In re CARL S. SANKO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

                                                                     Before                                                                     the                                                                     

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

September 13, 2007 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12789 
In the Matter of 
CARL S. SANKO, CPA, 
Respondent. 
ORDER INSTITUTING  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE 
COMMISSION’S RULES OF 
PRACTICE, AND NOTICE OF 
HEARING 
I. 
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that public 
administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 4C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 
against Carl S. Sanko, CPA (“Sanko” or “Respondent”). 
II. 
After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: 
A. RESPONDENT 
1. Carl S. Sanko, CPA, 51, of Topanga, California, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in California since 1987.  Sanko operates as a sole proprietorship.  Sanko prepared and 
issued an audit report dated June 3, 2004 in connection with its audit of Platina Energy Group, Inc. 
(“Platina”). 
B. OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 
1. Platina is a Delaware corporation based in New Orleans, Louisiana.  During the 
relevant period, Platina’s common stock traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.  Its common stock is 
registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.  Platina reported 
$638 in revenue and total assets of $14,312 for its fiscal year ended 2003.  Platina has at all 
relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”).  Platina 
was known as Federal Protection Services, Inc. during the relevant period. 

C. 	FAILURE TO REGISTER WITH THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING 
OVERSIGHT BOARD 
1. Section 102(a) of the Act prohibits any person that is not a registered public 
accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) from 
preparing or issuing, or participating in the preparation or issuance of, any audit report with respect 
to any public reporting company after October 22, 2003. 
2.	At no point did Sanko register with the PCAOB as a public accounting firm. 
3. Sanko audited Platina’s financial statements included in Platina’s annual report for 
fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on June 29, 2004.   
4. Sanko prepared and issued an audit report dated June 3, 2004, which was included 
in Platina’s Form 10-KSB. 
5. Sanko received $7,500 for conducting an audit of Platina’s financial statements for 
its fiscal year 2003 and for issuing an audit report on those financial statements.  
D.	        VIOLATIONS        
1. Section 4C(a) of the Exchange Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission 
“may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently, to any person the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before the Commission in any way, if that person is found by the 
Commission ... (1) not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others ... or (3) to have 
willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities 
laws or the rules and regulations issued thereunder.” 
2. Rule 102(e)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that the 
Commission “may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is found by the Commission ... (i) 
not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others ... or (iii) to have willfully violated ... 
any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 
3. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.” 
4. Because Sanko had not registered with the PCAOB, he lacked “the requisite 
qualifications” to issue an audit report dated June 3, 2004. 
5. In violation of Section 102(a) of the Act, Sanko prepared and issued an audit report 
on the financial statements of a reporting company after October 22, 2003, without first registering 
with the PCAOB. Sanko thus also willfully violated the federal securities laws. 
2


III. 
In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 
necessary and appropriate that public administrative proceedings be instituted to determine:    
A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II are true and, in connection therewith, 
to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and 
B. Whether, pursuant to Sections 4C(a)(1) and 4C(a)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rules 
102(e)(1)(i) and 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Respondent should be 
censured by the Commission or temporarily or permanently denied the privilege of appearing or 
practicing before the Commission. 
IV. 
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 
set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 
Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations 
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.  
If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly 
notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 
him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 
provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.  
§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310. 
This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent personally or by certified mail. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial 
decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 
3


In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 
in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 
proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 
or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice.  Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 
the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 
provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action. 
            By            the            Commission.            
        Nancy M. Morris
        Secretary 
4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Before the 


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

September 13, 2007 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12789 

In the Matter of 

CARL S. SANKO, CPA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER INSTITUTING  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE 
COMMISSION’S RULES OF 
PRACTICE, AND NOTICE OF 
HEARING 

I. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that public 
administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 4C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 
against Carl S. Sanko, CPA (“Sanko” or “Respondent”). 

II. 

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: 

A. RESPONDENT 

1. Carl S. Sanko, CPA, 51, of Topanga, California, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in California since 1987.  Sanko operates as a sole proprietorship.  Sanko prepared and 
issued an audit report dated June 3, 2004 in connection with its audit of Platina Energy Group, Inc. 
(“Platina”). 

B. OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 

1. Platina is a Delaware corporation based in New Orleans, Louisiana.  During the 
relevant period, Platina’s common stock traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.  Its common stock is 
registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.  Platina reported 
$638 in revenue and total assets of $14,312 for its fiscal year ended 2003.  Platina has at all 
relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”).  Platina 
was known as Federal Protection Services, Inc. during the relevant period. 



C. 	 FAILURE TO REGISTER WITH THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING 
OVERSIGHT BOARD 

1. Section 102(a) of the Act prohibits any person that is not a registered public 
accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) from 
preparing or issuing, or participating in the preparation or issuance of, any audit report with respect 
to any public reporting company after October 22, 2003. 

2.	 At no point did Sanko register with the PCAOB as a public accounting firm. 

3. Sanko audited Platina’s financial statements included in Platina’s annual report for 
fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on June 29, 2004.   

4. Sanko prepared and issued an audit report dated June 3, 2004, which was included 
in Platina’s Form 10-KSB. 

5. Sanko received $7,500 for conducting an audit of Platina’s financial statements for 
its fiscal year 2003 and for issuing an audit report on those financial statements.  

D.	 VIOLATIONS 

1. Section 4C(a) of the Exchange Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission 
“may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently, to any person the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before the Commission in any way, if that person is found by the 
Commission … (1) not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others … or (3) to have 
willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities 
laws or the rules and regulations issued thereunder.” 

2. Rule 102(e)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that the 
Commission “may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is found by the Commission ... (i) 
not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others … or (iii) to have willfully violated … 
any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 

3. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.” 

4. Because Sanko had not registered with the PCAOB, he lacked “the requisite 
qualifications” to issue an audit report dated June 3, 2004. 

5. In violation of Section 102(a) of the Act, Sanko prepared and issued an audit report 
on the financial statements of a reporting company after October 22, 2003, without first registering 
with the PCAOB. Sanko thus also willfully violated the federal securities laws. 

2




III. 

In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 
necessary and appropriate that public administrative proceedings be instituted to determine:    

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II are true and, in connection therewith, 
to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and 

B. Whether, pursuant to Sections 4C(a)(1) and 4C(a)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rules 
102(e)(1)(i) and 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Respondent should be 
censured by the Commission or temporarily or permanently denied the privilege of appearing or 
practicing before the Commission. 

IV. 

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 
set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 
Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.   

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations 
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.  

If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly 
notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 
him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 
provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.  
§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310. 

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent personally or by certified mail. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial 
decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 

3




In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 
in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 
proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 
or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice.  Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 
the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 
provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action. 

 By the Commission. 

        Nancy  M.  Morris
        Secretary  

4