEC alleges to be a
Ponzi-like scheme. Named in the Commission’s complaint are Terchi Liao
(a.k.a. Nelson Liao), age 49 of Arcadia, California, and two entities
he controls, also of Arcadia, AOB Commerce, Inc. and AOB Asia Fund I,
LLC. The complaint also names four other Southern California entities
controlled by Liao — AOB Management, Inc., AOB Transportation, Inc.,
AOB Vacations, Inc., and AOB Media, Inc. — as relief defendants based
on their receipt of investor funds. The Honorable Christina A. Snyder,
United States District Judge for the Central District of California,
issued a temporary restraining order halting the securities offering,
appointing a temporary receiver over AOB Commerce and AOB Asia Fund,
and the relief defendants. The court also temporarily froze the assets
of the defendants and the relief defendants.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that since mid-2004, the defendants
have raised more than $45 million from hundreds of investors
nationwide through their unregistered offering and sale of promissory
notes that purportedly pay guaranteed interest of up to 5.5% per
month.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants represent that they
are in the business of making loans to companies in Asia, particularly
China. Although the defendants have made some loans to Asian
companies, they have principally used investor funds to pay the
interest on the promissory notes they previously issued and to pay
commissions to investors who solicit others to invest in the notes.
For example, according to the complaint, in the six-month period from
July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, the defendants:

* Raised more than $13.7 million from investors through the sale
of the notes;

* Received less than $375,000 from legitimate business
activities; but

* Paid more than $6 million in interest and commissions to
investors; and

* Loaned or otherwise transferred almost $6 million to four
related entities owned and/or controlled by Liao which are named
in the complaint as relief defendants.

As alleged in the complaint, Liao has known since at least September
2006 that AOB Commerce and AOB Asia Fund were unable to pay the
interest due investors from their business activities, and knew or was
reckless in not knowing that they were unable to do so prior to that
date. Nevertheless, the defendants have continued to raise substantial
amounts from investors through the sale of notes and have continued to
pay interest and commissions with new investor principal.

The court issued an order temporarily enjoining defendants from future
violations of the securities registration and antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws, 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 thereunder. The court also issued orders (1)
freezing the assets of the defendants and relief defendants; (2)
appointing a temporary receiver over the defendants and relief
defendants; (3) requiring the defendants to provide accountings; (4)
prohibiting the destruction of documents by the defendants; and (5)
granting expedited discovery. The Commission also seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctions, return of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment
interest, and penalties against the defendants. The Commission’s
complaint also requests an order barring Liao from acting as an
officer or director of any public company.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants loaned or otherwise
transferred significant amounts of investor monies to the relief
defendants and seeks the return of those monies.

A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued against
the defendants and whether a permanent receiver should be appointed is
scheduled for August 6, 2007.

Investors may direct their inquiries to the temporary receiver, Robb
Evans & Associates LLC, at (818) 768-8100.

The SEC has issued information for investors on promissory notes,
“Broken Promises: Promissory Note Fraud,” located at
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/promise.htm. [SEC v. AOB Commerce,
Inc., AOB Asia Fund, I, LLC, and Terchi Liao a/k/a Nelson Liao, et
al., No. CV 07-4507 CAS (JCx) (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-20196)

Comments

Phoenixsurf Admins Forced to Pay Disgorgement and Interest

SEC Charges Operators of Phoenixsurf.com Web Site With Conducting a Massive Internet Ponzi Scheme

Washington, D.C., July 24, 2007 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against the operators of an Internet-based Ponzi scheme that raised $41.9 million in just four months from more than 20,000 investors worldwide.

The Commission’s action, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleges that from Feb. 22, 2006, through May 21, 2006, four defendants operated a Web site — Phoenixsurf.com — that offered investors a 120% return in just eight days on investments ranging from $8 to $6,000 in a purported “traffic exchange program.”

