The Growing Problem With Sales of Unregistered Securities

Recently I have been busy working to recover losses for a large number of investors who lost money in unregistered investments offered by Woodbridge and Future Income Payments or FIP. In many cases these investments were recommended by insurance agents who were not licensed to sell securities, and did not perform adequate due-diligence on these companies before they made the recommendation.

FIP offered pensioners upfront, lump-sum payments in return for a portion of their monthly pension payments over a specific term, often three to five years. FIP then used these pension payments to fund a monthly income stream back to the investors who put up the money for the lump-sum payments. In July of 2018 Scott Kohn, the 64-year-old felon who started the company, closed the doors and disappeared leaving investors with more than $100 million in losses.

Subsequently the SEC filed charges against thirteen individuals and ten companies who recommended and sold Woodbridge, including Utah-based Aaron Andrew and Live Abundant. Live Abundant and its agents were not licensed to sell securities, and yet they recommended both FIP and Woodbridge to hundreds of people here in Utah and throughout the western United States. Our lawsuits against Live Abundant and the individuals and entities who perpetrated this scheme are ongoing.

The common link between these two fraud schemes is that investments in FIP and Woodbridge were not registered with the SEC. These are sometimes referred to as private placements or unregistered offerings.  Generally, a company may not offer or sell securities in the United States unless the offering has been registered with the SEC or an exemption from registration is available. For more information about exempt offerings I recommend you look at this article on the SEC’s website.

Below is a repost of an article from Investment News that highlights some of the challenges for individual investors from these investments, and for the firms that offer them.


Sales of Unregistered Securities are a Growing Problem That’s Harming Investors — and the Industry

By Bruce Kelly

To an investor, Castleberry Financial Services Group’s promise of up to a 12.2% annual yield on the alternative investment fund it was selling might have seemed awfully tempting. So might the assurance that your principal would be insured and bonded by well-known insurance companies CNA Financial Corp. and Chubb Group.

In promotional materials, Castleberry claimed to have invested almost $800 million in local South Florida companies and to have a portfolio of real estate holdings that was generating $2.8 million in rental income annually.

But in late February, the Securities and Exchange Commission went into court to shut the company down, claiming it was all a fraud, including the involvement of CNA and Chubb.

Before the SEC acted, though, it said that Castleberry had managed to raise $3.6 million from investors, some of which was used to pay the personal expenses of its principals. Other funds were transferred to family members or other businesses the principals controlled, according to the SEC.

By all indications, the marketplace for all types of private, unregistered securities, including private placements sold to wealthy investors and institutions, is thriving. But what’s growing alongside this legitimate, if risky, market is a seedy side of the financial advice industry. Investment funds promising above-market returns that employ networks of brokers, former brokers, insurance agents or others lurking on the fringes of the industry to sell their investments are taking advantage of unsuspecting investors.

Add in the ability to offer private securities over the internet and solicit clients via social media, and unregistered, private securities being sold to less-than-wealthy investors, many of them senior citizens, are becoming increasingly dangerous. Fraudulent securities are damaging the reputation of the legitimate financial advice industry,​ and the industry itself might serve as the best solution to safeguarding the investing public.

“I’m seeing more of it:​ the spike in the sale of nontraditional investments,” said David Chase, a former SEC staff attorney who’s now in private practice and based in South Florida.

Sales soar

The proliferation of potentially fraudulent schemes comes at a time when the sale of legitimate private securities, which are exempt from having to be registered if they meet certain SEC guidelines, has taken off. While the annual amount of public stock offerings has remained relatively steady over the past decade, the sale of new private stock offerings has soared.

The most popular of these, known as Regulation D offerings, have more than doubled, from 18,295 in 2009 to 37,785 in 2017. Those deals, along with other types of private offerings, raised a total of $3 trillion in 2017.

Brokers and advisers can sell private, unregistered shares to only the wealthiest clients; investors need a net worth of $1 million or an annual individual income of $200,000 to buy in. But the public disclosure is negligible, making the securities opaque, some sources said, and that is hazardous.

