SEC v. Ubong Uboh (A/K/A NEDI SHUPO, FRANK GOLDMAN, AND JONATHAN GOLDMAN); and Tyler Crockett (A/K/A DAN GIBSON AND DAVE CARROLL), No. 13 Cr. 20172 (WJZ), Eastern District of New York (Apr. 22, 2021) — Complaint

Richard R. Best
Lara Shalov Mehraban
Alexander Vasilescu
Sandeep Satwalekar
Rhonda L. Jung
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281-1022
Phone:  (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
:   COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,  :
:
-against-     : 19-CV-            (___)
:
UBONG UBOH (A/K/A NEDI SHUPO, FRANK              :
GOLDMAN, AND JONATHAN GOLDMAN)  and :
TYLER CROCKETT (A/K/A DAN GIBSON  :    JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND DAVE CARROLL),     :
:
Defendants.     :
:
________________________________________________:
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission, alleges the following against Defendants
Ubong Uboh (a/k/a Nedi Shupo, Frank Goldman, and Jonathan Goldman) (“Uboh”) and Tyler
Crockett (a/k/a Dan Gibson and Dave Carroll) (“Crockett,” and collectively, the “Defendants”):
SUMMARY
1.From approximately 2016 through 2018 (“the Relevant Period”), using fictitious
names and backgrounds, the Defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of several
microcap issuers (the “Issuers”) from a call room in Miami, Florida (the “Call Room”).
2.Uboh and Crockett made material misrepresentations to investors about, among

 2
other things, the Issuers’ relationships with well-known financial institutions and their future
prospects.  In reality, the Issuers did not have any relationships with these institutions, and the
Defendants had no basis to make predictions about the prospects of the Issuers.  Many of the
Issuers had undergone significant changes to their business plans and often had limited or no
revenues or profits.
3. After being solicited by the Defendants, retail investors, many of whom were
senior citizens, purchased the Issuers’ stock.  The investors have realized and unrealized losses
totaling at least $1.1 million.
4. In addition to soliciting investors to purchase stock of the Issuers, in early 2018,
Uboh and Crockett urged one of the Call Room investors (“Investor 1”) to purchase shares of a
purported technology company (“Company A”) in a private offering.  Uboh and Crockett told
Investor 1 that Company A was in partnership with a well-known technology company
(“Company B”) and would experience significant growth as a result of this relationship.  Based
on the Defendants’ false representations, Investor 1 invested $500,000 in Company A’s private
placement.  Defendants misappropriated Investor 1’s funds, instead of investing them in
Company A.
VIOLATIONS
5. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in, and unless
restrained and enjoined, will continue to engage, directly or indirectly, in transactions, acts,
practices and courses of business that constitute violations of Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rules 10b-
5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)].

 3
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
6. The Commission brings this action pursuant to authority conferred by Section
20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)] and Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)].
7. The Commission seeks a final judgment:  (a) permanently enjoining the
Defendants from future violations of the securities laws provisions that the Defendants violated
as alleged in this Complaint; (b) ordering the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and to
pay prejudgment interest on those amounts, pursuant to Exchange Act Section 21(d)(5) [15
U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)]; (c) imposing civil money penalties on the Defendants pursuant to Section
20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (d) permanently prohibiting the Defendants from participating in any
offering of penny stock, pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(g) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)] and
Exchange Act Section 21(d)(6) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; and (e) such other relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections
20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d) and 27
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78aa].
9. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Section 22(a) of
the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
Certain of the acts, practices, transactions and courses of business alleged in this Complaint
occurred within the Eastern District of New York.  For example, during the Relevant Period,
Defendants solicited funds from investors and prospective investors that reside in the Eastern

