SEC v. JONAH ENGLER; JONAH ENGLER-SILBERMAN; JOSHUA W. TURNEY; HECTOR PEREZ; BRUCE JOHNSON; and BARBARA DESIDERIO, No. 1:20-cv-01625, Eastern District of New York (Aug. 25, 2020) — Complaint

MARC P. BERGER
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Lara S. Mehraban
Steven G. Rawlings
Richard Primoff
Margaret Spillane
Hane L. Kim
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
Brookfield Place
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, New York 10281-1022
(212) 336-0148 (Primoff)
[email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
JONAH ENGLER a/k/a JONAH ENGLER-
SILBERMAN, JOSHUA W. TURNEY, HECTOR
PEREZ a/k/a BRUCE JOHNSON, and
BARBARA DESIDERIO,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
20 Civ. 1625 (      )
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against
Defendants Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman (“Engler”), Joshua W. Turney
(“Turney”), Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson (“Perez”), and Barbara Desiderio (“Desiderio”),
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1.Defendants, through their Commission-registered brokerage firm, conducted a
fraudulent unauthorized trading scheme involving approximately 360 customer accounts during a

2
period of more than two months, during a time when Engler and Desiderio suspected their firm
would soon be forced to shut down. By making unauthorized trades in their customers’
brokerage accounts, Defendants generated over $2.4 million in unlawful markups, markdowns
and commissions (collectively, “commissions”) for their firm—resulting in significant pay-outs
for each of them—while causing over $4 million in net losses for their defrauded customers.
2. In March 2015, Engler and Desiderio—who respectively controlled and served as
a principal of Global Arena Capital Corporation (“Global”), a then-registered broker-dealer—
learned that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), a self-regulatory
organization, would not approve their application to transfer ownership of Global to Engler’s
holding company. Engler, based on increasing scrutiny from FINRA into Global’s sales
practices, suspected he would soon be forced to close the firm. He decided to leave the securities
business and close it down himself.
3. Over the time remaining in which Global had left to operate, approximately
April 1 through June 4, 2015, Engler directed Turney and Perez, registered representatives at
Global, to engage in unauthorized trading to generate commission revenue. Unauthorized trading
means ordering trades for non-discretionary customer accounts, i.e., accounts that require trades
to be pre-authorized by customers, but without obtaining any customer authorizations. At
Engler’s direction and with Desiderio’s knowledge, Turney and Perez attempted to cover up their
unauthorized trading by making fake calls to their customers that included, for example, leaving
long voicemails with their customers or placing the call on mute if the customer answered the
phone, in an attempt to falsely suggest that the customer had authorized the trading.
4. Defendants also routinely used system codes of other registered representatives at
Global to obscure that Turney and Perez were the representatives responsible for these

3
unauthorized trades—and in at least one instance, paid off a Global registered representative with
a share of commissions in exchange for looking the other way while they fraudulently used his
code.
5. Turney and Perez, at Engler’s direction and with Desiderio’s knowing assistance,
executed approximately 4,500 unauthorized trades in approximately 360 customer accounts. Of
the $2.4 million in unlawful commissions generated from the unauthorized trading, Engler and
companies he controlled received approximately $1.1 million, Turney received over $280,000,
Perez received over $135,000, and Desiderio received over $390,000.
VIOLATIONS
6. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendants
Engler, Turney, and Perez have violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933
(“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §  77q(a)(1) & (3)] and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) & (c)]. Defendant Desiderio aided and abetted Engler’s, Turney’s and
Perez’s violations.
7. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, they will engage in the acts,
practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
8. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Exchange Act
Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].

4
9. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendants
from violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges they have violated;
(b) ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains they received as a result of the violations
alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest thereon; (c) ordering Defendants to pay civil money
penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section
21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and (d) ordering any other and further relief the Court may
deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section
22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
11. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts,
practices, and courses of business alleged herein.
12. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)]
and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants
of, or transact business in the Eastern District of New York, and certain of the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District. For
example, Engler resides in Brooklyn, New York, and certain Global customers resided in
Brooklyn, New York during the relevant period.
DEFENDANTS
13. Engler, age 39, resides in Brooklyn, New York. From October 2013 to June
2015, Engler controlled Global. Engler was officially associated with Global as a registered
representative from October 2013 to April 16, 2015, but he continued to control Global from

5
April 17, 2015 through at least June 4, 2015. Before October 2013, Engler was a registered
representative at a different Commission-registered broker-dealer (“Broker-Dealer A”).
14. Turney, age 41, resides in San Diego, California. Turney was associated with
Global as a registered representative from October 2013 to June 2015. Before October 2013,
Turney was associated with Broker-Dealer A.
15. Perez, age 32, resides in Jackson, New Jersey. Perez was associated with Global
as a registered representative from October 2013 to June 2015. Before October 2013, Perez was
associated with Broker-Dealer A.
16. Desiderio, age 61, resides in East Windsor, New Jersey. From October 2013 to
June 2015, Desiderio was associated with Global as a registered representative and a principal,
nominally serving as president and chief executive officer. From October 2013 until she resigned
from the firm on June 30, 2015, Desiderio had formal responsibility for supervising the Global
branch where the Defendants worked, and, from August 2014 through May 12, 2015, she served
as Global’s chief compliance officer. During the relevant period, Desiderio held responsibility
for responding to regulatory inquiries and updating FINRA’s Central Registration Depository
(“CRD”), the database for required information about registered representatives and firms. Prior
to the relevant period, Desiderio had also served as a branch manager at Global from October 24,
2013 to August 10, 2014.
RELATED ENTITIES
17. Global is a New York limited liability company (“LLC”), and its principal place
of business was in New York, New York during the relevant time. Global was registered with the
Commission as a broker-dealer from 1986 to 2016 and had multiple branches in different
locations during that time. On approximately October 24, 2013, Global opened a branch office at

6
1350 Sixth Avenue in Manhattan (the “Sixth Avenue Office”). On April 20, 2015, that office
moved to 880 Third Avenue in Manhattan. Global was the subject of multiple FINRA
investigations into its sales practices during the relevant period, and it filed a Form BDW on
June 5, 2015, to withdraw its Commission registration. On July 20, 2015, FINRA cancelled
Global’s membership for failure to pay the required fees. In January 2016, FINRA expelled
Global from membership.
18. PMC Capital LLC (“PMC”) is a Delaware LLC headquartered in New York,
New York. At all relevant times, Engler held a 99.99% ownership interest in PMC, while
Desiderio held the remaining 0.01%. From August 2014 through at least June 2015, PMC owned
24.9% of Global.
FACTS
I. BACKGROUND
A. Engler Arranges for Defendants to Move to Global as Its Representatives.
19. From at least 2007 through 2009, Engler, Turney, and Perez worked together at
two different broker-dealers.
20. From approximately 2009 to October 2013, Engler, Turney, and Perez then
worked together as registered representatives at Broker-Dealer A.
21. In 2013, Engler began discussions with Desiderio, who worked at a different
broker-dealer, about Engler leaving Broker-Dealer A.
22. On approximately October 17, 2013, Broker-Dealer A terminated the employment
of Engler, Turney, Perez, and many other registered representatives who had worked with
Engler.
23. On October 23, 2013, Engler reached an agreement with the president of Global’s
holding company (“Holding Company”) to open and run an Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction

7
(“OSJ”) branch office of Global at the Sixth Avenue Office.
1

24. In a letter agreement dated the same day, Engler and Holding Company’s
president agreed that “in consideration of [Engler] introducing Barbara Desiderio as an OSJ
principal of Global Arena Capital Corp.,” Engler received a five-year stock purchase warrant to
purchase six million shares of Holding Company (approximately 25% of Holding Company’s
then-issued and outstanding shares) and had the right to designate one board member of Holding
Company. The letter agreement also enabled Desiderio to control “all hiring of new Brokers” for
Global and to direct the charging of markup and markdowns (essentially, a form of broker profit)
“for a total of 3.975%.”
25. On October 24, 2013, Engler and Desiderio opened the Sixth Avenue Office as an
OSJ.
26. By the end of that week, Engler, Turney and Perez, as well as many other
registered representatives who had worked under Engler’s direction at Broker-Dealer A, had
become registered representatives of Global and had begun working at the Sixth Avenue Office.
B. Engler Controls Global.
27. Although Desiderio nominally served as the branch supervisor for the Sixth
Avenue Office, Engler actually ran its operations, as described below.
28. Engler regularly held firm-wide meetings where he gave orders to the registered
representatives and others.

1
  FINRA Rule 3110(f) defines an OSJ as any office of a FINRA member firm “at which
any one or more of the following functions take place:  (A) order execution or market making;
(B) structuring of public offerings or private placements; (C) maintaining custody of customers’
funds or securities; (D) final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on behalf of the member;
(E) review and endorsement of customer orders . . . ; (F) final approval of retail communications
for use by persons associated with the member . . . ; or (G) responsibility for supervising the
activities of persons associated with the member at one or more other branch offices of the
member.”

8
29. Engler controlled the hiring and firing of registered representatives and allocated
customer accounts among them.
30. Engler set gross commission targets, had discretion to increase or decrease the cut
of gross commission that registered representatives received, determined which expenses
registered representatives were responsible for, and had final say in the pay each registered
representative received.
31. Engler also controlled how Global personnel, including registered representatives,
communicated. He discouraged personnel from using Global’s email addresses to conduct
business or transmit records, including for internal communications and record-keeping—such as
records related to customers, trading, commissions, and other core operational information.
32. As a result, Global personnel, including Desiderio, often made or kept records of
Global business on their personal email accounts or cell phones (including text messages) or
hard-copy printouts of electronic files that were not centrally retained.
33. Engler himself rarely communicated by email or text, insisted on in-person
meetings, and often used senior registered representatives to communicate with those more
junior.
34. To formalize Engler’s control over Desiderio and the Sixth Avenue Office, Engler
and Desiderio agreed to an “Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement” (the
“PMC Agreement”), dated December 31, 2013.
35. The PMC Agreement, although designating Desiderio as the managing member of
PMC, made clear that Engler held a 99.99% interest in PMC, while Desiderio held only 0.01%.
36. The PMC Agreement stated that PMC was to “acquire and maintain all of the
furnishings, fixtures and equipment . . . required to facilitate operations” of the customer

9
brokerage accounts as a Global OSJ.
37. The PMC Agreement required Desiderio to deposit any funds from Global’s
business into a PMC account, and any available cash was to be distributed to Engler (99.99%)
and Desiderio (0.01%), at Engler’s discretion.
38. The PMC Agreement gave Engler, among other things, the right to control the
hiring, firing and setting of compensation for Global’s employees and registered representatives,
and the right to act as the managing member if Desiderio failed to deposit Global commission
payments into PMC’s bank account. The PMC Agreement also stipulated that if Desiderio failed
to “manage PMC in the best economic interests of” Engler, she would be forced to forfeit her
interest in PMC.
39. Engler and Desiderio also entered into a PMC Managing Member Agreement,
dated December 31, 2013 and signed in early January 2014 (the “PMC Managing Agreement”).
40. The PMC Managing Agreement set Desiderio’s compensation from PMC at
$225,000 per year (in addition to her salary of $125,000 per year from Global).
41. The PMC Managing Agreement included a clause in which Desiderio
acknowledged that Engler “contributed not less than $1,000,000 in capital to fund [PMC] and its
operations, and that, without such capital contribution, [PMC] would not be able to pay
[Desiderio] the compensation. . . .”
42. A later version of the PMC Agreement, dated March 31, 2014, generally
maintained the same terms as the prior version and made clear that Engler had the “sole and
complete discretion” over distribution of funds.
43. In August 2014, following these agreements, PMC entered into a purchase
agreement with Holding Company, by which PMC acquired 24.9% of Global’s shares from

