2019-06-25 sec-litreleases complaint 495 KB 58,886 chars

SEC v. RICHARD VU NGUYEN; and NTV FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Central District of California (June 25, 2019) — Complaint

raw: Comp24512

Comp24512 (June 25, 2019)

Caption: SEC v. RICHARD VU NGUYEN, et al.

summary

Richard Vu Nguyen and his company NTV Financial Group, Inc. were charged with running a $2.4 million investment scam targeting Vietnamese-speaking individuals in California.

paragraph

Richard Vu Nguyen and his company NTV Financial Group, Inc. allegedly ran a $2.4 million investment scam targeting Vietnamese-speaking individuals in California. Nguyen promised 'no loss' of principal investment and guaranteed returns of up to 16% annually, but misused investor funds to pay personal expenses and fund unrelated businesses. This resulted in significant losses, including up to 69% of investor principal in the NTLF Fund.

narrative

Richard Vu Nguyen and his company NTV Financial Group, Inc. were charged with running a $2.4 million investment scam targeting Vietnamese-speaking individuals in California. Nguyen allegedly fabricated his credentials, including a false Goldman Sachs background and MBA from Cal Poly, to promote a non-existent 'Nguyen Tran Le Fund' with guaranteed 16% annual returns and principal protection. However, Nguyen misused investor funds to pay personal expenses and fund unrelated businesses, resulting in significant losses, including up to 69% of investor principal in the NTLF Fund. Nguyen also concealed his felony convictions for wire fraud and dependent adult abuse, as well as prior sanctions by California regulators. He misappropriated over $835,000 in investor funds for personal luxuries, including a $1 million home and vehicles. Nguyen's scheme defrauded at least 80 investors of $2.4 million. The SEC charged Nguyen and his company with orchestrating the fraud, which was carried out despite his prior convictions and regulatory sanctions.

Enriched metadata

Scheme: other
Court: Central District of California
Outcome: convicted · 2012-06-04
Restitution: $104,981
Victim loss: $1,000,000
Victims: 80

Classified other. No EDGAR filing fingerprint (criminal/DOJ-side scheme). detection rule →

Extracted insights

Dollar amounts 31

$2.50M $2,500,000 $1M–$10M
$2.40M $2.4 million $1M–$10M
$2.00M $2 million $1M–$10M
$2.00M $2,000,000 $1M–$10M
$1.90M $1.9 million $1M–$10M
$1.60M $1.6 million $1M–$10M
$1.50M $1,500,000 $1M–$10M
$1.30M $1.3 million $1M–$10M
$1.00M $1 million $1M–$10M
$1.00M $1,000,000 $1M–$10M
$835K $835,000 $100K–$1M
$600K $600,000 $100K–$1M

Entities 14

company $2.4 million from at least 80 investors in a fraudulent stock and options fund
organization Central District Of California
organization Defendants
person douglas m. miller
person goldman sachs
person investors into fraudulent investments
person kelly c. bowers
company ntv financial group, inc.
person ongoing fraud
person richard vu nguyen
agency Securities and Exchange Commission
organization Securities and Exchange Commission
person this action
person vietnamese speaking individuals

