SEC v. THE DIAMOND DESK CORPORATION; and ADAM JONATHAN LOWE, No. 0:23-cv-61837, Southern District of Florida (Sept. 26, 2023) — Complaint

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE DIAMOND DESK CORPORATION, and
ADAM JONATHAN LOWE,

Defendants.
  /

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The   Commission   brings   this   case against   The   Diamond   Desk   Corporation
(“Diamond   Desk”)   and   its   founder   and   president,   Adam   Jonathan   Lowe   (collectively,
“Defendants”), who raised at least $2.2 million from at least nine investors in five states through
a fraudulent offering of securities.
2. From  at  least  February  2018  through  February  2019 (the  “Relevant  Period”),
Defendants  falsely  told  investors  they  would  use  investor  funds  to acquire  parcels  of  raw  color
diamonds, known as “natural fancy color diamonds,” and then resell the diamonds for profits that
would generate investment returns. Defendants offered investors the opportunity to invest through
one of three investment programs, whereby investors would receive returns ranging from 6 to 27%,
with a full return of their principal at the end of the investment term, which ranged between 3 to
12 months.

2

3. These  statements  were  false.  Defendants did  not  use  investor  funds  solely  to
purchase natural fancy color diamonds for resale as promised. Instead, Lowe misappropriated at
least $935,000 of investor funds for himself, using them for his personal benefit, including to pay
personal expenses and to fund his gambling at various casinos across the United States.
4. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (“Exchange  Act”)  [15  U.S.C.  § 78j(b)]  and Rule  10b-5
thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240 10b-5]. Lowe is also liable as a control person under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)] for Diamond Desk’s violations of Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
5. Unless enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal
securities laws.
II.   DEFENDANTS

6. Lowe,  age  42, resides  in  Pittston,  Pennsylvania.  Lowe formed Diamond  Desk  in
2011 and served as its sole owner, manager, and President until at least September 2019. Lowe
was sole signatory on Diamond Desk’s bank account.
7. Diamond Desk was a Florida corporation formed in 2011 with its principal place
of  business  in  Coral  Springs,  Florida.  Diamond  Desk purportedly  specialized  in acquiring  and
supplying natural fancy color diamonds and offered investors opportunities to invest through the
company’s investment offerings. Diamond Desk received investor proceeds emanating from the
Defendants’  securities  fraud  during  the  relevant  period.  Diamond Desk  was  administratively
dissolved in September 2019.

3

III.   JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and
22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)]; and Sections 21(d), 21(e),
and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].
9. This  Court  has  personal  jurisdiction  over  Defendants,  and  venue  is  proper  in  the
Southern District of Florida, because Defendants engaged in acts and transactions in the Southern
District of Florida constituting violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. During the
time  of  the  violations  at  issue  in  this  case,  Diamond  Desk’s  principal  place  of  business  was  in
Coral  Springs,  Florida,  and  Defendants  solicited  investors  located  in  the  Southern  District  of
Florida.
10. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly and
indirectly,  singly  or  in  concert  with  others,  have made  use  of  the  means  or  instrumentalities  of
interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate
commerce, and the mails.
IV.   DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
A.  Defendants’ Fraudulent Securities Offerings
11. During the Relevant Period, Lowe, on behalf of Diamond Desk, offered and sold
securities in the form of investment contracts. Lowe primarily relied on referrals from a business
associate  and  word-of-mouth  to  solicit  investors.  Lowe  told  investors  and  prospective  investors
that Diamond Desk was in the business of acquiring and selling diamonds, including natural fancy
color diamonds, which he sold in China and to high-end retailers for a profit.

