SEC v. Sheldon Richard Bentley, No. 2:10-cr-00649-DSF, Eastern District of California (Sept. 27, 2023) — Complaint

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CHARLES E. CANTER (Cal. Bar No. 263197)
Email:  [email protected]
SARAH S. NILSON (Cal. Bar No. 254574)
Email:  [email protected]
YOLANDA OCHOA (Cal. Bar No. 267993)
Email:  [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Katharine Zoladz, Co-Regional Director
Gary Y. Leung, Regional Trial Counsel
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile: (213) 443-1904
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

vs.
SHELDON RICHARD BENTLEY,
a/k/a RICK BENTLEY,
Defendant.

    Case    No.

COMPLAINT

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) files
this complaint against Defendant Sheldon Richard Bentley (“Bentley”) and alleges:
JURISDICTION
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under Sections 20(b),
20(d)(1), and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e), and 27(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1),
78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa(a).
2. Defendant has, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national
securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of
business alleged in this complaint.
3. Venue is proper in this district under Section 22(a) of the Securities Act,
15 U.S.C. § 77v(a) and Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a),
because Bentley resides in this district.
SUMMARY
4. This securities fraud enforcement action involves a scheme to conceal
paid promotion of a securities offering from September 2020 through mid-2021.
5. Specifically, Bentley, on behalf of his company, Cloudastructure, Inc.,
entered into a sham agreement with a Canadian entity (“Entity 1”), which failed to
disclose that investor funds would be used to pay William Mikula (“Mikula”) to tout
Cloudastructure’s securities offering under Regulation A (“Reg A”). Shortly after
Bentley executed the agreement, Mikula authored articles promoting the
Cloudastructure offering. These articles falsely stated that they were based on
independent research and represented to would-be investors that neither the
newsletter publishing the articles nor the authors received any compensation for the
recommendation. In fact, Bentley provided at least $350,000 in lavish entertainment
and travel for Mikula and his associates, among others, and caused Cloudastructure to

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pay Entity 1 at least $650,000 in cash, a portion of which was distributed to Mikula in
exchange for his promotional articles.
6. Through his conduct, Bentley violated the antifraud provisions of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
7. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions against future violations of
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Securities Act Section
17(a), a civil penalty against Bentley, and an order barring Bentley from serving as an
officer or director of a public company.
THE DEFENDANT
8. Sheldon Richard Bentley (a/k/a Rick Bentley), age 55, is a resident of
Truckee, California. Bentley founded Cloudastructure in 2003 and has served as
Cloudastructure’s chief executive officer and as a director of the company’s board
since that time.
RELATED ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS
9. Cloudastructure, Inc. (“Cloudastructure”) is a cloud-controlled video
surveillance company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in
Miami, Florida. During the relevant period, Cloudastructure was headquartered in
San Mateo, California. Cloudastructure’s offering statement for an offering of
securities under Reg A was qualified in July 2020. Cloudastructure filed post-
qualification amendments that were qualified in May 2021 and May 2022. Mikula
promoted Cloudastructure between September 2020 and mid-2021.
10. Jonathan William Mikula, a/k/a/ William Mikula, is a resident of
Georgia, who, from at least 2019 through late 2021, was chief analyst and author of
Palm Beach Venture, a newsletter published by Palm Beach Research Group. Mikula
has been twice enjoined by federal courts from violating the federal securities laws:
SEC v. Phoenixsurf.com, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04765-JSL, ECF No. 6 (C.D. Cal.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Aug. 14, 2007); SEC v. Mikula, Case No. 1:08-cv-03097-BBM, ECF No. 95 (N.D.
Ga. Sept. 24, 2009). In connection with false statements he made to the SEC in the
2007 case, Mikula pled guilty to providing false information to a federal agency, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. United States v. Mikula, Case No. 2:10-cr-00649-DSF,
ECF No. 18 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011). In 2022, the SEC filed another enforcement
action against Mikula and others arising out of the some of the same conduct at issue
in this case. SEC v. Mikula, 2:22-cv-07096-SB-E (C.D. Cal.).
11. Christian Fernandez a/k/a Christian Crockwell is a Mexican citizen
residing in Georgia. Fernandez funneled a portion of the payments to Mikula in
exchange for Mikula’s Cloudastructure promotion. Fernandez is a defendant in the
SEC’s action against Mikula.
12. Amit Raj Beri a/k/a Raj Beri is an Australian national residing in
Florida. Beri is a defendant in the SEC’s action against Mikula. Beri attempted to act
as a middleman between Cloudastructure and Mikula with respect to the promotion.
13. Palm Beach Research Group is operated by Common Sense
Publishing, LLC, a subsidiary of Market Wise, Inc., a U.S. public company. Palm
Beach Research Group publishes Palm Beach Venture, a subscription-based
newsletter that focuses on opportunities for investors to invest in securities offered
under Reg A. Mikula was one of two attributed authors of the Palm Beach Venture
newsletter.
THE ALLEGATIONS
14. Cloudastructure was qualified to conduct a securities offering under Reg
A in July 2020.
15. Bentley first learned about Palm Beach in late 2019 when, as part as his
fundraising efforts, he was searching for an investor newsletter that would feature
Cloudastructure and recommend it to its subscribers.