Triples 47

Douglas M. Miller is attorney for Plaintiff
Kelly C. Bowers is attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission files complaint
Securities and Exchange Commission alleges jurisdiction and venue
Defendants have used means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce
Defendants have used mails
Defendants have used facilities of a national securities exchange
Venue is proper in this district
Richard Vu Nguyen resides in this district
NTV Financial Group, Inc. has principal place of business in this district
This action is to halt ongoing fraud
Defendants target Vietnamese speaking individuals
Defendants lure investors into fraudulent investments
Defendants raise about $2.4 million from at least 80 investors
Nguyen convince at least 30 clients to give him password access to their brokerage accounts
Defendants use websites, brochures, and radio and television advertisements
Defendants claim they can guarantee investors no loss of their principal investment
Defendants claim investors can fully redeem their principal investment at any time
Defendants claim Nguyen has extensive experience managing investments
Nguyen worked at Goldman Sachs
NTV Financial and Richard Nguyen are perpetrating an ongoing fraud targeting Vietnamese-speaking individuals in California
Defendants raised $2.4 million from at least 80 investors in a fraudulent stock and options fund
Nguyen convinced at least 30 clients to give him password access to their brokerage accounts
Defendants are using websites, brochures, and Vietnamese-language radio and TV ads to lure investors
Defendants claim they can guarantee investors no loss of principal and full redemption at any time
Nguyen claims to have extensive experience managing investments including work at Goldman Sachs
Securities and Exchange Commission alleges fraud by NTV Financial and Richard Vu Nguyen
Richard Vu Nguyen founded NTV Financial
NTV Financial raised $2.4 million from at least 80 investors
Richard Vu Nguyen convinced at least 30 clients to give password access to brokerage accounts
NTV Financial targeted Vietnamese-speaking individuals in California
Defendants used websites, brochures, and radio/TV ads on Vietnamese stations
Defendants claimed guaranteed "no loss" of principal investment
Defendants claimed investors could redeem principal at any time
Richard Vu Nguyen worked at Goldman Sachs
Securities and Exchange Commission filed complaint in case cv19-1174-ttGC
Richard Vu Nguyen resides in Central District of California
NTV Financial has principal place of business in Central District of California
Attorneys for Plaintiff represent Securities and Exchange Commission
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission allege fraud being perpetrated by defendant NTV Financial and its founder, executive director and president, defendant Richard Nguyen
Defendants target Vietnamese speaking individuals living in California and elsewhere
Defendants raise $2.4 million from at least 80 investors in the fund investment
Nguyen convince at least 30 clients to give him password access to their brokerage accounts
Defendants lure investors into these investment scams using websites, brochures, and radio and television advertisements on Vietnamese language stations
Defendants claim they can guarantee investors “no loss” of their principal investment
Defendants claim investors can fully redeem their principal investment at any time
Defendants claim Nguyen has extensive experience managing investments

PDF

Comp24512 · Source

Text layers

Extracted body text (58,886c)

1 DOUGLAS M. MILLER (Cal. Bar No. 240398)
Emai l: millerdou(a),sec.gov

2 KELLY C. BOWERS (Cal. Bar No. 164007)
Emai l: [email protected]

'\\\ ' '2.\ 1n,~ JU11 \ 3 ri.. . - ·~, ·

3
Attorneys for Plaintiff

4 Securities and Exchange Commission
Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director

5 John W. Berry, Associate Regional Director
Amy J . Longo, Regional Tria1 Counsel

6 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90071

7 Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile : (213) 443-1904

,· . ' ' . , \ \
. . ~ 'r
., ' • t \, ........ •

!', • • ' I \ L:i
~ l . , ... , ·· - -

-- ------.. ·: _____ _

1 1

2 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD VU NGUYEN, A/Kl A
NGUYEN THANH VU, and NTV
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

Defendants,

and

MAI DO,

Relief Defendant.

cv19-1174-ttGC<e i)
Case No.

COMPLAINT

(FILED UNDER SEAL)

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b ),

COM PLAINT

COMPLAINT 2

20(d)(1) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§

77t(b), 77t(d)(1) & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1),

78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa(a), and Sections 209(d), 209(e)(1) and 214 of the

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-

9(e)(1) & 90b-14.

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

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national

securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of

business alleged in this complaint.

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities

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

because certain of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of conduct constituting

violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district. In addition,

venue is proper in this district because defendant Richard Vu Nguyen a/k/a Nguyen

Thanh Vu (“Nguyen”) resides in this district and defendant NTV Financial Group,

Inc. (“NTV Financial”) (collectively with Nguyen, “Defendants”) has its principal

place of business in this district.

SUMMARY

4. This action is to halt an ongoing fraud being perpetrated by defendant

NTV Financial and its founder, executive director and president, defendant Richard

Nguyen, a/k/a Nguyen Thanh Vu. Defendants target primarily Vietnamese speaking

individuals living in California and elsewhere, to lure them into investing into, among

other things, two fraudulent investments: a purported fund that traded stocks and

options, and the chance to have Nguyen personally manage a client’s brokerage

accounts.

5. Between February 2018 and March 2019, Defendants have raised about

$2.4 million from at least 80 investors in the fund investment. Nguyen has also

COMPLAINT 3

convinced at least 30 clients to give him password access to their brokerage accounts

so that he can trade in them.

