SEC v. Sky Group USA, LLC; and Efrain Betancourt Jr., No. 1:21-cv-23443, Southern District of Florida (Sept. 29, 2021) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )
        )
 Plaintiff,      )
v.        )
        )
SKY            GROUP            USA,            LLC                                                            )
EFRAIN BETANCOURT, JR.               )
        )
            Defendants,            and                                                            )
        )
ANGELICA            BETANCOURT                                                )
EEB CAPITAL GROUP, LLC                                     )
        )
            Relief            Defendants.                                                            )
_________________________________________   )
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:
I.  INTRODUCTION
1. The  Commission  brings  this  action  as  the  result  of  a  three-year-long  securities
offering  fraud  conducted  by  Defendants  Sky  Group  USA,  LLC  and  Efrain  Betancourt  Jr.  that
victimized hundreds of investors enticed by the Defendants’ baseless promises of a high-return,
low-risk investment.  From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group
USA  (“Sky  Group”  or  “the  Company”),  a  private  South  Florida  firm,  fraudulently  raised  more
than  $66  million  from  at  least  505  investors,  many  of  them  members  of  the  South  Florida
Venezuelan-American community, through the offer and sale of promissory notes (“Notes”).  The
Notes generally ranged in amount from $10,000 to $150,000 and paid interest running from 24
percent to as high as 120 percent.
2. Sky Group and Betancourt falsely represented to investors – many of whom heard

2 

about the investment through word of mouth in the Venezuelan-American community – that Sky
Group would use their money solely to make small-dollar, short-term loans to consumer borrowers
with poor or no credit (so-called payday loans) and for costs associated with the loans.  Betancourt
also  falsely  represented  to  investors  that  Sky  Group’s  business  was  profitable  and  that  the
promissory notes (“Notes”) were safe and secured or guaranteed.
3. In reality, the proceeds Sky Group generated from its consumer loan business were
woefully  insufficient  to  cover  principal  and  interest  payments  to  investors.    Sky  Group  and
Betancourt  used  at  least  $19.2  million  of  investor  funds  to  make  Ponzi-like  payments  to  other
investors.  In addition, Betancourt misappropriated at least $2.9 million for personal use, including
a  luxury  chateau  wedding  in  France  and  vacations  to  Disney  World  and  the  Caribbean,  and
authorized the transfer of at least $3.6 million to friends and relatives for no apparent legitimate
business purpose.
4. The scheme unraveled in July 2019, when Betancourt told investors that Sky Group
was  suspending  investor  repayments  on  the  Notes.    Even  then,  Betancourt  and  Sky  Group
continued  to  lie,  falsely  blaming  the  suspension  of  repayments  on  a  vendor  responsible  for
processing the Company’s investor repayments.
5. Through their conduct, Sky Group and Betancourt violated Sections 5(a) and (c)
and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and
77q(a),  and  Section  10(b)  and  Rule  10b-5  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (“Exchange
Act”), 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5.  In addition, Betancourt violated Exchange
Act Section 15(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. §78o(a)(1).  The Commission seeks injunctive relief as well as
disgorgement and civil penalties from both Defendants.

3 

II.  DEFENDANTS AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS
A.  Defendants
6. Sky Group is a Florida limited liability company headquartered in Miami, Florida,
formed in March 2015.  Sky Group is licensed with the State of Florida as a sales finance company
and, for at least part of the period when it offered and sold securities, was licensed with the State
of Utah as a deferred deposit lender.  Sky Group has never been registered with the Commission
in any capacity.  
7. Betancourt, 32, is a resident of Miami, Florida.  Betancourt is the Chief Executive
Officer, managing member and sole owner of Sky Group.  As Chief Executive Officer, Betancourt
managed all aspects of Sky Group’s operations.  In addition he met with and solicited numerous
potential Sky Group investors.  Betancourt has never been registered with the Commission in any
capacity or associated with a registered entity.
B.  Relief Defendants
8. Angelica  Betancourt,  33,  was  married  to  Betancourt  from  January  2014  until
September 2018.  Angelica Betancourt is a resident of Miami, Florida and was employed by Sky
Group  in  an  administrative  capacity.    She  received  at  least  $1.2  million  of  Sky  Group  investor
funds for no apparent legitimate business purpose.
9. EEB Capital LLC is a Florida limited liability company formed in February 2018.
Betancourt  and  his  current  wife  are  the  signatories  on  two  bank  accounts  in  the  name  of  EEB
Capital, which received at least $1.5 million of Sky Group investor funds for no apparent legitimate
business purpose.
   
