fu the Matter of the Claims for an Award

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
Before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 96705 / January 19, 2023
WHISTLEBLOWER A WARD PROCEEDING 
File No. 2023-30 
fu the Matter of the Claims for an Award 
in connection with 
Rtda<ttd 
RNbdtd 
Notice of Covered Action 
ORDER DETERMINING WIDSTLEBLOWER A WARD CLAIMS 
The Claims Review Staff ("CRS") issued Prelimina1y Determinations recommending that 
Rtdorttd 
("Claimant 1 ") receive a whistleblower award equal to 
R•d .. ,td 
percent( .. %) of 
the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the above-referenced Covered Action (the 
RNbctNI 
0• 
"Covered Action"), that ("Claimant 2") receive a whistleblower award equal to 
percent(%) of the moneta1y sanctions collected or to be   collected in the above-referenced 
Rtda<t<d 
•0 
Covered Action, and that 
("Claimant 3") receive a whistleblower award equal to 
percent(%) of the moneta1y sanctions collected or to be collected in the above-referenced 
Covered Action. Based on anticipated distributions to harmed investors by the com1-appointed 
receiver in the Covered Action, we expect that the awards in this matter will total around $18 
million.  The CRS also preliminarily recommended that the award claim of 
RtdactNI 
("Claimant 4") should be denied. 
1 
Claimant 1 provided written notice of his/her decision not to 
contest the Preliminary Determinations and Claimants 2, 3, and 4 filed timely responses 
contesting the Prelimina1y Determinations. After reviewing the arguments of Claimants 2, 3, 
1 
The CRS also recommended the denial of the award application of one other claimant, who did  not contest the 
Preliminary Determinations. Accordingly, the Prelimiruuy Determinations with respect to that award claim became 
the Final Order of the Conunission through operation of Exchange Act Rule 2 lF-l0(f), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(f). 
1 

    
  
 
   
 
  
  
  
   
 
  
 
 
 
and 4 and the additional staff declaration, which we credit, the CRS confirmed its original 
recommendations.  For the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s recommendations are adopted 
with respect to Claimant 1, Claimant 2, Claimant 3, and Claimant 4. 
I. Background 
A. The Covered Action 
On the Commission filed
  According to the complaint, 
  The complaint also alleged that 
  The complaint alleged that 
  The SEC alleged
 the Commission obtained a final judgment as 
the Commission 
obtained a separate final judgment as to 
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
RedactedRedacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
According to the court’s order, the entity defendants’ obligation to pay disgorgement and 
prejudgment interest would be satisfied by the amounts collected by the court-appointed receiver 
to be set forth in the receiver’s final report and accounting to the court.  To date, the receiver has 
recovered 
On the Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) posted the above-
Redacted
Redacted
referenced Notice of Covered Action on the Commission’s website, inviting claimants to submit 
2 

 
 
   
  
 
  
   
     
   
 
 
 
   
    
  
    
  
    
    
 
    
   
    
  
   
 
    
whistleblower award applications within 90 days.
2
  Claimants 1, 2, 3, and 4 filed timely 
whistleblower claims. 
B. The Preliminary Determinations 
On
Redacted
 the CRS issued Preliminary Determinations
3 
recommending that 
the Commission find that Claimants 1, 2 and 3 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the referenced Covered Action pursuant to 
Section 21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 21F-3(a) promulgated thereunder and that: (1) 
***
**
**
Claimant 1 receive an award of % of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the 
Covered Action; (2) Claimant 2 receive an award of % of the monetary sanctions collected or to 
be collected in the Covered Action; and (3) Claimant 3 receive an award of   % of the monetary 
sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action.  The CRS further preliminarily 
determined to recommend that the award claim of Claimant 4 be denied because Claimant 4 did 
not provide original information that “led to” the success of the Covered Action as required 
under Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c). The CRS also preliminarily determined that Claimant 4 is 
not eligible for the automatic waiver under Exchange Act Rule 21F-9(e) in connection with 
Claimant 4’s failure to submit information in the form and manner required under Exchange Act 
Rules 21F-9(a) and (b). 
C. Claimants 2, 3, and 4’s Responses to the Preliminary Determinations 
Claimant 2 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.
4
 Specifically, Claimant 2 contends that he/she submitted a TCR earlier than the 
date stated in the initial staff declaration, and therefore, his/her submission was prior to the 
staff’s opening of the investigation and obtaining of the formal order of investigation.  Based on 
the claim of an earlier date of submission, Claimant 2 argues that his/her information played a 
role in the investigation opening and as a result, he/she should receive a higher award 
percentage.
5
 Claimant 2 also argues that the CRS failed to explain how his/her information was 
“duplicative” of information provided by Claimant 1. 
Claimant 3 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.
6
 Specifically, Claimant 3 argues that Claimant 3 should receive a higher award 
because he/she provided new information that was central to the Covered Action and that 
without his/her information, the Commission would have been unable to prove its  claims.  
2 
See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(a), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(a). 
3 
See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(d), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(d). 
4 
See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 
5 
Claimant 2 also argues in his/her response that he/she should not receive a lower award percentage due to any 
reporting delay.  However, the CRS did not recommend any decrease in Claimant 2’s award due to unreasonable 
reporting delay. 
6 
See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 
3 

