UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

   SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   Release No. 42828/ May 25, 2000

   ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
   Release No. 1261/ May 25, 2000

   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
   File No. 3-10210/ May 25, 2000

   Proceedings Instituted Against R. Gordon Jones and Mark F. Jensen

   The Commission has instituted public administrative proceedings
   pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice against
   R. Gordon Jones and Mark F. Jensen, two CPAs in Salt Lake City, Utah.
   Jones and Jensen are charged with having engaged in improper
   professional conduct by recklessly violating professional accounting
   and auditing standards in their audit of the 1995 financial statements
   of a now-defunct Utah corporation, Dynamic American Corporation.
   Jones, the engagement partner, was primarily responsible for the audit
   field work. Jensen performed the concurring partner review on the
   audit.

   The Commission previously instituted public administrative proceedings
   against Dynamic and six individuals based on a 1996 "pump and dump"
   scheme by which about $4 million in Dynamic stock was sold to the
   public. See, In the Matter of Jethro J. Barlow, CPA, et al., Exchange
   Act Rel. No. 41689 (August 2, 1999; In the Matter of Dynamic American
   Corporation, Exchange Act Rel. No. 41688 (August 2, 1999).

   In the order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that Dynamic's
   financial statements, included in the company's amended annual report
   on Form 10-K/A filed in November 1996, were not prepared in conformity
   with GAAP. Specifically, the staff contends that Dynamic's balance
   sheet improperly listed as an asset certain Bolivian mining properties
   that were materially overvalued at $36,600,000, or 91% of Dynamic's
   total consolidated assets. Furthermore, in performing their audit of
   Dynamic's 1995 financial statements, Jones and Jensen also did not act
   in accordance with GAAS in that they failed to adequately plan the
   audit; failed to obtain sufficient competent evidential matter; failed
   to maintain an attitude of professional skepticism; failed to exercise
   due professional care in the performance of the audit; failed to issue
   a proper audit report with respect to the work performed by other
   auditors; and by using a lower-of-cost-or-market analysis, did not
   test the balance sheet presentation of certain "ore concentrates"
   valued at approximately $4.3 million.