16. By early 2020, Bentley was pitching Cloudastructure to Mikula in hopes
of getting Palm Beach to promote the company.

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. Mikula connected Bentley with Beri so that Beri could help
Cloudastructure with “ironing out the logistics of making a Palm Beach feature
happen.”  In early February 2020, Bentley flew to Miami to meet with Mikula and
Beri to discuss such a promotion.

18. Soon after the Miami meeting, Beri began negotiating a consulting
agreement with Bentley, representing that Palm Beach would promote the company if
Cloudastructure paid Beri 5% of investor funds raised, which Beri intended to share
with Mikula.

19. Beri’s negotiations were not successful because Bentley thought Beri’s
proposed percentage was too high, so by March 2020, Bentley resumed dealing
directly with Mikula in his efforts to get Palm Beach to promote Cloudastructure.

20. In July 2020 and August 2020, Bentley flew to Las Vegas and Atlanta to
meet in person with Mikula and Fernandez to discuss the promotion. During the
August 2020 meeting, Mikula recorded interviews with Bentley discussing
Cloudastructure.

21. In early September 2020, Fernandez, at Mikula’s instruction, contacted
Bentley and reopened discussions about a “consulting agreement.” Fernandez
proposed that Cloudastructure would pay Fernandez less than what Beri had
previously demanded.

22. Bentley knew Fernandez was Mikula’s friend and associate when he
negotiated the agreement.

23. On September 4, 2020, Bentley, on behalf of Cloudastructure, executed
the “consulting agreement” with Fernandez, who was acting on behalf of Entity 1, a
Canadian company.
24. Four days later, on September 8, 2020, Bentley received an email with a
Palm Beach article by Mikula promoting Cloudastructure’s Reg A offering.
25. The email and article included the false disclaimer that neither Palm
Beach nor its affiliates were compensated for the endorsement. Bentley forwarded the

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
article to others.
26. On the same day he received the email and article, Bentley emailed
Cloudastructure’s accounting group asking that the Entity 1 be paid promptly.
27. Pursuant to the agreement, Cloudastructure issued eight payments
totaling $650,000 to Entity 1 from September 2020 through August 2021.

28. The “consulting agreement” between Entity 1 and Cloudastructure was a
sham. Neither Fernandez nor Entity 1 provided any meaningful consulting services to
Cloudastructure.

29. Instead, the agreement was a means of concealing Mikula’s
compensation for his promotion of Cloudastructure.

30. In addition to negotiating the agreement, Bentley (1) advised Entity 1 on
how to prepare consulting invoices so that they would “sail through” without raising
questions from Cloudastructure’s Chief Financial Officer; (2) approved all the
invoices from Entity 1; and (3) instructed that the company pay all the Entity 1
invoices.

31. Entity 1 paid about 20% of the $650,000 from Cloudastructure to Mikula
in two tranches: On or about July 26, 2021, Entity 1 disbursed about $100,000 as a
“dividend” to a Mexican entity, Goldentown Consulting SA DE CV (“Goldentown”),
on or about July 26, 2021, and disbursed about $28,500 to Goldentown on or about
September 8, 2022. Goldentown then “loaned” the funds to Mikula, with no
expectation of repayment.

