Nevwest Complaint
Nevwest Complaint
DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT,
Disciplinary Proceeding
Complainant, No. E0220040112-01
v. Hearing Officer -
NEVWEST SECURITIES
CORPORATION,
(CRD No. 46464),
SERGEY RUMYANTSEV,
(CRD No. 4009791),
and
ANTONY M. SANTOS,
(CRD No. 3239243),
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
SUMMARY
laundering (“AML”) procedures in accordance with NASD Conduct Rules 3011 and
2110, and NevWest violated Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-
41. For example, between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2005, NevWest failed to
adequately perform due diligence, file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SAR”) or cease
trading in multiple accounts owned and controlled by JE, NevWest’s customer, regarding
over 500 transactions, involving more than 250 billion shares of sub-penny stock issued
by CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (“CMKM”) totaling over $53.0 million. As a result of these
sales, NevWest earned commission revenue totaling $2.5 million, which accounted for
approximately 36% of the firm’s total revenue during the relevant period.
adequately perform due diligence, file SARs, or cease effecting wire transfers involving
$43 million through 139 separate wires from at least 28 of the accounts JE had opened at
Section 15(c)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 15c2-4
promulgated thereunder (“SEC Rule 15c2-4”) and NASD Conduct Rule 2110, and Santos
violated NASD Conduct Rule 2110, in connection with the Ascendant Select Fund I,
LLC contingency offering when NevWest, through Santos, caused funds to be withdrawn
from bank escrow accounts prior to selling the minimum amount of securities through
2
bona fide transactions. NevWest thereby failed to properly escrow funds for the sales of
5. Third, between February 2004 through July 2004, NevWest and Santos
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-9
promulgated thereunder (“SEC Rule 10b-9”) and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 in
connection with the Ascendant Select Fund I, LLC contingency offering when NevWest,
acting through Santos, released purchasers’ funds to the control of the issuer before the
SEC Rule 15c2-4 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110, and Santos violated NASD Conduct
Rule 2110, in connection with the PracticeXpert, Inc. contingency offering when
NevWest, through Santos, caused funds to be withdrawn from bank escrow accounts
prior to selling the minimum amount of securities through bona fide transactions.
NevWest thereby failed to properly escrow funds for the sales of securities until the
7. Fifth, between October 2003 and January 2004, NevWest and Santos
violated SEC Rule 10b-9 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 in connection with the
PracticeXpert, Inc. contingency offering when NevWest, acting through Santos, released
purchasers’ funds to the control of the issuer before the contingencies were satisfied
through bona fide transactions, thereby rendering representations in the respective private
8. Sixth, between February 28, 2003 and September 2004, NevWest violated
3
NASD Conduct Rules 3070 and 2110 because it failed to timely file reports with NASD
through Santos, violated NASD Conduct Rules 3010 and 2110 by failing to establish,
applicable federal securities laws and rules, and NASD Rules with respect to contingency
offerings and the timely reporting of customer complaints and disclosure events.
RESPONDENTS
10. NevWest, CRD No. 46464, has been a member of NASD since October
19, 1999. Since September 4, 2001, NevWest has been registered with the MSRB.
registered representatives. During all times relevant to the complaint, NevWest primarily
market (“OTC”) including the Pink Sheets. NevWest also acts as a market maker in low-
11. Rumyantsev, CRD No. 4009791, has been associated with NevWest since
Securities Principal (Series 24) in 1999, as a Municipal Securities Principal (Series 53) in
2001, as a Financial and Operations Principal (Series 27) in 2002 and as a Compliance
4
12. Santos, CRD No. 3239243, has been associated with NevWest since April
30, 1999. Santos became registered as a General Securities Representative (Series 7) and
as a General Securities Principal (Series 24) in July 1999. Santos also serves as the
firm’s Executive Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer and on occasion as the firm’s
General Counsel.
through 12 above.
14. NASD Conduct Rule 3011, adopted on April 24, 2002 and amended on
October 22, 2002, requires all member firms to “develop and implement a written anti-
money laundering program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the firm’s
compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5311, et seq.),
Treasury.”