4

12. Lowe  touted  his  years  of  experience  in  the  diamond  business,  and  claimed  his
experience and  his  relationships  with  Chinese  customers  enabled  him  to  profitably  resell  the
diamonds and thereby provide investors with returns.
13. Defendants  offered  investors  and  prospective  investors  the  opportunity  to  invest
through Diamond  Desk’s  so-called  “Short  Term  Capital  Raise  Opportunity,”  “Parcel  Purchase
Program,” or “Rapid Return Program,”  whereby investors would receive returns ranging from 6
to 27%, with full return of investor principal at the end of the investment term, which ranged from
3 to 12 months.
14. Once an investor decided to invest, Lowe or his business associate sent the investor
an agreement documenting the terms of the investment. The agreements were executed between
the  investors  and  Diamond  Desk.  Lowe,  on  behalf  of  Diamond  Desk, signed  the  investment
contracts with investors as the “CEO” of Diamond Desk.
15. The Diamond Desk investment agreements generally ranged in duration from three
to twelve months and provided fixed interest or dividend payments between 6 to 12%, along with
the  return  of  investors’  principal  at  the  conclusion  of  the  investment terms.   Some investor
agreements promised   an additional 15% return based on sales of diamonds sold from the parcel
acquired with the investor’s funds throughout the investment term.
16. At Defendants’  direction,  investors  sent  their  respective  investment  funds  to
Diamond Desk by check,  or via wire transfer to a Diamond Desk bank account controlled by Lowe.
17. Defendants  described  the  investment  as  a  passive,  short-term  investment  with
investors’ returns generated solely from Defendants’ efforts. Investors relied solely on Defendants’
purported expertise in sourcing, purchasing, finishing, and selling the natural fancy color diamonds
to generate the investment returns promised by Defendants.

5

18. During the Relevant Period, Defendants raised at  least  $2.2 million from at least
nine investors located in at least five states.
B.  Defendants’ Material Misrepresentations and Omissions to Investors

19. Defendants made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions to investors
and prospective investors in connection with Diamond Desk’s securities offerings about, among
other things, the use of investor funds,  the safety and profitability of Diamond Desk’s investment
programs, and the source of purported investor returns.
20. Defendants told investors that their investments would be used to fund Diamond
Desk’s natural fancy colored diamond business, specifically, to purchase, cut,  and resell diamonds
to China and high-end retailers. For example, one investor’s agreement states that Diamond Desk
will  use  investor  funds  to  maintain  suitable  diamond  inventory  for  sale  to  the  Chinese  market.
Another investor’s agreement states that investor’s funds will go towards the purchase of finished
jewelry  from  Diamond  Desk’s  existing  inventory  which,  in  turn,  will  then  be  used  to  fulfill
purchase orders for an existing Chinese customer and a U.S.-based retailer.
21. These  representations  were  false.  In  truth,  Lowe  – who  had  sole  control  over
Diamond Desk’s bank accounts – used only some of the money to fund diamond purchases. Lowe
used investor funds for non-business expenditures and misappropriated, for his personal benefit,
approximately  $925,000  of  the  roughly  $2.2  million in investor  funds  raised from  investors.
Defendants  did  not  disclose,  either  orally  or  in  its  investment  agreements,  that  investor  funds
would be used for any other purpose besides the diamond business.
22. Defendants also made material misrepresentations to investors regarding the source
of purported returns. For example:

6

a. on  or  about  June  14,  2018,  Defendants  told investor A.A.,  a  New  York
resident, that he would receive 8% interest over a six-month period plus an anticipated average
return of 15% on diamond sales, for a total anticipated return of 23%;
b. on or about June 19, 2018, Defendants told a California investor with the
initials D.A. that he would receive an annual 12% fixed return paid monthly, plus an estimated
15% profit on diamonds sold, for an anticipated annual return of 27%;
c. on or about September 4, 2018, Defendants told a Florida investor with the
initials A.B. that she would receive 6% interest over a three-month period on diamonds sold; and
d. on or about January 31, 2019, Defendants told investor J.G., who resides in
Iowa, that he would receive an annual 8% fixed return paid quarterly, plus an estimated 15% profit
on diamonds sold, for an anticipated annual return of 23%.
23. These representations were false. Although Defendants purchased and sold some
diamonds, Lowe misappropriated nearly half of investor funds raised for himself. As a result, Lowe
could not reasonably expect to pay the promised returns to investors from the purported returns of
Diamond Desk’s business.
24. In fact, during the Relevant Period, Defendants paid back to investors only $80,000,
consisting   of   partial   return   of   approximately   $65,000   in   principal   to   two   investors   and
approximately $15,000 in interest payments to various investors.

C.  Defendant Lowe’s Misappropriation of Investor Funds
25. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Lowe  misappropriated  at  least  $925,000  of  investor
funds to pay for non-business-related expenses and for his personal use.
26. Lowe made $465,000 in cash withdrawals, using investor funds, from the Diamond
Desk bank account.