32. Entity 1 also used funds from Cloudastructure to pay monthly American
Express bills for an account nominally in the name of Mikula’s personal assistant
(whose salary was also paid by Entity 1) but which was in fact used to cover travel
and other charges incurred by Mikula.

33. In addition to compensating Mikula with cash paid to Entity 1, Bentley
lavishly entertained Mikula and Fernandez during the Cloudastructure promotion.
34. From September 2020 through mid-2021, Cloudastructure, at Bentley’s

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
direction, spent over $350,000 in connection with entertaining Mikula and his
associates, among others. These lavish entertainment expenses included hotel
accommodations, meals and bottle service at clubs, yacht rentals, the engagement of
entertainers, and other such expenses.
35. Bentley understood that entertaining Mikula extravagantly was a
condition to getting Palm Beach to feature Cloudastructure. His advice to another
company’s CEO who was working on getting Mikula to agree to promote his
company was “wine and dine [Mikula] lavishly” and “never, ever, let them pick up
the check.”
36. Throughout 2020 and 2021, Cloudastructure filed Reg A offering
circulars with the Commission, which outlined how investor funds would be used and
disclosed that operating expenses include consulting costs.
37. Bentley reviewed, approved, and held ultimate authority for the content
of these offering circulars used to raise investor funds.
38. The offering circulars did not disclose that some of the consulting costs
were, in fact, payments for Mikula’s promotion, and this omission made the offering
circulars false and misleading.
39. The misleading omissions were material because investors would have
wanted to know that the articles recommending Cloudastructure’s offering were
bought and paid for with investor funds.
40. Cloudastructure raised approximately $30 million in investor funds
through Mikula’s promotion.
41. Bentley knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that Cloudastructure’s
payments to Entity 1 were to compensate Mikula for his promotional articles.
42. Bentley's conduct regarding the sham agreement and the payments to
Entity 1 was also unreasonable and therefore negligent.
43. Bentley knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the offering circulars
were misleading by omitting that investor funds were used to pay for Mikula’s

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
promotion.
44. Bentley’s conduct in omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that
investor funds were used to pay Mikula was also unreasonable and therefore
negligent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
45. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
44 above.
46. Bentley—with Mikula and Fernandez—carried out a scheme to defraud
through the combination of their deceptive statements and actions concerning the
Cloudastructure offering. Throughout the promotional campaign, Bentley knew, or
was reckless in not knowing, that Cloudastructure was paying for Mikula’s promotion
through the consulting agreement with Entity 1 and by lavishly entertaining Mikula.
47. In addition, Bentley knowingly or recklessly misled and deceived
investors by omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that investor funds were
used to pay Mikula.
48. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley, directly or
indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, (a) employed devices,
schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c)
engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as
a fraud or deceit upon other persons, including purchasers and sellers of securities.
49. Bentley, with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under which they were made, not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices, or
courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other
persons, including purchasers and sellers of securities by the conduct described in
detail above.
50. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley violated, and
unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
51. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
44 above.
52. In the offer or sale of the Cloudastructure securities, Bentley—with
Mikula and Fernandez—carried out a scheme to defraud, through the combination of
their deceptive statements and actions concerning the Cloudastructure offering.
Throughout the promotional campaign, Bentley knew, or was reckless in not
knowing, that Cloudastructure was paying for Mikula’s promotion through the
consulting agreement with Entity 1 and by lavishly entertaining Mikula.
53. In addition, Bentley knowingly or recklessly misled and deceived
investors by omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that investor funds were
used to pay Mikula.
54. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley, directly or
indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails (a)
employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property
by means of untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in transactions, practices, or