10
Holding Company in exchange for $2.1 million in commissions that Holding Company owed
PMC and Desiderio.
44. Pursuant to the purchase agreement, PMC stood to acquire the remaining 74.1%
of Global’s shares for no additional consideration once FINRA approved the transfer of control
of Global to PMC.
45. Global then adopted a resolution electing Desiderio as a director of Global’s and
its president, CEO, and treasurer. Desiderio also became Global’s chief compliance officer.
46. On August 21, 2014, the Sixth Avenue Office became Global’s main office.
47. By the end of 2014, four of Global’s other five branch offices had closed.
C. FINRA Commences an Enforcement Proceeding against Engler, Turney, and
Perez for Prior Conduct and Also Directs Investigative Requests to Global.
48. Meanwhile, in June 2014, FINRA commenced an enforcement proceeding against
Engler, Turney, and Perez based on their conduct at Broker-Dealer A. FINRA’s Enforcement
Division alleged that, from 2009 to 2011, all three had engaged in the fraudulent sale of notes to
brokerage customers.
49. Unrelated to that proceeding, FINRA directed multiple investigative requests to
Global from mid-2014 until approximately July 2015, when Global was expelled from FINRA
membership.
50. In July 2014, FINRA notified Global that it was subject to the “Taping Rule.”
That rule requires special monitoring of the telemarketing activities of a broker-dealer’s
registered representatives, including the tape recording of their conversations, when a certain
percentage of the broker-dealer’s registered representatives previously worked at other broker-
dealers with a disciplinary history.
51. On August 6, 2014, Global applied for an exemption from the Taping Rule for all

11
of its branches.
52. In August 2014, FINRA sought Engler’s on-the-record testimony and requested
that Global provide information concerning his compensation and communications with
Desiderio, among others, and Global’s buying and selling of fixed income securities.
53. On November 20, 2014, FINRA rejected Global’s request for an exemption from
the Taping Rule. FINRA noted that, because a large number of registered representatives at the
Sixth Avenue Office had previously been associated with Broker-Dealer A, “it will be
particularly important that such a [tape-recording] system is installed at the Sixth Avenue
[Office].”
54. Global never installed any such system.
55. On November 25, 2014, FINRA issued an investigative request to Global
concerning the Sixth Avenue Office’s compliance procedures and supervisory review of trade
orders, phone records, and customer complaints, among other things.
56. On March 4, 2015, FINRA issued investigative requests to Global related to
Global’s compliance review of registered representatives’ email correspondence.
57. On approximately March 19, 2015, FINRA also notified Global that it was
requesting on-the-record testimony from another registered representative (“Representative A”).
58. Several days later, on March 23, 2015, FINRA notified Global that FINRA was
opening a “for cause” examination into the sales practices of Turney and two other senior
registered representatives.
59. Two days later, on March 25, 2015, FINRA requested on-the-record testimony
from Perez.

12
D. FINRA Denies Engler’s Application to Transfer Global’s Ownership to
PMC.
60. Also on March 25, 2015, FINRA notified Engler and Desiderio by letter that it
would not approve Engler’s application to transfer ownership of Global to PMC.
61. FINRA’s March 25 letter provided multiple reasons for the denial. These reasons
included that the PMC Agreement and other documentation showed Engler had “substantial
control over [Global’s] securities business and is actively involved in the management of
[Global]” and that Engler, despite FINRA’s repeated requests, had failed to obtain the required
principal license; that Engler, Turney, and Perez were then respondents in FINRA’s pending
enforcement proceeding; that Engler had an extensive history of arbitration claims and other
customer complaints, including complaints for unauthorized trading and excessive fees and
commissions; and that the PMC Agreement appeared to direct transaction-based compensation
from Global to PMC, an unregistered holding company, in contravention of Exchange Act
Section 15(a)’s prohibition on unregistered broker-dealers.
E. Engler and Desiderio Falsely Notify FINRA That
Engler Has Terminated His Association with Global.
62. The day after FINRA emailed its notification letter, on March 26, 2015, Engler
started a new, non-securities-related business venture, a cell phone refurbishing company
(“Phone Company’), using the address of an apartment Engler used in Manhattan.
63. On April 16, 2015, Desiderio updated Engler’s CRD record with FINRA to
represent that Engler had voluntarily terminated his association with Global, effective that day.
64. Yet Engler continued to control Global after his purported termination and, in
coordination with Desiderio, continued to direct its ongoing business even after April 16, 2015
and continuing until June 2015, as described below.
65. During this period, Engler monitored registered representatives’ trading activity

13
and held offsite meetings approximately weekly with certain registered representatives at Global,
including Turney and Perez. At these meetings, Engler set commission targets and directed the
registered representatives as to which methods to use to achieve the aggressive sales targets he
set.
66. During the same period, Engler continued to have final authority in deciding
which registered representatives would conduct trades in which customer accounts.
67. During this period, Engler continued to make employment decisions for Global,
directing the firing of at least one sales assistant. In addition, Engler continued to control the
amount of the payments registered representatives and sales assistants received from the
commissions the registered representatives generated.
68. Desiderio also remained in close contact with Engler throughout the same period
and regularly consulted him on Global business. Desiderio also joined Engler part-time at Phone
Company.
II. DEFENDANTS’ UNAUTHORIZED TRADING SCHEME
A. Global Held Non-Discretionary Accounts for Customers.
69. Under NASD Rule 2510 (now FINRA Rule 3260), in effect at all relevant times,
broker-dealer firms and their registered representatives are not permitted to exercise
discretionary authority—that is, place a trade without the customer’s prior authorization for the
trade—in a customer’s account unless the customer has given prior written authorization for a
broker to exercise discretion in the account.
2

70. Customer accounts for which a broker-dealer and its registered representations do
not have written authorization to exercise discretion over customer trades are known as “non-

2
  Although not relevant here, the rule permits certain exceptions, including that brokers
may exercise discretion over the time and price of the trade within certain limitations.

14
discretionary accounts.”
71. For non-discretionary accounts, a registered representative must obtain approval
from a customer for a trade before placing that trade for the customer’s account, generally on the
same day the trade is executed.
72. At all relevant times, Global held only non-discretionary customer accounts, such
that Global’s registered representatives were required to obtain approval from their customers for
each trade before the trade was executed and on the same day it was executed.
B. Engler Directs Turney and Perez to Engage in Unauthorized Trading
73. On approximately March 30, 2015, shortly after Engler had learned FINRA
would not permit PMC to take full ownership of Global, Engler met with Turney and Perez.
74. At this meeting, Engler set aggressively high commission targets for Turney and
Perez, in an attempt to squeeze as much cash out of customer accounts as fast as he could. Engler
directed Turney and Perez to greatly increase the amount of commissions generated in
customers’ accounts. Among other things, Engler communicated a commission target for Perez
that amounted to $312,500 in total commissions for April, which Engler explained meant that
Perez would have to make customer trades in principal amounts totaling $520,000 per day.
75. By April 14, 2015, Engler had also conveyed to Turney that he should double the
amount of total commissions earned from Turney’s customers’ accounts. Turney in turn told his
assistant (the “Assistant”) in a text message that they had to do “double the gross” that he
previously had been producing.
76. In approximately late March or early April 2015, Engler instructed Turney and
Perez that, if they could not get customers to agree to the volume of trades required to meet his
aggressive commission targets, to instead use sham “call logs.”
77. With respect to call logs, Engler specifically instructed Turney to conceal the lack

15
of customer authorization for the trades by placing sham phone calls to customers, in which
Turney was either to leave a long voicemail claiming the customer had authorized the trade or
otherwise just mute the call if the customer picked up.
78. As Engler and Turney understood, this would allow Global to produce phone
records that purported to reflect phone conversations with customers to maintain the pretense, if
a customer complained, that the customer had authorized the trades in a phone call. Global
personnel referred to making these phone calls as creating a “call log.”
79. Similarly, in April 2015, Engler directed Perez to meet the commission targets
that Engler set by emulating Turney, by engaging in the practice of creating sham call logs.
80. Engler, with Desiderio’s assistance, also masked Turney and Perez’s unauthorized
trading through a longstanding Sixth Avenue Office practice of misusing unique identifiers for
each registered representative, known as the representative code, or “rep code,” in the database
of Global’s clearing broker.
81. Global’s clearing broker used these rep code associations to identify which
representatives had conducted trades and generated commissions and to identify registered
representatives on their customers’ brokerage statements.
82. While certain registered representatives were registered in each state and thus
permitted to solicit customers who lived throughout the United States, others, including Turney
and Perez, could not conduct securities business in certain states, because states had not or would
not have permitted them to register, or because they had had their registrations cancelled because
of disciplinary issues.
83. Engler and Desiderio routinely permitted and directed registered representatives
to circumvent these state-specific restrictions by having them trade their accounts using the “rep

16
code” of another registered representative who had no such restriction. Desiderio typically
moved the accounts to these different rep codes herself, by accessing the clearing agent’s system,
and reassigning the account to the new representative. This process included confirming, through
checking CRD or other records, that the other registered representative was licensed to work
with customers in the state where the customer lived. Although others at Global had access to
make such changes in the clearing agent’s system, they did so only after receiving Desiderio’s
permission.
84. Defendants used this practice during the relevant period to conduct a substantial
amount of their unauthorized trading in the accounts of two other registered representatives at
Global.
C. Turney and Perez Ramp Up The Unauthorized Trading.
1. Turney and Perez Use Representative A’s Rep Code.
85. On April 17, 2015, Representative A stopped working at Global, and, three days
later, he joined Engler at Phone Company.
86. By at least April 17, 2015, Desiderio was aware of Representative A’s departure
from Global. She attended a party for Engler at the Sixth Avenue Office on April 17, where
Representative A’s departure from Global, and his joining Engler at Phone Company, was
widely discussed. Desiderio was also at that same time managing the Sixth Avenue Office’s
move to Third Avenue, and on April 20, 2015 informed the landlord that the number of
personnel making the move had reduced—accounting for the departure of Representative A and
his former sales assistant, who had also accepted Engler’s offer of that date to join him at Phone
Company. Global’s internal contact list was also updated to remove Representative A and his
assistant.

