U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17523 / MAY 20, 2002

   STEVEN E. THORN HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR TRANSFERRING AND CONEALING
   FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF COURT-ORDERED ASSET FREEZE

   , No. C2-01-290 (Judge Sargus)(S.D. Ohio)

   The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that a
   defendant in a pending Commission enforcement action has been held in
   civil contempt for violating a court-ordered asset freeze. The
   defendant, Steven E. Thorn of the Cleveland suburb of Brecksville,
   Ohio, is charged with having fraudulently raised over $60 million from
   hundreds of victims purportedly to finance trading in notes issued by
   European banks. The Commission has alleged that the supposed European
   bank trading venture does not exist and that Thorn in fact conducted a
   ponzi scheme. The Commission sued Thorn and others on April 2, 2001
   and obtained a temporary restraining order which included a provision
   freezing all Thorn's assets.

   On April 29, 2002, after an evidentiary hearing on a contempt motion
   made by the Commission, the Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United
   States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, ruled that
   Thorn, aided by an associate, had deliberately and purposefully
   thwarted the Court's freeze order and secretly moved and concealed
   funds frozen by that order. The Court found Thorn's conduct to have
   been most egregious and held Thorn in civil contempt.

   The Court based its findings on the Commission's evidence that Thorn
   secretly transferred $200,000 to his associate on April 2, 2001-the
   very day the Court entered its freeze order; and that Thorn, despite
   knowing of the freeze order at least by the afternoon of April 2,
   directed his associate to disburse much of the illegally transferred
   money to pay various bills for Thorn over the next several months. The
   Court further found that the ultimate disposition of a substantial
   amount of the illegally transferred money remains unknown. The Court
   ordered Thorn to submit to a deposition and to provide additional
   discovery to the Commission. The Court postponed imposing sanctions
   against Thorn until after that discovery was completed.

   The Court also found that although Thorn's associate is not a
   defendant in the Commission's action she should have made every effort
   to comply with the freeze order after the Commission served her with a
   copy of the order on September 5, 2001. The Court ruled that the
   associate's actions after September 5 were contrary to the freeze
   order. The Court ordered Thorn's associate to provide additional
   discovery to the Commission and reserved ruling on whether she would