 4
District of New York.
10. The Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails and wires, in connection with the
transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint.
DEFENDANTS
11. Uboh, age 41, resides in Miami, Florida.  When communicating with investors,
Uboh used several fictitious names, including Nedi Shupo, Frank Goldman, and Jonathan
Goldman.  On March 13, 2013, in United States v. Ubong Uboh and Rachel Meyers, 13 Cr.
20172 (WJZ), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida charged
Uboh with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a timeshare
scheme.  Uboh pleaded guilty to these charges, and on September 6, 2013, he was sentenced to
36 months imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release (during which time he engaged in all of
the conduct described herein), and ordered to pay restitution of $293,101.  On January 14, 2019,
the court revoked Uboh’s supervised release and sentenced him to 7 months in prison.  Uboh was
released on June 12, 2019.
12. Crockett, age 31, resides in Fairfax, Virginia.  During the Relevant Period,
Crockett lived in Miami, Florida.  When communicating with investors, Crockett used several
fictitious names, including Dan Gibson and Dave Carroll.
OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES
13. Garrett O'Rourke (“O’Rourke”), age 31, resided in and managed the Call
Room in Miami, Florida until early 2019.  On July 18, 2019, the Commission brought an
emergency injunctive action against O’Rourke.  SEC v. Garrett O’Rourke, et al., 19-cv-4137

(E.D.N.Y. filed July 18, 2019).  The complaint alleges that O’Rourke was part of a control group

 5
that owned the vast majority of the Issuers’ free-trading shares and that, after Uboh and Crockett
and others persuaded investors to purchase shares of the Issuers, dumped millions of dollars’
worth of these shares.  The same day that the Commission filed its emergency action against
O’Rourke, a criminal complaint against O’Rourke, which alleges facts arising out of the same
conduct alleged in SEC v. O’Rourke, was unsealed in United States v. O’Rourke, et al., 19-mj-
00644 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 18, 2019) (the “Criminal Action”).  The Commission’s injunctive
action against O’Rourke is stayed pending resolution of the Criminal Action.
14. Cyberfort Software, Inc. (“Cyberfort”) is a Nevada corporation, headquartered
in San Francisco, California, that purports to be in the business of cybersecurity technology.
Before entering the cybersecurity business, the company specialized in the sale of all natural pet
products under the name Gaia Remedies, Inc., and had been in the business of acquiring and
establishing berry farms under the name Patriot Berry Farms, Inc.  During the Relevant Period,
Cyberfort’s common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act
Section 12(g) [15 U.S.C. § 78l(g)] and quoted on OTC Markets under the ticker symbol CYBF.
According to its Forms 10-K filed with the Commission for fiscal years ended March 2016,
2017, and 2018, the company has not generated any revenue.  Throughout the Relevant Period,
Cyberfort’s common stock met the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section
3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].
15. EnviroTechnologies International, Inc. (“EnviroTech”) is a Delaware
corporation, headquartered in Pleasant Grove, Utah, that purports to be in the cannabidiol oil
(CBD) market selling hemp-based products.  Before entering this business, the company’s
business lines included “healthcare software and internet information” according to its 2017
annual report.  During the Relevant Period, EnviroTech’s common stock was quoted on OTC

 6
Link under the symbol ETII.  Throughout the Relevant Period, EnviroTech’s common stock met
the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)]
and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].
16. Evolution Technology Resources, Inc. (“Evolution Tech”) is a Delaware
corporation, headquartered in Canada, which purports to be in the business of acquiring high
growth companies in the online gambling and gaming sector including mobile apps.  Before
entering the gambling and gaming business, Evolution Tech purportedly “focused on acquiring
intellectual property and assets for the manufacturing of biomass processing equipment for the
production of energy.”  During the Relevant Period, Evolution Tech’s common stock was quoted
on OTC Markets under the symbol ETKR.  According to its most recent periodic reports posted
on OTC Markets’ website, Evolution Tech has had no revenue or profits from at least January 1,
2017 through December 31, 2018. Throughout the Relevant Period, Evolution Tech’s common
stock met the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. §
78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].
17. Link Reservation Inc. (“Link Reservation”) is a Nevada corporation,
headquartered in the United Kingdom that purports to be in the business of providing and
developing CBD and hemp-based products for animals--primarily dogs, cats, and horses.  Before
entering the CBD and hemp-based products market, the company purported to be in the business
of providing credit card reservation transactions for the travel industry.  During the Relevant
Period, Link Reservations’ common stock was quoted on the OTC Pink market under the symbol
LSRV.  According to its most recent periodic reports posted on OTC Markets’ website, the
company had no revenue or profits from at least January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019.
Throughout the Relevant Period, Link Reservation’s common stock met the definition of a