The game plan of the fraudulent unregistered securities schemes currently roiling the investment advice market is simple. An investment manager claims to have an alternative investment to the stock market that beats the return on bonds or bank deposits. The investments are heavily marketed with investment seminars, dinners, and ads on radio and in local newspapers.

James Park, securities professor at UCLA, said the internet is giving the promoters one more outlet to sell their fraudulent investments.

“It’s now possible to get investors from everywhere,” he said. “In the old days, brokers would have to call up people to convince them to invest or put on a road show. Now it’s normalized with online platforms.”

In one of the largest recent cases,​ the SEC said the owners of Woodbridge Securities raised $1.2 billion over a five-year period by claiming they were selling loans to real estate developers.Source: North American Securities Administrators Association

Promising returns of 10%, the scheme reeled in 8,400 investors, many of them senior citizens, with the help of a network made up mostly of insurance agents and former stock brokers, according to the regulator. Woodbridge’s owners kept the scam going, the SEC said, by using money from new investors to pay off old investors — a classic Ponzi scheme.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Woodbridge and its former CEO Robert Shapiro settled with the SEC for $1 billion in disgorgement and fines. Ryan O’Quinn, a lawyer for Mr. Shapiro, did not return a call seeking comment.

Beyond FINRA’s reach

One of the reasons these cons take time to detect is because the agents selling them mostly work outside the supervision of licensed broker-dealers, who are under the purview of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. This gives the fraud ample time to flower before the SEC or a state regulator gets a complaint from an investor, investigates and shuts it down.

The largest Ponzi schemes in general are those that have tapped into a very successful and productive line of independent sales agents who typically have long-standing relationships with clients,” Mr. Chase said. “They sell the deal, and clients get defrauded.”

The SEC did a better job of shutting down what it said was a fraud in the case of Castleberry Financial Services Group after only a year in business. In February, the SEC was granted a temporary restraining order and temporary asset freeze against Castleberry and its principals.

​ Among other allegations, the SEC said the firm’s president, T. Jonathon Turner, formerly known as Jon Barri Brothers, had falsely claimed to have had extensive finance industry experience, an MBA degree and a law degree, while concealing that he had served 18 years in prison for multiple fraud, theft and forgery felonies.

Attorneys for Castleberry Financial and its executives did not return calls seeking comment.

State enforcement

In 2017, state regulators reported that enforcement actions against unregistered brokers and salespeople increased at a faster pace than actions taken against registered individuals. That means the risk from salespeople on the fringes of the financial advice industry is growing. And they are the type of people who often sell scams that are being marketed as unregistered securities.

“[The] enforcement survey reflects a large increase in enforcement actions against unregistered individuals and firms,” according to an October 2018 report from the North American Securities Administrators Association. Members of the group reported actions in 2017 against 675 unregistered individuals and firms — an increase of 24% over the prior year — and 647 registered individuals and firms — a 9% increase.

“The surge in cases against unregistered actors reversed a two-year trend in which registered individuals and firms in the securities industry, broker-dealers and investment advisers, had constituted the majority of respondents in state enforcement actions,” according to NASAA.

Perhaps the poster boy for selling phony unregistered securities is Barry Kornfeld, a leading seller of the Woodbridge Ponzi scheme.

The SEC barred Mr. Kornfeld from working as a broker in 2009. Regardless, he continued to sell private securities; he and his wife allegedly solicited investors at seminars and a “conservative retirement and income planning class” they taught at a Florida university, according to an SEC complaint.

From 2014 to 2017, he and his wife received $3.7 million in commissions after selling more than $60 million of the Woodbridge private securities, according to the commission. Mr. Kornfeld reached a settlement in January with the SEC, agreeing to be barred for a second time from the securities industry. Robert Harris, a lawyer for Mr. Kornfeld, did not return a call seeking comment.

Registered reps involved

Unregistered reps aren’t the only ones selling fraudulent securities. Registered reps working at broker-dealers also are involved.