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the
purchaser.
55. Bentley, with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; with scienter and/or negligence, obtained money or property by means of
untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; and with scienter and/or negligence, engaged in
transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
56. By reason of the foregoing, Bentley violated, and unless restrained and
enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court:
I.
Issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that Bentley committed the
alleged violations.
II.
Issue judgment, in forms consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, permanently enjoining Bentley and his officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with
him, who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and
each of them, from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b)
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
III.
Issue judgments, in forms consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, permanently enjoining Bentley and his officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
him, who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and
each of them, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77q(a).
IV.
Order Bentley to pay civil penalties under Section 20(d) of the Securities Act,
15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3).
V.
Enter an order against Bentley, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act,
15 U.S.C. § 77t(e), and Sections 2l(d)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2),
prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of
securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78l or
that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78o(d).
VI.
Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of
all orders and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or
motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.
VII.
Grant such other and further relief as this Court may determine to be just and
necessary.
Dated:  September 27, 2023
 /s/ Charles E. Canter
Charles E. Canter
Sarah S. Nilson
Yolanda Ochoa
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchan
ge Commission

JS 44   (Rev. 04/21)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I.
(a)   PLAINTIFFSDEFENDANTS
(b)
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c)
Attorneys
(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys
(If Known)
II.  BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
and One Box for Defendant)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
1U.S. Government3Federal Question
PTFDEFPTFDEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State1
1Incorporated
or
Principal Place44
of Business In This State
2U.S. Government4DiversityCitizen of Another State22Incorporated
and
Principal Place55
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a33Foreign Nation66
Foreign Country
IV.  NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACTTORTSFORFEITURE/PENALTYBANKRUPTCYOTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURYPERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure422 Appeal 28 USC 158375 False Claims Act
120 Marine310 Airplane365 Personal Injury  -of Property 21 USC 881423 Withdrawal376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act315 Airplane ProductProduct Liability690 Other28 USC 1573729(a))
140 Negotiable InstrumentLiability367 Health Care/400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment320 Assault, Libel &Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of JudgmentSlanderPersonal Injury
820 Copyrights
430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act330 Federal Employers’Product Liability
830 Patent
450 Commerce
152 Recovery of DefaultedLiability368 Asbestos Personal
835 Patent - Abbreviated
460 Deportation
Student Loans340 MarineInjury Product
New Drug Application
470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans)345 Marine ProductLiability
840 Trademark
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of OverpaymentLiability
PERSONAL PROPERTYLABOR
880 Defend Trade Secrets
480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits350 Motor Vehicle370 Other Fraud710 Fair Labor Standards
Act of 2016
(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits355 Motor Vehicle371 Truth in LendingAct485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other ContractProduct Liability380 Other Personal720 Labor/Management
SOCIAL SECURITY
Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability360 Other PersonalProperty DamageRelations861 HIA (1395ff)490 Cable/Sat TV
196 FranchiseInjury385 Property Damage740 Railway Labor Act862 Black Lung (923)850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury -
Product Liability751 Family and Medical863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))Exchange
Medical MalpracticeLeave Act
864 SSID Title XVI890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTYCIVIL RIGHTSPRISONER PETITIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
865 RSI (405(g))891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure441 Voting463 Alien DetaineeIncome Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment442 Employment510 Motions to Vacate870 Taxes (U.S. PlaintiffAct
240 Torts to Land443 Housing/Sentenceor Defendant)896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product LiabilityAccommodations530 General871 IRS—Third Party899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property445 Amer. w/Disabilities -535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities -540 Mandamus & Other465 Other Immigration950 Constitutionality of
Other550 Civil RightsActionsState Statutes
448 Education555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V.  ORIGIN
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1   Original
Proceeding
2   Removed from
State Court
3Remanded from
Appellate Court
4  Reinstated or
Reopened
5  Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6   Multidistrict
Litigation -
Transfer
8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File
VI.  CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII.  REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A
CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
YesNo
VIII.  RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGEDOCKET NUMBER
DATESIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #AMOUNTAPPLYING IFPJUDGEMAG. JUDGE
26 USC 7609
INTELLECTUAL
Nevada
Securities & Exchange Commission
Charles Canter, Sarah Nilson, & Yolanda Ochoa
SEC, 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles,
California 90071, (323) 965-3998
Sheldon Richard Bentley, a/k/a Rick Bentley
Emily Berry
Ehrlich Craig LLP, 803 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710,
510-548-3605
✖
✖
15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) & 77v(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa(a)
Securities Fraud
✖
✖
Sep 27, 2023
/s/ Charles E. Canter