7

27. Lowe  also  used  investor  funds  to  spend  at  least  $263,000  at  gambling  casinos,
including Dania Jai Alai (a casino in Dania Beach, Florida) and another $30,000 at Seminole Hard
Rock (a hotel and casino in Hollywood, Florida).
28. Lowe did not disclose to investors that he was using investor funds for non-business
purposes, for gambling or other personal benefit.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act
29. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
30. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants  Lowe  and  Diamond Desk,  directly  or
indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  or instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the  mails,
knowingly or recklessly, employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.
31. By  reason  of  the  foregoing, Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].

COUNT II
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act
32. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
33. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants Lowe  and  Diamond  Desk,  directly  or
indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  or instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the  mails,
knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts
in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances in which they were made,
not misleading in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.

8

34. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)].
COUNT III
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act
35. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
36. During the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants  Lowe  and  Diamond  Desk,  directly  or
indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  or instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the  mails,
knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated,
are now operating, and will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or
sale of securities.

37. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)].

COUNT IV

Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act

38. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
39. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, in the offer or
sale  of  securities  by  use  of  any  means or instruments of transportation  or  communication  in
interstate  commerce  or  by  the  use  of  the  mails,  directly  or  indirectly,  knowingly  or  recklessly
employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud.
40. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  the  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(1)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
77q(a)(1)].

9

COUNT V
Violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

41. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
42. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, in the offer or
sale  of  securities  by  any  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or  communication  in  interstate
commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly, negligently obtained money or property by means
of untrue statements of material facts and omissions 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.
43. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(2)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
77q(a)(2)].
COUNT VI
Violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act

44. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
45. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, 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,  directly  or  indirectly,  negligently  engaged  in
transactions,  practices,  or  courses  of  business  which  have operated,  are  now  operating or will
operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers.
46. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined, are
reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate  Section  17(a)(3)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
77q(a)(3)].

10

COUNT VII
Liability Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a Control Person

(Against Defendant Lowe)

47. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
48. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Lowe was, directly or indirectly, a control
person of Diamond Desk for purposes of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)].
49. During the Relevant Period, Diamond Desk violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act  [15  U.S.C.  §  78j(b)]  and  Exchange  Act  Rule  10b-5  [17  C.F.R.  §  240.10b-5],  directly  or
indirectly, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails,
knowingly or recklessly: (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 light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or
(c) engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, are now operating, or
will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.
50. As control person of Diamond Desk, Lowe is jointly and severally liable with and
to the same extent as Diamond Desk for each of the violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder.
51. By reason of the foregoing, Lowe violated and, unless enjoined, is reasonably likely
to  continue  to  violate  as  a  control  person  of  Diamond  Desk,  Sections  10(b) and  20(a)  of  the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

11

VI.   RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE,  the  Commission  respectfully  requests  that  the  Court  find  Defendants
committed the violations alleged in this Complaint and:
A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief
Issue permanent injunctions,  enjoining Defendants,  their  officers,  agents,  servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section
17(a) of the Securities Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; and restraining and enjoining Defendant Lowe
from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder as a control person
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
B.  Conduct Based Injunctive Relief
Issue a permanent conduct-based injunction, enjoining Lowe from, directly or indirectly,
including through any entity he owns  or controls:    (1) participating in the issuance, offer, purchase,
or sale of any securities except for transactions involving Lowe’s own personal brokerage account;
and (2) exercising any control over, any commercial enterprise or project that issues, purchases,
or sells securities to any person other than Lowe.
C.  Officer and Director Bar
Issue  an  order  pursuant  to  Section  20(e)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §  77t(e)]  and
Section  21(d)(2)  of  the  Exchange  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §  78u(d)(2)],  permanently  barring  Defendant
Lowe from acting as an officer or director of any issuer whose securities are registered with the
Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or which is required to file reports with
the Commission pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

12

D.  Disgorgement
Issue an order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the
applicable  statute  of  limitations,  including  prejudgment  interest,  resulting  from  the  acts  and/or
courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint.
E.  Penalty
Issue an order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section
20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78u(d)].
F.  Further Relief
Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
G.  Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this
action to  implement  and  carry  out  the  terms  of  all  orders  and  decrees  that  are  entered,  and  to
entertain  any  suitable  application  or  motion  by  the Commission  for  additional  relief  within  the
jurisdiction of the Court.