“We’re starting to see more sophisticated means for registered reps within the broker-dealer space to get investors to invest in private securities,” Thomas Drogan, senior vice president at Finra, said in testimony last year about investor fraud before the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee. “The challenge in that space has been reps encouraging their customers, for example, to send money from their brokerage account to their bank account. And once the money gets to the bank account, instructing the customer to then send the money to the individual reps’ outside business activity. This creates a problem. This creates a very big challenge for broker-dealers to conduct surveillance on.”

The practice, known as “selling away,” can be grounds for disciplinary action if the broker-dealer employing the broker has not approved the broker’s actions. Unregistered firms and individual topped the list of disciplinary actions by state securities regulators in 2017.

Advisers at independent broker-dealers are commonly paid 7% commissions when selling private placements, clearly on the high end of a broker’s pay scale.

“What’s driving this?” asked Adam Gana, a plaintiff’s attorney. “It’s commissions, commissions, commissions. Brokers think they can get away with selling whatever they want on the side.”

Even though these dubious private securities are creating havoc for investors and the financial advice industry, regulators may soon change the rules about how private securities transactions are supervised.

Simplify supervision?

Last year, Finra proposed rule changes that are intended to simplify how broker-dealers supervise a hybrid rep’s outside business activity and sale of private securities. The new rule focuses on the rep’s RIA firm and decreases some of the responsibility the broker-dealer has to watch over that separate line of business. It would cut costs for the firm and the broker. But some think these changes could prove dangerous.

William Galvin, secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the most feared regulator in the securities industry, does not care for the Finra rule proposal.

“Finra claims that the proposed rule will strengthen investor protections, but it is not at all clear how investors will be protected by the removal of supervisory oversight,” Mr. Galvin wrote in a comment letter last April about the proposed rule. “The absence of proper oversight of outside business activities will increase the risk of fraud and abuse.”

Can financial advisers and the financial advice industry do anything to contain this problem?

Local investment advisers are often the best cops on the beat for detecting such frauds. Their knowledge often comes from clients who are being pitched such deals at “free” steak dinners that are provided to get them in the door for a presentation.

Advisers have the responsibility to report a suspicious private securities deal to their firm, said Mr. Chase, the former SEC attorney.

“If brokers get wind of these types of deals, they’ve got to go to the broker-dealer’s compliance department and report to the SEC or Finra,” he said. “They have the ability and obligation to report. There’s nothing wrong with putting these suspicious deals in front of regulators.”

Broker Imposter Scams: Remember To Ask And Check

Editor’s note: This is re-post of an investor alert that recently appeared on FINRA’s website. This is a good reminder of the need to “trust but verify” the credentials of your investment professional.

FINRA recently issued an investor alert on fraudsters impersonating FINRA executives, offering bogus investment “guarantees” to investors as part of an advance-fee scam. But regulators are not the only ones who need to worry about someone trying to steal their good name.

We are aware of a recent scheme that involved an unregistered individual impersonating a registered investment professional to lure in potential investors. This scammer created a fake version of a public FINRA BrokerCheck® report of a legitimate broker—picking an experienced broker with a spotless regulatory record.

The doctored BrokerCheck report was emailed to potential “clients” using the name and CRD number of a registered investment professional, and a company that is not registered as a broker-dealer with FINRA. The solicitation included other documentation and a request for investors to respond with a photo of their driver’s license and other personal information. Here are some of the red flags we spotted on the doctored report:

Broker Imposter Scams: Red Flags of Doctored BrokerCheck Report

Here are six tips to keep your money and personal information safe from these types of scams.

1. Go to the source. FINRA encourages investors to “ask and check” by using BrokerCheck before investing with an investment professional. Don’t assume that the information you receive in an investment pitch is legitimate. Go directly to the sources that collect the regulatory information to produce these reports, including FINRA’s BrokerCheck, the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure, and state registration databases. You can search both professionals and firms not only by name, but also by their registration number—known as a CRD number.

2. Look for things that appear out of place. Compare whatever BrokerCheck report or other documentation you receive from an individual or firm soliciting your business with the real reports you obtain yourself from BrokerCheck or the sources in Tip 1. Be wary of typos, and look for differences in the reports. For instance, in a recent scam, the doctored information was in fonts that were different from fonts used in other parts of the report, items appeared to be pasted into the document, and the state of the branch office address was not included in the list of states where the individual was licensed.