III.  JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and

4 

22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a), and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and
27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), (e) and 78aa.
11. This  Court  has  personal  jurisdiction  over  the  Defendants  and  Relief  Defendants,
and venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, because Betancourt resides in the District
and Sky Group and all of the Relief Defendants used addresses in this District and conducted their
business  in  this  District.    In  particular,  Sky  Group’s  operations  were  located  in  the  Southern
District,  and  Betancourt  conducted,  supervised  and  managed  all  aspects  of  Sky  Group’s
fundraising and loan business at Sky Group’s Miami headquarters.
12. The   Defendants,   directly   and   indirectly,   made   use   of   the   means   and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and the mails, in connection with the conduct, practices
and courses of business set forth in this Complaint.
IV.  FACTS
A.  The Offer and Sale of Promissory Notes
13. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky  Group  raised
approximately $66 million from at least 505 (and as many as 685) investors through the offer and
sale of the Notes.  Many of the investors were members of the South Florida Venezuelan-American
community, where news of the investment spread by word-of-mouth.  In fact, Betancourt pitched
the  investment  in  Sky  Group  as  a  great  opportunity  for  members  of  the  Venezuelan  immigrant
community to generate investment income.
14. But  the  investment  was  not  limited  to  Venezuelan-Americans  or  South  Florida.
Investors came from at least 18 U.S. states and territories and 19 additional countries.  There was
no requirement that Sky investors hail from any particular location or demonstrate any particular
level of income, wealth, or investment sophistication. Many of the investors were not sophisticated

5 

or wealthy and had limited investment experience.
15. Moreover,  Sky  Group  hired  a  network  of  52  outside  sales  agents  responsible  for
initially  contacting  and  making  pitches  to  potential  investors.    The  sales  agents,  who  were  not
registered as brokers or associated with registered brokers or dealers, met with investors or talked
to them over the phone, and stressed the monthly interest payments investors would earn as a key
feature of the investment.  They also stressed the purported safety of the Notes.  The sales agents
earned  a  commission  of  one  percent  of  each  dollar  the  investors  they  recruited  invested  in  the
Notes.  The Company wound up paying approximately $9.8 million in commissions to the sales
agents,  most  of  which  the  Company  did  not  disclose  to  investors  and  all  of  which  Betancourt
authorized.
16. Betancourt also met personally with numerous investors to close the deal, or spoke
with them on the phone or by email.  In meetings at Sky Group’s offices, Betancourt described
Sky  Group’s  payday  loan  business  and  showed  investors  the  company’s  website  and  a
telemarketing  office  where  company  representatives  purportedly  solicited  loan  customers.    He
claimed Sky Group had a $70 million loan portfolio generated by the Notes, and that as a result
the Company was profitable and had reserves to make interest payments on the Notes.  Therefore,
he claimed to numerous investors their investment would be safe.  Betancourt also emphasized the
monthly interest payments investors would receive as an important reason to invest, and claimed
the investment was a great opportunity for Venezuelan immigrants to generate investment income.
17. Those  who  invested  signed  a  “Loan  Agreement  and  Promissory  Note”  with  Sky
Group  in  which  investors  agreed  to  provide  Sky  Group  funds  in  return  for  monthly  interest
payments and the return of principal after one year.  The principal amount of each Note generally
ranged from $10,000 to $150,000, but went as high as $1.1 million.  The annual interest rate was

6 

normally 48 percent, but ranged from as low as 24 percent to as high as 120 percent.  Investors
purchased the Notes because of their purported safety and the high interest rates.
18. Sky  Group  stated  in  the  Notes  it  would  use  investor  proceeds  solely  to  make
consumer loans or for costs associated with those loans, but in reality used investor funds for a
variety of other purposes.  Of the approximately $66 million raised from investors, Sky Group,
bank, and other financial records show the Company made only about $12.2 million of consumer
loans  (and  received  only  $20.5  million  in  loan  repayments),  in  direct  contrast  to  Betancourt’s
claims of a $70 million loan portfolio and reserves sufficient to repay investors.
19. Sky Group also used almost $12 million in investor funds on operating expenses,
another $9.8 million to pay sales agent commissions, and at least $19.2 million of later investor
funds to repay earlier investors’ principal and interest.  And as described in further detail below,
Betancourt was responsible for misappropriating at least $6.5 million in investor funds for personal
and family use.
20. Sky Group investors did not provide funds directly to the Company’s payday loan
borrowers.  Rather, as set forth above, they provided funds to Sky Group for use in its business
operations.  Sky Group only used approximately 20 percent of investor funds on payday loans; the
Company used the rest on business operations, sales agent commissions, personal expenses, and
investor  repayments.    Furthermore,  although  about  20  percent  of  the  Notes  purported  to  give
investors a general security interest in Sky Group assets, they did not give investors an enforceable
lien or security interest in any particular company assets or receivables.  The Notes furthermore
did not provide investors a secured interest in the payday loans or the loan receivables.
21. Sky  Group  pooled  all  investor  funds  together  in  its  bank  accounts,  and  once
investors gave money to Sky Group, they lost all control over how Sky Group used their funds.