13

VII.  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 The Commission hereby demands a jury trial in this case on all issues so triable.

September 25, 2023       Respectfully submitted,

    By: /s/Brian Lechich
     Brian Lechich, Esq.
Trial Counsel
Florida Bar No. 84419
Direct Dial: (305) 416-6257
Email: [email protected]

     Attorney for Plaintiff
     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950
     Miami, Florida 33131
     Telephone:  (305) 982-6300
     Facsimile:   (305) 536-4154

1  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
THE DIAMOND DESK CORPORATION, and 
ADAM JONATHAN LOWE, 
 

Defendants. 
  / 
 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF 
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. The Commission brings this case against The Diamond Desk Corporation 

(“Diamond Desk”) and its founder and president, Adam Jonathan Lowe (collectively, 

“Defendants”), who raised at least $2.2 million from at least nine investors in five states through 

a fraudulent offering of securities. 

2. From at least February 2018 through February 2019 (the “Relevant Period”), 

Defendants falsely told investors they would use investor funds to acquire parcels of raw color 

diamonds, known as “natural fancy color diamonds,” and then resell the diamonds for profits that 

would generate investment returns. Defendants offered investors the opportunity to invest through 

one of three investment programs, whereby investors would receive returns ranging from 6 to 27%, 

with a full return of their principal at the end of the investment term, which ranged between 3 to 

12 months. 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 1 of 13



2  

3. These statements were false. Defendants did not use investor funds solely to 

purchase natural fancy color diamonds for resale as promised. Instead, Lowe misappropriated at 

least $935,000 of investor funds for himself, using them for his personal benefit, including to pay 

personal expenses and to fund his gambling at various casinos across the United States.    

4. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated Section 

17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240 10b-5]. Lowe is also liable as a control person under Section 20(a) of 

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)] for Diamond Desk’s violations of Exchange Act Section 

10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. 

5. Unless enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal 

securities laws. 

II.   DEFENDANTS 
 

6. Lowe, age 42, resides in Pittston, Pennsylvania. Lowe formed Diamond Desk in 

2011 and served as its sole owner, manager, and President until at least September 2019. Lowe 

was sole signatory on Diamond Desk’s bank account. 

7. Diamond Desk was a Florida corporation formed in 2011 with its principal place 

of business in Coral Springs, Florida. Diamond Desk purportedly specialized in acquiring and 

supplying natural fancy color diamonds and offered investors opportunities to invest through the 

company’s investment offerings. Diamond Desk received investor proceeds emanating from the 

Defendants’ securities fraud during the relevant period. Diamond Desk was administratively 

dissolved in September 2019.  

  

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 2 of 13



3  

III.   JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)]; and Sections 21(d), 21(e), 

and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].   

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and venue is proper in the 

Southern District of Florida, because Defendants engaged in acts and transactions in the Southern 

District of Florida constituting violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. During the 

time of the violations at issue in this case, Diamond Desk’s principal place of business was in 

Coral Springs, Florida, and Defendants solicited investors located in the Southern District of 

Florida.  

10. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly and 

indirectly, singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate 

commerce, and the mails. 

IV.   DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT CONDUCT 

A.  Defendants’ Fraudulent Securities Offerings 

11. During the Relevant Period, Lowe, on behalf of Diamond Desk, offered and sold 

securities in the form of investment contracts. Lowe primarily relied on referrals from a business 

associate and word-of-mouth to solicit investors. Lowe told investors and prospective investors 

that Diamond Desk was in the business of acquiring and selling diamonds, including natural fancy 

color diamonds, which he sold in China and to high-end retailers for a profit.    

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 3 of 13



4  

12. Lowe touted his years of experience in the diamond business, and claimed his 

experience and his relationships with Chinese customers enabled him to profitably resell the 

diamonds and thereby provide investors with returns.  

13. Defendants offered investors and prospective investors the opportunity to invest 

through Diamond Desk’s so-called “Short Term Capital Raise Opportunity,” “Parcel Purchase 

Program,” or “Rapid Return Program,” whereby investors would receive returns ranging from 6 

to 27%, with full return of investor principal at the end of the investment term, which ranged from 

3 to 12 months.  