Walter Ricciardi, Deputy Director of Enforcement, said, “Paid autosurf programs have become an enormous industry on the Internet. In this instance and other similar cases, however, a paid autosurf program has turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, which depends on attracting new members in order to pay returns to current members. In reviewing such programs, investors should bear in mind the age-old adage: ‘If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.’ Promises or guarantees of double-digit returns in a matter of days or weeks are highly suspicious and the investor should exercise extreme caution.”

Andrew Petillon, Associate Regional Director of the Commission’s Los Angeles Regional Office, said, “The Phoenixsurf.com program was destined to collapse because it depended on attracting new investors to pay existing investors. We again caution investors about ‘get-rich quick’ schemes offered on the Internet, especially when the companies have not filed disclosure documents with the Commission.”

The Commission’s complaint against Jonathan W. Mikula, 21, of Athens, Ga., Gabriel J. Frankewich, 29, of Byron, Ga., New Millenium Enterpreneurs, LLC, and Phoenixsurf.com alleges that under the purported program, to receive the promised return, investors had to purchase advertising and view at least 15 web pages of advertising per day during the eight-day period. Although the defendants represented that they would pay the promised returns with funds received from investors and other “businesses/programs within the NME/Phoenix network,” they operated Phoenixsurf.com primarily as a pure Ponzi scheme — using for the most part only new investor funds to pay the promised returns to existing investors. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid investors $36.7 million, almost all of which came from advertising purchases from new investments in the scheme.

To settle the Commission’s charges, the defendants consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to a judgment permanently enjoining them from future violations of the antifraud provisions 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, and the securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. The judgment also ordered the defendants to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest — for Mikula, a total of $106,671.08; Frankewich, a total of $96,345.79, and Phoenixsurf.com and New Millenium Entrepeneurs, LLC in amounts to be determined. Payment of the disgorgement and prejudgment interest by Mikula and Frankewich was waived and civil penalties were not assessed against them based on their sworn financial statements and other documents submitted to the Commission.

* * *

See also SEC publications on Ponzi schemes (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm) and autosurfing (http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/autosurf.htm).

# # #
For further information contact:

Andrew Petillon
Associate Regional Director, Enforcement
(323) 965-3214

Kelly Bowers
Senior Assistant Regional Director, Enforcement
(323) 965-3924

Rabia Cebeci
Senior Special Counsel
(323) 965-3853

Los Angeles Regional Office

Additional materials: Litigation Release No. 20205

Comments

Woody Maxim Who is He - Hint 2

Ok Back to Woody Maxim, for those who has subscribe to the newsletter type in the address at the top of the newsletter in the left hand corner, just the street address is all you will need or better yet I will do it here and pastes the Google Link:

526 Kingwood Dr STE 165

On the very first search result there is a name in the search engine result. His Name is there!

Some will not believe me but this is just one more fact to show you more to come!

Comments (4)

Win on a HYIP or Surf, Pay Taxes

Pinoy Money Talk has an article showing how surprising it is that you have to pay taxes on Gains through HYIP and AutoSurfs. His information is based on Philippino Law, but it shares the same characteristics as U.S. Law regarding gains and taxable income.

Now with U.S. Law if you lose money in one of these scams as well it can be considered a Tax deduction as a loss. This maybe true as well in the Philippines as well, please check with your tax expert.

Comments (1)

Scammed Again, SEC Takes Receivership of CEP

It appears that the ride for CEP and it’s subsideraries is over. The SEC filed a complaint seeking emergency relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against CEP Holdings, Inc. d/b/a www.colonendparenthesis.net (CEP), Colon End Parenthesis Trust, LLC (CEP Trust), and its owners and operators, Trevor Reed (Reed) and Clayton Kimbrell (Kimbrell). This is no surprise to me or others blogging about this today.
See DrunksWorld & NOBS

What does surprise me is people still put money into the unlicensed money transmitters and the associated schemes! Come on guys GROW UP get out of the GREED MODE!

Just because an Admin CLAIMS he has it covered, well guess what most likely he doesn’t!

Furthermore If an Admin tells you “not to invest if you don’t believe him or Trust him“…then DON’T, most likely IT IS A SCAM!!!!

Comments