7 

Investors were completely dependent on Sky Group to make successful payday loans to achieve
their returns.  Investors did not have any say in the payday loan portfolio, who Sky Group loaned
money  to,  or  Sky  Group’s  collection  efforts.    The  success  of  the  investment  therefore  was
inextricably tied to the success of Sky Group’s payday loan business or other efforts by Betancourt
and Sky Group to generate revenue.  The investors provided the funds and received returns; Sky
Group managed and controlled the business operations purportedly used to generate those returns.
B.  Material Misrepresentations and Omissions
1.  Sky Group’s Use of Investor Funds
22. Betancourt and Sky Group repeatedly promised investors they would use funds on
the payday loan business only.  The Notes expressly stated that Sky Group:
agree[d] that the funds to be received and governed by [the Notes] are to be used for the
sole purpose of portfolio financing and associated cost by Sky Group USA LLC and any
of its partner or affiliate corporations.  The principal balance shall not be used for payment
to  members  or  any  other  expense  that  are  not  related  to  the  portfolio  financing  of  the
corporation.

Emphasis  in  original.

  Betancourt  repeated  the  false  statements  that  Sky  Group  would  only  use
investor funds on payday loans in his meetings with investors.
23. In reality, Sky Group and Betancourt did not use investor funds for the sole purpose
of portfolio financing and associated costs.  Of the approximately $66 million raised by Sky Group
through  the  offer  and  sale  of  the  Notes,  Sky  Group  used  only  20  percent  on  payday  loans.    As
described above, it used the rest on, among other things, Company business operations, sales agent
commissions, and at least $19.2 million to make Ponzi-like distributions to certain investors.  In
addition, Betancourt misappropriated investor funds for personal use and diverted funds to others.
24. Because   Betancourt   supervised   all   aspects   of   Sky   Group’s   operations   and
controlled its bank accounts, he knew or was extremely reckless in not knowing that Sky Group

8 

was using only a fraction of investor money to make payday loans, and therefore lying to investors
about its use of funds.
2.  Sky Group’s Profitability and the Safety and Security of the Notes
25. Betancourt  represented  to  investors  in  meetings  that  Sky  Group’s  payday  loan
business was profitable and expanding, claiming to one investor that Sky Group had a $70 million
loan portfolio.  In June 2019, Betancourt told at least one investor that Sky Group stood to profit
by approximately $31 million from existing loans.  Betancourt also represented to investors that
their principal and interest payments were protected by the profits Sky Group generated from the
high interest rates the Company charged borrowers.
26. Again,  the  truth  was  far  different.    The  proceeds  Sky  Group  generated  from  the
loans were not sufficient to cover the principal and interest payments due to investors on the Notes.
Sky Group made consumer loans totaling approximately $12.2 million and received approximately
$20.5 million in payments from those loans, generating revenues of approximately $8.3 million.
Over  the  same  period,  the  Company  owed  investors  $66  million  in  principal  repayments  alone.
During the time the Company offered and sold the Notes, its payments to investors and sales agents
far exceeded the proceeds that it received from consumer loans.
27. Furthermore, the statements of Betancourt and sales agents that the Notes were safe,
and Betancourt and Sky Group’s promises that the notes were secured or guaranteed, were false.
Although about 20 percent of the Notes purported to give investors a general security interest in
Sky  Group  assets,  they  did  not  give  investors  an  enforceable  lien  or  security  interest  in  any
particular  company  assets  or  receivables.    The  Notes  furthermore  did  not  provide  investors  a
secured interest in the payday loans or the loan receivables.  There was nothing safe or guaranteed
about the Notes.

9 

28. During the summer of 2019, Sky Group and Betancourt’s scheme began to unravel.
On  June  18,  2019,  Sky  Group  entered  into  a  consent  order  with  the  State  of  Washington
Department  of  Financial  Institutions  resulting  from  Sky  Group’s  failure  to  obtain  the  license
required to transact payday loans in the State of Washington.  Sky Group and Betancourt did not
disclose the consent order to investors.
29. Separately, by no later than July 2019, due to its deteriorating financial condition,
Sky Group began to default on its principal and interest payments to investors.  To perpetuate his
scheme, Betancourt sent a letter to investors on July 30, 2019 stating that Sky Group was forced
to  suspend  all  payments  to  investors  due  to  an  administrative  issue  with  one  of  its  payment
processors.  However, this was false as there was no problem with the payment processor.
30. Despite  the  Company’s  default  and  other  problems,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt
continued to solicit funds from investors, raising approximately $4.6 million (of the $66 million
total) in Notes from existing and new investors between August 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020.  As
with  earlier  investors,  Betancourt  and  Sky  Group  falsely  represented  to  this  group  that  the
Company would use their funds solely on payday loans and related costs.
C.  Misappropriation of Investor Funds
31. While  promising  investors  that  Sky  Group  would  use  investor  funds  only  for
payday  loans  and  associated  costs,  Betancourt  misappropriated  at  least  $2.9  million  of  investor
funds for personal use.  Approximately half of this money went to pay Betancourt’s personal credit
card bills, and he used another $466,000 to fund a trust of which he is the beneficiary.
32. Investor funds were also diverted from a number of Sky Group related accounts for
additional  apparent  personal  expenses  of  Betancourt.    This  included  several  hundred  thousand
dollars for Betancourt’s wedding at an exclusive chateau located on the French Riviera in southern