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.  Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed.  The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
Plaintiffs-Defendants.  Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant.  If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b)
County of Residence.  For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c)Attorneys.  Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record.  If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction.  The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings.  Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff.  (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348.  Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant.  (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question.  (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship.  (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states.  When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked
.
(See Section III below
; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.
)
III.Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.
  This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.  Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.Nature of Suit.
  Place an "X" in the appropriate box.  If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable.  Click here for:
Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
.
V.Origin.
  Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings.  (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court.  (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court.  (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action.  Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened.  (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court.  Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District.  (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer.  (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File.  (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7.
  Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.
VI.
Cause of Action.
  Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause.
Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity.
 Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII.Requested in Complaint.
  Class Action.  Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand.  In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand.  Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.   Related Cases.
  This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any.  If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature.
  Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CHARLES E. CANTER (Cal. Bar No. 263197) 
Email:  [email protected] 
SARAH S. NILSON (Cal. Bar No. 254574) 
Email:  [email protected] 
YOLANDA OCHOA (Cal. Bar No. 267993) 
Email:  [email protected] 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
Katharine Zoladz, Co-Regional Director 
Gary Y. Leung, Regional Trial Counsel 
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 
Los Angeles, California 90071 
Telephone: (323) 965-3998 
Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 
 

vs. 

SHELDON RICHARD BENTLEY, 
a/k/a RICK BENTLEY, 

Defendant. 
 

 Case No. 
 
 
COMPLAINT 
 

 
 
 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 1 of 11



 

1 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) files 

this complaint against Defendant Sheldon Richard Bentley (“Bentley”) and alleges: 

JURISDICTION 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under Sections 20(b), 

20(d)(1), and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e), and 27(a) of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1), 

78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa(a). 

2. Defendant has, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national 

securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of 

business alleged in this complaint.  

3. Venue is proper in this district under Section 22(a) of the Securities Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 77v(a) and Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a), 

because Bentley resides in this district. 

SUMMARY 

4. This securities fraud enforcement action involves a scheme to conceal 

paid promotion of a securities offering from September 2020 through mid-2021. 

5. Specifically, Bentley, on behalf of his company, Cloudastructure, Inc., 

entered into a sham agreement with a Canadian entity (“Entity 1”), which failed to 

disclose that investor funds would be used to pay William Mikula (“Mikula”) to tout 

Cloudastructure’s securities offering under Regulation A (“Reg A”). Shortly after 

Bentley executed the agreement, Mikula authored articles promoting the 

Cloudastructure offering. These articles falsely stated that they were based on 

independent research and represented to would-be investors that neither the 

newsletter publishing the articles nor the authors received any compensation for the 

recommendation. In fact, Bentley provided at least $350,000 in lavish entertainment 

and travel for Mikula and his associates, among others, and caused Cloudastructure to 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 2 of 11



 

2 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pay Entity 1 at least $650,000 in cash, a portion of which was distributed to Mikula in 

exchange for his promotional articles. 

6. Through his conduct, Bentley violated the antifraud provisions of 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 

17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).   

7. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions against future violations of 

Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Securities Act Section 

17(a), a civil penalty against Bentley, and an order barring Bentley from serving as an 

officer or director of a public company.   

THE DEFENDANT 

8. Sheldon Richard Bentley (a/k/a Rick Bentley), age 55, is a resident of 

Truckee, California. Bentley founded Cloudastructure in 2003 and has served as 

Cloudastructure’s chief executive officer and as a director of the company’s board 

since that time. 

RELATED ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS 

9. Cloudastructure, Inc. (“Cloudastructure”) is a cloud-controlled video 

surveillance company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in 

Miami, Florida. During the relevant period, Cloudastructure was headquartered in 

San Mateo, California. Cloudastructure’s offering statement for an offering of 

securities under Reg A was qualified in July 2020. Cloudastructure filed post-

qualification amendments that were qualified in May 2021 and May 2022. Mikula 

promoted Cloudastructure between September 2020 and mid-2021. 