87. From April 17 through May 5, 2015, Desiderio filed updates to FINRA records

17
for herself and certain other registered representatives to make required disclosures concerning
changes in their work status, including outside work. For example, on April 27, 2015, Desiderio
informed FINRA that she would be spending ten hours per week on Phone Company business.
88. Desiderio did not file updates to FINRA records for Global or Representative A to
note his departure from Global until May 6, 2015—the day Representative A failed to appear for
testimony before FINRA and thus faced an automatic bar from FINRA for serving as a registered
representative of a FINRA member firm.
89. As a result, between April 17 and May 6, 2015, Representative A’s rep code was
still ostensibly active and available for Defendants to use in their scheme.
90. On or shortly after Representative A’s departure from Global on April 17,
Engler—notwithstanding his own purported departure from Global on April 16—requested that
Turney print a list of customer accounts associated with Representative A.
91. At an in-person meeting at around the same time, Engler instructed Turney to sell
everything in Representative A’s accounts and buy new positions. Engler conveyed to Turney,
among other things, that Turney was to make these trades even in the absence of prior
authorization from Representative A’s customers and that the customer accounts were to remain
associated with Representative A’s rep code.
92. Engler directed Turney to use Representative A’s rep code to make it appear that
Representative A—not Turney—was the representative responsible for the unauthorized trades.
93. Engler instructed Turney to keep track of gross commissions he generated after
April 20, 2015, and to split those commissions with Engler.
94. Engler also told Turney he should wait until Engler had informed Desiderio
before moving forward with those trades.

18
95. Engler later told Turney that Desiderio would help them accomplish the scheme.
96. Defendants also used Representative A’s rep code to facilitate Perez’s
unauthorized trading.
97. Before Representative A’s departure, Perez had been conducting unauthorized
trading in 66 customer accounts under a different registered representative’s rep code, because
the customers holding these 66 accounts were in states where Perez was not authorized to trade.
That other representative had begun complaining about the unauthorized trading Perez was
conducting with his rep code.
98. Around the time of Representative A’s departure, and by April 20, 2015,
Desiderio moved or authorized the movement of these 66 customer accounts to Representative
A’s rep code.
99. Ultimately, in customer accounts that were associated with Representative A’s rep
code at the time, Turney made approximately 1,400 unauthorized trades resulting in
approximately $696,000 in commissions, and Perez made approximately 90 unauthorized trades
resulting in approximately $80,000 in commissions.

2. Engler Monitors Trading and Pressures Perez to Increase Trading.
100. Even after his purported departure, Engler had access to the amount of gross
commissions that Turney and Perez had generated in trading activity and communicated with
them about it.
101. Perez initially struggled to execute on Engler’s instructions to increase his
commissions.
102. On April 21, 2015, Engler met with Turney and Perez at his offsite office and
reiterated to them that they needed to increase their production.
103. The next day, Engler followed up with a text message to Perez: “Stop worrying

19
about ur number. Do 40gs a day. 1.3 a day. Sell everything.” In other words, Engler asked Perez
to generate $40,000 in commissions per day, which would require securities transactions with the
principal value of $1.3 million, and that Perez should do so by selling all the securities in his
customers’ accounts. Perez responded: “Done and done. I’m giving you everything I got senor.
[E]ither way I’ll ramp it up more.”
104. Two days later, on April 24, Turney texted his Assistant and noted: “Jonah
[Engler] jus[t] sent me a text saying gross was wack yesterday,” indicating Engler’s displeasure
that Global’s registered representatives had not generated enough commissions.
105. By approximately April 29, Engler had instructed Perez to generate $500,000 in
gross commissions each month and had instructed Turney to assist Perez. That day, Turney
texted his Assistant: “Jonah wants me to make [Perez] do 500 a month. I gotta sit with him
again.” Turney instructed his Assistant to help Perez’s assistant learn how to “keep track of gross
[commissions] on spreadsheet.” Turney made clear that the direction to ensure Perez achieved
the commission target came from Engler and told the Assistant: “Has to get done though. Jonah
[Engler]’s counting on me.”
106. Perez then greatly increased the number of trades he ordered to be executed in
customer accounts, none of which the customers had authorized.
107. On May 1, 2015, Turney texted Perez to praise him for his numbers that week and
his decision to stop seeking customer authorization: “Nice job this week bro. Breaking through
imaginary limitations.”
108. On June 2, 2015, Turney and his Assistant exchanged text messages about Perez’s
unauthorized trading:
Turney: Are we only people working today?
Assistant: [Perez] is dropping tickets as [well]

20
...
Turney: Yeah. Has he called anyone though lol [laughing out loud]?
Assistant: Idk [I don’t know] probs not
Turney: Lmao. Well at least he’s doing biz

D. Defendants Misuse Another Registered Representative’s Rep Code.
109. Shortly before May 6, 2015, when Representative A’s rep code could no longer
be used, Engler offered several registered representatives money in exchange for their agreement
to permit the movement of customers to those representatives’ rep codes, thereby allowing
Turney and Perez to continue trading customers who resided in states where Turney and Perez
could not trade.
110. Although at least two registered representatives refused Engler’s offer because of
concerns about Turney’s trading, one registered representative (“Representative B”) agreed to
Engler’s offer.
111. Between May 6 and May 12, 2015, Desiderio approved and facilitated the
movement of a total over 150 customer accounts that Turney and Perez were trading in
Representative A’s rep code, to Representative B’s rep code. These included 36 customer
accounts that Desiderio had previously moved to Representative A’s rep code to facilitate
Perez’s trading in those accounts.
112. Desiderio made or approved these account transfers at Engler’s direction. For
example, on May 8, 2015, Turney’s Assistant asked Desiderio if the Assistant could move the
accounts. Desiderio told the Assistant in a text that Desiderio had consulted with Engler and was
waiting for a decision. Twelve minutes later, Desiderio confirmed to the Assistant: “Jonah
[Engler] said they [he and Turney] spoke and to move them.” Only afterwards did the Assistant
move the accounts.
113. By this time, Desiderio knew that, because Representative A’s rep code was no

21
longer available, Turney had to find another representative’s rep code to use.  She also knew that
other registered representatives had rejected Engler’s request to use their rep codes to facilitate
Turney’s trading.
114. For example, on May 8, 2015, Assistant A complained to Desiderio by text: “I
wish [Representative A’s] rep [code] was still active. No one wants josh [Turney].” Desiderio,
acknowledging that the concerns of other registered representatives who had refused to allow
Turney to use their rep codes were valid, responded: “Do you blame them[?]”
115. Starting about a week after Turney and Perez began trading in his account,
Representative B began to receive customer complaints about unauthorized trading in his
accounts and also realized that Turney and Perez had neglected to create “call logs” for these
unauthorized trades using Representative B’s rep code. Representative B informed Desiderio of
the complaints and asked Desiderio and a trading clerk to cancel or reduce commissions on some
of these trades. Desiderio cancelled or reduced commissions on only a portion of the trades
Turney and Perez conducted under Representative B’s rep code.
116. In one example of unauthorized trading through Representative B’s rep code,
Perez had a customer (“Customer A”) who had been Perez’s customer since Perez had worked at
Broker-Dealer A. Customer A lived in a state where Perez was not permitted to work with
customers. Customer A was moved to Representative A’s rep code on April 17, 2015, and then
to Representative B’s rep code on May 11, 2015. During the relevant period, Perez ordered 40
purchases and sales for Customer A’s account without his authorization. These trades were never
cancelled, nor were the commissions reduced.
E. Desiderio Took Steps to Conceal the Unauthorized Trading.
117. As a designated supervisor for Global’s main office, Desiderio had access to the
daily trades and to the clearing agent’s system and thus could observe the increased trading

22
volume and abnormal concentration of trading in certain rep codes.
118. Throughout the relevant period, Global’s trade clerks, Trade Clerk A and Trade
Clerk B, expressed concerns about unauthorized trading to Desiderio. Both Trade Clerk A and
Trade Clerk B contacted Desiderio by phone and/or text message with complaints about the “out
of control” trading volume and nature of Turney’s trading and told Desiderio that they suspected
he was churning the accounts and/or engaging in unauthorized trading.
119. Desiderio told Trade Clerks A and B that she would handle it and that she would
speak with Engler about the trades that concerned them.
120. Desiderio also knew of customer complaints about unauthorized trading, as
described below.
121. Shortly after Turney and Perez began trading with Representative A’s rep code,
Global’s receptionist received numerous calls from customers seeking to speak with
Representative A about concerns about recent activity in their accounts. The receptionist referred
some of these calls to Desiderio.
122. Desiderio in turn instructed the receptionist not to comment about Representative
A’s departure, but rather to forward customer calls to Turney. Desiderio also forwarded emails
related to calls from Representative A’s customers to Turney’s Assistant.
123. On May 12, 2015, Desiderio also received a request from FINRA for information
about the high volume of trading in Representative A’s customers’ accounts from April 20 to
May 6, 2015. FINRA pointed to the number of trades that had occurred and asked how Global
would determine that the trades had been authorized.
124. Although Desiderio knew by April 17, 2015 that Representative A was no longer
associated with Global, Desiderio sought to create a sham record to make it appear that she had

23
been unaware of Representative A’s departure before May 6.
125. On May 12, the day she received the FINRA request, Desiderio emailed Trade
Clerk A regarding FINRA’s inquiry. Desiderio’s email falsely claimed that Representative A’s
“last day” was May 6 and told Trade Clerk A that there should be “no trades after that date in his
rep #.”
126. Desiderio also instructed Trade Clerk A to “[p]lease review as it seems trades
were done prior to the move to the new broker. Please review and update to the broker that did
the transaction[,]”—but did not instruct Trade Clerk A to inquire into the trades made before
May 6.
127. Ultimately, although Engler and Desiderio directed that a small portion of
Turney’s and Perez’s total unauthorized trades be cancelled, or the commissions reduced, they
approved the majority of them. Trade Clerks A and B understood from conversations with
Desiderio that if they were uncomfortable with the situation, their only choice was to leave
Global.
128. On June 9, 2015, a few days after Global closed, Perez texted Desiderio an
accounting of commissions that he had generated from trades he placed in May in other
registered representatives’ codes, including those of Representatives A and B. She responded:
“This is the stupidest text you could have sent.”
129. Desiderio never responded to FINRA’s request for information and failed to
appear for her scheduled FINRA testimony.
III. DEFENDANTS PROFITED WHILE CUSTOMERS LOST MILLIONS
130. From April 1, 2015 to June 4, 2015, Turney and Perez executed approximately
3,250 and 1,290 trades, respectively, all of which were unauthorized, in approximately 360

24
customer accounts.
131. In some instances, Turney and Perez simply placed orders for purchases and sales
(by filling out and submitting order tickets with trade clerks) for customer accounts without any
attempt to contact the customer at all.
132. In other instances, Turney and Perez made calls to customers and discussed
possible transactions but failed to obtain authorization for trades executed in their accounts.
133. In still other cases, Turney and Perez placed orders without customer
authorization, but also made a pretextual call to a customer’s phone in order to produce a call log
or other misleading record to support a later false claim that Turney or Perez had discussed the
details of the trade and received customer authorization.
134. Turney and Perez’s trading volume during the relevant period dramatically
increased from their trading in the prior quarter.
135. From January through March 2015, customer accounts associated with Turney’s
rep code reflected a total of approximately twelve trades per day.
136. Turney’s trading volume increased to an average of 77 trades per day in accounts
that he traded in April, and 70 trades per day in May and the first few days of June.
137. From April 20 through May 6, 2015, when Defendants were using
Representative A’s rep code, Turney averaged 131 trades per day.
138. From January through March of 2015, customer accounts associated with Perez’s
rep code reflected a total of approximately ten trades per day.
139. Perez’s trading volume increased to an average of fifteen per day in accounts that
he traded in April, and then increased to 42 trades per day in May and the first few days of June.
140. Turney’s and Perez’s average daily principal value of trades and commissions

