LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v ELLIS L. DEYON, BRADLEY T. GULLETT (INDIVIDUALLY, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15469, CourtName: COURT FOUND GULLETT AND CRAIG LIABLE FOR SECURITIES FRAUD AND ACTING, Defendant: Ellis L. Deyon, Bradley T. Gullett (individually, and D.B.A. Gullet and Associates), William Hanke, Dove Investment Group, Inc. Sherwood H. Craig, Plaintiff: SEC, State: ME Maine, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15469, Investors, Gullett, Bank, Craig, District, Securities, Exchange Commission, Maine, Judgement, Florida, Mexican Bank, Bank Account, Funds, Deyon, Hanke, Dove, Scheme, Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty, Pay, Deposits, Disgorge, Judgment Granting, Findings, Support, According, Money, Prime Banks , ContentID: 120242593

Case Documents
1 1997-09-03 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105687
4 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
COURT
GULLETT
BANK
CRAIG
DISTRICT
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
MAINE
JUDGEMENT
FLORIDA
MEXICAN BANK
BANK ACCOUNT
FUNDS
DEYON
HANKE
DOVE
SCHEME
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CIVIL PENALTY
PAY
DEPOSITS
DISGORGE
JUDGMENT GRANTING
FINDINGS
SUPPORT
ACCORDING
MONEY
PRIME BANKS





                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15469 / September 3, 1997

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ELLIS L. DEYON, BRADLEY T.
GULLETT
     (INDIVIDUALLY, AND D.B.A. "GULLETT & ASSOCIATES"), WILLIAM HANKE,
DOVE
     INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AND SHERWOOD H. CRAIG (United States District
Court
     for the District of Maine, Civ. Action No. 95-0164-B).

          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on August
27,
     1997, the Honorable Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge for the
District
     of Maine, entered Judgment following a five-day trial against BRADLEY
T.
     GULLETT of Maitland, Florida and SHERWOOD H. CRAIG of Orono, Maine.
The
     Court found Gullett and Craig liable for securities fraud and acting
as
     unlicensed brokers in an investment scheme involving deposits into a
     Mexican bank.  The Court permanently enjoined Gullett and Craig from
     violating the antifraud and broker-dealer registration provisions of
the
     federal securities laws and ordered Gullett to disgorge $41,646 of ill

     gotten gains.  The court also imposed a civil penalty of $75,000
against
     Gullett and $25,000 against Craig.  The Court ordered a third
defendant,
     WILLIAM W. HANKE of Orlando, Florida, to pay a civil penalty of
$75,000.
     The Court imposed a separate $75,000 penalty against Hanke's Florida
     corporation, Dove Investment Group, Inc.  A final judgment granting a
     permanent injunction had entered previously against Hanke and Dove.
A
     final judgment granting a permanent injunction and disgorgement of
over
     $407,000 was entered by consent against the remaining defendant, Ellis
L.
     Deyon, on January 14, 1997.
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ELLIS L. DEYON, BRADLEY T. GULLETT, WILLIAM HANKE, DOVE
  • INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AND SHERWOOD H. CRAIG (United States District Court for the District
  • T. GULLETT of Maitland, Florida and SHERWOOD H. CRAIG of Orono, Maine.
  • Court found Gullett and Craig liable for securities fraud and acting as unlicensed brokers in
  • The Court permanently enjoined Gullett and Craig from violating the antifraud and
  • The court also imposed a civil penalty of $75,000 against Gullett and $25,000 against Craig.
  • The Court imposed a separate $75,000 penalty against Hanke's Florida corporation, Dove
  • A final judgment granting a permanent injunction had entered previously against Hanke and
  • L. Deyon, on January 14, 1997.
  • The Court issued detailed findings in support of the Judgment.
  • According to the Findings, in May and June, 1995, the defendants obtained money from
  • Defendants misrepresented to investors that these extraordinary rates of return would come
  • To explain how the bank could generate such a return, the defendants misrepresented that it
  • The bank account in which their funds were placed was controlled by defendant Deyon, who used
  •    |