 
  
   
   
      
 
   
 
 
 
     
 
  
 
  
  
    
 
  
 
  
  
      
   
     
 
 
 
   
                                                      
    
   
   
  
  
Claimant 3 also argues that the vast scope of information he/she provided was critical to the 
staff’s investigation.  Therefore, Claimant 3 argues that a higher award percentage is appropriate. 
Claimant 4 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.
7 
Claimant 4 argues that his/her information concerning activities 
regarding the were the focus of his/her tip and 
likely not duplicative of information provided by other witnesses.  More specifically, Claimant 4 
contends that his/her information was not duplicative of information already known to the SEC 
because 
Claimant 4 also contends that he/she provided information to the staff about 
Claimant 4 further contends that he/she referred the staff to an individual who had contacts with 
 and that the staff interviewed this individual in 
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
***
Additionally, after Claimant 4 submitted his/her information, Enforcement staff communicated 
that Claimant 4’s assistance had been helpful.  Based on these facts, Claimant 4 argues that 
his/her information contributed to the Covered Action and he/she should receive an award.  
II.Analysis
A.Claimant  1
The record demonstrates that Claimant 1, a 
Redacted
 insider, voluntarily provided original 
information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  
Accordingly, Claimant 1 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as 
specified in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, 
Redacted
percent ( 
***
we find that an award of %) is appropriate.
8 
Claimant 1’s information 
alerted Commission staff to the fraudulent scheme alleged in the Covered Action, and was the 
main basis for opening the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action.  Claimant 1 
provided Enforcement staff with detailed and highly significant information that advanced the 
staff’s investigation, saved considerable Commission time and resources, and had a significant 
impact on the overall success of the enforcement action.  Claimant 1 also provided ongoing 
7 
See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 
8 
In assessing the appropriate award amount, Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 provides that the Commission consider: (1) 
the significance of information provided to the Commission; (2) the assistance provided in the Commission action; 
(3
) la
w enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (4) participation in internal complianc
e
s
ystems; (5) culpability; (6) unreasonable reporting delay; and (7) interference with internal compliance an
d
r
eporting systems.  17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-
6.
4 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
    
  
   
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
 
    
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
   
 
assistance by, among other things, participating in voluntary interviews and providing supporting 
documents to the staff. 
B. Claimant 2 
The record demonstrates that Claimant 2 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  Accordingly, 
Claimant 2 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as specified in Rule 
21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, we find that an 
***
percent ( 
**
award of %) is appropriate.  While much of Claimant 2’s information was 
duplicative of information first provided by Claimant 1, Claimant 2’s information included new 
information relating to certain charges filed in the Covered Action.  Claimant 2’s assistance 
consisted of a voluntary interview and providing documents to the staff.  Overall, Claimant 2’s 
contribution was significantly less than the contribution of Claimant 1, whose information was 
the main cause of the staff opening its investigation and was provided earlier in time.   
Contrary to Claimant 2’s response, his/her information did not contribute to the staff’s 
opening of the investigation.  Based on the date Claimant 2’s counsel signed the whistleblower 
declaration, Claimant 2 argues that his/her tip was submitted prior to the date the staff opened the 
investigation.  However, the record, including a supplemental declaration provided by staff 
assigned to the Covered Action investigation, which we credit, demonstrates that Claimant 2’s 
counsel mailed the Form TCR to the SEC and the tip was not uploaded to the Commission’s 
TCR system and distributed to staff handling the Covered Action investigation until after the 
investigation was opened.   Thus, Claimant 2’s information did not contribute to the opening of 
the investigation and Claimant 2’s overall contribution to the Covered Action was not as 
significant as that of Claimant 1.  While Claimant 2 also argues that the CRS failed to explain 
how his/her information was “duplicative” of information provided by Claimant 1, the 
Commission credits the original staff declaration, which contains sufficient evidence that some 
of Claimant 2’s information was duplicative of information received from Claimant 1.  As a 
result, Claimant 2 has not demonstrated that a greater award percentage is warranted. 
C. Claimant 3 
The record demonstrates that Claimant 3 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  Accordingly, 
Claimant 3 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as specified in Rule 
21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, we find that an 
***
percent ( %) is appropriate.  
**
award of While much of Claimant 3’s information was 
duplicative of information previously provided by Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, Claimant 3 
provided limited new information that assisted the staff with respect to certain false statements 
alleged in the Covered Action.  Any additional assistance by Claimant 3 was limited to providing 
documents and participating in an interview after the Covered Action was filed.  Overall, 
5 