25
similarly increased, as reflected in the following chart:

Jan. – March
Turney
April – June
Turney
Jan. - March
Perez
April – June
Perez
Average Daily
Number of Trades
12 74 10 29
Average Daily
Principal Value
$735,000 $1,786,000 $358,000 $748,000
Average Daily
Commission
$13,050 $39,700 $7,050 $17,680

141. Turney’s and Perez’s unauthorized trades generated over $2.4 million in unlawful
commissions for Global, while causing net losses of more than $4 million to customers.
Approximately 36% of the unauthorized trades took place in accounts assigned to Representative
A’s rep code, and 5% took place in accounts assigned to Representative B’s rep code.
142. Engler, either personally or through various entities he controlled, received at
least $1.1 million of the $2.4 million in unlawful commissions.
143.  Turney received $281,914 of the approximately $1.7 million in unlawful
commissions generated from his unauthorized trading.
144. Perez received $137,275 of the approximately $725,000 in unlawful commissions
generated from his unauthorized trading.
145. Desiderio received $391,000 derived from the unlawful commissions Global
received on Turney’s and Perez’s unauthorized trades.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3)
(Engler, Turney, and Perez)

146. As to Engler, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145; as to Turney, the Commission re-alleges and
incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 76, 78 through 90, 93, 94,

26
and 96 through 145; and as to Perez, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference
here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72, 75 through 78, 80 through 101, and 103 through
145.
147. Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (a) knowingly or recklessly have employed
one or more devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, and/or (b) knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently have engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which
operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
148. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or
indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities
Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) Thereunder
(Engler, Turney, and Perez)

149. As to Engler, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145; as to Turney, the Commission re-alleges and
incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 76, 78 through 90, 93, 94,
and 96 through 145; and as to Perez, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference
here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72, 75 through 78, 80 through 101, and 103 through
145.
150. Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly

27
or recklessly have (a) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, and/or (c)
engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate
as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
151. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or
indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange
Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) &
(c)].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3)
(Desiderio)
152. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 145.
153. As alleged above, Engler, Turney and Perez violated Securities Act Section
17(a)(1) and (3), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3).
154. Desiderio knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Engler,
Turney and Perez with respect to their violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15
U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)].
155. By reason of the foregoing, Desiderio is liable pursuant to Securities Act Section
15(b) [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] for aiding and abetting the violations by Engler, Turney and Perez of
Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)] and, unless enjoined, Desiderio will again
aid and abet these violations.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)
(Desiderio)
156. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 145.

28
157. As alleged above, Engler, Turney and Perez violated Exchange Act Section 10(b)
[15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(a) & (c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) & (c)] thereunder.
158. Desiderio knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Engler,
Turney and Perez with respect to their violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5b] thereunder.
159. By reason of the foregoing, Desiderio is liable pursuant to Exchange Act Section
20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] for aiding and abetting the violations by Engler, Turney and Perez of
Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(a) & (c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-
5(a) & (c)] thereunder and, unless enjoined, Desiderio will again aid and abet these violations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final
Judgment:
I.
Permanently enjoining the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and
attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating,
directly or indirectly, Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Exchange Act Section
10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
II.
Ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains they received, directly or indirectly,
with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations;
III.
Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d)
[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];

29
IV.
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated:  March 31, 2020
New York, New York
                                                            By:                        /S/            Marc            P.            Berger_______________________
      Marc P. Berger
      Lara S. Mehraban
      Steven G. Rawlings
      Richard G. Primoff
      Margaret Spillane
      Hane L. Kim
      Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                                                        SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE            COMMISSION
                                                                        New            York            Regional            Office
                                                                        200            Vesey            Street,            Suite            400
                                                                        New            York,            New            York            10281-1022
                                                                        (212)            336-0148            (Primoff)
                                                                        Email:            [email protected]

JS 44   (Rev. /1)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,  except as
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a)   PLAINTIFFSDEFENDANTS
(b)County of Residence of First Listed PlaintiffCounty of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c)Attorneys(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
 Attorneys (If Known)
II.  BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an “X” in One Box Only)III.  CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)and One Box for Defendant)
u1    U.S. Governmentu3    Federal Question
PTF       DEFPTF   DEF
Plaintiff(U.S. Government Not a Party)Citizen of This Stateu1u 1Incorporated or Principal Placeu4u4
    of Business In This State
u2    U.S. Governmentu4    DiversityCitizen of Another Stateu2u 2Incorporated and Principal Placeu5u5
Defendant(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of au3u 3Foreign Nationu6u6
    Foreign Country
IV.  NATURE OF SUIT(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACTTORTSFORFEITURE/PENALTYBANKRUPTCYOTHER STATUTES
u110 Insurance
 PERSONAL INJURYPERSONAL INJURY
u625 Drug Related Seizureu422 Appeal 28 USC 158u375 False Claims Act
u120 Marineu310 Airplaneu365 Personal Injury  -  of Property 21 USC 881u423 Withdrawalu376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u130 Miller Actu315 Airplane Product  Product Liabilityu690 Other  28 USC 157  3729(a))
u140 Negotiable Instrument  Liabilityu367 Health Care/u400 State Reapportionment
u150 Recovery of Overpaymentu320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u410 Antitrust
 & Enforcement of Judgment  Slander Personal Injuryu820 Copyrightsu430 Banks and Banking
u151 Medicare Actu330 Federal Employers’ Product Liabilityu830 Patentu450 Commerce
u152 Recovery of Defaulted  Liabilityu368 Asbestos Personalu840 Trademarku460 Deportation
 Student Loansu340 Marine  Injury Productu470 Racketeer Influenced and
 (Excludes Veterans)u345 Marine Product  Liability
LABORSOCIAL SECURITY
 Corrupt Organizations
u153 Recovery of Overpayment  Liability
 PERSONAL PROPERTY
u710 Fair Labor Standardsu861 HIA (1395ff)u480 Consumer Credit
 of Veteran’s Benefitsu350 Motor Vehicleu370 Other Fraud  Actu862 Black Lung (923)u490 Cable/Sat TV
u160 Stockholders’ Suitsu355 Motor Vehicleu371 Truth in Lendingu
720 Labor/Managementu863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))u850 Securities/Commodities/
u190 Other Contract Product Liabilityu380 Other Personal  Relationsu864 SSID Title XVI  Exchange
u195 Contract Product Liabilityu360 Other PersonalProperty Damageu740 Railway Labor Actu865 RSI (405(g))u890 Other Statutory Actions
u196 Franchise Injuryu385 Property Damageu751 Family and Medicalu891 Agricultural Acts
u362 Personal Injury - Product Liability  Leave Actu893 Environmental Matters
 Medical Malpracticeu790 Other Labor Litigationu895 Freedom of Information
 REAL PROPERTY   CIVIL RIGHTS  PRISONER PETITIONS
u791 Employee Retirement
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
  Act
u210 Land Condemnationu440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
 Income Security Actu870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiffu896 Arbitration
u220 Foreclosureu441 Votingu463 Alien Detainee or Defendant)u899 Administrative Procedure
u230 Rent Lease & Ejectmentu442 Employmentu510 Motions to Vacateu871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u240 Torts to Landu443 Housing/ Sentence  26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u245 Tort Product Liability Accommodationsu530 Generalu950 Constitutionality of
u290 All Other Real Propertyu445 Amer. w/Disabilities -u535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
 State Statutes
 Employment
Other:
u462 Naturalization Application
u446 Amer. w/Disabilities -u540 Mandamus & Otheru465 Other Immigration
 Otheru550 Civil Rights       Actions
u448 Educationu555 Prison Condition
u
560 Civil Detainee -
 Conditions of
 Confinement
V.  ORIGIN(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u1   Original
Proceeding
u2   Removed from
State Court
u 3Remanded from
Appellate Court
u4  Reinstated or
Reopened
u 5  Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
u 6   Multidistrict
Litigation
VI.  CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII.  REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
u
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
uYesuNo
VIII.  RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGEDOCKET NUMBER
DATESIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #AMOUNTAPPLYING IFPJUDGEMAG. JUDGE
Securities and Exchange Commission
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua W. Turney,
Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson, and Barbara Desiderio,
Kings County
Marc P. Berger, Regional Director, S.E.C. 200 Vesey St., Ste. 400, New
York, New York 10281 (212) 336-1100
See Attachment A
15 U.S.C. §  77q(a)(1) & (3), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) & (c)
Securities Fraud
03/31/2020
/S/ Marc P. Berger
20 Civ. 1625 (    )

CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83.provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amountunless a
certification to the contrary is filed.
&DVHLV(OLJLEOHIRU$UELWUDWLRQ
I, __________________________________________, counsel for____________________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is ineligible for
compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s):
monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
the complaint seeks injunctive relief,
the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1
Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:
RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)
Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that “A civil case is “related”
to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be
deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that
“Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still
pending before the court.”
NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)
1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County?                          Yes                                       No
2.) If you answered “no” above:
a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
County?YesNo
b) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District?YesNo
c)If this is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act case, specify the County in which the offending communication was
received:______________________________.
If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County?___________________________________
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).
BAR ADMISSION
I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.
YesNo
Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?
Yes     (If yes, please explainNo
I certify the accuracy of all information provided above.
Signature: ______________60DUF3%HUJHU______________________________________
:FT


















/P
/DVW0RGLILHG
Marc P.BergerPlaintiff SEC
✔
N/A
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Attachment A to Civil Cover Sheet
Counsel for Defendant Jonah Engler
Lawrence Iason, Esq.
Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC
565 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017
212.856.9600
Counsel for Defendant Joshua W. Turney
Louis C. La Pietra, Esq.
La Pietra & Krieger, PC
30 Glenn Street, Suite 105
White Plains, NY 10603
914.684.6000
Counsel for Defendant Hector Perez
C. Diego Guevara, Esq.
Walsh Guevara LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor
New York, NY10036
347.466.2215
Counsel for Defendant Barbara Desiderio
Daniel Newman, Esq.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
280 Park Avenue
15th Floor West
New York, NY 10017
646.428.2600

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
v.Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
(Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
%06(-"4
$
1"-.&3
Eastern District of New York
Securities and Exchange Commission,
20 Civ. 1625
()
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and
Barbara Desiderio,
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman
800 Union Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for
(name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on(date).
uI personally served the summons on the individual at
 (place)
on(date); or
uI left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with
(name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on
(date), and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
uI served the summons on
(name of individual), who is
 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of
(name of organization)
on(date); or
uI returned the summons unexecuted because; or
uOther
(specify):
.
My fees are $for travel and $for services, for a total of $.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
20 Civ. 1625()
0.00

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
v.Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
(Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
%06(-"4
$
1"-.&3
Eastern District of New York
Securities and Exchange Commission,
20 Civ. 1625
()
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and
Barbara Desiderio,
Joshua W. Turney
801 A St. Apt. 1401
San Diego, CA 92101-4553
Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for
(name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on(date).
uI personally served the summons on the individual at
 (place)
on(date); or
uI left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with
(name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on
(date), and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
uI served the summons on
(name of individual), who is
 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of
(name of organization)
on(date); or
uI returned the summons unexecuted because; or
uOther
(specify):
.
My fees are $for travel and $for services, for a total of $.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
20 Civ. 1625()
0.00