3. Verify information with an internet search. Take a few moments to use a common search engine to type in the name of the individual who is soliciting your business and the firm name, and see what comes up. Does it match the information provided to you, including the contact information? If something doesn’t look right, do a little more digging, including a map search on the address or a reverse lookup on the phone number. Be sure to check all this information against a reliable source such as BrokerCheck. When scanning LinkedIn profiles, be aware that scammers often copy select information from a registered person’s LinkedIn profile to create the appearance of legitimacy.

4. Do not send money or personal information without verifying the recipient. In the scam described above, investors were asked to send a driver’s license photo and other personal information in response to an email solicitation. Don’t ever send money or personal information, such as your driver’s license, passport, social security number, date of birth, or bank account information, until you verify who contacted you, as described in Tip 3.

5. Beware of the use of personal contact information. Sometimes a scammer will ask you to send money or personal information to a personal (not firm) email address or to respond to phone numbers that are not listed as official firm contacts. One general rule all investors should follow: if you invest through an account at a financial firm, use BrokerCheck to verify that the firm is registered and send all deposits directly to the financial firm. If an individual pitches an investment opportunity that requires you to write a check directly to him or to a third party, proceed with caution.

6. Be alert to the red flags of fraud. Be cautious of guarantees, unregistered products, overly consistent or high returns, complex strategies, missing documentation, account discrepancies and pushy salespeople. The vast majority of investment professionals are trustworthy individuals, but there are always exceptions who might look to take advantage of your trust. Practice spotting the persuasion tactics that con artists use, and always exercise healthy skepticism. For instance, be wary of sales pitches that make exaggerated claims about performance. This is a red flag of fraud.

If you are suspicious about information you receive from an individual or firm soliciting your business, contact FINRA or another regulator BEFORE you send any personal or financial information. If you are an investment professional and have concerns that someone is using your name or information as part of a potential scam, contact your firm’s compliance department, and alert FINRA by calling our BrokerCheck hotline at (800) 289-9999, or emailing BrokerCheck@finra.org.

Subscribe to FINRA’s The Alert Investor newsletter for more information about saving and investing.

Securities Arbitration—Should You Hire an Attorney?

Note: this is a re-post of an excellent article that was published on January 3, 2019 in FINRA’s Alert Investor newsletter. The article was co-authored by FINRA staff and The PIABA Foundation.

The vast majority of interactions between investors and investment professionals are positive. However, sometimes the relationship doesn’t go as planned, and the situation can’t be resolved by communicating directly with your firm or broker. In such a situation, you may find yourself considering arbitration or mediation.

There are many factors to consider as you proceed down these paths, one of which is whether to hire an attorney to help you out.

An attorney that represents you during arbitration or mediation proceedings can provide experience, direction and advice. Brokerage firms are generally represented by an attorney in an arbitration proceeding, so even if you choose not to hire an attorney, there might be one representing the firm or individual on the other side.

Securities Arbitration Basics

Arbitration is similar to going to court, but is usually faster, cheaper and less complex than litigation. It is a formal alternative to litigation: two or more parties select a neutral third party, called an arbitrator, to resolve a dispute.

The arbitration process goes something like this. A FINRA arbitrator or panel (consisting of three arbitrators) will listen to the arguments set forth by the parties, study the testimonial or documentary evidence, and then render a decision. The arbitrator’s decision, called an award, is final and binding, and all parties must abide by the award. FINRA does not have an appeals process through which a party may challenge an award. However, under federal and state laws, there are limited grounds on which a court may hear a party’s motion to vacate an award.

The size of the claim will determine how the arbitration process works. Claims involving more than $100,000 require an in-person hearing decided by a panel of three arbitrators, with one chairing the hearing. Smaller claims up to $50,000 can be decided by a single arbitrator in one of three ways: a regular hearing where evidence is presented in person; a phone hearing that incorporates many aspects of a standard arbitration hearing; or a “paper” hearing where an arbitrator makes a decision based solely on the documents submitted.