10. Jonathan William Mikula, a/k/a/ William Mikula, is a resident of 

Georgia, who, from at least 2019 through late 2021, was chief analyst and author of 

Palm Beach Venture, a newsletter published by Palm Beach Research Group. Mikula 

has been twice enjoined by federal courts from violating the federal securities laws:  

SEC v. Phoenixsurf.com, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04765-JSL, ECF No. 6 (C.D. Cal. 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 3 of 11



 

3 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Aug. 14, 2007); SEC v. Mikula, Case No. 1:08-cv-03097-BBM, ECF No. 95 (N.D. 

Ga. Sept. 24, 2009). In connection with false statements he made to the SEC in the 

2007 case, Mikula pled guilty to providing false information to a federal agency, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. United States v. Mikula, Case No. 2:10-cr-00649-DSF, 

ECF No. 18 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011). In 2022, the SEC filed another enforcement 

action against Mikula and others arising out of the some of the same conduct at issue 

in this case. SEC v. Mikula, 2:22-cv-07096-SB-E (C.D. Cal.). 

11. Christian Fernandez a/k/a Christian Crockwell is a Mexican citizen 

residing in Georgia. Fernandez funneled a portion of the payments to Mikula in 

exchange for Mikula’s Cloudastructure promotion. Fernandez is a defendant in the 

SEC’s action against Mikula. 

12. Amit Raj Beri a/k/a Raj Beri is an Australian national residing in 

Florida. Beri is a defendant in the SEC’s action against Mikula. Beri attempted to act 

as a middleman between Cloudastructure and Mikula with respect to the promotion.   

13. Palm Beach Research Group is operated by Common Sense 

Publishing, LLC, a subsidiary of Market Wise, Inc., a U.S. public company. Palm 

Beach Research Group publishes Palm Beach Venture, a subscription-based 

newsletter that focuses on opportunities for investors to invest in securities offered 

under Reg A. Mikula was one of two attributed authors of the Palm Beach Venture 

newsletter. 

THE ALLEGATIONS 

14. Cloudastructure was qualified to conduct a securities offering under Reg 

A in July 2020. 

15. Bentley first learned about Palm Beach in late 2019 when, as part as his 

fundraising efforts, he was searching for an investor newsletter that would feature 

Cloudastructure and recommend it to its subscribers. 

16. By early 2020, Bentley was pitching Cloudastructure to Mikula in hopes 

of getting Palm Beach to promote the company. 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 4 of 11



 

4 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17. Mikula connected Bentley with Beri so that Beri could help 

Cloudastructure with “ironing out the logistics of making a Palm Beach feature 

happen.”  In early February 2020, Bentley flew to Miami to meet with Mikula and 

Beri to discuss such a promotion. 

18. Soon after the Miami meeting, Beri began negotiating a consulting 

agreement with Bentley, representing that Palm Beach would promote the company if 

Cloudastructure paid Beri 5% of investor funds raised, which Beri intended to share 

with Mikula. 

19. Beri’s negotiations were not successful because Bentley thought Beri’s 

proposed percentage was too high, so by March 2020, Bentley resumed dealing 

directly with Mikula in his efforts to get Palm Beach to promote Cloudastructure. 

20. In July 2020 and August 2020, Bentley flew to Las Vegas and Atlanta to 

meet in person with Mikula and Fernandez to discuss the promotion. During the 

August 2020 meeting, Mikula recorded interviews with Bentley discussing 

Cloudastructure.   

21. In early September 2020, Fernandez, at Mikula’s instruction, contacted 

Bentley and reopened discussions about a “consulting agreement.” Fernandez 

proposed that Cloudastructure would pay Fernandez less than what Beri had 

previously demanded. 

22. Bentley knew Fernandez was Mikula’s friend and associate when he 

negotiated the agreement. 

23. On September 4, 2020, Bentley, on behalf of Cloudastructure, executed 

the “consulting agreement” with Fernandez, who was acting on behalf of Entity 1, a 

Canadian company. 

24. Four days later, on September 8, 2020, Bentley received an email with a 

Palm Beach article by Mikula promoting Cloudastructure’s Reg A offering. 

25. The email and article included the false disclaimer that neither Palm 

Beach nor its affiliates were compensated for the endorsement. Bentley forwarded the 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 5 of 11



 

5 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

article to others. 