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
v.Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
(Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
%06(-"4
$
1"-.&3
Eastern District of New York
Securities and Exchange Commission,
20 Civ. 1625
()
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and
Barbara Desiderio,
Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson
314 E Pleasant Grove Road
Jackson, NJ 08527-4240
Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for
(name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on(date).
uI personally served the summons on the individual at
 (place)
on(date); or
uI left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with
(name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on
(date), and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
uI served the summons on
(name of individual), who is
 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of
(name of organization)
on(date); or
uI returned the summons unexecuted because; or
uOther
(specify):
.
My fees are $for travel and $for services, for a total of $.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
20 Civ. 1625()
0.00

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
v.Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
(Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
%06(-"4
$
1"-.&3
Eastern District of New York
Securities and Exchange Commission,
20 Civ. 1625
()
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and
Barbara Desiderio,
Barbaa Desiderio
27 Maple Stream Road
East Windsor, NJ 08520-1812
Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for
(name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on(date).
uI personally served the summons on the individual at
 (place)
on(date); or
uI left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with
(name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on
(date), and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
uI served the summons on
(name of individual), who is
 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of
(name of organization)
on(date); or
uI returned the summons unexecuted because; or
uOther
(specify):
.
My fees are $for travel and $for services, for a total of $.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
20 Civ. 1625()
0.00

MARC P. BERGER  
REGIONAL DIRECTOR 
Lara S. Mehraban          
Steven G. Rawlings 
Richard Primoff 
Margaret Spillane 
Hane L. Kim 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
New York Regional Office 
Brookfield Place  
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
New York, New York 10281-1022 
(212) 336-0148 (Primoff)
[email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

-against-

JONAH ENGLER a/k/a JONAH ENGLER-
SILBERMAN, JOSHUA W. TURNEY, HECTOR 
PEREZ a/k/a BRUCE JOHNSON, and 
BARBARA DESIDERIO, 

Defendants.  

COMPLAINT 

20 Civ. 1625 (      ) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against 

Defendants Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman (“Engler”), Joshua W. Turney 

(“Turney”), Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson (“Perez”), and Barbara Desiderio (“Desiderio”), 

(collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. Defendants, through their Commission-registered brokerage firm, conducted a

fraudulent unauthorized trading scheme involving approximately 360 customer accounts during a 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1



 

 2

period of more than two months, during a time when Engler and Desiderio suspected their firm 

would soon be forced to shut down. By making unauthorized trades in their customers’ 

brokerage accounts, Defendants generated over $2.4 million in unlawful markups, markdowns 

and commissions (collectively, “commissions”) for their firm—resulting in significant pay-outs 

for each of them—while causing over $4 million in net losses for their defrauded customers. 

2. In March 2015, Engler and Desiderio—who respectively controlled and served as 

a principal of Global Arena Capital Corporation (“Global”), a then-registered broker-dealer—

learned that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), a self-regulatory 

organization, would not approve their application to transfer ownership of Global to Engler’s 

holding company. Engler, based on increasing scrutiny from FINRA into Global’s sales 

practices, suspected he would soon be forced to close the firm. He decided to leave the securities 

business and close it down himself.  

3. Over the time remaining in which Global had left to operate, approximately 

April 1 through June 4, 2015, Engler directed Turney and Perez, registered representatives at 

Global, to engage in unauthorized trading to generate commission revenue. Unauthorized trading 

means ordering trades for non-discretionary customer accounts, i.e., accounts that require trades 

to be pre-authorized by customers, but without obtaining any customer authorizations. At 

Engler’s direction and with Desiderio’s knowledge, Turney and Perez attempted to cover up their 

unauthorized trading by making fake calls to their customers that included, for example, leaving 

long voicemails with their customers or placing the call on mute if the customer answered the 

phone, in an attempt to falsely suggest that the customer had authorized the trading. 

4. Defendants also routinely used system codes of other registered representatives at 

Global to obscure that Turney and Perez were the representatives responsible for these 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 2



 

 3

unauthorized trades—and in at least one instance, paid off a Global registered representative with 

a share of commissions in exchange for looking the other way while they fraudulently used his 

code. 

5. Turney and Perez, at Engler’s direction and with Desiderio’s knowing assistance, 

executed approximately 4,500 unauthorized trades in approximately 360 customer accounts. Of 

the $2.4 million in unlawful commissions generated from the unauthorized trading, Engler and 

companies he controlled received approximately $1.1 million, Turney received over $280,000, 

Perez received over $135,000, and Desiderio received over $390,000. 

VIOLATIONS 

6. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendants 

Engler, Turney, and Perez have violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 

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

Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 

C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) & (c)]. Defendant Desiderio aided and abetted Engler’s, Turney’s and 

Perez’s violations. 

7. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, they will engage in the acts, 

practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object.  

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

8. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Exchange Act 

Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)]. 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 3



 

 4

9. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendants 

from violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges they have violated; 

(b) ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains they received as a result of the violations 

alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest thereon; (c) ordering Defendants to pay civil money 

penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 

21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and (d) ordering any other and further relief the Court may 

deem just and proper.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 

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

11. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, 

practices, and courses of business alleged herein. 

12. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] 

and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants 

of, or transact business in the Eastern District of New York, and certain of the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District. For 

example, Engler resides in Brooklyn, New York, and certain Global customers resided in 

Brooklyn, New York during the relevant period.  

DEFENDANTS 

13. Engler, age 39, resides in Brooklyn, New York. From October 2013 to June 

2015, Engler controlled Global. Engler was officially associated with Global as a registered 

representative from October 2013 to April 16, 2015, but he continued to control Global from 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 4



 

 5

April 17, 2015 through at least June 4, 2015. Before October 2013, Engler was a registered 

representative at a different Commission-registered broker-dealer (“Broker-Dealer A”).  

14. Turney, age 41, resides in San Diego, California. Turney was associated with 

Global as a registered representative from October 2013 to June 2015. Before October 2013, 

Turney was associated with Broker-Dealer A.  

15. Perez, age 32, resides in Jackson, New Jersey. Perez was associated with Global 

as a registered representative from October 2013 to June 2015. Before October 2013, Perez was 

associated with Broker-Dealer A. 

16. Desiderio, age 61, resides in East Windsor, New Jersey. From October 2013 to 

June 2015, Desiderio was associated with Global as a registered representative and a principal, 

nominally serving as president and chief executive officer. From October 2013 until she resigned 

from the firm on June 30, 2015, Desiderio had formal responsibility for supervising the Global 

branch where the Defendants worked, and, from August 2014 through May 12, 2015, she served 

as Global’s chief compliance officer. During the relevant period, Desiderio held responsibility 

for responding to regulatory inquiries and updating FINRA’s Central Registration Depository 

(“CRD”), the database for required information about registered representatives and firms. Prior 

to the relevant period, Desiderio had also served as a branch manager at Global from October 24, 

2013 to August 10, 2014.  

RELATED ENTITIES 

17. Global is a New York limited liability company (“LLC”), and its principal place 

of business was in New York, New York during the relevant time. Global was registered with the 

Commission as a broker-dealer from 1986 to 2016 and had multiple branches in different 

locations during that time. On approximately October 24, 2013, Global opened a branch office at 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 5



 

 6

1350 Sixth Avenue in Manhattan (the “Sixth Avenue Office”). On April 20, 2015, that office 

moved to 880 Third Avenue in Manhattan. Global was the subject of multiple FINRA 

investigations into its sales practices during the relevant period, and it filed a Form BDW on 

June 5, 2015, to withdraw its Commission registration. On July 20, 2015, FINRA cancelled 

Global’s membership for failure to pay the required fees. In January 2016, FINRA expelled 

Global from membership.  

18. PMC Capital LLC (“PMC”) is a Delaware LLC headquartered in New York, 

New York. At all relevant times, Engler held a 99.99% ownership interest in PMC, while 

Desiderio held the remaining 0.01%. From August 2014 through at least June 2015, PMC owned 

24.9% of Global.  

FACTS 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Engler Arranges for Defendants to Move to Global as Its Representatives.  

19. From at least 2007 through 2009, Engler, Turney, and Perez worked together at 

two different broker-dealers.  

20. From approximately 2009 to October 2013, Engler, Turney, and Perez then 

worked together as registered representatives at Broker-Dealer A.  

21. In 2013, Engler began discussions with Desiderio, who worked at a different 

broker-dealer, about Engler leaving Broker-Dealer A.  

22. On approximately October 17, 2013, Broker-Dealer A terminated the employment 

of Engler, Turney, Perez, and many other registered representatives who had worked with 

Engler.  

23. On October 23, 2013, Engler reached an agreement with the president of Global’s 

holding company (“Holding Company”) to open and run an Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 6



 

 7

(“OSJ”) branch office of Global at the Sixth Avenue Office.1  

24. In a letter agreement dated the same day, Engler and Holding Company’s 

president agreed that “in consideration of [Engler] introducing Barbara Desiderio as an OSJ 

principal of Global Arena Capital Corp.,” Engler received a five-year stock purchase warrant to 

purchase six million shares of Holding Company (approximately 25% of Holding Company’s 

then-issued and outstanding shares) and had the right to designate one board member of Holding 

Company. The letter agreement also enabled Desiderio to control “all hiring of new Brokers” for 

Global and to direct the charging of markup and markdowns (essentially, a form of broker profit) 

“for a total of 3.975%.”    

25. On October 24, 2013, Engler and Desiderio opened the Sixth Avenue Office as an 

OSJ.  

26. By the end of that week, Engler, Turney and Perez, as well as many other 

registered representatives who had worked under Engler’s direction at Broker-Dealer A, had 

become registered representatives of Global and had begun working at the Sixth Avenue Office. 

B. Engler Controls Global.  

27. Although Desiderio nominally served as the branch supervisor for the Sixth 

Avenue Office, Engler actually ran its operations, as described below.  

28. Engler regularly held firm-wide meetings where he gave orders to the registered 

representatives and others.  

                                                 
1  FINRA Rule 3110(f) defines an OSJ as any office of a FINRA member firm “at which 
any one or more of the following functions take place:  (A) order execution or market making; 
(B) structuring of public offerings or private placements; (C) maintaining custody of customers’ 
funds or securities; (D) final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on behalf of the member; 
(E) review and endorsement of customer orders . . . ; (F) final approval of retail communications 
for use by persons associated with the member . . . ; or (G) responsibility for supervising the 
activities of persons associated with the member at one or more other branch offices of the 
member.” 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7



 

 8

29. Engler controlled the hiring and firing of registered representatives and allocated 

customer accounts among them.  

30. Engler set gross commission targets, had discretion to increase or decrease the cut 

of gross commission that registered representatives received, determined which expenses 

registered representatives were responsible for, and had final say in the pay each registered 

representative received.  

31. Engler also controlled how Global personnel, including registered representatives, 

communicated. He discouraged personnel from using Global’s email addresses to conduct 

business or transmit records, including for internal communications and record-keeping—such as 

records related to customers, trading, commissions, and other core operational information.  

32. As a result, Global personnel, including Desiderio, often made or kept records of 

Global business on their personal email accounts or cell phones (including text messages) or 

hard-copy printouts of electronic files that were not centrally retained.  

33. Engler himself rarely communicated by email or text, insisted on in-person 

meetings, and often used senior registered representatives to communicate with those more 

junior.    