 
 
   
  
  
   
   
 
    
    
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
   
   
    
   
 
   
  
     
 
 
 
                                                      
      
    
    
      
    
       
     
    
 
Claimant 3’s contributions were significantly less than the contribution of Claimant 1, whose 
information was the main cause of the staff opening its investigation and was provided earlier in 
time. Furthermore, Claimant 3’s contribution was also significantly less than the contribution of 
Claimant 2, whose information was also provided earlier in time.  Additionally, Claimant 3’s 
information was provided after significant progress had already been made by staff in the 
investigation. 
Contrary to Claimant 3’s assertions in his/her response, the record does not support that 
his/her information was “central” to the success of the Covered Action.  Although Claimant 3’s 
information supported certain allegations of false statements made by the defendants, the 
complaint contained numerous other allegations regarding false statements made by defendants 
derived from other sources, as well as allegations concerning the defendants’ misappropriation of 
investor funds.  Furthermore, although Claimant 3 argues that he/she provided voluminous 
supplemental submissions to the staff, the record demonstrates that the staff had already made 
significant progress in the investigation by the time Claimant 3 submitted this information, much 
of which was already known to the staff from other sources.  Claimant 3, therefore, has not 
demonstrated that his/her information warrants a greater award percentage. 
D. Claimant 4 
To qualify for an award under Section 21F of the Exchange Act, a whistleblower must 
voluntarily provide the Commission with original information that leads to the successful 
enforcement of a covered action.
9 
As relevant here, information will be deemed to have led to a 
successful enforcement action if it “caused the Commission to (i) commence an examination, (ii) 
open or reopen an investigation, or (iii) inquire into different conduct as part of a current 
Commission examination or investigation,”  and the Commission thereafter brought a successful 
action based in whole or in part on conduct that was the subject of the claimant’s original 
information,
10
 or was “about conduct that was already under examination or investigation by the 
Commission” and the “submission significantly contributed to the success of the action.”
11 
In 
determining whether information “significantly contributed” to the success of the action, the 
Commission will consider whether the information was “meaningful” in that it “made a 
substantial and important contribution” to the success of the Covered Action.
12 
9 
See Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. §78u-6(b)(1). 
10 
Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(1), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(c)(1). 
11 
Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(2), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(c)(2). 
12 
See Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-85412, March 26, 2019; Order 
Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-82897, March 19, 2018; see also Securities 
Whistleblower Incentives & Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34325 (June 13, 2011) (in determining whether 
information significantly contributed to an enforcement action, the Commission will consider whether the 
information allowed the agency to bring the action in significantly less time or with significantly fewer resources, 
additional successful claims, or successful claims against additional individuals or entities). 
6 

 
 
 
   
    
    
 
    
 
      
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
   
 
   
     
  
  
  
    
  
 
 
  
       