10 

France, and additional amounts for real estate costs associated with the purchase of a $1.5 million
luxury  condominium  in  downtown  Miami,  vacations  to  Disney  Resorts  and  the  Caribbean,  and
service on his personal Piper airplane.
33. In addition, Betancourt transferred approximately $3.6 million in investor funds to
friends and relatives for no apparent legitimate business purpose.  The recipients of these funds
included  Betancourt’s  ex-wife  Angelica  Betancourt,  who  had  signatory  authority  over  accounts
that received $1.2 million in investor funds.  Another approximately $1.5 million went to Relief
Defendant EEB Capital Group, LLC, an entity whose bank accounts Betancourt and his current
wife controlled.
V.  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
           Violations Of Sections 5(a) And 5(c) Of The Securities Act
34. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
35. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to
the Securities Act with respect to the securities issued by Sky Group as described in this Complaint,
and no exemption from registration existed with respect to those securities.
36. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt, directly and indirectly:
a) made  use  of  any  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or  communication  in
interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium of a prospectus
or otherwise;

b) carried  or  caused  to  be  carried  securities  through  the  mails  or  in  interstate
commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale or delivery after
sale; or

11 

c) made  use  of  any  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or  communication  in
interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use of medium of
any prospectus or otherwise any security,

without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect with the Commission as to
such securities.
37. By reason of the foregoing Sky Group and Betancourt violated, and unless enjoined
are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 77e(a) and 77e(c).
COUNT II

Violations Of Section 17(a)(1) Of The Securities Act

38. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
39. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation
or communication in interstate commerce, or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly
or recklessly employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud.
40. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt  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).
COUNT III
Violations Of Section 17(a)(2) Of The Securities Act

41. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
42. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and

12 

Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation
or communication in interstate commerce or by use 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,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt  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 IV

Violations Of Section 17(a)(3) Of The Securities Act

44. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
45. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any 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,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt  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).
COUNT V

Violations Of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) Of The Exchange Act

47. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint

13 

as if fully set forth herein.
48. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  use  of  any  means  or  instrumentality  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 any security.
49. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt  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 VI

Violations Of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) Of The Exchange Act

50. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
51. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  use  of  any  means  or  instrumentality  of  interstate
commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly 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, in connection with the purchase or
sale of any security.
52. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Sky  Group  and  Betancourt  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 VII
Violations Of Section 10(b) And Rule 10b-5(c) Of The Exchange Act

14 

53. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
54. From  no  later  than  January  2016  through  at  least  March  2020,  Sky  Group  and
Betancourt,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  use  of  any  means  or  instrumentality  of  interstate
commerce,  or  of  the  mails,  knowingly  or  recklessly  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 any security.
55. By reason of the foregoing Sky Group and Betancourt 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 VIII
Violations Of Section 15(a) The Exchange Act
(Against Betancourt Only)
56. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
57. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Betancourt, directly
or  indirectly,  by  the  use  of  the  mails  or  the  means  or  instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,
effected transactions in, or induced or attempted to induce the purchase or sale of securities, while
he was not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or when he was not associated
with an entity registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
58. By reason of the foregoing, Betancourt directly or indirectly violated, and unless
enjoined  is  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  15(a)(1)  of  the  Exchange  Act,  15
U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1).

15 

COUNT IX
Unjust Enrichment
(Against Relief Defendants Angela Betancourt And EEB Capital Group)
59. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
60. Angela  Betancourt  and  EEB  Capital  Group  received  investor  funds  or  property
derived from those funds, to which they lack a legitimate claim.
61. Angela Betancourt and EEB Capital Group obtained these funds and property as
part of the securities law violations alleged above, under circumstances in which it is not just or
equitable for them to retain the funds.
62. By reason of the foregoing, Angela Betancourt and EEB Capital Group have been
unjustly enriched and must disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
VI.  RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests the Court find that Sky Group and
Betancourt committed the violations alleged and:
A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief
 Issue Permanent Injunctions restraining and enjoining: (1) Sky Group and Betancourt from
violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act  and  Rule  10b-5  thereunder;  and  (2)  Betancourt  from  violating  Section  15(a)(1)  of  the
Exchange Act.
B.  Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest
Issue an Order directing Sky Group, Betancourt and all of the Relief Defendants to disgorge
all ill-gotten gains, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts or courses of conduct

16 

alleged in this Complaint.
C.  Civil Penalties
 Issue an Order directing Sky Group and Betancourt to pay civil money penalties pursuant
to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act.
D.  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), barring Betancourt 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 or that is required to file report pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange
Act.
E. Further Relief
Grant such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
F.  Retention of Jurisdiction
  Retain  jurisdiction  over  this  action  in  order  to  implement  and  carry  out  the  terms  of  all
orders  and  decrees  that  it  may  enter  or  to  entertain  any  suitable  application  or  motion  by  the
Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.
VII.  JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission demands a trial by jury on any and all issues in this action so triable.
Dated: September 27, 2021       Respectfully submitted,
Robert K. Levenson, Esq.
                                                                                    Senior            Trial            Counsel
                                                                                    Florida            Bar            No.            0089771
                                                                                    Direct            Dial:                        (305)            982-6341
                                                                                    Email:                        [email protected]

