Adviser Defrauds Investors of Over $9 Million
When responding to a solicitation by a new adviser it is critical that the investor undertake a careful review of the person making the solicitation. This requires more than a casual conversation or simply listening to the would-be adviser talk about his or her background. While such a conversation may be informative, and at least appear to provide useful and critical information, in far too many instances the facts offered by the would-be adviser are inaccurate, incomplete or both. That was clearly the case in the Commission’s most recent action in this area. SEC v. Gomez, Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-805 (W.D. Tx. Filed July 14, 2025).
Named as defendants in the action are: Imer Gomez, d/b/a K&GF Investment Solutions, LLC and Helios Venture Fund, LLC. Mr. Gomez is a citizen of Mexico as well as a U.S. resident and the President and CFO of Helios. That firm is a limited liability company based in San Antonio.
Over a two-year period, beginning in August 2021, Mr. Gomez used K&G and Helios, entities he controlled, to solicit clients to open investment advisory accounts he would manage. During the solicitations Helios was referred to as a “fund.” In fact, neither Helios nor K&G were funds.
Potential investors were told that Mr. Gomez was an experienced trader who would monthly generate double-digit returns from investing in funds such as Helios. Mr. Gomez also claimed that K&G and Helios were insured for up to 75% of the value of each client’s account. The solicitations were primarily focused on soliciting investments from Hispanic clients. Over the period about $9 million was entrusted to Mr. Gomez.
The funds obtained from investors were never used to trade securities or to create accounts. Rather, the investor funds were used for unrelated business matters. Defendant also loaned about $666,000 to his ex-girlfriend’s father, Eric Claxton and his family. The funds were used to purchase real estate.
In an effort to conceal the fraud, Defendants sent clients fake account statements. The papers reflected fictitious gains. When Mr. Gomez ran short of assets, he claimed there was a “sudden liquidation that destroyed the business and prevented him from returning the investments. He also claimed that Helios was finalizing a guaranteed bailout loan so he could repay clients. The claim was false. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2). The complaint names as relief defendants Eric and Heather Claxton. See Lit. Rel. No. 26349 (July 14, 2025).