To Hire or Not to Hire

FINRA’s Code of Arbitration Procedure states that parties are entitled to be represented by an attorney at any stage of the arbitration proceeding. Here are some things to consider when you are trying to decide whether to hire an attorney to represent you in securities arbitration or mediation.

  • The process governing arbitration proceedings will likely be unfamiliar to you. Hiring an attorney with experience in these matters might be a comfort to you and help you appropriately present your case to the arbitrators.
  • Arbitration can be faster, less expensive and more streamlined than litigation, but some arbitrations involve complex legal and regulatory issues or large claims for monetary damages. You might benefit from legal guidance if your case falls into these categories.
  • An attorney can provide guidance even before the arbitration process begins. An experienced attorney can assist aggrieved parties in determining whether they have a viable claim for arbitration. This can be critical so that parties do not waste money or time filing a case that does not have a good chance for success.
  • FINRA provides identical randomly-generated lists of proposed arbitrators to both parties, along with a detailed report on each arbitrator’s background. An attorney can help you evaluate which arbitrators might be a better fit for your case.
  • Parties to an arbitration can come to the forum with a lot of emotion about what has transpired to this point. An attorney can serve as a detached third-party representative and provide legal advice to help you meet your goals.
  • Speaking with an attorney is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege. This means that your attorney is not allowed to discuss what you tell him or her with anyone else, and that statements you make will be kept between the two of you. Attorney-client privilege helps both parties better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the case and establishes a relationship of trust that can lead to better guidance and decision-making.
  • If you cannot afford an attorney, some law schools provide legal representation through securities arbitration clinics. Under faculty supervision, law students provide legal services and guidance on the arbitration process in disputes between individual investors and their investment professionals.

A word about non-attorney representatives or NARs. Although NAR firms are an alternative to representation by attorneys, NAR firms are not subject to the same professional rules or guidelines, nor are they subject to malpractice insurance requirements. Investors may also not be aware of the absence of these protections, and therefore may not properly evaluate the benefits and costs of representation by NAR firms.

Finding an Attorney

Whether you decide to engage an attorney or not, a good resource to consult is An Investor’s Guide to Securities Industry Disputes published by The PACE Law School Investor Rights Clinic.

If you decide hiring an attorney is the right choice for you, the first step to take is to locate qualified candidates. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) offers these tips:

  • Consult with your own attorney, if you have one, about your situation and whether you would benefit by an attorney who specializes in securities arbitration or litigation.
  • Contact the American Bar Association and the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA). Both allow you to search their member attorney directories for someone to represent you in your area. PIABA members have specific experience representing investors in disputes with the securities industry.

You can also check with your state, county or city bar associations.

If you cannot afford an attorney, some law schools provide legal representation through securities arbitration clinics. Under faculty supervision, law students provide legal services and guidance on the arbitration process in disputes between individual investors and their investment professionals.

Ask These Questions

Picking the right attorney is a personal decision that is often unique to your own needs and preferences. It’s a good idea to interview more than one attorney—and ask the following questions:

Do you have experience representing investors in securities arbitrations? Experience matters. Representation by someone with specialized legal knowledge of the investments sold to you and the procedures that apply to the arbitration process are important. Ask how long the attorney has been in business and how many securities arbitration cases he or she has handled.

How will you represent my interests? Aggrieved investors commonly do not understand, or cannot articulate, the extent of their harm. A critical component to effective representation is your attorney’s ability to communicate to you, the opposing counsel and, ultimately, the arbitration panel any underlying problems with the investments or actions at issue. Your attorney should also be expected to articulate the regulatory standards your investment professional is held to, and how those standards were breached.

How are you paid? Attorneys are paid under different arrangements. Many attorneys who specialize in representing investors in securities arbitrations do so on a contingent fee basis. This means the attorney is willing to advance their time with the hope and expectation of recovering money from the investment firm or professional. Read the fee agreement presented by the attorney to make sure that you understand the terms.

Subscribe to FINRA’s The Alert Investor newsletter for more information about saving and investing.