14. Once an investor decided to invest, Lowe or his business associate sent the investor 

an agreement documenting the terms of the investment. The agreements were executed between 

the investors and Diamond Desk. Lowe, on behalf of Diamond Desk, signed the investment 

contracts with investors as the “CEO” of Diamond Desk. 

15. The Diamond Desk investment agreements generally ranged in duration from three 

to twelve months and provided fixed interest or dividend payments between 6 to 12%, along with 

the return of investors’ principal at the conclusion of the investment terms. Some investor 

agreements promised an additional 15% return based on sales of diamonds sold from the parcel 

acquired with the investor’s funds throughout the investment term. 

16. At Defendants’ direction, investors sent their respective investment funds to 

Diamond Desk by check, or via wire transfer to a Diamond Desk bank account controlled by Lowe.  

17. Defendants described the investment as a passive, short-term investment with 

investors’ returns generated solely from Defendants’ efforts. Investors relied solely on Defendants’ 

purported expertise in sourcing, purchasing, finishing, and selling the natural fancy color diamonds 

to generate the investment returns promised by Defendants.  

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 4 of 13



5  

18. During the Relevant Period, Defendants raised at least $2.2 million from at least 

nine investors located in at least five states. 

B.  Defendants’ Material Misrepresentations and Omissions to Investors 
 

19. Defendants made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions to investors 

and prospective investors in connection with Diamond Desk’s securities offerings about, among 

other things, the use of investor funds, the safety and profitability of Diamond Desk’s investment 

programs, and the source of purported investor returns. 

20. Defendants told investors that their investments would be used to fund Diamond 

Desk’s natural fancy colored diamond business, specifically, to purchase, cut, and resell diamonds 

to China and high-end retailers. For example, one investor’s agreement states that Diamond Desk 

will use investor funds to maintain suitable diamond inventory for sale to the Chinese market. 

Another investor’s agreement states that investor’s funds will go towards the purchase of finished 

jewelry from Diamond Desk’s existing inventory which, in turn, will then be used to fulfill 

purchase orders for an existing Chinese customer and a U.S.-based retailer.  

21. These representations were false. In truth, Lowe – who had sole control over 

Diamond Desk’s bank accounts – used only some of the money to fund diamond purchases. Lowe 

used investor funds for non-business expenditures and misappropriated, for his personal benefit, 

approximately $925,000 of the roughly $2.2 million in investor funds raised from investors. 

Defendants did not disclose, either orally or in its investment agreements, that investor funds 

would be used for any other purpose besides the diamond business. 

22. Defendants also made material misrepresentations to investors regarding the source 

of purported returns. For example: 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 5 of 13



6  

a. on or about June 14, 2018, Defendants told investor A.A., a New York 

resident, that he would receive 8% interest over a six-month period plus an anticipated average 

return of 15% on diamond sales, for a total anticipated return of 23%;  

b. on or about June 19, 2018, Defendants told a California investor with the 

initials D.A. that he would receive an annual 12% fixed return paid monthly, plus an estimated 

15% profit on diamonds sold, for an anticipated annual return of 27%;  

c. on or about September 4, 2018, Defendants told a Florida investor with the 

initials A.B. that she would receive 6% interest over a three-month period on diamonds sold; and 

d. on or about January 31, 2019, Defendants told investor J.G., who resides in 

Iowa, that he would receive an annual 8% fixed return paid quarterly, plus an estimated 15% profit 

on diamonds sold, for an anticipated annual return of 23%. 

23. These representations were false. Although Defendants purchased and sold some 

diamonds, Lowe misappropriated nearly half of investor funds raised for himself. As a result, Lowe 

could not reasonably expect to pay the promised returns to investors from the purported returns of 

Diamond Desk’s business. 

24. In fact, during the Relevant Period, Defendants paid back to investors only $80,000, 

consisting of partial return of approximately $65,000 in principal to two investors and 

approximately $15,000 in interest payments to various investors.  

C.  Defendant Lowe’s Misappropriation of Investor Funds 

25. During the Relevant Period, Lowe misappropriated at least $925,000 of investor 

funds to pay for non-business-related expenses and for his personal use.  

26. Lowe made $465,000 in cash withdrawals, using investor funds, from the Diamond 

Desk bank account.  

