 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ELAM EAVES COMPLAINT EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEFENDANTS BANK INVESTMENT BLUNK AUBREY JOHN ELAM STANLEY CIVIL DISTRICT JUDGMENTS PERMANENT INJUNCTION SECURITIES ACT DEFENDANTS COMMITTED SECURITIES COMMITTED SECURITIES FRAUD REPEATEDLY OFFERING SELL FICTITIOUS PRIME MERCER UNIVERSITY ACCORDING SAFETY EUROPEAN BANKS OFFICIALS PROMINENT CHARLOTTE BANK FBI AGENT SPOKE LONDON |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 17244 / November 21, 2001
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. David Blunk, Jr., Aubrey John
Elam, Jr. and Stanley C. Eaves; Civil Action File NO. 5 99-CV-372(HL)
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on November 5,
2001, Judge Hugh Lawson of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia entered Final Judgments of Permanent
Injunction Against Defendants Aubrey John Elam, Jr. and Stanley C.
Eaves restraining and enjoining each of them from future violations of
Sections 17(a) and of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")
and ordering each of them to pay a civil penalty in the amount of
$25,000 apiece. Elam and Eaves each consented to the entry of the
Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction without admitting or denying
the allegations of the Commission's complaint.
The Commission's complaint alleged that the defendants committed
securities fraud by repeatedly offering to sell fictitious prime bank
securities to Mercer University. According to the complaint, Blunk,
Elam, and Eaves misrepresented that an investment of $5 - $10 million
dollars would generate returns of 120% per year and that the safety of
Mercer's principal would be guaranteed by one of several well-known
European banks. The SEC also alleged that Eaves and Elam
misrepresented what they were told about the investment by officials
of a prominent Charlotte bank and by an FBI agent they spoke with in
London. The complaint further alleged that the defendants
misrepresented that the University could earn a return of 50% on an
investment of $10 million in just 25 days.
See also (September 22, 1999)
_________________________________________________________________
Modified 11/23/2001
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