6. Defendants are luring investors into these investment scams using

websites, brochures, and radio and television advertisements on Vietnamese language

stations. Defendants claim, among other things, that they can guarantee investors “no

loss” of their principal investment and that investors can fully redeem their principal

investment at any time. Defendants further claim that Nguyen has extensive

experience managing investments, including having worked at Goldman Sachs

(“Goldman”) as a fund manager, and that his accounts have never suffered any losses.

According to Nguyen, his trading regime is so effective that other investment firms

want to use it, including Goldman, which he says has a contract to use his trading

formulas.

7. Nguyen even talked to an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”), whom he thought was a prospective investor, and in that

recorded conversation told the agent that he had a track record of earning 1,000%

annual returns.

8. As for the fund, it is pure fiction. Though Defendants call it the

“Nguyen Tran Le Fund” (“NTLF Fund” or the “Fund”), there is no entity with that

name. In fact, there is no entity at all. Instead, the investor money Defendants raised

to invest in that so-called fund is held in accounts in the name of NTV Financial,

Nguyen, and/or his girlfriend, relief defendant Mai Do (“Relief Defendant” or “Do”).

9. Since inception, the Fund’s performance has suffered significantly due

to realized and unrealized trading losses. Every quarter since its formation, the net

amount invested in the Fund has exceeded the market value of the fund’s holdings.

As of March 2019, the assets of the NTLF Fund and of NTV Financial, including

their known bank accounts and brokerage accounts, totaled about $1.6 million—far

below the over $2 million invested by the investors.

10. Those losses have made it impossible for the Fund to make good on the

COMPLAINT 4

Defendants’ guaranteed right of redemption. Defendants also continued to pay some

investors dividends and distributed quarterly statements suggesting that the Fund was

paying positive returns, all of which gave the false impression that the Fund was

performing well when, in fact, its performance had caused the Fund to be

undercapitalized, sometimes by as much as 69%.

11. The brokerage accounts managed by Nguyen have fared no better. As of

March 2019, 17 of the 30 clients who gave him access to trade in their accounts had

suffered trading losses totaling almost $570,000.

12. To make matters worse, Nguyen is also an imposter, and not the

experienced investment adviser he makes himself out to be. Nguyen has never

worked at Goldman and Goldman has never contracted with Nguyen to use his

trading formulas.

13. In reality, Nguyen has racked up an extensive criminal history that he

has never disclosed to the Fund investors or brokerage account clients. In 2009, he

pleaded guilty to wire fraud and admitted that he participated in a scheme to use the

internet to intentionally mislead his victims into giving him money for an investment

fund. In 2012, Nguyen was convicted of felony dependent adult abuse in California

State Court. Nguyen has also been sanctioned twice by the California Department of

Corporations for securities related misconduct.

14. Defendants have also used investor money to pay NTV Financial’s

unrelated business expenses or to pay Nguyen’s and Do’s personal expenses. Given

the Fund’s market losses that have made it impossible to honor Defendants’

redemption guarantee, and the Fund’s poor performance, the Defendants should not

have been able to take the profits from the Fund for themselves.

15. Defendants misappropriated about $600,000 of investor money invested

in the Fund. Defendants operate several other unrelated businesses (such as a

restaurant and a restaurant supply company), and have commingled investor money

and non-investor money from these other businesses in the same accounts. They then

COMPLAINT 5

used those accounts to pay their own expenses. For example, $335,000 this

commingled money was used to purchase jewelry, a car and a motorcycle, to make

payments to the Defendant’s children, make mortgage payments and used to make

approximately $354,000 in payments towards the purchase of a $1 million home in

the name of Relief Defendant Mai Do.

16. Defendants’ fraudulent conduct is ongoing and continues to threaten

investors. Indeed, as recently as May 11, 2019, Defendants were continuing to solicit

new investors.

17. By committing these and other acts alleged in this Complaint,

Defendants have directly and indirectly engaged in, and unless restrained and

enjoined by the Court will continue to violate the anti-fraud provisions of the federal

securities laws, specifically Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 17q(a)]

and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-

5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2) & (4) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17

C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8].