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 6 of 13



7  

27. Lowe also used investor funds to spend at least $263,000 at gambling casinos, 

including Dania Jai Alai (a casino in Dania Beach, Florida) and another $30,000 at Seminole Hard 

Rock (a hotel and casino in Hollywood, Florida). 

28. Lowe did not disclose to investors that he was using investor funds for non-business 

purposes, for gambling or other personal benefit. 

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

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

29. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

30. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, directly or 

indirectly, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, 

knowingly or recklessly, employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities. 

31. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] 

and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)]. 

COUNT II 

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

32. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

33. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, directly or 

indirectly, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, 

knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts 

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

not misleading in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 7 of 13



8  

34. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] 

and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)]. 

COUNT III 

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

35. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

36. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, directly or 

indirectly, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, 

knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, 

are now operating, and will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or 

sale of securities. 

37. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] 

and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)]. 

COUNT IV 
 

Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act 
 

38. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

39. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, in the offer or 

sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly 

employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud. 

40. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(1)]. 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 8 of 13



9  

COUNT V 

Violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act 
 

41. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

42. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, in the offer or 

sale of securities by any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate 

commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly, negligently obtained money or property by means 

of untrue statements of material facts and omissions 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. 

43. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(2)]. 

COUNT VI 

Violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 
 

44. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 

45. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Lowe and Diamond Desk, 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, directly or indirectly, negligently engaged in 

transactions, practices, or courses of business which have operated, are now operating or will 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers. 

46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(3)]. 

 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 9 of 13



10  

COUNT VII 

Liability Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a Control Person  
 

(Against Defendant Lowe) 
 

47. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.   

48. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Lowe was, directly or indirectly, a control 

person of Diamond Desk for purposes of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)].  

49. During the Relevant Period, Diamond Desk violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], directly or 

indirectly, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails,  

knowingly or recklessly: (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 light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or 

(c) engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, are now operating, or 

will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. 

50. As control person of Diamond Desk, Lowe is jointly and severally liable with and 

to the same extent as Diamond Desk for each of the violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange 

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

51. By reason of the foregoing, Lowe violated and, unless enjoined, is reasonably likely 

to continue to violate as a control person of Diamond Desk, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].  

 

 

 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 10 of 13



11  

VI.   RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find Defendants 

committed the violations alleged in this Complaint and: 

A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief 

Issue permanent injunctions, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating 

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

17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; and restraining and enjoining Defendant Lowe 

from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder as a control person 

under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

B.  Conduct Based Injunctive Relief 

Issue a permanent conduct-based injunction, enjoining Lowe from, directly or indirectly, 

including through any entity he owns or controls: (1) participating in the issuance, offer, purchase, 

or sale of any securities except for transactions involving Lowe’s own personal brokerage account; 

and (2) exercising any control over, any commercial enterprise or project that issues, purchases, 

or sells securities to any person other than Lowe. 

C.  Officer and Director Bar 

Issue an order pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and 

Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)], permanently barring Defendant 

Lowe from acting as an officer or director of any issuer whose securities are registered with the 

Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or which is required to file reports with 

the Commission pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. 

 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 11 of 13



12  

 

D.  Disgorgement 

Issue an order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the 

applicable statute of limitations, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts and/or 

courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint. 

E.  Penalty 

Issue an order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section 

20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78u(d)]. 

F.  Further Relief 

Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. 

G.  Retention of Jurisdiction 

Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this 

action to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that are entered, and to 

entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the 

jurisdiction of the Court.  

  

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 12 of 13



13  

VII.  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 The Commission hereby demands a jury trial in this case on all issues so triable. 
 

September 25, 2023    Respectfully submitted,  

 

    By: /s/Brian Lechich    
     Brian Lechich, Esq. 

Trial Counsel 
Florida Bar No. 84419 
Direct Dial: (305) 416-6257 
Email: [email protected] 
 

     Attorney for Plaintiff 
     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
     801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 
     Miami, Florida 33131 
     Telephone:  (305) 982-6300     
     Facsimile:   (305) 536-4154 
 

Case 0:23-cv-61837-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2023   Page 13 of 13


	UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
	SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
	CASE NO.
	SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
	I. INTRODUCTION
	II.   DEFENDANTS
	COUNT I
	COUNT VI
	COUNT VII
	VI.   RELIEF REQUESTED