 7
“penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1
thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].
FACTS
Overview of the Call Room Scheme
18. During the Relevant Period, Uboh and Crockett worked in the Call Room
soliciting retail investors to purchase shares of the Issuers.
19. O’Rourke directed Uboh and Crockett as to which of the Issuers to recommend at
a particular point in time.
20. Uboh and Crockett then called investors touting the prospects of the Issuers and
urging the investors to purchase their stock.
21. On numerous occasions when speaking to investors, Uboh and Crockett
knowingly or recklessly: (1) used fake names: (2) lied about their backgrounds; and (3) used
prepaid cell phones, which they often changed to further conceal their identities.
22. In return for their role in securing money from investors, Uboh and Crockett
received $341,898 and $203,481, respectively, from bank accounts that O’Rourke controlled.
23. Investors who purchased the Issuers’ stock after being solicited by Uboh and
Crockett have incurred over $1.1 million in realized and unrealized losses.
Uboh and Crockett Solicit Money From Senior Retail Investors
24. Uboh and Crockett often solicited investor money from senior citizens using the
fraudulent tactics described above.
Investor 1
a. In or about November 2016, Uboh called a senior retail investor (“Investor 1”)
using the fictitious name Jonathan Goldman.

 8
b. Uboh told Investor 1 that he worked for NASDAQ Private Market, and that
Investor 1 would make a significant return if he invested in Link Reservation and
10 times his money if he invested in Cyberfort.  To add credibility to his fictitious
background, Uboh guided Investor 1 to NASDAQ Private Market’s webpage,
which is part of NASDAQ’s website.  In fact, Uboh did not work for NASDAQ
Private Market, and Uboh had no basis for telling Investor 1 that he would make
significant returns if he invested in Link Reservation and Cyberfort, neither of
which have generated any revenue in recent years.
c. After his conversation with Uboh, Investor 1 purchased $55,000 worth of Link
Reservation and Cyberfort stock, and has incurred realized and unrealized losses
of almost all of this investment.
Investor 2
a. In or about February 2017, Uboh called another senior retail investor (“Investor 2”)
using the fictitious name Frank Goldman.
b. Uboh told Investor 2 that EnviroTech would have a 2-for-1 stock split and that the
stock would hold at the same price as before the split, which meant that Investor 2
would double his money if he invested in the company.  In fact, Uboh had no basis
for telling Investor 2 that EnviroTech’s stock would split or that stock would double
in value.
c. After  his  conversation  with  Uboh, Investor  2 purchased  approximately $300,000
worth of EnviroTech stock, and has incurred realized and unrealized losses of most,
if not all, of this investment.

 9
Investor 3
a. In or about October 2017, Crockett called a senior retail investor (“Investor 3”)
using the fictitious name Dan Gibson.
b. Crockett told Investor 3 that he was affiliated with one of the Issuers, Evolution
Tech, and claimed that Evolution Tech had recently entered into a contract with a
well-known company that would generate substantial revenue.
c. Crockett promised that Investor 3 would make significant returns if he invested in
Evolution Tech common stock and guided Investor 3 to Evolution Tech’s website
to add to its credibility.  In fact, Crockett was not affiliated with Evolution Tech.
Further, Evolution Tech had not entered into a contract with the well-known
company and had minimal, if any revenue.
d. After his conversation with Crockett, Investor 3 purchased approximately
$371,000 worth of Evolution Technology stock, and has incurred realized and
unrealized losses of most, if not all, of this investment.
Investor 4
a. In or about July 2018, Crockett called another senior retail investor (“Investor 4”)
using the fictitious name Dave Carroll.
b. During the call, which Investor 4 recorded, Crockett falsely stated that he was a
director of Cyberfort.  He also falsely claimed that Cyberfort: (a) had completed
an initial public offering at $1.50 per share, (b) had secured preapproval to get
listed on NASDAQ, (c) would be “hitting NASDAQ at $5.00 a share,” (d) had
partnered with a well-known company to handle all of that company’s
cybersecurity work, and (e) had obtained a commitment from a well-known