18. In light of Defendants’ ongoing conduct, the SEC seeks a temporary

restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting future such

violations. Specifically, the SEC seeks orders prohibiting Defendants from directly

or indirectly, including through any entity they own or control, accessing any

securities brokerage account of any third-party, including doing so with the consent

of the account holder; freezing Defendants’ and the Relief Defendant’s assets;

providing expedited discovery from the Defendants and Relief Defendant; requiring

preservation of documents by the Defendants and the Relief Defendant; ordering an

accounting of Defendants’ and the Relief Defendant’s assets; appointing a receiver

over defendant NTV Financial and over the bank and brokerage accounts through

which investor and client funds have flowed; disgorging Defendants’ ill-gotten gains

with prejudgment interest and disgorging funds held by the Relief Defendant; and

COMPLAINT 6

imposing civil penalties against Defendants.

THE DEFENDANTS

19. NTV Financial Group, Inc. is an active California corporation that

Nguyen incorporated in 2018, which has its principal place of business in Garden

Grove, California. NTV Financial is not registered with the SEC in any capacity.

20. Richard Vu Nguyen, a/k/a Nguyen Thanh Vu is a resident of Santa

Ana, California and the founder, executive director, and president of NTV Financial.

Nguyen has two felony convictions, two securities-related administrative sanctions,

and is not currently registered with the SEC in any capacity.

THE RELIEF DEFENDANT

21. Mai Do is a resident of Garden Grove, California, the girlfriend of

Nguyen, and someone Nguyen has held out as the chief financial officer of NTV

Financial. Do is not registered with the Commission in any capacity.

THE FRAUD

A. NTV Financial and Richard Nguyen

22. Defendant NTV Financial is a company that claims to provide

companies with a whole range of services designed to improve their profitability,

including capital, operational improvements, revenue growth, procurement,

leadership, lean process, IT optimization, energy sustainability, and employee health

care. It further claims that it had worked with companies on merger and acquisition

projects and on industry reorganization.

23. Defendant Richard Nguyen is the founder, executive director, and

president of NTV Financial.

24. Relief defendant Mai Do is Nguyen’s girlfriend and is portrayed as the

chief financial officer of NTV Financial.

25. Defendants also operate several other businesses. For example, they

operate a restaurant, a restaurant supply company and a home remodeling business.

26. Nguyen has a criminal past and several run-ins with regulatory

COMPLAINT 7

authorities that he has concealed from investors.

27. In 1999, the California Department of Corporations (“CDC”) named

Nguyen in a Desist and Refrain Order for securities related misconduct. In 2007, the

CDC named Nguyen in a second Desist and Refrain Order for acting as an

unregistered broker-dealer.

28. On or about August 24, 2009, Nguyen entered a guilty plea to wire fraud

charges in the matter of United States v. Richard Nguyen, Case No. CR 08-796(A)-

ABC (C.D. Cal.), a criminal case filed in this district. As part of his guilty plea,

Nguyen admitted that he created a scheme to use the internet to intentionally mislead

his victims into giving him their money by claiming he would invest that money in

genuine investment funds. In furtherance of the scheme, Nguyen created and

controlled the website www.bhshfunds.com, where he purportedly offered for sale

shares in investment funds and promised investors they could redeem their

investment upon request. Nguyen also created electronic mail and webpages that led

his victims to believe they had purchased shares in the funds, when, in fact, he had

not invested their money in the funds.

29. On November 24, 2009, a Judgment and Commitment Order was

entered against Nguyen in connection with the wire fraud charges. Nguyen was

ordered to pay a $100 special assessment, restitution in the total amount of $104,981,

and imprisoned in federal prison for a term of 15 months, followed by a three-year

period of supervised release.

30. On June 4, 2012, while still on supervised release, a jury in the matter of

People v. Nguyen, Super. Ct. No. 11WF0913, Superior Court of Orange County

California, found Nguyen guilty of felony infliction of injury on a dependent adult, in

violation of California Penal Code Section 368(b)(1).

31. On August 17, 2012, an Orange County Superior Court Judge sentenced

Nguyen to two years in prison for the dependent adult abuse and assessed restitution

and parole revocation fines against Nguyen totaling $240. On October 29, 2013, the

COMPLAINT 8

California Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed Nguyen’s state

conviction and sentence.

32. In addition to lying to investors about his background, Nguyen has taken

other steps to conceal this criminal past. For example, when he filed articles of

incorporation on behalf of NTV Financial with the State of California in May 2019,

he filed them under the name “Vu Thanh Nguyen” instead of the name Richard

Nguyen, which was the name listed in the two criminal convictions and two

administrative sanctions.

33. Nguyen also listed his name as “Nguyen Thanh Vu” on NTV Financial’s

website.