Andrew O. Schiff
Regional Trial Counsel

17 

S.D. Fla. No. A5501900
Telephone:  (305) 982-6390
E-mail:  [email protected]

                                                                                    Alexander            H.            Charap,            Esq.
                                                                                    Counsel
                                                                                    SDFL            Special            Bar            No.            A5502711
                                                                                    Direct            Dial:                        (305)            416-6228
                                                                                    Email:                        [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 
CASE NO.: 

 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) 
        ) 
 Plaintiff,      ) 
v.        ) 
        ) 
SKY GROUP USA, LLC     ) 
EFRAIN BETANCOURT, JR.               ) 
        ) 
 Defendants, and     ) 
        ) 
ANGELICA BETANCOURT    ) 
EEB CAPITAL GROUP, LLC                                     ) 
        ) 
 Relief Defendants.     ) 
_________________________________________   ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF 
 
 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows: 

I.  INTRODUCTION 

1. The Commission brings this action as the result of a three-year-long securities 

offering fraud conducted by Defendants Sky Group USA, LLC and Efrain Betancourt Jr. that 

victimized hundreds of investors enticed by the Defendants’ baseless promises of a high-return, 

low-risk investment.  From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group 

USA (“Sky Group” or “the Company”), a private South Florida firm, fraudulently raised more 

than $66 million from at least 505 investors, many of them members of the South Florida 

Venezuelan-American community, through the offer and sale of promissory notes (“Notes”).  The 

Notes generally ranged in amount from $10,000 to $150,000 and paid interest running from 24 

percent to as high as 120 percent.   

2. Sky Group and Betancourt falsely represented to investors – many of whom heard 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 1 of 17



2 

 

about the investment through word of mouth in the Venezuelan-American community – that Sky 

Group would use their money solely to make small-dollar, short-term loans to consumer borrowers 

with poor or no credit (so-called payday loans) and for costs associated with the loans.  Betancourt 

also falsely represented to investors that Sky Group’s business was profitable and that the 

promissory notes (“Notes”) were safe and secured or guaranteed. 

3. In reality, the proceeds Sky Group generated from its consumer loan business were 

woefully insufficient to cover principal and interest payments to investors.  Sky Group and 

Betancourt used at least $19.2 million of investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments to other 

investors.  In addition, Betancourt misappropriated at least $2.9 million for personal use, including 

a luxury chateau wedding in France and vacations to Disney World and the Caribbean, and 

authorized the transfer of at least $3.6 million to friends and relatives for no apparent legitimate 

business purpose.   

4. The scheme unraveled in July 2019, when Betancourt told investors that Sky Group 

was suspending investor repayments on the Notes.  Even then, Betancourt and Sky Group 

continued to lie, falsely blaming the suspension of repayments on a vendor responsible for 

processing the Company’s investor repayments.   

5. Through their conduct, Sky Group and Betancourt violated Sections 5(a) and (c) 

and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 

77q(a), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange 

Act”), 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5.  In addition, Betancourt violated Exchange 

Act Section 15(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. §78o(a)(1).  The Commission seeks injunctive relief as well as 

disgorgement and civil penalties from both Defendants. 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 2 of 17



3 

 

II.  DEFENDANTS AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS 

A.  Defendants 

6. Sky Group is a Florida limited liability company headquartered in Miami, Florida, 

formed in March 2015.  Sky Group is licensed with the State of Florida as a sales finance company 

and, for at least part of the period when it offered and sold securities, was licensed with the State 

of Utah as a deferred deposit lender.  Sky Group has never been registered with the Commission 

in any capacity.   

7. Betancourt, 32, is a resident of Miami, Florida.  Betancourt is the Chief Executive 

Officer, managing member and sole owner of Sky Group.  As Chief Executive Officer, Betancourt 

managed all aspects of Sky Group’s operations.  In addition he met with and solicited numerous 

potential Sky Group investors.  Betancourt has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity or associated with a registered entity.   

B.  Relief Defendants 

8. Angelica Betancourt, 33, was married to Betancourt from January 2014 until 

September 2018.  Angelica Betancourt is a resident of Miami, Florida and was employed by Sky 

Group in an administrative capacity.  She received at least $1.2 million of Sky Group investor 

funds for no apparent legitimate business purpose. 

9. EEB Capital LLC is a Florida limited liability company formed in February 2018.  

Betancourt and his current wife are the signatories on two bank accounts in the name of EEB 

Capital, which received at least $1.5 million of Sky Group investor funds for no apparent legitimate 

business purpose.    

III.  JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 3 of 17



4 

 

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

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

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and Relief Defendants, 

and venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, because Betancourt resides in the District 

and Sky Group and all of the Relief Defendants used addresses in this District and conducted their 

business in this District.  In particular, Sky Group’s operations were located in the Southern 

District, and Betancourt conducted, supervised and managed all aspects of Sky Group’s 

fundraising and loan business at Sky Group’s Miami headquarters. 