15. NASD Conduct Rule 3011(a) requires NASD members to establish and
implement policies and procedures “that can be reasonably expected to detect and cause
16. The United States Department of the Treasury issued the implementing
5
for broker-dealers. It provided that, with respect to any transaction after December 30,
2002, “[e]very broker or dealer in securities within the United States . . . shall file with
17. In August 2002, NASD issued Notice to Members (“NTM”) 02-47, which
set forth the provisions of the final AML rule for suspicious transaction reporting
promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) for the
securities industry. This NTM further advised broker-dealers of their duty to file a SAR
for certain suspicious transactions occurring after December 30, 2002. NTM 02-47
6
discusses Treasury’s release adopting the final suspicious activity reporting rule for
lawful purpose by looking for “red flags” such as those enumerated in NASD NTM 02-
21.
18. NTM 02-21, which was adopted in April 2002, advised broker-dealer
firms of the requirements of their AML procedures, including that AML procedures
apply to:
19. NTM 02-21 emphasized each firm’s duty to detect red flags and, if it
detects any, “perform additional due diligence before proceeding with the transaction.”
NTM 02-21 also set forth examples of “red flags,” including but not limited to:
7
20. The SAR form indicates 20 “Type[s] of suspicious activity” that must be
21. MSRB Rule G-41, which the SEC approved on July 11, 2003, requires
every NASD member broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer to establish and
compliance with the requirements of NASD Conduct Rule 3011. On July 16, 2003, the
MSRB issued Notice 2003-28 announcing that Rule G-41 had been approved.
controlled 32 accounts for various trusts and corporate entities, including one personal
23. In or about January 2003 and continuing through at least January 2005, JE
completed new account documents for some of the accounts opened with NevWest. For
example, JE completed new account documents to reflect changes made to the various
trusts and corporate entities. Additionally, JE completed new account documents for
each of the 26 trust accounts he opened at NevWest. The Declaration of Trust documents
8
JE submitted in connection with the trust accounts do not identify any beneficiary, but
instead state that JE, as trustee, may sell units of beneficial interest in the trusts to
purchasers.
25. JE also served as the sole officer and director for each of the five corporate
26. The customer address in 30 of JE’s 32 accounts was 7500 West Lake
Meade Boulevard, Suite 9627, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128. JE also used his personal
trading pattern of physically carrying into the firm, certificates of low-priced securities.
In February 2003, JE began to deposit shares of CMKM into the various accounts he
expeditiously liquidate the certificates, and to immediately wire all sales proceeds to
various bank accounts. The bank account owner of record rarely matched the name of
28. Until trading in CMKM shares was permanently halted by court order
dated October 28, 2005, CMKM shares traded in the Pink Sheets, first under the symbol
“CMKM,” and later under the symbol “CMKX,” through matched trades of unsolicited
orders.
29. During the relevant period, JE sold approximately 259 billion shares of
CMKM through NevWest, at an average price of $0.00021 per share. NevWest executed
trades for JE’s accounts in agency transactions. During the relevant period the price of
9
CMKM shares generally ranged from a high of $0.00057 per share in June 2004 to a low
Transactions in 2003
sold through NevWest increased over time. During 2003, JE sold a total of 4.3
31. During 2003, JE wired a total of over $1.4 million from accounts with
NevWest in 49 separate transactions, which included proceeds from the sale of CMKM
stock.
Transactions in 2004
CMKM shares. In many instances, JE carried into NevWest billions of CMKM shares at
a time. Through NevWest, he liquidated billions of shares per month. For example, in
10
February 2004, JE executed 35 transactions and sold over 11 billion shares, which
33. Moreover, between June 2004 and November 2004, JE sold, through
NevWest, approximately 150 billion shares of CMKM in 257 transactions that generated
proceeds totaling about $44.4 million. During this same period, JE wired from his
accounts at NevWest to various bank accounts under his control, a total of $38 million in
34. During 2004, JE sold approximately 207 billion shares of CMKM in 368
transactions that resulted in sales proceeds to JE totaling over $49 million as follows:
35. In early 2004, RD, the firm’s designated AML Compliance Officer,
recommended to Santos that NevWest file a SAR regarding JE’s transactions in CMKM.