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
The record reflects that Enforcement staff opened the investigation mainly based on 
information submitted by Claimant 1.  Additionally, most of the information provided by 
Claimant 4, which was provided after the opening of the investigation and after information was 
submitted by other claimants, was already known to Enforcement staff, and any additional 
information provided by Claimant 4 did not significantly contribute to the Covered Action.  
Redacted
  Contrary to Claimant 4’s assertions, the supplemental declaration from the Enforcement 
Redacted
staff, which we credit, confirms that Claimant 4’s information relating to 
 did not cause staff to expand the investigation or allow them to recommend charges 
against additional defendants or additional charges against the defendants; nor did the 
information save the staff significant time or resources.  First, the record demonstrates that 
information relating to 
Redacted
.  Therefore, we conclude that Claimant 4’s additional information on conduct 
was already known to the staff at the time Claimant 4 submitted his/her tip and Claimant 4’s 
information at most corroborated information known to the staff from other sources months 
Redacted
before Claimant 4’s submission.  
Redacted
To the extent Claimant 4 provided additional information 
Redacted
Redacted
related to the Covered Action did not include any claims related to 
cannot satisfy Exchange Act Rules 21F-4(c)(1) or 21F-4(c)(2). Second, with respect to the 
individual purportedly identified by Claimant 4 who  this 
Redacted
individual provided the staff with information that was duplicative of information the staff had 
Redacted
misrepresentations were also supported by evidence previously gathered in the investigation 
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
from other sources. The inclusion of did not have a 
significant impact on the Commission’s ability to , as there were  other 
with the same or similar misrepresentations that staff obtained from sources other than 
learned from other sources. Third, , the staff referenced
 that supported the Commission’s 
claims that defendants made material misrepresentations.  While referenced 
that was specifically mentioned by Claimant 4 in his/her tip, as well as 
that Claimant 4 had identified
 the Commission’s allegations concerning these 
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
Claimant 4, as well as first-hand accounts from harmed investors, that were used in support of
Redacted
  Furthermore, the identification of which is public information, would 
not constitute “original information”.
13
  Fourth, although Enforcement staff communicated by 
email that Claimant 4’s assistance had been “helpful,” the staff also explained in the email that 
they had already received a substantial amount of information by the time Claimant 4 submitted 
his/her tip.  According to the staff’s supplemental declaration, the staff’s email was not intended 
13 
In order for information derived from publicly available sources to qualify as original information, it must be 
derived from the whistleblower’s “independent analysis.”  See Rule 21F-4(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(b).  
“Independent analysis” means an “examination and evaluation of information that may be publicly available, but 
which reveals information that is not already known or available to the public.”  Rule 21F-4(b)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 
240.21F-4(b)(3). 
7 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
   
   
   
   
 
  
  
   
    
 
  
    
 
  
 
    
 
    
   
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
   
     
   
    
      
  
to convey any legal conclusion regarding Claimant 4’s eligibility for an award; rather, the staff’s 
email was an effort to communicate that Claimant 4’s information was helpful in that it 
corroborated other information they had previously received from other sources. Thus, Claimant 
4 did not provide original information that led to the successful enforcement action and his/her 
award claim should be denied. 
Claimant 4 also did not submit information in the form and manner required under 
Exchange Act Rules 21F-9(a) and (b), which require the submission of information on Form 
TCR or online through the Commission’s website, and that a whistleblower sign the required 
whistleblower declaration.  Claimant 4 originally submitted information in an email and did not 
submit a Form TCR with the required whistleblower declaration until approximately two years 
later.  Based on the record, Claimant 4 is not eligible for the automatic waiver under Exchange 
Act Rule 21F-9(e), which waives the TCR filing requirement for otherwise meritorious 
whistleblowers who submit their information within 30 days of obtaining actual or constructive 
notice of the TCR filing requirement, because the record demonstrates that Claimant 4 did not 
provide information that led to the success of the Covered Action.  Claimant 4 did not address 
his/her failure to satisfy Exchange Act Rules 21F-9(a) and (b) in his/her request for 
reconsideration. Since Claimant 4 failed to contest this ground for denial during the 
reconsideration stage, we note that Claimant 4 has forfeited the opportunity to contest this 
ground by failing to timely present arguments to the Commission. 
14 
III. Conclusion 
percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action, 
that Claimant 2 receive an award equal to percent (  %) of the monetary sanctions collected or 
***
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant 1 receive an award equal to 
Redacted
***
*****
to be collected in the Covered Action, and that Claimant 3 receive an award equal to 
***
( 
**
percent 
%) of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action.
15 
14 
Cf. Rule 21F-10(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(f) (“Your failure to submit a timely response contesting a Preliminary 
Determination will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and you will be prohibited from pursuing 
an appeal pursuant to § 240.21F-13 of this chapter.”). 
15 
Amounts distributed by the court-appointed receiver to harmed investors as relief for the securities law violations 
shall be included as collected monetary sanctions upon which the awards may be based. See 2020 Whistleblower 
Rules Adopting Release, 85 Fed. Reg. 70898, 70905 n.63 (Nov. 5, 2020). 
8 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
        
        
  
 
It is further ORDERED that Claimant 4’s whistleblower award application in the 
Covered Action be, and hereby is, denied. 
By the Commission. 
Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 
9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 96705 / January 19, 2023