12. The Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and the mails, in connection with the conduct, practices 

and courses of business set forth in this Complaint. 

IV.  FACTS 

A.  The Offer and Sale of Promissory Notes 

13. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group raised 

approximately $66 million from at least 505 (and as many as 685) investors through the offer and 

sale of the Notes.  Many of the investors were members of the South Florida Venezuelan-American 

community, where news of the investment spread by word-of-mouth.  In fact, Betancourt pitched 

the investment in Sky Group as a great opportunity for members of the Venezuelan immigrant 

community to generate investment income. 

14. But the investment was not limited to Venezuelan-Americans or South Florida.  

Investors came from at least 18 U.S. states and territories and 19 additional countries.  There was 

no requirement that Sky investors hail from any particular location or demonstrate any particular 

level of income, wealth, or investment sophistication. Many of the investors were not sophisticated 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 4 of 17



5 

 

or wealthy and had limited investment experience.    

15. Moreover, Sky Group hired a network of 52 outside sales agents responsible for 

initially contacting and making pitches to potential investors.  The sales agents, who were not 

registered as brokers or associated with registered brokers or dealers, met with investors or talked 

to them over the phone, and stressed the monthly interest payments investors would earn as a key 

feature of the investment.  They also stressed the purported safety of the Notes.  The sales agents 

earned a commission of one percent of each dollar the investors they recruited invested in the 

Notes.  The Company wound up paying approximately $9.8 million in commissions to the sales 

agents, most of which the Company did not disclose to investors and all of which Betancourt 

authorized.   

16. Betancourt also met personally with numerous investors to close the deal, or spoke 

with them on the phone or by email.  In meetings at Sky Group’s offices, Betancourt described 

Sky Group’s payday loan business and showed investors the company’s website and a 

telemarketing office where company representatives purportedly solicited loan customers.  He 

claimed Sky Group had a $70 million loan portfolio generated by the Notes, and that as a result 

the Company was profitable and had reserves to make interest payments on the Notes.  Therefore, 

he claimed to numerous investors their investment would be safe.  Betancourt also emphasized the 

monthly interest payments investors would receive as an important reason to invest, and claimed 

the investment was a great opportunity for Venezuelan immigrants to generate investment income.  

17. Those who invested signed a “Loan Agreement and Promissory Note” with Sky 

Group in which investors agreed to provide Sky Group funds in return for monthly interest 

payments and the return of principal after one year.  The principal amount of each Note generally 

ranged from $10,000 to $150,000, but went as high as $1.1 million.  The annual interest rate was 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 5 of 17



6 

 

normally 48 percent, but ranged from as low as 24 percent to as high as 120 percent.  Investors 

purchased the Notes because of their purported safety and the high interest rates.   

18. Sky Group stated in the Notes it would use investor proceeds solely to make 

consumer loans or for costs associated with those loans, but in reality used investor funds for a 

variety of other purposes.  Of the approximately $66 million raised from investors, Sky Group, 

bank, and other financial records show the Company made only about $12.2 million of consumer 

loans (and received only $20.5 million in loan repayments), in direct contrast to Betancourt’s 

claims of a $70 million loan portfolio and reserves sufficient to repay investors.   

19. Sky Group also used almost $12 million in investor funds on operating expenses, 

another $9.8 million to pay sales agent commissions, and at least $19.2 million of later investor 

funds to repay earlier investors’ principal and interest.  And as described in further detail below, 

Betancourt was responsible for misappropriating at least $6.5 million in investor funds for personal 

and family use.    

20. Sky Group investors did not provide funds directly to the Company’s payday loan 

borrowers.  Rather, as set forth above, they provided funds to Sky Group for use in its business 

operations.  Sky Group only used approximately 20 percent of investor funds on payday loans; the 

Company used the rest on business operations, sales agent commissions, personal expenses, and 

investor repayments.  Furthermore, although about 20 percent of the Notes purported to give 

investors a general security interest in Sky Group assets, they did not give investors an enforceable 

lien or security interest in any particular company assets or receivables.  The Notes furthermore 

did not provide investors a secured interest in the payday loans or the loan receivables. 

21. Sky Group pooled all investor funds together in its bank accounts, and once 

investors gave money to Sky Group, they lost all control over how Sky Group used their funds.  

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 6 of 17



7 

 

Investors were completely dependent on Sky Group to make successful payday loans to achieve 

their returns.  Investors did not have any say in the payday loan portfolio, who Sky Group loaned 

money to, or Sky Group’s collection efforts.  The success of the investment therefore was 

inextricably tied to the success of Sky Group’s payday loan business or other efforts by Betancourt 

and Sky Group to generate revenue.  The investors provided the funds and received returns; Sky 

Group managed and controlled the business operations purportedly used to generate those returns.  