34. To formalize Engler’s control over Desiderio and the Sixth Avenue Office, Engler 

and Desiderio agreed to an “Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement” (the 

“PMC Agreement”), dated December 31, 2013. 

35. The PMC Agreement, although designating Desiderio as the managing member of 

PMC, made clear that Engler held a 99.99% interest in PMC, while Desiderio held only 0.01%.  

36. The PMC Agreement stated that PMC was to “acquire and maintain all of the 

furnishings, fixtures and equipment . . . required to facilitate operations” of the customer 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 8



 

 9

brokerage accounts as a Global OSJ.  

37. The PMC Agreement required Desiderio to deposit any funds from Global’s 

business into a PMC account, and any available cash was to be distributed to Engler (99.99%) 

and Desiderio (0.01%), at Engler’s discretion.  

38. The PMC Agreement gave Engler, among other things, the right to control the 

hiring, firing and setting of compensation for Global’s employees and registered representatives, 

and the right to act as the managing member if Desiderio failed to deposit Global commission 

payments into PMC’s bank account. The PMC Agreement also stipulated that if Desiderio failed 

to “manage PMC in the best economic interests of” Engler, she would be forced to forfeit her 

interest in PMC.  

39. Engler and Desiderio also entered into a PMC Managing Member Agreement, 

dated December 31, 2013 and signed in early January 2014 (the “PMC Managing Agreement”).  

40. The PMC Managing Agreement set Desiderio’s compensation from PMC at 

$225,000 per year (in addition to her salary of $125,000 per year from Global).  

41. The PMC Managing Agreement included a clause in which Desiderio 

acknowledged that Engler “contributed not less than $1,000,000 in capital to fund [PMC] and its 

operations, and that, without such capital contribution, [PMC] would not be able to pay 

[Desiderio] the compensation. . . .”  

42. A later version of the PMC Agreement, dated March 31, 2014, generally 

maintained the same terms as the prior version and made clear that Engler had the “sole and 

complete discretion” over distribution of funds. 

43. In August 2014, following these agreements, PMC entered into a purchase 

agreement with Holding Company, by which PMC acquired 24.9% of Global’s shares from 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 9



 

 10

Holding Company in exchange for $2.1 million in commissions that Holding Company owed 

PMC and Desiderio.  

44. Pursuant to the purchase agreement, PMC stood to acquire the remaining 74.1% 

of Global’s shares for no additional consideration once FINRA approved the transfer of control 

of Global to PMC.  

45. Global then adopted a resolution electing Desiderio as a director of Global’s and 

its president, CEO, and treasurer. Desiderio also became Global’s chief compliance officer.  

46. On August 21, 2014, the Sixth Avenue Office became Global’s main office. 

47. By the end of 2014, four of Global’s other five branch offices had closed. 

C. FINRA Commences an Enforcement Proceeding against Engler, Turney, and 
Perez for Prior Conduct and Also Directs Investigative Requests to Global.  

48. Meanwhile, in June 2014, FINRA commenced an enforcement proceeding against 

Engler, Turney, and Perez based on their conduct at Broker-Dealer A. FINRA’s Enforcement 

Division alleged that, from 2009 to 2011, all three had engaged in the fraudulent sale of notes to 

brokerage customers.  

49. Unrelated to that proceeding, FINRA directed multiple investigative requests to 

Global from mid-2014 until approximately July 2015, when Global was expelled from FINRA 

membership. 

50. In July 2014, FINRA notified Global that it was subject to the “Taping Rule.” 

That rule requires special monitoring of the telemarketing activities of a broker-dealer’s 

registered representatives, including the tape recording of their conversations, when a certain 

percentage of the broker-dealer’s registered representatives previously worked at other broker-

dealers with a disciplinary history.  

51. On August 6, 2014, Global applied for an exemption from the Taping Rule for all 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 10



 

 11

of its branches.  

52. In August 2014, FINRA sought Engler’s on-the-record testimony and requested 

that Global provide information concerning his compensation and communications with 

Desiderio, among others, and Global’s buying and selling of fixed income securities.  

53. On November 20, 2014, FINRA rejected Global’s request for an exemption from 

the Taping Rule. FINRA noted that, because a large number of registered representatives at the 

Sixth Avenue Office had previously been associated with Broker-Dealer A, “it will be 

particularly important that such a [tape-recording] system is installed at the Sixth Avenue 

[Office].”  

54. Global never installed any such system. 

55. On November 25, 2014, FINRA issued an investigative request to Global 

concerning the Sixth Avenue Office’s compliance procedures and supervisory review of trade 

orders, phone records, and customer complaints, among other things.  

56. On March 4, 2015, FINRA issued investigative requests to Global related to 

Global’s compliance review of registered representatives’ email correspondence. 

57. On approximately March 19, 2015, FINRA also notified Global that it was 

requesting on-the-record testimony from another registered representative (“Representative A”).  

58. Several days later, on March 23, 2015, FINRA notified Global that FINRA was 

opening a “for cause” examination into the sales practices of Turney and two other senior 

registered representatives.  

59. Two days later, on March 25, 2015, FINRA requested on-the-record testimony 

from Perez.  

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 11



 

 12

D. FINRA Denies Engler’s Application to Transfer Global’s Ownership to 
PMC.   

60. Also on March 25, 2015, FINRA notified Engler and Desiderio by letter that it 

would not approve Engler’s application to transfer ownership of Global to PMC.  

61. FINRA’s March 25 letter provided multiple reasons for the denial. These reasons 

included that the PMC Agreement and other documentation showed Engler had “substantial 

control over [Global’s] securities business and is actively involved in the management of 

[Global]” and that Engler, despite FINRA’s repeated requests, had failed to obtain the required 

principal license; that Engler, Turney, and Perez were then respondents in FINRA’s pending 

enforcement proceeding; that Engler had an extensive history of arbitration claims and other 

customer complaints, including complaints for unauthorized trading and excessive fees and 

commissions; and that the PMC Agreement appeared to direct transaction-based compensation 

from Global to PMC, an unregistered holding company, in contravention of Exchange Act 

Section 15(a)’s prohibition on unregistered broker-dealers.  

E. Engler and Desiderio Falsely Notify FINRA That 
Engler Has Terminated His Association with Global.  

62. The day after FINRA emailed its notification letter, on March 26, 2015, Engler 

started a new, non-securities-related business venture, a cell phone refurbishing company 

(“Phone Company’), using the address of an apartment Engler used in Manhattan.  

63. On April 16, 2015, Desiderio updated Engler’s CRD record with FINRA to 

represent that Engler had voluntarily terminated his association with Global, effective that day.    

64. Yet Engler continued to control Global after his purported termination and, in 

coordination with Desiderio, continued to direct its ongoing business even after April 16, 2015 

and continuing until June 2015, as described below.  

65. During this period, Engler monitored registered representatives’ trading activity 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 12



 

 13

and held offsite meetings approximately weekly with certain registered representatives at Global, 

including Turney and Perez. At these meetings, Engler set commission targets and directed the 

registered representatives as to which methods to use to achieve the aggressive sales targets he 

set.  

66. During the same period, Engler continued to have final authority in deciding 

which registered representatives would conduct trades in which customer accounts.  

67. During this period, Engler continued to make employment decisions for Global, 

directing the firing of at least one sales assistant. In addition, Engler continued to control the 

amount of the payments registered representatives and sales assistants received from the 

commissions the registered representatives generated.  

68. Desiderio also remained in close contact with Engler throughout the same period 

and regularly consulted him on Global business. Desiderio also joined Engler part-time at Phone 

Company.  

II. DEFENDANTS’ UNAUTHORIZED TRADING SCHEME 

A. Global Held Non-Discretionary Accounts for Customers.  

69. Under NASD Rule 2510 (now FINRA Rule 3260), in effect at all relevant times, 

broker-dealer firms and their registered representatives are not permitted to exercise 

discretionary authority—that is, place a trade without the customer’s prior authorization for the 

trade—in a customer’s account unless the customer has given prior written authorization for a 

broker to exercise discretion in the account.2  

70. Customer accounts for which a broker-dealer and its registered representations do 

not have written authorization to exercise discretion over customer trades are known as “non-

                                                 
2  Although not relevant here, the rule permits certain exceptions, including that brokers 
may exercise discretion over the time and price of the trade within certain limitations.   

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 13



 

 14

discretionary accounts.”  

71. For non-discretionary accounts, a registered representative must obtain approval 

from a customer for a trade before placing that trade for the customer’s account, generally on the 

same day the trade is executed.  

72. At all relevant times, Global held only non-discretionary customer accounts, such 

that Global’s registered representatives were required to obtain approval from their customers for 

each trade before the trade was executed and on the same day it was executed. 

B. Engler Directs Turney and Perez to Engage in Unauthorized Trading  

73. On approximately March 30, 2015, shortly after Engler had learned FINRA 

would not permit PMC to take full ownership of Global, Engler met with Turney and Perez.  

74. At this meeting, Engler set aggressively high commission targets for Turney and 

Perez, in an attempt to squeeze as much cash out of customer accounts as fast as he could. Engler 

directed Turney and Perez to greatly increase the amount of commissions generated in 

customers’ accounts. Among other things, Engler communicated a commission target for Perez 

that amounted to $312,500 in total commissions for April, which Engler explained meant that 

Perez would have to make customer trades in principal amounts totaling $520,000 per day.   

75. By April 14, 2015, Engler had also conveyed to Turney that he should double the 

amount of total commissions earned from Turney’s customers’ accounts. Turney in turn told his 

assistant (the “Assistant”) in a text message that they had to do “double the gross” that he 

previously had been producing.  

76. In approximately late March or early April 2015, Engler instructed Turney and 

Perez that, if they could not get customers to agree to the volume of trades required to meet his 

aggressive commission targets, to instead use sham “call logs.”  

77. With respect to call logs, Engler specifically instructed Turney to conceal the lack 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 14



 

 15

of customer authorization for the trades by placing sham phone calls to customers, in which 

Turney was either to leave a long voicemail claiming the customer had authorized the trade or 

otherwise just mute the call if the customer picked up.  

78. As Engler and Turney understood, this would allow Global to produce phone 

records that purported to reflect phone conversations with customers to maintain the pretense, if 

a customer complained, that the customer had authorized the trades in a phone call. Global 

personnel referred to making these phone calls as creating a “call log.” 

79. Similarly, in April 2015, Engler directed Perez to meet the commission targets 

that Engler set by emulating Turney, by engaging in the practice of creating sham call logs.  

80. Engler, with Desiderio’s assistance, also masked Turney and Perez’s unauthorized 

trading through a longstanding Sixth Avenue Office practice of misusing unique identifiers for 

each registered representative, known as the representative code, or “rep code,” in the database 

of Global’s clearing broker.   

81. Global’s clearing broker used these rep code associations to identify which 

representatives had conducted trades and generated commissions and to identify registered 

representatives on their customers’ brokerage statements.  

82. While certain registered representatives were registered in each state and thus 

permitted to solicit customers who lived throughout the United States, others, including Turney 

and Perez, could not conduct securities business in certain states, because states had not or would 

not have permitted them to register, or because they had had their registrations cancelled because 

of disciplinary issues. 