WHISTLEBLOWER A WARD PROCEEDING 
File No. 2023-30 

fu the Matter of the Claims for an Award 

in connection with 

Rtda<ttd 

RNbdtd 

Notice of Covered Action 

ORDER DETERMINING WIDSTLEBLOWER A WARD CLAIMS 

The Claims Review Staff ("CRS") issued Prelimina1y Determinations recommending that 
Rtdorttd ("Claimant 1 ") receive a whistleblower award equal to R•d .. ,td percent( .. %) of 

the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the above-referenced Covered Action (the 
RNbctNI 0• 

"Covered Action"), that ("Claimant 2") receive a whistleblower award equal to 
percent(%) of the moneta1y sanctions collected or to be collected in the above-referenced 

Rtda<t<d •0 

Covered Action, and that ("Claimant 3") receive a whistleblower award equal to 
percent(%) of the moneta1y sanctions collected or to be collected in the above-referenced 
Covered Action. Based on anticipated distributions to harmed investors by the com1-appointed 
receiver in the Covered Action, we expect that the awards in this matter will total around $18 
million. The CRS also preliminarily recommended that the award claim of RtdactNI 

("Claimant 4") should be denied. 1 Claimant 1 provided written notice of his/her decision not to 
contest the Preliminary Determinations and Claimants 2, 3, and 4 filed timely responses 
contesting the Prelimina1y Determinations. After reviewing the arguments of Claimants 2, 3, 

1 The CRS also recommended the denial of the award appli cation of one other claimant, who did not contest the 
Preliminary Determinations. Accordingly, the Prelimiruuy Determinations with respect to that award claim became 
the Final Order of the Conunission through operation of Exchange Act Rule 2 lF-l0(f), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(f). 

1 



    
  

 

   

 

  

  
  

   
 

  
 

 
 

and 4 and the additional staff declaration, which we credit, the CRS confirmed its original 
recommendations.  For the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s recommendations are adopted 
with respect to Claimant 1, Claimant 2, Claimant 3, and Claimant 4. 

I. Background 

A. The Covered Action 

On the Commission filed

  According to the complaint, 

  The complaint also alleged that 

  The complaint alleged that 

  The SEC alleged

 the Commission obtained a final judgment as 

the Commission 
obtained a separate final judgment as to 

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

RedactedRedacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

According to the court’s order, the entity defendants’ obligation to pay disgorgement and 
prejudgment interest would be satisfied by the amounts collected by the court-appointed receiver 
to be set forth in the receiver’s final report and accounting to the court.  To date, the receiver has 
recovered 

On the Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) posted the above-

Redacted

Redacted

referenced Notice of Covered Action on the Commission’s website, inviting claimants to submit 

2 



 
 

   
  

 
  

   
  

   

 

 

 

   
    
  

    

  

    
    

 

    
   
    
  

   
 

    

whistleblower award applications within 90 days.2  Claimants 1, 2, 3, and 4 filed timely 
whistleblower claims. 

B. The Preliminary Determinations 

On Redacted  the CRS issued Preliminary Determinations3 recommending that 
the Commission find that Claimants 1, 2 and 3 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the referenced Covered Action pursuant to 
Section 21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 21F-3(a) promulgated thereunder and that: (1) 

***

**

**

Claimant 1 receive an award of % of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the 
Covered Action; (2) Claimant 2 receive an award of % of the monetary sanctions collected or to 
be collected in the Covered Action; and (3) Claimant 3 receive an award of % of the monetary 
sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action.  The CRS further preliminarily 
determined to recommend that the award claim of Claimant 4 be denied because Claimant 4 did 
not provide original information that “led to” the success of the Covered Action as required 
under Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c). The CRS also preliminarily determined that Claimant 4 is 
not eligible for the automatic waiver under Exchange Act Rule 21F-9(e) in connection with 
Claimant 4’s failure to submit information in the form and manner required under Exchange Act 
Rules 21F-9(a) and (b). 

C. Claimants 2, 3, and 4’s Responses to the Preliminary Determinations 

Claimant 2 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.4  Specifically, Claimant 2 contends that he/she submitted a TCR earlier than the 
date stated in the initial staff declaration, and therefore, his/her submission was prior to the 
staff’s opening of the investigation and obtaining of the formal order of investigation.  Based on 
the claim of an earlier date of submission, Claimant 2 argues that his/her information played a 
role in the investigation opening and as a result, he/she should receive a higher award 
percentage.5  Claimant 2 also argues that the CRS failed to explain how his/her information was 
“duplicative” of information provided by Claimant 1. 