Despite RD’s recommendations, Santos and Rumyantsev chose not to file a SAR.
Moreover, in connection with JE, his accounts and sales of CMKM, Santos and
11
36. In or about August 2004, NevWest’s registered representative handling
JE’s accounts recommended to Santos and Rumyantsev that NevWest file a SAR in
connection with JE’s trading activities regarding the CMKM shares. Despite this
SAR.
37. In 2004, JE wired funds totaling over $41.5 million from his accounts at
Transactions in 2005
38. From January 1, 2005 through May 2005, JE sold over 48 billion shares of
CMKM in 133 transactions that resulted in sales proceeds totaling $3.7 million as
follows:
Red Flags
[w]hen a member of the firm detects any red flag he or she will investigate further
under the direction of the AML Compliance Officer. This may include gathering
additional information internally or from third party sources, contacting the
government, freezing the account, and filing a SAR.
40. With respect to JE’s CMKM transactions and wire transfer activity
referenced in the Complaint, NevWest failed to implement and enforce adequate AML
12
procedures in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 3011 and, as a result, failed to “observe
high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” as
required by NASD Conduct Rule 2110. AML rules and NevWest’s own procedures
required NevWest, under the direction of its AML Compliance Officer, to collect further
information, perform additional due diligence, file a SAR and/or freeze JE’s accounts
with respect to JE’s CMKM transactions, but NevWest failed to do so. NevWest, acting
through Santos and Rumyantsev, was aware or should reasonably have been aware of
“red flags,” which should have individually or collectively triggered NevWest’s AML
obligations. These “red flags” included, but were not limited to, the following:
letter from his personal attorney that stated the attorney had “reviewed
c. Over the relevant period, before liquidating his CMKM shares through
13
firm. The CMKM certificates JE deposited for sale were not always
clearing firm.
d. JE’s wire transfers from his NevWest accounts were suspicious in that
the wire activity involved: large dollar amounts; frequent activity; and
the firm to wire funds “as they became available” from the various
bank accounts held by business entities which neither sold the CMKM
separate wire transactions from JE’s accounts, 116 were for amounts
17 were for amounts between $500,000 and $1 million; nine were for
14
customary rate of 3-4% it normally charged its customers for penny
stock transactions.
asked to sell for JE’s accounts, and the significant amount of sales
how and when JE acquired his CMKM shares, in order to comply with
violations of the federal securities laws and to ensure that the firm met
41. During the relevant period, NevWest, acting through Santos and
Rumyantsev, was aware or should reasonably have been aware of public information
9627, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128; and telephone number (702) 683-
3722. JE used this address and phone number on many of the new
15
account documents at NevWest. This address is a UPS postal box
b. CMKM’s 10-QSB filing with the SEC, dated November 18, 2002, was
on behalf of CMKM.
c. CMKM’s last 10-QSB filing with the SEC, dated November 18, 2002,
showed that for the quarter ending September 2002, CMKM reported
d. CMKM did not file any annual reports on Form 10-KSB with the SEC
for its fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
e. CMKM did not file any quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB since
November 18, 2002, and therefore, did not file quarterly reports for the
periods ended: March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2003; March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2004; and March 31, 2005.
f. CMKM did not make any SEC filings during the period of July 22,
2003 to February 17, 2005. Consequently, investors did not have any
16
g. By September 2004, NevWest should have been aware that it had sold
Specifically, between March 2003 and May 2005, NevWest sold for
outstanding shares.
written on the front were handed out at race events. All of this
of March 3, 2005 through March 16, 2005. Further, on May 10, 2005,
May 11, 2005 continued to sell at least 22.5 billion shares of CMKM
17
securities of CMKM. This decision became final on or about October
28, 2005.
