by T. GormanPosted on Posted in SECActions

Offering frauds are one of the most prevalent types of actions brought by the Commission as we have discussed in this space before. In those actions fraudsters typically spin a yarn to potential investors who almost seem anxious at times to part with their cash and only later realize that the fraudster has been deceiving them all along. In one of the most recent examples of these cases, the fraudster kept reinventing and adding to his story. The key to the tale appears to be that the investors never checked out any of the claims in the story.  SEC v. Rocha,  Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-11779 (D. Mass.).

Defendant Josh Rocha, a citizen of the Republic of Cabo Verde residing in Brockton, Massachusetts, is alleged to have convinced at least 13 investors over a two-year period beginning in September 2020, to entrust him with at least $1 million with little more than an continuing series of false statements that were never examined.

The story began with a claim that he was an investment adviser who would take investor cash,  Then representations were added about profits.  But not just routine profits or a good result but 12% profits per month.  The investors accepted this and apparently were eager to make the promised profits – collectively they entrusted Mr. Rocha with at least $1 million.

The basis for trusting him —  a claim to have been a successful investor.  Yet he first began making these claims only a short time prior to the beginning of this tale.  The prior success claim was followed by a representation that their investment money would be put into securities.  While that tale was told to the investors, the fact is that their cash stayed in Mr. Rocha’s personal bank account.

The fact is, no securities were purchased. Yet the initial claims were bolstered by a representation that the profits would be 12% per month. Yet none of the money was invested; to the contrary the only “investments” were in gambling and things for Mr. Rocha such as personal travel.

In the end, the few dollars Mr. Rocha actually tried to invest were quickly lost after being comingled in a personal account – a fact not mentioned to the investors. The actual facts demonstrated that there no profits. But apparently nobody checked Mr. Rocha’s claims.

The complaint alleged violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b and Rule 10b-5 and Advisers At Sections 206(1) and 206(2).

In the end, Defendant settled the action.  He consented to the entry of  permanent injunctions based on the  provisions cited in the complaint. Those included an order which precludes him from participating in the purchase or sale of securities except for his own account. See  Lit. Rel. No. 26365 (July 30, 2025).

Tagged with: ,

by T. GormanPosted on Posted in SECActions

Offering frauds are frequently one of the largest categories of actions filed by the Commission’s enforcement divisions as readers of material in this space have frequently heard. Often those targeted by the bogus offerings are supposed friends and at times even relatives of those who created and implemented the fraudulent activity.  The activity at the center of one of the  Commission’s most recent offering fraud, while typical of these cases, is heart-breaking. SEC v. Craffy, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-03639 (D.N.J.).

This action centers on an offering fraud scam and the misuse of account assets of military Gold Star families. On September 4, 2024, the Commission obtained a final judgment against Caz L. Craffy, an individual who was charged with defrauding Gold Star families – those that suffered the loss of a family member who was in the military.

Defendant in this action was permitted to provide general financial and education work to service members’ gold star families through his job as a U.S. Army financial counselor. Between 2018 and 2022 Defendant Craffy, working as a U.S. Army financial counselor, directed grieving family members to transfer their benefits to him. At the time Mr. Craffy was working full time for private brokerage firms. Once the assets were transferred Defendant Craffy used the assets to engage in unauthorized and excessive trading.

Through improper and often excess trading the accounts directed by Mr. Craffy ran up losses of about $1.79 million.  The improper trading also resulted in fees totaling about $1.64 million in fees, most of which were paid to Defendant Craffy. The Commission’s complaint alleged violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and Rules 10b-5 and 151-1(a)(1).

 

In the parallel criminal case, Mr. Craffy was sentenced to serve 151 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release.  He was also ordered to pay  about $1,482,741 and pay $4,085,988 in forfeiture and restitution. U.S. v. Craffy,  No. 23-541 (D.N.J.).  In view of the amounts ordered in the criminal case, the Commission advised the court it did not intend to seek further financial penalties.  See  Lit. Rel. No. 26363 (July 29, 2025).

 

Tagged with: , ,