The Problem With Private Placements

One of the biggest problems I am seeing these days is private placements (also called alternatives or non-registered investments) that are sold to accredited investors through a private placement memorandum or PPM.  Because these investments are not registered with the SEC the information that you can get about them is far more limited, and can even be fraudulent.

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, sales of private placements are surging, as part of a broader rise in private capital markets.  Private placements can be great opportunities, but they nearly always carry significant risk and in some cases they can be Ponzi schemes.  Caveat emptor.

Aside from the risk, one of the biggest concerns regulators have is how the products are sold.  FINRA has warned in the past about “fraud and sales practice abuses” by firms and brokers in the market.  In some cases this may be due to the fact that these smaller, less known firms tend to hire troubled brokers for their track record in aggressively selling high-commission deals, sometimes using questionable tactics.  Most of these firms are small to midsize brokerages, with fewer than 500 brokers, and are spread throughout the country.

According to the WSJ, more than 1,200 brokerage firms sold around $710 billion of private placements last year, and sales for the first five months of this year will be even higher.  To make matters worse, securities firms with an unusually high number of “bad brokers” are selling tens of billions of dollars a year of private stakes in companies. The WSJ reviewed records of who was pushing these investments and identified over a hundred firms where 10% to 60% of the in-house brokers had three or more investor complaints, regulatory actions, criminal charges or other red flags on their records.  This is not normal (always run your broker or advisor’s name through Brokercheck).

The bottom line is that investors are far more likely to be exposed to losses or fraud in private investments. If your broker or advisor recommends a private placement or “alternative” investment make sure he/she has a good track record and has done extensive due diligence.

If you get a cold call from a firm you’ve never heard of trying to convince you to invest in one of these, just say NO.

Copyright 2018 by Mark Pugsley.  All rights reserved,

SEC Creating Searchable Database of Bad Brokers

This is a repost of an article that appeared in ThinkAdvisor today.  Apparently the SEC agrees with one of the main goals of this website; people are increasingly googling the names of people they want to do business with, so information about people who have a documented history of unethical or fraudulent conduct needs to be easier to find.  The only reservation I have about this approach is that the database will be limited to (1) individuals,  and (2) those “who have been barred or suspended as a result of federal securities law violations.”

This leaves a number of gaps.  I think the database should include companies that have a history of fraud (which could include a number of well-known companies), and it should also include companies and individuals who have been barred or suspended by FINRA or state regulatory agencies.  But otherwise its a good first step!  -MWP

SEC Creating Searchable Database of Bad Brokers

The site ‘will be particularly valuable’ for spotting fraudsters who have been stripped of their registrations, Clayton said

 

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. (Photo: Diego Radzinschi/NLJ)The Securities and Exchange Commission is creating a website that will contain “a searchable database of individuals” who have been barred or suspended as a result of federal securities law violations, the agency’s chairman, Jay Clayton, said Wednesday.

“This resource is intended to make the prior actions of repeat offenders and fraudsters more visible to investors,” Clayton said at the Practising Law Institute’s 49th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation conference in New York.

“Clearly, there are fraudsters in our marketplace who are seemingly unafraid of, or undeterred by, the risk of being caught. The SEC can target the underlying conduct of those fraudsters – and we do – but we also can and should arm investors with information that makes it more difficult for them to be defrauded.”

The searchable website, Clayton continued, “will be particularly valuable when bad actors have shifted from the registered space for investment advisors and broker-dealers to the unregistered space.”

Clayton stated in late September that the agency was planning to compile data on people who are not registered as advisors or brokers in order to catch more incidences of fraud.

During his Wednesday comments, Clayton said that the securities regulator reminds investors “repeatedly that they should conduct a background check before investing with a financial professional, and we are showing them how to do just that” with the upcoming website and with FINRA’s BrokerCheck.

Clayton told audience members that the SEC should continually be asking: “Are there opportunities to deter, mitigate or eliminate wrongdoing before an enforcement action becomes necessary?”

Looking back at enforcement actions brought by the agency, he continued, “a common theme emerges – where opacity exists, bad behavior tends to follow.”

The agency’s enforcement division, he said, “will continue to be active in pursuing cases where hidden or inappropriate fees are at issue, but we also are exploring whether more can be done to clarify fee disclosures made to retail investors and, thereby, deter and reduce the opportunities for misbehavior.”