 10
investment bank to purchase 2 million shares of Cyberfort’s common stock at $4
per share.
c. After his conversation with Crockett, Investor 4 purchased approximately $210
worth of Cyberfort stock, and has incurred unrealized losses of most, if not all, of
this investment.
The Private Placement Scheme
25. In or about January 2018, Crockett, using the fictitious name Dan Gibson, and
Uboh, using the fictitious name Nedi Shupo, offered Investor 3 the opportunity to purchase up to
250,000 shares of Company A at $2 per share.  Crockett and Uboh told Investor 3 that Company
A had entered into a partnership with Company B, a well-known technology company, and that
Company A would realize significant growth as a result of that partnership.
26. Crockett and Uboh knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that Company A had
not entered into a partnership with Company B.
27. Based on Crockett and Uboh’s misrepresentations concerning Company A’s
partnership with Company B, Investor 3 purchased 250,000 shares of Company A’s stock for
approximately $500,000.
28. Instead of investing Investor 3’s funds in Company A, Crockett and Uboh
misappropriated the investment.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

29. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28.
30. Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett, directly or indirectly, knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of

 11
transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or by use of the mails:  (a) employed
devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
(c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would have
operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities.
31. The Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by, among other
things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations to investors
about the Issuers and Company A and misappropriating Investor 1’s investment in Company A.
32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett directly or
indirectly, violated Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1),
(2), and (3)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder

33. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28.
34. Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett, directly or indirectly, knowing or
recklessly, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of
a facility of a national securities exchange, (a) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact,
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts, transactions, practices, or courses of business
which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon persons, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.

 12
35. By engaging in the conduct alleged above, Defendant Uboh and Defendant
Crockett violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a),
(b), and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)].
36. The Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by, among other things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material
misrepresentations to investors about the Issuers and Company A and misappropriating Investor
1’s investment in Company A.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final
Judgment:
I.
Finding that Uboh and Crockett violated Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §
78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)] as
alleged in this Complaint;
II.
Permanently enjoining Uboh and Crockett, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys-
in-fact and assigns, and those persons in active concert or participation with them or who receive
actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 17(a)(1),
(2) and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§
240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)] as alleged in this Complaint;

13
II  I.
Ordering Uboh and Crockett to disgorge any ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment
interest pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and Sections 6501(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-283, to be codified at 15
U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3) and 78u(d)(7);
IV.
Ordering Uboh and Crockett to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of
the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §
78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and
V.
Permanently prohibiting Uboh and Crockett from participating in any offering of a penny
stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing,
trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock, under
Exchange Act Section 21(d)(6) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; and

14
VI.
Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pur
suant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by
jury in this action of all issues so triable.
Dated:  New York, NY

Respectfully submitted,
By:      ______________
_____
Richard R. Best
Lara Shalov Mehraban
Alexander Vasilescu
Sandeep Satwalekar
Rhonda L. Jung
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281-1022
Tel: (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu)
[email protected]
April 15, 2021

Richard R. Best 
Lara Shalov Mehraban 
Alexander Vasilescu 
Sandeep Satwalekar 
Rhonda L. Jung 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
New York Regional Office 
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
New York, NY 10281-1022 
Phone:  (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu)  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
________________________________________________ 

: 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : 

:   COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff,  : 

:      
-against-     : 19-CV-            (___) 