Claimant 3 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.6  Specifically, Claimant 3 argues that Claimant 3 should receive a higher award 
because he/she provided new information that was central to the Covered Action and that 
without his/her information, the Commission would have been unable to prove its claims.  

2 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(a), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(a). 
3 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(d), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(d). 
4 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 
5 Claimant 2 also argues in his/her response that he/she should not receive a lower award percentage due to any 
reporting delay.  However, the CRS did not recommend any decrease in Claimant 2’s award due to unreasonable 
reporting delay. 
6 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 

3 



 

  
   

   
      

 
   

 
 

 

     
 

  
 

  
  

    
 

  
 

  

  

   
   

     
 

 
 

   

                                                      
    
   

   
  

  

Claimant 3 also argues that the vast scope of information he/she provided was critical to the 
staff’s investigation.  Therefore, Claimant 3 argues that a higher award percentage is appropriate. 

Claimant 4 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 
Determinations.7 Claimant 4 argues that his/her information concerning activities 
regarding the  were the focus of his/her tip and 
likely not duplicative of information provided by other witnesses.  More specifically, Claimant 4 
contends that his/her information was not duplicative of information already known to the SEC 
because 

Claimant 4 also contends that he/she provided information to the staff about 

Claimant 4 further contends that he/she referred the staff to an individual who had contacts with 
 and that the staff interviewed this individual in 

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

***

Additionally, after Claimant 4 submitted his/her information, Enforcement staff communicated 
that Claimant 4’s assistance had been helpful.  Based on these facts, Claimant 4 argues that 
his/her information contributed to the Covered Action and he/she should receive an award.  

II. Analysis

A. Claimant  1

The record demonstrates that Claimant 1, a Redacted  insider, voluntarily provided original 
information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  
Accordingly, Claimant 1 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as 
specified in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, 

Redacted percent ( ***we find that an award of %) is appropriate.8 Claimant 1’s information 
alerted Commission staff to the fraudulent scheme alleged in the Covered Action, and was the 
main basis for opening the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action.  Claimant 1 
provided Enforcement staff with detailed and highly significant information that advanced the 
staff’s investigation, saved considerable Commission time and resources, and had a significant 
impact on the overall success of the enforcement action.  Claimant 1 also provided ongoing 

7 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-10(e). 
8 In assessing the appropriate award amount, Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 provides that the Commission consider: (1) 
the significance of information provided to the Commission; (2) the assistance provided in the Commission action; 
(3) law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (4) participation in internal compliance
systems; (5) culpability; (6) unreasonable reporting delay; and (7) interference with internal compliance and
reporting systems.  17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-6.

4 



 

 
 

 
  

  

  
 

    
  

   
 

  

  
 

  
  

 
  

   
 

 
    

 
  

 
  

 
  

 
 

 
 

   
 

  
   

 

assistance by, among other things, participating in voluntary interviews and providing supporting 
documents to the staff. 

B. Claimant 2 

The record demonstrates that Claimant 2 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  Accordingly, 
Claimant 2 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as specified in Rule 
21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, we find that an 

*** percent ( **award of %) is appropriate.  While much of Claimant 2’s information was 
duplicative of information first provided by Claimant 1, Claimant 2’s information included new 
information relating to certain charges filed in the Covered Action.  Claimant 2’s assistance 
consisted of a voluntary interview and providing documents to the staff.  Overall, Claimant 2’s 
contribution was significantly less than the contribution of Claimant 1, whose information was 
the main cause of the staff opening its investigation and was provided earlier in time.   

Contrary to Claimant 2’s response, his/her information did not contribute to the staff’s 
opening of the investigation.  Based on the date Claimant 2’s counsel signed the whistleblower 
declaration, Claimant 2 argues that his/her tip was submitted prior to the date the staff opened the 
investigation.  However, the record, including a supplemental declaration provided by staff 
assigned to the Covered Action investigation, which we credit, demonstrates that Claimant 2’s 
counsel mailed the Form TCR to the SEC and the tip was not uploaded to the Commission’s 
TCR system and distributed to staff handling the Covered Action investigation until after the 
investigation was opened.  Thus, Claimant 2’s information did not contribute to the opening of 
the investigation and Claimant 2’s overall contribution to the Covered Action was not as 
significant as that of Claimant 1. While Claimant 2 also argues that the CRS failed to explain 
how his/her information was “duplicative” of information provided by Claimant 1, the 
Commission credits the original staff declaration, which contains sufficient evidence that some 
of Claimant 2’s information was duplicative of information received from Claimant 1.  As a 
result, Claimant 2 has not demonstrated that a greater award percentage is warranted. 