B. Defendants’ Fraudulent Investment Opportunities

34. NTV Financial and Nguyen use the internet, radio and television, as well

as in-person meetings and brochures, to lure investors into two fraudulent investment

schemes. One is the NTLF Fund, which they claimed trades in stocks and options.

The other is the chance to have Nguyen manage individual clients’ brokerage

accounts.

35. In addition to its website, NTV Financial paid to air weekly video

broadcasts and posted several videos about NTV Financial on YouTube and

Facebook. The video broadcasts were structured as a talk show called “Kim Tien Sat

Phat,” or translated, “Golden Money – Winning at All Costs.” These shows air

several times a week on a nationwide Vietnamese-language station on DirecTV and a

local station in Southern California.

36. In these videos, Defendants often touted Nguyen’s investment

experience and offered investors several investments. Although these online videos

varied over time, several claimed that Nguyen was an investment banker, the

executive director of NTV Financial, someone with more than 20 years of investment

experience at Goldman, and, in one or more of those videos, Nguyen personally

claimed to have been a fund manager at Goldman and to have managed a “few

COMPLAINT 9

dozen” funds in the past.

1. The NTLF Fund

37. Defendants have raised about $2.4 million from at least 80 investors in

the NTLF Fund.

38. Although described as a “fund,” the NTLF Fund is not an entity. The

Fund’s money is instead held in bank accounts in the name of NTV Financial,

Nguyen and/or Do. As described below, that money is then commingled with money

coming from Defendants’ other businesses.

39. When investors invest in the Fund, they receive an “interest” in the so-

called “fund” at a price of $10 per share. The investor money was pooled together to

trade in options as part of a common enterprise, and investors expected to make

money on that investment based on the trading and efforts of Defendants.

40. The NTV Financial website at one time described Nguyen as a “Fund

Manager” of the NTLF Fund, with “extensive experience in the areas of investment,

start up, and corporate governance.”

41. The website offered investors the opportunity to invest in the NTLF

Fund and identified four “Key Offerings” of the Fund: (1) a target return on

investment (“ROI”) of 35%, (2) quarterly dividends, (3) a minimum investment of

$5,000, and (4) no lock-in period, meaning investors could redeem their principal

investment at any time.

42. The website described the NTLF Fund as having a “No Net Loss Policy”

and stated that NTV Financial would maintain a net capital reserve equal to 35% of

the NTLF Fund. The 35% reserve was purportedly kept in a “segregated account” to

guarantee that all investor capital was protected.

43. In a video aired on or about February 12, 2018, Nguyen offered

investors the opportunity to invest in what he described as the NTLF Fund. Nguyen

claimed to be launching the NTLF Fund so that it could one day be listed on Wall

Street and become the only fund with all Vietnamese fund managers.

COMPLAINT 10

44. Nguyen told investors that the NTLF Fund needed at least 130 investors

and portfolio with a minimum value of $1.3 million in order to be registered with the

SEC. Nguyen claimed to already have 30 investors and said only 100 spots were left.

Nguyen said he was not certain whether he would close the NTLF Fund once it

reached its goal of 130 investors, but investors “better hurry” if they wanted to join

the NTLF Fund.

45. Nguyen told investors that the NTLF Fund had a minimum investment

amount of $5,000 and promised that he would “bundle” their money into one

account, which Nguyen would personally manage. Nguyen promised to pay

investors a dividend each quarter and to hire an accountant to file and pay the taxes

on those dividends, so they were tax free by the time the investors received them.

46. In a video aired on or about June 4, 2018, Nguyen’s co-host told

investors they would not be charged any fees in connection with the NTLF Fund,

their initial investment was guaranteed to be protected from loss, and they could

redeem their initial investment at any time. During this same video, Nguyen told

investors he utilized a “10-day” trading rule when investing, which he said had a

patent pending because several investment companies wanted to use it in their trading

software.

47. In a video aired on or about August 13, 2018, Nguyen told investors he

was launching a new version of the NTLF Fund with a fixed return of 16% annually

(or 4% quarterly). Nguyen said he was offering a fixed return based on the demands

of his clients, whom he claimed did not like fluctuations in their ROI and wanted a

fixed ROI. The NTLF Fund still required a minimum investment of $5,000, still

guaranteed investors 100% of their initial investment, and still had no lock-in period,

meaning investors could redeem their investments at any time.