: 
UBONG UBOH (A/K/A NEDI SHUPO, FRANK              : 
GOLDMAN, AND JONATHAN GOLDMAN) and : 
TYLER CROCKETT (A/K/A DAN GIBSON  :    JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
AND DAVE CARROLL),  : 

: 
Defendants.  : 

:     
________________________________________________: 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission, alleges the following against Defendants 

Ubong Uboh (a/k/a Nedi Shupo, Frank Goldman, and Jonathan Goldman) (“Uboh”) and Tyler 

Crockett (a/k/a Dan Gibson and Dave Carroll) (“Crockett,” and collectively, the “Defendants”):  

SUMMARY 

1. From approximately 2016 through 2018 (“the Relevant Period”), using fictitious

names and backgrounds, the Defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of several 

microcap issuers (the “Issuers”) from a call room in Miami, Florida (the “Call Room”).   

2. Uboh and Crockett made material misrepresentations to investors about, among

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1



 2 

other things, the Issuers’ relationships with well-known financial institutions and their future 

prospects.  In reality, the Issuers did not have any relationships with these institutions, and the 

Defendants had no basis to make predictions about the prospects of the Issuers.  Many of the 

Issuers had undergone significant changes to their business plans and often had limited or no 

revenues or profits.   

3. After being solicited by the Defendants, retail investors, many of whom were 

senior citizens, purchased the Issuers’ stock.  The investors have realized and unrealized losses 

totaling at least $1.1 million. 

4. In addition to soliciting investors to purchase stock of the Issuers, in early 2018, 

Uboh and Crockett urged one of the Call Room investors (“Investor 1”) to purchase shares of a 

purported technology company (“Company A”) in a private offering.  Uboh and Crockett told 

Investor 1 that Company A was in partnership with a well-known technology company 

(“Company B”) and would experience significant growth as a result of this relationship.  Based 

on the Defendants’ false representations, Investor 1 invested $500,000 in Company A’s private 

placement.  Defendants misappropriated Investor 1’s funds, instead of investing them in 

Company A.     

VIOLATIONS 

5. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in, and unless 

restrained and enjoined, will continue to engage, directly or indirectly, in transactions, acts, 

practices and courses of business that constitute violations of Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b) 

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

5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)]. 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2



 3 

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

6. The Commission brings this action pursuant to authority conferred by Section 

20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)] and Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)].   

7. The Commission seeks a final judgment:  (a) permanently enjoining the 

Defendants from future violations of the securities laws provisions that the Defendants violated 

as alleged in this Complaint; (b) ordering the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and to 

pay prejudgment interest on those amounts, pursuant to Exchange Act Section 21(d)(5) [15 

U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)]; (c) imposing civil money penalties on the Defendants pursuant to Section 

20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (d) permanently prohibiting the Defendants from participating in any 

offering of penny stock, pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(g) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)] and 

Exchange Act Section 21(d)(6) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; and (e) such other relief as the Court 

deems just and appropriate. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 

20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d) and 27 

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

9. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Section 22(a) of 

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

Certain of the acts, practices, transactions and courses of business alleged in this Complaint 

occurred within the Eastern District of New York.  For example, during the Relevant Period, 

Defendants solicited funds from investors and prospective investors that reside in the Eastern 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3



 4 

District of New York. 

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

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails and wires, in connection with the 

transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint. 

DEFENDANTS 

11. Uboh, age 41, resides in Miami, Florida.  When communicating with investors, 

Uboh used several fictitious names, including Nedi Shupo, Frank Goldman, and Jonathan 

Goldman.  On March 13, 2013, in United States v. Ubong Uboh and Rachel Meyers, 13 Cr. 

20172 (WJZ), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida charged 

Uboh with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a timeshare 

scheme.  Uboh pleaded guilty to these charges, and on September 6, 2013, he was sentenced to 

36 months imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release (during which time he engaged in all of 

the conduct described herein), and ordered to pay restitution of $293,101.  On January 14, 2019, 

the court revoked Uboh’s supervised release and sentenced him to 7 months in prison.  Uboh was 

released on June 12, 2019.   