20, 2003 and February 19, 2004, JE deposited almost 6 billion shares
42. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of NASD Conduct Rules 3011 and 2110 by NevWest, Santos, and Rumyantsev
18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
through 12 above.
44. Between February 15, 2004 and July 2004, NevWest, acting through
Ascendant Select Fund I, LLC (“ASF”). The ASF private placement memorandum
minimum of $500,000 and a maximum of $50 million on a best efforts “part or none”
basis.
45. ASF was a Nevada limited liability company with Ascendant Partners
MM, Inc. (“APM”) acting as the managing member of ASF. APM’s officers and
directors included Santos, VH and DR. The ASF Memorandum identified various
affiliates of the APM that included: OneCap; NevWest doing business as OneCap
Securities; and OneCap Real Estate Fund I. The ASF Memorandum also listed the
officers and directors of OneCap as follows: VH was the president, chief executive
19
46. The ASF Memorandum represented that the offering was contingent on
raising a minimum of $500,000 from non-affiliates on or before February 15, 2005. The
ASF Memorandum further represented that: a) all funds received would be held in an
escrow account; and b) if the minimum of $500,000 was not raised from sales of
securities to non-affiliates by February 15, 2005, all funds would be refunded to investors
47. From April 12, 2004, to May 12, 2004, NevWest, acting through Santos,
sold units in ASF to two investors totaling $500,000 as follows: $250,000 was raised
from one member of the public; and $250,000 was raised from OneCap, an investor that
was affiliated with both APM and NevWest. NevWest, pursuant to an escrow agreement,
deposited all investors’ funds into a segregated bank account in ASF’s name. The escrow
agreement did not accurately reflect that the minimum contingency amount of $500,000
48. Despite not having met the minimum contingency amount through sales of
securities in bona fide transactions to non-affiliated investors, on May 17, 2004, Santos
released contingency proceeds totaling $500,000 from the ASF escrow bank account as
follows: $495,000 was disbursed to ASF and $5,000 was disbursed to NevWest.
NevWest raised additional funds totaling $250,000 from two non-affiliated investors by
July 21, 2004. Therefore, NevWest, acting through Santos, failed to properly escrow
purchasers’ funds in a segregated account from May 17, 2004 until the minimum
49. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of SEC Rule 15c2-4 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by NevWest, and NASD
20
Conduct Rule 2110 by Santos.
through Santos, caused the release of investors’ funds to the control of ASF and NevWest
before satisfaction of the contingency to sell the minimum amount of securities through
52. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of SEC Rule 10b-9 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by NevWest and Santos.
through 12.
21
54. Between October 8, 2003 and January 26, 2004, NevWest, acting through
common stock of PracticeXpert, Inc. (“PXPT”) at a price of $0.50 per share. The PXPT
funds received would be held in an escrow account in compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-4;
and b) no funds would be released to PXPT until the offering raised a minimum of
$50,000. The PXPT Memorandum further provided that if the minimum offering amount
had not been raised within 90 days of October 8, 2003, all subscription funds would be
returned to investors without interest or deduction of fees. Under the terms of the PXPT
Memorandum, PXPT had the option to extend the contingency offering period from 90 to
180 days.
56. The PXPT Memorandum represented that “[n]o person associated with the
Company [PXPT] intends to participate in the distribution of the Offering.” Further, the
PXPT Memorandum failed to disclose that PXPT’s officers and directors would be
purchasing shares of the offering, including the maximum amounts of such investments,
and that the proceeds of their participation would be counted towards fulfilling the
57. From November 18, 2003 through December 23, 2003, NevWest and
PXPT collectively raised $51,000 from five investors as follows: $36,000 was raised
from two public customers; and $15,000 was raised from three investors that were each
22
officers and directors of PXPT. Pursuant to an escrow agreement signed by Santos on
behalf of NevWest, investors’ funds were deposited into a segregated bank account in
58. Despite not having satisfied the minimum contingency amount through
sales of units in bona fide transactions, on January 26, 2004, NevWest caused the release
of $51,000 from the escrow bank account as follows: $47,430 was disbursed to PXPT;
and $3,570 was disbursed to NevWest as commissions due for acting as the placement
agent for the offering. Consequently, NevWest failed to properly escrow purchasers’
funds in a segregated account until the minimum contingency amount was satisfied
through the sale of bona fide transactions from investors that were not affiliated with
PXPT. After the release of purchasers’ funds from escrow on January 26, 2004,
NevWest neither acted as the placement agent nor participated in the PXPT offering to
59. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of SEC Rule 15c2-4 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by NevWest, and NASD
61. As more fully described in paragraphs 53 through 59, NevWest caused the
23
release of investors’ funds to the control of PXPT and NevWest before satisfaction of the
contingency to sell the minimum amount of securities through bona fide transactions,
62. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of SEC Rule 10b-9 and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by NevWest and Santos.
