Okay, I am confused and admittedly don't know the history of this firm or its activities.

I am currently on page 15 of 23 of the actual SEC complaint and so far, there a few "wild cards" that are like damn, if this guy did that he is toast....

However... !!!! When reading the actual statement of facts in the complaint, which spell out claims the SEC it so far appears to me that the SEC is failing to substantiate the claims it made in the first few pages of the complaint, almost to the point the snippets in the news articles on the complaint are "sensationalist" claims being made by the SEC.

To be fair, I don't know any of the facts, but from the actual complaint itself I get the feeling these charges are being beefed up.

I take it from the comments on this post that the company in question went belly up. That does not mean there was a deliberate attempt at a ponzi scheme, but again I don't know all the facts. However, the accusations in the compliant, thus far aren't being substantiated well and if this guy did do in fact what he is being accused of Defense counsel is going to have a field day ripping apart the claims being brought forth because so far, and I am not all the way through, many of them seem bogus and sensationalized.