As an example, he cited firms that invest clients’ money in a mutual fund share class that charges a 12b-1 fee when a lower-cost share class of the same fund is available, “or advisors may improperly choose to use fund assets to pay expenses that should be paid by the firm.”

Customers, he added, “may be deceived if brokers charge fees that are designed to cover the costs of services provided, while also marking up the prices of securities to earn a profit that is not disclosed.”

Barred Broker Hank Brock Pleads Guilty to $10 Million Tax Fraud Scheme

Henry (“Hank”) Brock of St. George, Utah pleaded guilty on Monday to tax evasion, securities fraud and wire fraud. According to the Department of Justice press release, Brock sold fraudulent tax-avoidance and investment strategies to his clients through a financial services company he ran called Mutual Benefit International Group, Ltd.  and through its subsidiaries, Brock Seminars LLC, and MB Holdings BVI, LLC.  The DOJ alleged that as president of Mutual Benefit Brock marketed a fraudulent tax scheme investment called “IRA Exit Strategy” to potential investors through seminars, phone calls, mailings, emails and online ads from 2009 through 2017.

According to the Felony Information that was filed on October 17, 2017, Brock promised investors that this IRA Exit Strategy would help them to avoid paying taxes on IRA withdrawals, which are normally subject to IRS penalties and taxes. Specifically, Brock gave his clients tax forms which falsely showed they were investors in his business, and that the company had incurred substantial losses.  These losses were then used to offset tax liabilities from their IRA withdrawals on fraudulent income tax returns that they were instructed to file with the IRS.

According to the Department of Justice, Brock fraudulently raised over $10.8 million by making false representations to investors regarding this “IRA Exit Strategy,” and by misrepresenting the financial condition of his company and other matters.  On at least one occasion the DOJ alleges Brock transferred $196,323 of a client’s investment funds and used the money for his own personal and business expenses.

Brock faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison for tax evasion, 20 years in prison for securities fraud and 20 years in prison for wire fraud. He will also be ordered to pay restitution and monetary penalties.  Sentencing is scheduled for March 5, 2018 before U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart.

This is not the first time that Brock has had run-ins with government regulators.  In April of 2006 he entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order with the Utah Division of Securities, which is obtainable through a government records (GRAMA) request.  As part of  that settlement Brock was barred from associating with a broker-dealer or investment adviser licensed in the State of Utah – for life.

He was also specifically prohibited from “advising individuals in any way regarding the sale, promotion or purchase of securities; and presenting seminars in order to solicit business for, or otherwise make referrals to, for any form of compensation, any broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment representative licensed in Utah.”

It is unclear to me whether Brock violated the terms of his settlement with the state when he solicited investors for Mutual Benefit, but I assume the state is looking into that possibility.

Although this 2006 settlement is no longer available on the Division of Securities’ online database, the fact that Brock has been permanently barred from selling securities is disclosed on FINRA’s website brokercheck.com.  It is always a good idea to run a search on Broker Check before doing business with anyone in the financial services industry.

Mr. Brock is also somewhat infamous for a lawsuit he filed against the Utah Division of Securities in 2010 for $357.6 million.  In the lawsuit he an another man, Jay Rice, accused state regulators of targeting them without proof of wrongdoing in an over-zealous campaign to bring down securities violators. They claimed that they were put out of business and forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the agency’s actions. “They destroyed my reputation maliciously and wholly without cause,” Mr. Brock said in an interview at the time. “ Among the claims in the lawsuit are allegations that the Securities Division bribed Mr. Rice’s clients, went through Mr. Brock’s computers without permission and sent out a press release announcing the action to bar him from the securities industry that contained false information.

U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell initially dismissed the case in July 2010 based on governmental immunity, but then the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded just the portion of the case alleging violations of their state constitutional rights.

If you lost money or are facing IRS penalties after working with Hank Brock of Mutual Benefit International Group please share your story in the comments below.

Copyright © 2017 by Mark W. Pugsley. All Rights Reserved.