C. Claimant 3 

The record demonstrates that Claimant 3 voluntarily provided original information to the 
Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.  Accordingly, 
Claimant 3 qualifies for a whistleblower award.  Applying the award criteria as specified in Rule 
21F-6 of the Exchange Act based on the specific facts and circumstances here, we find that an 

*** percent ( %) is appropriate.  **award of While much of Claimant 3’s information was 
duplicative of information previously provided by Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, Claimant 3 
provided limited new information that assisted the staff with respect to certain false statements 
alleged in the Covered Action.  Any additional assistance by Claimant 3 was limited to providing 
documents and participating in an interview after the Covered Action was filed.  Overall, 

5 



 

 

   
  

  
   

   
 

    
    

  
 

 
 

  
 

 
  

   

   
    

   
 

   
  

     
 

 
 

                                                      
      
    
    
      

    
    

     
    

 

Claimant 3’s contributions were significantly less than the contribution of Claimant 1, whose 
information was the main cause of the staff opening its investigation and was provided earlier in 
time. Furthermore, Claimant 3’s contribution was also significantly less than the contribution of 
Claimant 2, whose information was also provided earlier in time.  Additionally, Claimant 3’s 
information was provided after significant progress had already been made by staff in the 
investigation. 

Contrary to Claimant 3’s assertions in his/her response, the record does not support that 
his/her information was “central” to the success of the Covered Action.  Although Claimant 3’s 
information supported certain allegations of false statements made by the defendants, the 
complaint contained numerous other allegations regarding false statements made by defendants 
derived from other sources, as well as allegations concerning the defendants’ misappropriation of 
investor funds.  Furthermore, although Claimant 3 argues that he/she provided voluminous 
supplemental submissions to the staff, the record demonstrates that the staff had already made 
significant progress in the investigation by the time Claimant 3 submitted this information, much 
of which was already known to the staff from other sources.  Claimant 3, therefore, has not 
demonstrated that his/her information warrants a greater award percentage. 

D. Claimant 4 

To qualify for an award under Section 21F of the Exchange Act, a whistleblower must 
voluntarily provide the Commission with original information that leads to the successful 
enforcement of a covered action.9 As relevant here, information will be deemed to have led to a 
successful enforcement action if it “caused the Commission to (i) commence an examination, (ii) 
open or reopen an investigation, or (iii) inquire into different conduct as part of a current 
Commission examination or investigation,” and the Commission thereafter brought a successful 
action based in whole or in part on conduct that was the subject of the claimant’s original 
information,10 or was “about conduct that was already under examination or investigation by the 
Commission” and the “submission significantly contributed to the success of the action.”11 In 
determining whether information “significantly contributed” to the success of the action, the 
Commission will consider whether the information was “meaningful” in that it “made a 
substantial and important contribution” to the success of the Covered Action.12 

9 See Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. §78u-6(b)(1). 
10 Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(1), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(c)(1). 
11 Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(2), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(c)(2). 
12 See Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-85412, March 26, 2019; Order 
Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-82897, March 19, 2018; see also Securities 
Whistleblower Incentives & Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34325 (June 13, 2011) (in determining whether 
information significantly contributed to an enforcement action, the Commission will consider whether the 
information allowed the agency to bring the action in significantly less time or with significantly fewer resources, 
additional successful claims, or successful claims against additional individuals or entities). 

6 



 
 

 
   

    

    
 

    
 

      
 

 
 

  
   

  
 

   
 

   
     

  

  
  

    
  

 
 

  
       

  
  

  
  

 
  

 

The record reflects that Enforcement staff opened the investigation mainly based on 
information submitted by Claimant 1.  Additionally, most of the information provided by 
Claimant 4, which was provided after the opening of the investigation and after information was 
submitted by other claimants, was already known to Enforcement staff, and any additional 
information provided by Claimant 4 did not significantly contribute to the Covered Action.  