through 12 above.
64. From February 28, 2003 to August 27, 2004, NevWest, acting through
Santos, failed to timely report six written customer complaints to NASD as statistical and
summary information by the 15th day of the month following the calendar quarter in
which the customer complaints were received by the firm, in violation of NASD Conduct
Rule 3070(c). NevWest reported the customer complaints to NASD approximately 134
65. From July 26, 2004 to September 7, 2004, NevWest, acting through
Santos, failed to timely report the existence of two conditions that required disclosure
within ten business days after the firm knew or should have known of the existence of the
report that the following conditions occurred under Conduct Rule 3070(a): 1) the State of
New Hampshire denied a registered representative’s registration; and 2) the SEC named a
24
of the conditions to NASD approximately 13 to 18 days late.
66. The foregoing acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and distinct
violations of NASD Conduct Rules 3070 and 2110 by NevWest and Santos.
(SUPERVISION –
Violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3010 and 2110
Respondents - NevWest and Santos)
68. NASD Rule 3010(a) requires that each firm establish and maintain a
and associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
69. NASD Rule 3010(b) requires that the firm establish, maintain, and enforce
written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and to supervise
the activities of each registered representative, registered principal, and associated person
70. At all times relevant to the complaint, Santos, as the firm’s Chief
Compliance Officer, was responsible for ensuring that NevWest establish and maintain
was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the federal securities laws and rules,
and Rules of NASD. Moreover, at all relevant times herein, NevWest’s procedures
required that Santos supervise the firm’s activities relating to contingency offerings.
25
Supervision Relating to Contingency Offerings
71. Between October 2003 and July 2004, NevWest, acting through Santos,
engaged in the business of raising money in connection with two contingency offerings
through 62 above, NevWest released purchasers’ funds from escrow bank accounts to the
control of the issuers before the contingencies were satisfied through sales of securities in
relating to contingency offerings did not: i) require the firm to monitor and verify that
the minimum contingency amount has been satisfied through sales of securities in bona
fide transactions, prior to releasing the purchasers’ funds from the escrow bank account
and to the control of the issuer; ii) address what steps the firm would take if NevWest
determined that issuers were not complying with SEC Rules 15c2-4 and 10b-9; iii)
specify the process and procedures the firm should follow to notify the escrow agent
when the contingency offering terms have been satisfied; and iv) designate a specific
principal at the firm to determine whether or not the contingencies have been satisfied
and to provide notification to the escrow agent to release the purchasers’ funds from the
73. Between February 2003 and September 2004, NevWest was required to
file certain reports relating to customer complaints and disclosure events with NASD
26
through 66 above, NevWest failed to timely file quarterly reports of statistical and
Conduct Rule 3070, in that they did not designate a specific person with the
and a quarterly basis, and ii) timely file the reports with NASD as required by NASD
75. The aforementioned acts, practices and conduct constitute separate and
distinct violations of NASD Conduct Rules 3010 and 2110 by NevWest and Santos.
PRAYER
A. order that one or more of the sanctions provided under NASD Rule 8310(a)
and all ill-gotten gains and/or make full and complete restitution, together
B. order that Respondents bear such costs of proceedings as are deemed fair and
27
NASD Department of Enforcement
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 613-2659; Fax: (213) 617-1570
28