26. On the same day he received the email and article, Bentley emailed 

Cloudastructure’s accounting group asking that the Entity 1 be paid promptly. 

27. Pursuant to the agreement, Cloudastructure issued eight payments 

totaling $650,000 to Entity 1 from September 2020 through August 2021. 

28. The “consulting agreement” between Entity 1 and Cloudastructure was a 

sham. Neither Fernandez nor Entity 1 provided any meaningful consulting services to 

Cloudastructure. 

29. Instead, the agreement was a means of concealing Mikula’s 

compensation for his promotion of Cloudastructure. 

30. In addition to negotiating the agreement, Bentley (1) advised Entity 1 on 

how to prepare consulting invoices so that they would “sail through” without raising 

questions from Cloudastructure’s Chief Financial Officer; (2) approved all the 

invoices from Entity 1; and (3) instructed that the company pay all the Entity 1 

invoices. 

31. Entity 1 paid about 20% of the $650,000 from Cloudastructure to Mikula 

in two tranches: On or about July 26, 2021, Entity 1 disbursed about $100,000 as a 

“dividend” to a Mexican entity, Goldentown Consulting SA DE CV (“Goldentown”), 

on or about July 26, 2021, and disbursed about $28,500 to Goldentown on or about 

September 8, 2022. Goldentown then “loaned” the funds to Mikula, with no 

expectation of repayment. 

32. Entity 1 also used funds from Cloudastructure to pay monthly American 

Express bills for an account nominally in the name of Mikula’s personal assistant 

(whose salary was also paid by Entity 1) but which was in fact used to cover travel 

and other charges incurred by Mikula. 

33. In addition to compensating Mikula with cash paid to Entity 1, Bentley 

lavishly entertained Mikula and Fernandez during the Cloudastructure promotion.  

34. From September 2020 through mid-2021, Cloudastructure, at Bentley’s 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 6 of 11



 

6 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

direction, spent over $350,000 in connection with entertaining Mikula and his 

associates, among others. These lavish entertainment expenses included hotel 

accommodations, meals and bottle service at clubs, yacht rentals, the engagement of 

entertainers, and other such expenses. 

35. Bentley understood that entertaining Mikula extravagantly was a 

condition to getting Palm Beach to feature Cloudastructure. His advice to another 

company’s CEO who was working on getting Mikula to agree to promote his 

company was “wine and dine [Mikula] lavishly” and “never, ever, let them pick up 

the check.” 

36. Throughout 2020 and 2021, Cloudastructure filed Reg A offering 

circulars with the Commission, which outlined how investor funds would be used and 

disclosed that operating expenses include consulting costs. 

37. Bentley reviewed, approved, and held ultimate authority for the content 

of these offering circulars used to raise investor funds. 

38. The offering circulars did not disclose that some of the consulting costs 

were, in fact, payments for Mikula’s promotion, and this omission made the offering 

circulars false and misleading.  

39. The misleading omissions were material because investors would have 

wanted to know that the articles recommending Cloudastructure’s offering were 

bought and paid for with investor funds. 

40. Cloudastructure raised approximately $30 million in investor funds 

through Mikula’s promotion. 

41. Bentley knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that Cloudastructure’s 

payments to Entity 1 were to compensate Mikula for his promotional articles. 

42. Bentley's conduct regarding the sham agreement and the payments to 

Entity 1 was also unreasonable and therefore negligent. 

43. Bentley knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the offering circulars 

were misleading by omitting that investor funds were used to pay for Mikula’s 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 7 of 11



 

7 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

promotion. 

44. Bentley’s conduct in omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that 

investor funds were used to pay Mikula was also unreasonable and therefore 

negligent. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities 

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

45. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

44 above. 

46. Bentley—with Mikula and Fernandez—carried out a scheme to defraud 

through the combination of their deceptive statements and actions concerning the 

Cloudastructure offering. Throughout the promotional campaign, Bentley knew, or 

was reckless in not knowing, that Cloudastructure was paying for Mikula’s promotion 

through the consulting agreement with Entity 1 and by lavishly entertaining Mikula. 