B.  Material Misrepresentations and Omissions 

1.  Sky Group’s Use of Investor Funds 

22. Betancourt and Sky Group repeatedly promised investors they would use funds on 

the payday loan business only.  The Notes expressly stated that Sky Group: 

agree[d] that the funds to be received and governed by [the Notes] are to be used for the 
sole purpose of portfolio financing and associated cost by Sky Group USA LLC and any 
of its partner or affiliate corporations.  The principal balance shall not be used for payment 
to members or any other expense that are not related to the portfolio financing of the 
corporation.  
 

Emphasis in original.  Betancourt repeated the false statements that Sky Group would only use 

investor funds on payday loans in his meetings with investors. 

23. In reality, Sky Group and Betancourt did not use investor funds for the sole purpose 

of portfolio financing and associated costs.  Of the approximately $66 million raised by Sky Group 

through the offer and sale of the Notes, Sky Group used only 20 percent on payday loans.  As 

described above, it used the rest on, among other things, Company business operations, sales agent 

commissions, and at least $19.2 million to make Ponzi-like distributions to certain investors.  In 

addition, Betancourt misappropriated investor funds for personal use and diverted funds to others. 

24. Because Betancourt supervised all aspects of Sky Group’s operations and 

controlled its bank accounts, he knew or was extremely reckless in not knowing that Sky Group 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 7 of 17



8 

 

was using only a fraction of investor money to make payday loans, and therefore lying to investors 

about its use of funds.  

2.  Sky Group’s Profitability and the Safety and Security of the Notes 

25. Betancourt represented to investors in meetings that Sky Group’s payday loan 

business was profitable and expanding, claiming to one investor that Sky Group had a $70 million 

loan portfolio.  In June 2019, Betancourt told at least one investor that Sky Group stood to profit 

by approximately $31 million from existing loans.  Betancourt also represented to investors that 

their principal and interest payments were protected by the profits Sky Group generated from the 

high interest rates the Company charged borrowers.   

26. Again, the truth was far different.  The proceeds Sky Group generated from the 

loans were not sufficient to cover the principal and interest payments due to investors on the Notes.  

Sky Group made consumer loans totaling approximately $12.2 million and received approximately 

$20.5 million in payments from those loans, generating revenues of approximately $8.3 million.  

Over the same period, the Company owed investors $66 million in principal repayments alone.  

During the time the Company offered and sold the Notes, its payments to investors and sales agents 

far exceeded the proceeds that it received from consumer loans. 

27. Furthermore, the statements of Betancourt and sales agents that the Notes were safe, 

and Betancourt and Sky Group’s promises that the notes were secured or guaranteed, were false.  

Although about 20 percent of the Notes purported to give investors a general security interest in 

Sky Group assets, they did not give investors an enforceable lien or security interest in any 

particular company assets or receivables.  The Notes furthermore did not provide investors a 

secured interest in the payday loans or the loan receivables.  There was nothing safe or guaranteed 

about the Notes.    

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 8 of 17



9 

 

28. During the summer of 2019, Sky Group and Betancourt’s scheme began to unravel.  

On June 18, 2019, Sky Group entered into a consent order with the State of Washington 

Department of Financial Institutions resulting from Sky Group’s failure to obtain the license 

required to transact payday loans in the State of Washington.  Sky Group and Betancourt did not 

disclose the consent order to investors.     

29. Separately, by no later than July 2019, due to its deteriorating financial condition, 

Sky Group began to default on its principal and interest payments to investors.  To perpetuate his 

scheme, Betancourt sent a letter to investors on July 30, 2019 stating that Sky Group was forced 

to suspend all payments to investors due to an administrative issue with one of its payment 

processors.  However, this was false as there was no problem with the payment processor.   

30. Despite the Company’s default and other problems, Sky Group and Betancourt 

continued to solicit funds from investors, raising approximately $4.6 million (of the $66 million 

total) in Notes from existing and new investors between August 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020.  As 

with earlier investors, Betancourt and Sky Group falsely represented to this group that the 

Company would use their funds solely on payday loans and related costs.     

C.  Misappropriation of Investor Funds 

31. While promising investors that Sky Group would use investor funds only for 

payday loans and associated costs, Betancourt misappropriated at least $2.9 million of investor 

funds for personal use.  Approximately half of this money went to pay Betancourt’s personal credit 

card bills, and he used another $466,000 to fund a trust of which he is the beneficiary.    

32. Investor funds were also diverted from a number of Sky Group related accounts for 

additional apparent personal expenses of Betancourt.  This included several hundred thousand 

dollars for Betancourt’s wedding at an exclusive chateau located on the French Riviera in southern 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 9 of 17



10 

 

France, and additional amounts for real estate costs associated with the purchase of a $1.5 million 

luxury condominium in downtown Miami, vacations to Disney Resorts and the Caribbean, and 

service on his personal Piper airplane.   

33. In addition, Betancourt transferred approximately $3.6 million in investor funds to 

friends and relatives for no apparent legitimate business purpose.  The recipients of these funds 

included Betancourt’s ex-wife Angelica Betancourt, who had signatory authority over accounts 

that received $1.2 million in investor funds.  Another approximately $1.5 million went to Relief 

Defendant EEB Capital Group, LLC, an entity whose bank accounts Betancourt and his current 

wife controlled.    