12. Crockett, age 31, resides in Fairfax, Virginia.  During the Relevant Period, 

Crockett lived in Miami, Florida.  When communicating with investors, Crockett used several 

fictitious names, including Dan Gibson and Dave Carroll.   

OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES 

13. Garrett O'Rourke (“O’Rourke”), age 31, resided in and managed the Call 

Room in Miami, Florida until early 2019.  On July 18, 2019, the Commission brought an 

emergency injunctive action against O’Rourke.  SEC v. Garrett O’Rourke, et al., 19-cv-4137 

(E.D.N.Y. filed July 18, 2019).  The complaint alleges that O’Rourke was part of a control group 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4



 5 

that owned the vast majority of the Issuers’ free-trading shares and that, after Uboh and Crockett 

and others persuaded investors to purchase shares of the Issuers, dumped millions of dollars’ 

worth of these shares.  The same day that the Commission filed its emergency action against 

O’Rourke, a criminal complaint against O’Rourke, which alleges facts arising out of the same 

conduct alleged in SEC v. O’Rourke, was unsealed in United States v. O’Rourke, et al., 19-mj-

00644 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 18, 2019) (the “Criminal Action”).  The Commission’s injunctive 

action against O’Rourke is stayed pending resolution of the Criminal Action. 

14. Cyberfort Software, Inc. (“Cyberfort”) is a Nevada corporation, headquartered 

in San Francisco, California, that purports to be in the business of cybersecurity technology.  

Before entering the cybersecurity business, the company specialized in the sale of all natural pet 

products under the name Gaia Remedies, Inc., and had been in the business of acquiring and 

establishing berry farms under the name Patriot Berry Farms, Inc.  During the Relevant Period, 

Cyberfort’s common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act 

Section 12(g) [15 U.S.C. § 78l(g)] and quoted on OTC Markets under the ticker symbol CYBF.  

According to its Forms 10-K filed with the Commission for fiscal years ended March 2016, 

2017, and 2018, the company has not generated any revenue.  Throughout the Relevant Period, 

Cyberfort’s common stock met the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 

3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].    

15. EnviroTechnologies International, Inc. (“EnviroTech”) is a Delaware 

corporation, headquartered in Pleasant Grove, Utah, that purports to be in the cannabidiol oil 

(CBD) market selling hemp-based products.  Before entering this business, the company’s 

business lines included “healthcare software and internet information” according to its 2017 

annual report.  During the Relevant Period, EnviroTech’s common stock was quoted on OTC 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5



 6 

Link under the symbol ETII.  Throughout the Relevant Period, EnviroTech’s common stock met 

the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)] 

and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].   

16. Evolution Technology Resources, Inc. (“Evolution Tech”) is a Delaware 

corporation, headquartered in Canada, which purports to be in the business of acquiring high 

growth companies in the online gambling and gaming sector including mobile apps.  Before 

entering the gambling and gaming business, Evolution Tech purportedly “focused on acquiring 

intellectual property and assets for the manufacturing of biomass processing equipment for the 

production of energy.”  During the Relevant Period, Evolution Tech’s common stock was quoted 

on OTC Markets under the symbol ETKR.  According to its most recent periodic reports posted 

on OTC Markets’ website, Evolution Tech has had no revenue or profits from at least January 1, 

2017 through December 31, 2018. Throughout the Relevant Period, Evolution Tech’s common 

stock met the definition of a “penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 

78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].  

17. Link Reservation Inc. (“Link Reservation”) is a Nevada corporation, 

headquartered in the United Kingdom that purports to be in the business of providing and 

developing CBD and hemp-based products for animals--primarily dogs, cats, and horses.  Before 

entering the CBD and hemp-based products market, the company purported to be in the business 

of providing credit card reservation transactions for the travel industry.  During the Relevant 

Period, Link Reservations’ common stock was quoted on the OTC Pink market under the symbol 

LSRV.  According to its most recent periodic reports posted on OTC Markets’ website, the 

company had no revenue or profits from at least January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. 