83. Engler and Desiderio routinely permitted and directed registered representatives 

to circumvent these state-specific restrictions by having them trade their accounts using the “rep 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 15



 

 16

code” of another registered representative who had no such restriction. Desiderio typically 

moved the accounts to these different rep codes herself, by accessing the clearing agent’s system, 

and reassigning the account to the new representative. This process included confirming, through 

checking CRD or other records, that the other registered representative was licensed to work 

with customers in the state where the customer lived. Although others at Global had access to 

make such changes in the clearing agent’s system, they did so only after receiving Desiderio’s 

permission.  

84. Defendants used this practice during the relevant period to conduct a substantial 

amount of their unauthorized trading in the accounts of two other registered representatives at 

Global.  

C. Turney and Perez Ramp Up The Unauthorized Trading. 

1. Turney and Perez Use Representative A’s Rep Code.  

85. On April 17, 2015, Representative A stopped working at Global, and, three days 

later, he joined Engler at Phone Company.  

86. By at least April 17, 2015, Desiderio was aware of Representative A’s departure 

from Global. She attended a party for Engler at the Sixth Avenue Office on April 17, where 

Representative A’s departure from Global, and his joining Engler at Phone Company, was 

widely discussed. Desiderio was also at that same time managing the Sixth Avenue Office’s 

move to Third Avenue, and on April 20, 2015 informed the landlord that the number of 

personnel making the move had reduced—accounting for the departure of Representative A and 

his former sales assistant, who had also accepted Engler’s offer of that date to join him at Phone 

Company. Global’s internal contact list was also updated to remove Representative A and his 

assistant. 

87. From April 17 through May 5, 2015, Desiderio filed updates to FINRA records 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 16



 

 17

for herself and certain other registered representatives to make required disclosures concerning 

changes in their work status, including outside work. For example, on April 27, 2015, Desiderio 

informed FINRA that she would be spending ten hours per week on Phone Company business.  

88. Desiderio did not file updates to FINRA records for Global or Representative A to 

note his departure from Global until May 6, 2015—the day Representative A failed to appear for 

testimony before FINRA and thus faced an automatic bar from FINRA for serving as a registered 

representative of a FINRA member firm. 

89. As a result, between April 17 and May 6, 2015, Representative A’s rep code was 

still ostensibly active and available for Defendants to use in their scheme. 

90. On or shortly after Representative A’s departure from Global on April 17, 

Engler—notwithstanding his own purported departure from Global on April 16—requested that 

Turney print a list of customer accounts associated with Representative A. 

91. At an in-person meeting at around the same time, Engler instructed Turney to sell 

everything in Representative A’s accounts and buy new positions. Engler conveyed to Turney, 

among other things, that Turney was to make these trades even in the absence of prior 

authorization from Representative A’s customers and that the customer accounts were to remain 

associated with Representative A’s rep code.  

92. Engler directed Turney to use Representative A’s rep code to make it appear that 

Representative A—not Turney—was the representative responsible for the unauthorized trades.  

93. Engler instructed Turney to keep track of gross commissions he generated after 

April 20, 2015, and to split those commissions with Engler.  

94. Engler also told Turney he should wait until Engler had informed Desiderio 

before moving forward with those trades.   

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 17



 

 18

95. Engler later told Turney that Desiderio would help them accomplish the scheme. 

96. Defendants also used Representative A’s rep code to facilitate Perez’s 

unauthorized trading.  

97. Before Representative A’s departure, Perez had been conducting unauthorized 

trading in 66 customer accounts under a different registered representative’s rep code, because 

the customers holding these 66 accounts were in states where Perez was not authorized to trade. 

That other representative had begun complaining about the unauthorized trading Perez was 

conducting with his rep code.  

98. Around the time of Representative A’s departure, and by April 20, 2015, 

Desiderio moved or authorized the movement of these 66 customer accounts to Representative 

A’s rep code.  

99. Ultimately, in customer accounts that were associated with Representative A’s rep 

code at the time, Turney made approximately 1,400 unauthorized trades resulting in 

approximately $696,000 in commissions, and Perez made approximately 90 unauthorized trades 

resulting in approximately $80,000 in commissions. 

2. Engler Monitors Trading and Pressures Perez to Increase Trading. 

100. Even after his purported departure, Engler had access to the amount of gross 

commissions that Turney and Perez had generated in trading activity and communicated with 

them about it.  

101. Perez initially struggled to execute on Engler’s instructions to increase his 

commissions.  

102. On April 21, 2015, Engler met with Turney and Perez at his offsite office and 

reiterated to them that they needed to increase their production.  

103. The next day, Engler followed up with a text message to Perez: “Stop worrying 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 18



 

 19

about ur number. Do 40gs a day. 1.3 a day. Sell everything.” In other words, Engler asked Perez 

to generate $40,000 in commissions per day, which would require securities transactions with the 

principal value of $1.3 million, and that Perez should do so by selling all the securities in his 

customers’ accounts. Perez responded: “Done and done. I’m giving you everything I got senor. 

[E]ither way I’ll ramp it up more.”   

104. Two days later, on April 24, Turney texted his Assistant and noted: “Jonah 

[Engler] jus[t] sent me a text saying gross was wack yesterday,” indicating Engler’s displeasure 

that Global’s registered representatives had not generated enough commissions. 

105. By approximately April 29, Engler had instructed Perez to generate $500,000 in 

gross commissions each month and had instructed Turney to assist Perez. That day, Turney 

texted his Assistant: “Jonah wants me to make [Perez] do 500 a month. I gotta sit with him 

again.” Turney instructed his Assistant to help Perez’s assistant learn how to “keep track of gross 

[commissions] on spreadsheet.” Turney made clear that the direction to ensure Perez achieved 

the commission target came from Engler and told the Assistant: “Has to get done though. Jonah 

[Engler]’s counting on me.” 

106. Perez then greatly increased the number of trades he ordered to be executed in 

customer accounts, none of which the customers had authorized.  

107. On May 1, 2015, Turney texted Perez to praise him for his numbers that week and 

his decision to stop seeking customer authorization: “Nice job this week bro. Breaking through 

imaginary limitations.” 

108. On June 2, 2015, Turney and his Assistant exchanged text messages about Perez’s 

unauthorized trading:  

Turney: Are we only people working today? 
Assistant: [Perez] is dropping tickets as [well] 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 19



 

 20

… 
Turney: Yeah. Has he called anyone though lol [laughing out loud]? 
Assistant: Idk [I don’t know] probs not 
Turney: Lmao. Well at least he’s doing biz 
 

D. Defendants Misuse Another Registered Representative’s Rep Code.  

109. Shortly before May 6, 2015, when Representative A’s rep code could no longer 

be used, Engler offered several registered representatives money in exchange for their agreement 

to permit the movement of customers to those representatives’ rep codes, thereby allowing 

Turney and Perez to continue trading customers who resided in states where Turney and Perez 

could not trade.    

110. Although at least two registered representatives refused Engler’s offer because of 

concerns about Turney’s trading, one registered representative (“Representative B”) agreed to 

Engler’s offer.  

111. Between May 6 and May 12, 2015, Desiderio approved and facilitated the 

movement of a total over 150 customer accounts that Turney and Perez were trading in 

Representative A’s rep code, to Representative B’s rep code. These included 36 customer 

accounts that Desiderio had previously moved to Representative A’s rep code to facilitate 

Perez’s trading in those accounts.  

112. Desiderio made or approved these account transfers at Engler’s direction. For 

example, on May 8, 2015, Turney’s Assistant asked Desiderio if the Assistant could move the 

accounts. Desiderio told the Assistant in a text that Desiderio had consulted with Engler and was 

waiting for a decision. Twelve minutes later, Desiderio confirmed to the Assistant: “Jonah 

[Engler] said they [he and Turney] spoke and to move them.” Only afterwards did the Assistant 

move the accounts.  

113. By this time, Desiderio knew that, because Representative A’s rep code was no 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 20



 

 21

longer available, Turney had to find another representative’s rep code to use.  She also knew that 

other registered representatives had rejected Engler’s request to use their rep codes to facilitate 

Turney’s trading.  

114. For example, on May 8, 2015, Assistant A complained to Desiderio by text: “I 

wish [Representative A’s] rep [code] was still active. No one wants josh [Turney].” Desiderio, 

acknowledging that the concerns of other registered representatives who had refused to allow 

Turney to use their rep codes were valid, responded: “Do you blame them[?]”   

115. Starting about a week after Turney and Perez began trading in his account, 

Representative B began to receive customer complaints about unauthorized trading in his 

accounts and also realized that Turney and Perez had neglected to create “call logs” for these 

unauthorized trades using Representative B’s rep code. Representative B informed Desiderio of 

the complaints and asked Desiderio and a trading clerk to cancel or reduce commissions on some 

of these trades. Desiderio cancelled or reduced commissions on only a portion of the trades 

Turney and Perez conducted under Representative B’s rep code. 

116. In one example of unauthorized trading through Representative B’s rep code, 

Perez had a customer (“Customer A”) who had been Perez’s customer since Perez had worked at 

Broker-Dealer A. Customer A lived in a state where Perez was not permitted to work with 

customers. Customer A was moved to Representative A’s rep code on April 17, 2015, and then 

to Representative B’s rep code on May 11, 2015. During the relevant period, Perez ordered 40 

purchases and sales for Customer A’s account without his authorization. These trades were never 

cancelled, nor were the commissions reduced.     

E. Desiderio Took Steps to Conceal the Unauthorized Trading.  

117. As a designated supervisor for Global’s main office, Desiderio had access to the 

daily trades and to the clearing agent’s system and thus could observe the increased trading 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 21 of 29 PageID #: 21



 

 22

volume and abnormal concentration of trading in certain rep codes.  

118. Throughout the relevant period, Global’s trade clerks, Trade Clerk A and Trade 

Clerk B, expressed concerns about unauthorized trading to Desiderio. Both Trade Clerk A and 

Trade Clerk B contacted Desiderio by phone and/or text message with complaints about the “out 

of control” trading volume and nature of Turney’s trading and told Desiderio that they suspected 

he was churning the accounts and/or engaging in unauthorized trading.  

119. Desiderio told Trade Clerks A and B that she would handle it and that she would 

speak with Engler about the trades that concerned them. 

120. Desiderio also knew of customer complaints about unauthorized trading, as 

described below.  

121. Shortly after Turney and Perez began trading with Representative A’s rep code, 

Global’s receptionist received numerous calls from customers seeking to speak with 

Representative A about concerns about recent activity in their accounts. The receptionist referred 

some of these calls to Desiderio.  

122. Desiderio in turn instructed the receptionist not to comment about Representative 

A’s departure, but rather to forward customer calls to Turney. Desiderio also forwarded emails 

related to calls from Representative A’s customers to Turney’s Assistant.  

123. On May 12, 2015, Desiderio also received a request from FINRA for information 

about the high volume of trading in Representative A’s customers’ accounts from April 20 to 

May 6, 2015. FINRA pointed to the number of trades that had occurred and asked how Global 

would determine that the trades had been authorized.  

124. Although Desiderio knew by April 17, 2015 that Representative A was no longer 

associated with Global, Desiderio sought to create a sham record to make it appear that she had 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 22 of 29 PageID #: 22



 

 23

been unaware of Representative A’s departure before May 6.  