V.  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

           Violations Of Sections 5(a) And 5(c) Of The Securities Act 

34. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein.  

35. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to 

the Securities Act with respect to the securities issued by Sky Group as described in this Complaint, 

and no exemption from registration existed with respect to those securities. 

36. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, directly and indirectly: 

a) made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 
interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium of a prospectus 
or otherwise; 

 
b) carried or caused to be carried securities through the mails or in interstate 

commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale or delivery after 
sale; or 

 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 10 of 17



11 

 

c) made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 
interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use of medium of 
any prospectus or otherwise any security, 

 
without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect with the Commission as to 

such securities. 

37. By reason of the foregoing Sky Group and Betancourt violated, and unless enjoined 

are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 77e(a) and 77e(c). 

COUNT II 
 

Violations Of Section 17(a)(1) Of The Securities Act 
 

38. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

39. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation 

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

or recklessly employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud. 

40. By reason of the foregoing, Sky Group and Betancourt 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). 

COUNT III 

Violations Of Section 17(a)(2) Of The Securities Act 
 

41. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

42. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 11 of 17



12 

 

Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation 

or communication in interstate commerce or by use 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, Sky Group and Betancourt 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 IV 
 

Violations Of Section 17(a)(3) Of The Securities Act 
 

44. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

45. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, in the offer or sale of securities by use of any 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, Sky Group and Betancourt 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). 

COUNT V 
 

Violations Of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) Of The Exchange Act 
 

47. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 12 of 17



13 

 

as if fully set forth herein. 

48. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality 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 any security. 

49. By reason of the foregoing, Sky Group and Betancourt 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 VI 
 

Violations Of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) Of The Exchange Act 
 

50. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

51. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly 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, in connection with the purchase or 

sale of any security. 

52. By reason of the foregoing, Sky Group and Betancourt 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 VII 

Violations Of Section 10(b) And Rule 10b-5(c) Of The Exchange Act 
 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 13 of 17



14 

 

53. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

54. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Sky Group and 

Betancourt, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly 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 any security. 

55. By reason of the foregoing Sky Group and Betancourt 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 VIII 

Violations Of Section 15(a) The Exchange Act 

(Against Betancourt Only) 

56. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein.  

57. From no later than January 2016 through at least March 2020, Betancourt, directly 

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

effected transactions in, or induced or attempted to induce the purchase or sale of securities, while 

he was not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or when he was not associated 

with an entity registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.   

58. By reason of the foregoing, Betancourt directly or indirectly violated, and unless 

enjoined is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1). 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 14 of 17



15 

 

COUNT IX 

Unjust Enrichment 

(Against Relief Defendants Angela Betancourt And EEB Capital Group) 

59. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

60. Angela Betancourt and EEB Capital Group received investor funds or property 

derived from those funds, to which they lack a legitimate claim. 

61. Angela Betancourt and EEB Capital Group obtained these funds and property as 

part of the securities law violations alleged above, under circumstances in which it is not just or 

equitable for them to retain the funds. 

62. By reason of the foregoing, Angela Betancourt and EEB Capital Group have been 

unjustly enriched and must disgorge their ill-gotten gains. 

VI.  RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests the Court find that Sky Group and 

Betancourt committed the violations alleged and: 

A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief 

 Issue Permanent Injunctions restraining and enjoining: (1) Sky Group and Betancourt from 

violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and (2) Betancourt from violating Section 15(a)(1) of the 

Exchange Act. 

B.  Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest 

Issue an Order directing Sky Group, Betancourt and all of the Relief Defendants to disgorge 

all ill-gotten gains, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts or courses of conduct 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 15 of 17



16 

 

alleged in this Complaint.  

C.  Civil Penalties 

 Issue an Order directing Sky Group and Betancourt to pay civil money penalties pursuant 

to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act. 

D.  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), barring Betancourt 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 or that is required to file report pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange 

Act. 

E. Further Relief 

Grant such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. 

F.  Retention of Jurisdiction 

 Retain jurisdiction over this action in order to implement and carry out the terms of all 

orders and decrees that it may enter or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the 

Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

VII.  JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

The Commission demands a trial by jury on any and all issues in this action so triable. 

Dated: September 27, 2021    Respectfully submitted,  

Robert K. Levenson, Esq. 
       Senior Trial Counsel 
       Florida Bar No. 0089771 
       Direct Dial:  (305) 982-6341 
       Email:  [email protected] 
 

Andrew O. Schiff 
Regional Trial Counsel 

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 16 of 17



17 

 

S.D. Fla. No. A5501900 
Telephone:  (305) 982-6390 
E-mail:  [email protected] 

      
       Alexander H. Charap, Esq. 
       Counsel 
       SDFL Special Bar No. A5502711 
       Direct Dial:  (305) 416-6228 
       Email:  [email protected] 
 

Attorneys for Plaintiff  
Securities and Exchange Commission  
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 
Miami, FL 33131  

Case 1:21-cv-23443-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2021   Page 17 of 17