Throughout the Relevant Period, Link Reservation’s common stock met the definition of a 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6



 7 

“penny stock” under Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)] and Rule 3a51-1 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 3a51-1].   

FACTS 

Overview of the Call Room Scheme 

18. During the Relevant Period, Uboh and Crockett worked in the Call Room 

soliciting retail investors to purchase shares of the Issuers.   

19. O’Rourke directed Uboh and Crockett as to which of the Issuers to recommend at 

a particular point in time. 

20. Uboh and Crockett then called investors touting the prospects of the Issuers and 

urging the investors to purchase their stock.  

21. On numerous occasions when speaking to investors, Uboh and Crockett 

knowingly or recklessly: (1) used fake names: (2) lied about their backgrounds; and (3) used 

prepaid cell phones, which they often changed to further conceal their identities. 

22. In return for their role in securing money from investors, Uboh and Crockett 

received $341,898 and $203,481, respectively, from bank accounts that O’Rourke controlled. 

23. Investors who purchased the Issuers’ stock after being solicited by Uboh and 

Crockett have incurred over $1.1 million in realized and unrealized losses. 

Uboh and Crockett Solicit Money From Senior Retail Investors  

24. Uboh and Crockett often solicited investor money from senior citizens using the 

fraudulent tactics described above.   

Investor 1 

a. In or about November 2016, Uboh called a senior retail investor (“Investor 1”) 

using the fictitious name Jonathan Goldman. 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7



 8 

b. Uboh told Investor 1 that he worked for NASDAQ Private Market, and that 

Investor 1 would make a significant return if he invested in Link Reservation and 

10 times his money if he invested in Cyberfort.  To add credibility to his fictitious 

background, Uboh guided Investor 1 to NASDAQ Private Market’s webpage, 

which is part of NASDAQ’s website.  In fact, Uboh did not work for NASDAQ 

Private Market, and Uboh had no basis for telling Investor 1 that he would make 

significant returns if he invested in Link Reservation and Cyberfort, neither of 

which have generated any revenue in recent years.   

c. After his conversation with Uboh, Investor 1 purchased $55,000 worth of Link 

Reservation and Cyberfort stock, and has incurred realized and unrealized losses 

of almost all of this investment. 

Investor 2  

a. In or about February 2017, Uboh called another senior retail investor (“Investor 2”) 

using the fictitious name Frank Goldman.   

b. Uboh told Investor 2 that EnviroTech would have a 2-for-1 stock split and that the 

stock would hold at the same price as before the split, which meant that Investor 2 

would double his money if he invested in the company.  In fact, Uboh had no basis 

for telling Investor 2 that EnviroTech’s stock would split or that stock would double 

in value.   

c. After his conversation with Uboh, Investor 2 purchased approximately $300,000 

worth of EnviroTech stock, and has incurred realized and unrealized losses of most, 

if not all, of this investment. 

 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8



 9 

Investor 3  

a. In or about October 2017, Crockett called a senior retail investor (“Investor 3”) 

using the fictitious name Dan Gibson.   

b. Crockett told Investor 3 that he was affiliated with one of the Issuers, Evolution 

Tech, and claimed that Evolution Tech had recently entered into a contract with a 

well-known company that would generate substantial revenue.   

c. Crockett promised that Investor 3 would make significant returns if he invested in 

Evolution Tech common stock and guided Investor 3 to Evolution Tech’s website 

to add to its credibility.  In fact, Crockett was not affiliated with Evolution Tech.  

Further, Evolution Tech had not entered into a contract with the well-known 

company and had minimal, if any revenue.   

d. After his conversation with Crockett, Investor 3 purchased approximately 

$371,000 worth of Evolution Technology stock, and has incurred realized and 

unrealized losses of most, if not all, of this investment. 