47. In addition, Bentley knowingly or recklessly misled and deceived 

investors by omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that investor funds were 

used to pay Mikula. 

48. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means 

or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, (a) employed devices, 

schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or 

omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the 

light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) 

engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as 

a fraud or deceit upon other persons, including purchasers and sellers of securities. 

49. Bentley, with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 8 of 11



 

8 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under which they were made, not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices, or 

courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other 

persons, including purchasers and sellers of securities by the conduct described in 

detail above. 

50. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley violated, and 

unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities 

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

51. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

44 above. 

52. In the offer or sale of the Cloudastructure securities, Bentley—with 

Mikula and Fernandez—carried out a scheme to defraud, through the combination of 

their deceptive statements and actions concerning the Cloudastructure offering. 

Throughout the promotional campaign, Bentley knew, or was reckless in not 

knowing, that Cloudastructure was paying for Mikula’s promotion through the 

consulting agreement with Entity 1 and by lavishly entertaining Mikula. 

53. In addition, Bentley knowingly or recklessly misled and deceived 

investors by omitting to disclose in the offering circulars that investor funds were 

used to pay Mikula. 

54. By engaging in the conduct described above, Bentley, directly or 

indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails (a) 

employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property 

by means of untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under 

which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in transactions, practices, or 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 9 of 11



 

9 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchaser. 

55. Bentley, with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; with scienter and/or negligence, obtained money or property by means of 

untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in 

order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they 

were made, not misleading; and with scienter and/or negligence, engaged in 

transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a 

fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

56. By reason of the foregoing, Bentley violated, and unless restrained and 

enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 77q(a)  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court: 

I. 

Issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that Bentley committed the 

alleged violations. 

II. 

Issue judgment, in forms consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, permanently enjoining Bentley and his officers, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with 

him, who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and 

each of them, from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 

and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. 

III. 

Issue judgments, in forms consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, permanently enjoining Bentley and his officers, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 10 of 11



 

10 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him, who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and 

each of them, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77q(a). 

IV. 

Order Bentley to pay civil penalties under Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3). 

V. 

Enter an order against Bentley, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 77t(e), and Sections 2l(d)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2), 

prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of 

securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78l or 

that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 78o(d). 

VI. 

Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of 

all orders and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or 

motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

VII. 

Grant such other and further relief as this Court may determine to be just and 

necessary. 

Dated:  September 27, 2023  

 /s/ Charles E. Canter  
Charles E. Canter 
Sarah S. Nilson 
Yolanda Ochoa 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 

 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 11 of 11



JS 44   (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the 
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff 
and One Box for Defendant) (For Diversity Cases Only)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury  - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of 
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original

Proceeding 
2 Removed from

State Court
3 Remanded from

Appellate Court 
4 Reinstated or

Reopened
5 Transferred from

Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation - 
Transfer

8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

26 USC 7609

INTELLECTUAL

Nevada

Securities & Exchange Commission

Charles Canter, Sarah Nilson, & Yolanda Ochoa
SEC, 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles,
California 90071, (323) 965-3998

Sheldon Richard Bentley, a/k/a Rick Bentley

Emily Berry 
Ehrlich Craig LLP, 803 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710, 
510-548-3605

✖

✖

15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) & 77v(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa(a)

Securities Fraud

✖

✖

Sep 27, 2023 /s/ Charles E. Canter

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1-1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 1 of 2



JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as 
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is 
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.  Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of 
Court for each civil complaint filed.  The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: 

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants.  Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant.  If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use  
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then 
the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence.  For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys.  Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record.  If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction.  The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings.  Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff.  (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348.  Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant.  (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question.  (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship.  (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states.  When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked.  (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.  This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.  Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit.  Place an "X" in the appropriate box.  If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable.  Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin.  Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings.  (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court.  (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court.  (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action.  Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened.  (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court.  Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District.  (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer.  (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File.  (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7.  Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action.  Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause.  Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity.  Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint.  Class Action.  Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand.  In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand.  Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases.   This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any.  If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature.  Date and sign the civil cover sheet. 

Case 2:23-cv-02119-JDP   Document 1-1   Filed 09/27/23   Page 2 of 2