Redacted

  Contrary to Claimant 4’s assertions, the supplemental declaration from the Enforcement 
Redactedstaff, which we credit, confirms that Claimant 4’s information relating to 

 did not cause staff to expand the investigation or allow them to recommend charges 
against additional defendants or additional charges against the defendants; nor did the 
information save the staff significant time or resources. First, the record demonstrates that 
information relating to Redacted

. Therefore, we conclude that Claimant 4’s additional information on conduct 

was already known to the staff at the time Claimant 4 submitted his/her tip and Claimant 4’s 
information at most corroborated information known to the staff from other sources months 

Redacted

before Claimant 4’s submission.  
Redacted

To the extent Claimant 4 provided additional information 
Redacted

Redacted
related to  the Covered Action did not include any claims related to 

cannot satisfy Exchange Act Rules 21F-4(c)(1) or 21F-4(c)(2). Second, with respect to the 
individual purportedly identified by Claimant 4 who  this Redacted

individual provided the staff with information that was duplicative of information the staff had 

Redacted

misrepresentations were also supported by evidence previously gathered in the investigation 
Redacted

Redacted Redacted
from other sources. The inclusion of  did not have a 
significant impact on the Commission’s ability to , as there were  other 

with the same or similar misrepresentations that staff obtained from sources other than 

learned from other sources. Third, , the staff referenced
 that supported the Commission’s 

claims that defendants made material misrepresentations.  While referenced 
that was specifically mentioned by Claimant 4 in his/her tip, as well as 

that Claimant 4 had identified
 the Commission’s allegations concerning these 

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

RedactedRedacted

Redacted

Redacted
Claimant 4, as well as first-hand accounts from harmed investors, that were used in support of

Redacted  Furthermore, the identification of  which is public information, would 
not constitute “original information”.13  Fourth, although Enforcement staff communicated by 
email that Claimant 4’s assistance had been “helpful,” the staff also explained in the email that 
they had already received a substantial amount of information by the time Claimant 4 submitted 
his/her tip.  According to the staff’s supplemental declaration, the staff’s email was not intended 

13 In order for information derived from publicly available sources to qualify as original information, it must be 
derived from the whistleblower’s “independent analysis.”  See Rule 21F-4(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(b).  
“Independent analysis” means an “examination and evaluation of information that may be publicly available, but 
which reveals information that is not already known or available to the public.”  Rule 21F-4(b)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 
240.21F-4(b)(3). 

7 



 

 
 

  
  

  

  
   

   
   

   
 

  
  

   
    

 
  

    
 

  
 

    
 

    
   

    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                      
   

     
   

    
      

  

to convey any legal conclusion regarding Claimant 4’s eligibility for an award; rather, the staff’s 
email was an effort to communicate that Claimant 4’s information was helpful in that it 
corroborated other information they had previously received from other sources. Thus, Claimant 
4 did not provide original information that led to the successful enforcement action and his/her 
award claim should be denied. 

Claimant 4 also did not submit information in the form and manner required under 
Exchange Act Rules 21F-9(a) and (b), which require the submission of information on Form 
TCR or online through the Commission’s website, and that a whistleblower sign the required 
whistleblower declaration.  Claimant 4 originally submitted information in an email and did not 
submit a Form TCR with the required whistleblower declaration until approximately two years 
later.  Based on the record, Claimant 4 is not eligible for the automatic waiver under Exchange 
Act Rule 21F-9(e), which waives the TCR filing requirement for otherwise meritorious 
whistleblowers who submit their information within 30 days of obtaining actual or constructive 
notice of the TCR filing requirement, because the record demonstrates that Claimant 4 did not 
provide information that led to the success of the Covered Action.  Claimant 4 did not address 
his/her failure to satisfy Exchange Act Rules 21F-9(a) and (b) in his/her request for 
reconsideration. Since Claimant 4 failed to contest this ground for denial during the 
reconsideration stage, we note that Claimant 4 has forfeited the opportunity to contest this 
ground by failing to timely present arguments to the Commission. 14 

III. Conclusion 

percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action, 
that Claimant 2 receive an award equal to percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected or 

***
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant 1 receive an award equal to Redacted

***

*** **

to be collected in the Covered Action, and that Claimant 3 receive an award equal to ***

( **
percent 

%) of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action.15 

14 Cf. Rule 21F-10(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(f) (“Your failure to submit a timely response contesting a Preliminary 
Determination will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and you will be prohibited from pursuing 
an appeal pursuant to § 240.21F-13 of this chapter.”). 
15 Amounts distributed by the court-appointed receiver to harmed investors as relief for the securities law violations 
shall be included as collected monetary sanctions upon which the awards may be based. See 2020 Whistleblower 
Rules Adopting Release, 85 Fed. Reg. 70898, 70905 n.63 (Nov. 5, 2020). 

8 



 

  
  

 
 

 
 
 

        
        

  
 

It is further ORDERED that Claimant 4’s whistleblower award application in the 
Covered Action be, and hereby is, denied. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 

9