Investor 4  

a. In or about July 2018, Crockett called another senior retail investor (“Investor 4”) 

using the fictitious name Dave Carroll.   

b. During the call, which Investor 4 recorded, Crockett falsely stated that he was a 

director of Cyberfort.  He also falsely claimed that Cyberfort: (a) had completed 

an initial public offering at $1.50 per share, (b) had secured preapproval to get 

listed on NASDAQ, (c) would be “hitting NASDAQ at $5.00 a share,” (d) had 

partnered with a well-known company to handle all of that company’s 

cybersecurity work, and (e) had obtained a commitment from a well-known 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9



 10 

investment bank to purchase 2 million shares of Cyberfort’s common stock at $4 

per share.   

c. After his conversation with Crockett, Investor 4 purchased approximately $210 

worth of Cyberfort stock, and has incurred unrealized losses of most, if not all, of 

this investment. 

The Private Placement Scheme 

25. In or about January 2018, Crockett, using the fictitious name Dan Gibson, and 

Uboh, using the fictitious name Nedi Shupo, offered Investor 3 the opportunity to purchase up to 

250,000 shares of Company A at $2 per share.  Crockett and Uboh told Investor 3 that Company 

A had entered into a partnership with Company B, a well-known technology company, and that 

Company A would realize significant growth as a result of that partnership.  

26. Crockett and Uboh knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that Company A had 

not entered into a partnership with Company B.   

27. Based on Crockett and Uboh’s misrepresentations concerning Company A’s 

partnership with Company B, Investor 3 purchased 250,000 shares of Company A’s stock for 

approximately $500,000.   

28. Instead of investing Investor 3’s funds in Company A, Crockett and Uboh 

misappropriated the investment. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

 
29. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28. 

30. Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett, directly or indirectly, knowingly, 

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

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10



 11 

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

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue 

statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the 

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or 

(c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would have 

operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities. 

31. The Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by, among other 

things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations to investors 

about the Issuers and Company A and misappropriating Investor 1’s investment in Company A.  

32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett directly or 

indirectly, violated Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), 

(2), and (3)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder 

 
33. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28.    

34. Defendant Uboh and Defendant Crockett, directly or indirectly, knowing or 

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

a facility of a national securities exchange, (a) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact, 

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

were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts, transactions, practices, or courses of business 

which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon persons, in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities. 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11



 12 

35. By engaging in the conduct alleged above, Defendant Uboh and Defendant 

Crockett violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a), 

(b), and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)]. 

36. The Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder by, among other things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material 

misrepresentations to investors about the Issuers and Company A and misappropriating Investor 

1’s investment in Company A.  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final 

Judgment: 

I. 

Finding that Uboh and Crockett violated Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 

78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)] as 

alleged in this Complaint; 

II. 

Permanently enjoining Uboh and Crockett, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys-

in-fact and assigns, and those persons in active concert or participation with them or who receive 

actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 17(a)(1), 

(2) and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), (2) and (3)] and Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 

240.10b-5(a), (b) and (c)] as alleged in this Complaint; 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12



13 

III. 

Ordering Uboh and Crockett to disgorge any ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment 

interest pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and Sections 6501(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-283, to be codified at 15 

U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3) and 78u(d)(7);  

IV. 

Ordering Uboh and Crockett to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of 

the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 

78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and 

V. 

Permanently prohibiting Uboh and Crockett from participating in any offering of a penny 

stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, 

trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock, under 

Exchange Act Section 21(d)(6) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; and 

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13



14 

VI. 

Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by 

jury in this action of all issues so triable.  

Dated: New York, NY 
 

Respectfully submitted, 

By:      ___________________ 
Richard R. Best 
Lara Shalov Mehraban 
Alexander Vasilescu  
Sandeep Satwalekar  
Rhonda L. Jung 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
New York Regional Office 
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
New York, NY 10281-1022 
Tel: (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu) 
[email protected] 

April 15, 2021

Case 1:21-cv-02049-DG-VMS   Document 1   Filed 04/15/21   Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14


	SUMMARY
	DEFENDANTS