125. On May 12, the day she received the FINRA request, Desiderio emailed Trade 

Clerk A regarding FINRA’s inquiry. Desiderio’s email falsely claimed that Representative A’s 

“last day” was May 6 and told Trade Clerk A that there should be “no trades after that date in his 

rep #.”   

126. Desiderio also instructed Trade Clerk A to “[p]lease review as it seems trades 

were done prior to the move to the new broker. Please review and update to the broker that did 

the transaction[,]”—but did not instruct Trade Clerk A to inquire into the trades made before 

May 6.  

127. Ultimately, although Engler and Desiderio directed that a small portion of 

Turney’s and Perez’s total unauthorized trades be cancelled, or the commissions reduced, they 

approved the majority of them. Trade Clerks A and B understood from conversations with 

Desiderio that if they were uncomfortable with the situation, their only choice was to leave 

Global.  

128. On June 9, 2015, a few days after Global closed, Perez texted Desiderio an 

accounting of commissions that he had generated from trades he placed in May in other 

registered representatives’ codes, including those of Representatives A and B. She responded: 

“This is the stupidest text you could have sent.” 

129. Desiderio never responded to FINRA’s request for information and failed to 

appear for her scheduled FINRA testimony.   

III. DEFENDANTS PROFITED WHILE CUSTOMERS LOST MILLIONS 

130. From April 1, 2015 to June 4, 2015, Turney and Perez executed approximately 

3,250 and 1,290 trades, respectively, all of which were unauthorized, in approximately 360 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 23 of 29 PageID #: 23



 

 24

customer accounts.  

131. In some instances, Turney and Perez simply placed orders for purchases and sales 

(by filling out and submitting order tickets with trade clerks) for customer accounts without any 

attempt to contact the customer at all.  

132. In other instances, Turney and Perez made calls to customers and discussed 

possible transactions but failed to obtain authorization for trades executed in their accounts.  

133. In still other cases, Turney and Perez placed orders without customer 

authorization, but also made a pretextual call to a customer’s phone in order to produce a call log 

or other misleading record to support a later false claim that Turney or Perez had discussed the 

details of the trade and received customer authorization.  

134. Turney and Perez’s trading volume during the relevant period dramatically 

increased from their trading in the prior quarter.  

135. From January through March 2015, customer accounts associated with Turney’s 

rep code reflected a total of approximately twelve trades per day.  

136. Turney’s trading volume increased to an average of 77 trades per day in accounts 

that he traded in April, and 70 trades per day in May and the first few days of June.  

137. From April 20 through May 6, 2015, when Defendants were using 

Representative A’s rep code, Turney averaged 131 trades per day.  

138. From January through March of 2015, customer accounts associated with Perez’s 

rep code reflected a total of approximately ten trades per day.  

139. Perez’s trading volume increased to an average of fifteen per day in accounts that 

he traded in April, and then increased to 42 trades per day in May and the first few days of June. 

140. Turney’s and Perez’s average daily principal value of trades and commissions 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 24 of 29 PageID #: 24



 

 25

similarly increased, as reflected in the following chart: 

 Jan. – March 
Turney 

April – June 
Turney 

Jan. - March  
Perez 

April – June 
Perez 

Average Daily 
Number of Trades 12 74 10 29 

Average Daily 
Principal Value $735,000 $1,786,000 $358,000 $748,000 

Average Daily 
Commission $13,050 $39,700 $7,050 $17,680 

 
141. Turney’s and Perez’s unauthorized trades generated over $2.4 million in unlawful 

commissions for Global, while causing net losses of more than $4 million to customers. 

Approximately 36% of the unauthorized trades took place in accounts assigned to Representative 

A’s rep code, and 5% took place in accounts assigned to Representative B’s rep code.  

142. Engler, either personally or through various entities he controlled, received at 

least $1.1 million of the $2.4 million in unlawful commissions. 

143.  Turney received $281,914 of the approximately $1.7 million in unlawful 

commissions generated from his unauthorized trading.  

144. Perez received $137,275 of the approximately $725,000 in unlawful commissions 

generated from his unauthorized trading. 

145. Desiderio received $391,000 derived from the unlawful commissions Global 

received on Turney’s and Perez’s unauthorized trades.  

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) 

(Engler, Turney, and Perez) 
 

146. As to Engler, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the 

allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145; as to Turney, the Commission re-alleges and 

incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 76, 78 through 90, 93, 94, 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 25 of 29 PageID #: 25



 

 26

and 96 through 145; and as to Perez, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference 

here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72, 75 through 78, 80 through 101, and 103 through 

145.   

147. Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (a) knowingly or recklessly have employed 

one or more devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, and/or (b) knowingly, recklessly, or 

negligently have engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which 

operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

148. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or 

indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities 

Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)]. 

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

(Engler, Turney, and Perez) 
 

149. As to Engler, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the 

allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145; as to Turney, the Commission re-alleges and 

incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 76, 78 through 90, 93, 94, 

and 96 through 145; and as to Perez, the Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference 

here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72, 75 through 78, 80 through 101, and 103 through 

145. 

150. Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 26 of 29 PageID #: 26



 

 27

or recklessly have (a) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, and/or (c) 

engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate 

as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

151. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Engler, Turney and Perez, directly or 

indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange 

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

(c)]. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) 

(Desiderio) 

152. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 145. 

153. As alleged above, Engler, Turney and Perez violated Securities Act Section 

17(a)(1) and (3), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3). 

154. Desiderio knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Engler, 

Turney and Perez with respect to their violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)]. 

155. By reason of the foregoing, Desiderio is liable pursuant to Securities Act Section 

15(b) [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] for aiding and abetting the violations by Engler, Turney and Perez of 

Section 17(a)(1) and (3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3)] and, unless enjoined, Desiderio will again 

aid and abet these violations. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) 

(Desiderio) 

156. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 145.   

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 27 of 29 PageID #: 27



 

 28

157. As alleged above, Engler, Turney and Perez violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) 

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

158. Desiderio knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Engler, 

Turney and Perez with respect to their violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. 

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

159. By reason of the foregoing, Desiderio is liable pursuant to Exchange Act Section 

20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] for aiding and abetting the violations by Engler, Turney and Perez of 

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

5(a) & (c)] thereunder and, unless enjoined, Desiderio will again aid and abet these violations. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

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

Judgment: 

I. 

Permanently enjoining the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and 

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

directly or indirectly, Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Exchange Act Section 

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

II. 

Ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains they received, directly or indirectly, 

with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations; 

III. 

Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d) 

[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];  

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 28 of 29 PageID #: 28



 

 29

IV. 

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper. 

 

Dated: March 31, 2020 
New York, New York 

     By:  /S/ Marc P. Berger_______________________ 
      Marc P. Berger 
      Lara S. Mehraban 
      Steven G. Rawlings 
      Richard G. Primoff 
      Margaret Spillane 
      Hane L. Kim 
      Attorneys for Plaintiff 
      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
      New York Regional Office 
      200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
      New York, New York 10281-1022  
      (212) 336-0148 (Primoff) 
      Email: [email protected] 
 

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 29 of 29 PageID #: 29



JS 44   (Rev. /1 )
CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,  except as
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)  Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 

1   U.S. Government 3  Federal Question PTF    DEF PTF    DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1  1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

    of Business In This State

2   U.S. Government 4  Diversity Citizen of Another State 2  2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3  3 Foreign Nation 6 6
    Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance  PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury  -   of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product   Product Liability 690 Other   28 USC 157   3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument   Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel &  Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

 & Enforcement of Judgment   Slander  Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’  Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted   Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation

 Student Loans 340 Marine   Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
 (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product   Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY  Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment   Liability  PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
 of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud   Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract  Product Liability 380 Other Personal   Relations 864 SSID Title XVI   Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise  Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury -  Product Liability   Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
 Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information

 REAL PROPERTY    CIVIL RIGHTS   PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS   Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus:  Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee  or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party  Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/  Sentence   26 USC 7609  Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability  Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION  State Statutes

 Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

 Other 550 Civil Rights        Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
 Conditions of 
 Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original

Proceeding
2 Removed from

State Court
 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or

Reopened
 5 Transferred from

Another District
(specify)

 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Securities and Exchange Commission
Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua W. Turney,
Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson, and Barbara Desiderio,

Kings County

Marc P. Berger, Regional Director, S.E.C. 200 Vesey St., Ste. 400, New
York, New York 10281 (212) 336-1100

See Attachment A

15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) & (3), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) & (c)

Securities Fraud

03/31/2020 /S/ Marc P. Berger

20 Civ. 1625 (    )Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 30



CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83. provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.

I, __________________________________________, counsel for____________________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is ineligible for
compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s): 

monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

the complaint seeks injunctive relief,

the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1

Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:

RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)

Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that “A civil case is “related” 
to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a 
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be 
deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that 
“Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still 
pending before the court.”

NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)

1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County?  Yes   No

2.) If you answered “no” above:
a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
County? Yes No

b) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District? Yes No

c) If this is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act case, specify the County in which the offending communication was
received:______________________________.

If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or 
Suffolk County?___________________________________

(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts). 

BAR ADMISSION

I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.

Yes No

Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?

Yes     (If yes, please explain No

I certify the accuracy of all information provided above. 

Signature: ______________ ______________________________________

Marc P.Berger Plaintiff SEC

✔

N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 31



Attachment A to Civil Cover Sheet 

Counsel for Defendant Jonah Engler 
Lawrence Iason, Esq. 
Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC 
565 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10017 
212.856.9600 

Counsel for Defendant Joshua W. Turney 
Louis C. La Pietra, Esq.  
La Pietra & Krieger, PC 
30 Glenn Street, Suite 105 
White Plains, NY 10603 
914.684.6000 

Counsel for Defendant Hector Perez 
C. Diego Guevara, Esq.
Walsh Guevara LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor
New York, NY10036
347.466.2215

Counsel for Defendant Barbara Desiderio 
Daniel Newman, Esq. 
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 
280 Park Avenue  
15th Floor West  
New York, NY 10017  
646.428.2600  

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-1   Filed 03/31/20   Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 32



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

__________ District of __________ 

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of New York

Securities and Exchange Commission,

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and

Barbara Desiderio,

Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman
800 Union Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215

Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-2   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 33



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

0.00

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-2   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 34



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

__________ District of __________ 

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of New York

Securities and Exchange Commission,

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and

Barbara Desiderio,

Joshua W. Turney
801 A St. Apt. 1401
San Diego, CA 92101-4553

Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-3   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 35



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

0.00

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-3   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

__________ District of __________ 

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of New York

Securities and Exchange Commission,

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and

Barbara Desiderio,

Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson
314 E Pleasant Grove Road
Jackson, NJ 08527-4240

Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-4   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 37



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

0.00

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-4   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

__________ District of __________ 

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of New York

Securities and Exchange Commission,

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

Jonah Engler a/k/a Jonah Engler-Silberman, Joshua
W. Turney, Hector Perez a/k/a Bruce Johnson and

Barbara Desiderio,

Barbaa Desiderio
27 Maple Stream Road
East Windsor, NJ 08520-1812

Richard G Primoff, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-5   Filed 03/31/20   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 39



AO 440 (Rev. 06/12)  Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

20 Civ. 1625 ( )

0.00

Case 1:20-cv-01625   Document 1-5   Filed 03/31/20   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 40