48. In a video aired on or about October 15, 2018, Nguyen re-emphasized

his 10-day trading rule, claiming that he had a contract with Goldman Sachs to use

the 10-day trading rule in Goldman Sachs’ trading formulas. Nguyen told investors

COMPLAINT 11

that the greatest honor of NTV Financial was that its accounts “never, never” failed to

make money.

49. In a radio show posted on YouTube on or about April 19, 2019,

Nguyen’s co-host introduced Nguyen as “an investment banker and an underwriter

with two decades of experience working in securities investments with one of the

leading financial giants, Goldman Sachs.”

50. In that same video, Nguyen told investors that “from here on out, you

[will] never hear the word ‘guarantee’ and ‘guarantee investment’ from us,” but said

that he knew “for a fact” and “for sure” he would “protect” investors’ assets. Nguyen

also told investors that NTV Financial had ended its 16% interest program and was

now offering a 12% interest program. Nguyen still offered investors 12% interest

every year, and promised to send investors a check reflecting 3% of the invested

amount every quarter. Nguyen told investors they could still withdraw their principal

anytime, but the initial minimum investment was raised to $10,000. After that,

investors could contribute as much as they wished, so long as it was at least $5,000.

2. Individually Managed Brokerage Accounts

51. At least 30 people have given Nguyen access to their brokerage accounts

so that he can trade in them. These clients give him, for example, their passwords

and usernames, which enables him to access the accounts online and trade stock or

options in the accounts at his discretion.

52. Nguyen has been managing brokerage accounts for at least 30 clients

between August 2018 and May 2019. Those clients have deposited a total of at least

$1.9 million into those accounts.

53. In a video aired on or about July 23, 2018, Nguyen offered to personally

manage the individual brokerage accounts of investors in addition to managing the

NTLF Fund. Nguyen told investors they just had to open an investment account at a

brokerage firm, deposit a minimum amount of $50,000 into the investment account,

and, once the investment account was opened, Nguyen would use the investors’

COMPLAINT 12

passwords and usernames to execute trades on the investors’ behalf.

54. Nguyen told investors that NTV Financial would charge investors a 50%

performance fee on any profits Nguyen earned in these personally managed accounts

and would distribute those profits to the investors once they reached 15% to 20% of

the investors’ initial investments.

55. In a video aired on or about October 15, 2018, Nguyen claimed to be

very successful at trading on behalf of investors in their personally managed

accounts. In that same video, Nguyen told investors that the greatest honor of NTV

Financial was that its accounts “never, never” failed to make money.

56. In a radio show posted on YouTube on or about April 19, 2019, Nguyen

told investors they could still have Nguyen personally manage their investment

accounts, regardless of whether the investment accounts were at TD Ameritrade,

Fidelity, Merrill Lynch or anywhere else. However, Nguyen told investors that the

investment accounts now had to have a minimum of $100,000 for Nguyen to

personally management them and told investors they had to liquidate all the stocks in

those accounts to cash. Investors were told they still had to give Nguyen their

username and password, so he could personally login and trade on their behalf, and

they still had to split the profits from Nguyen’s trading “50/50.”

3. Defendants Are Acting As Investment Advisers

57. During all relevant times, NTV Financial and Nguyen acted as

investment advisers to the NTLF Fund and to the clients who gave Nguyen access to

their individual brokerage accounts.

58. NTV Financial and Nguyen advised the Fund about investing in stocks

and options. They received compensation when they took trading profits in excess of

promised returns and when they used investor money for their own benefit.

Defendants also held out the NTLF Fund as a fund engaged in the business of trading

securities.

59. Likewise, they advised the clients with the separately managed

COMPLAINT 13

brokerage accounts about stock and options trading, and also received compensation

in the form of trading profits.

C. Defendants’ Statements to Fund Investors and Separately Managed

Clients

60. In addition to its website and its weekly video broadcasts, NTV

Financial solicited investors through telephonic and face-to-face meetings. The

following are some examples of the representations Defendants made to investors and

prospective investors regarding NTV Financial during those telephonic and face-to-

face meetings:

1. Investor A

61. In or about February 2018, Nguyen spoke with “Investor A” over the

telephone after Investor A had watched one or more videos about NTV Financial on a

Vietnamese television station and after Investor A had visited the NTV Financial

website. Investor A was attracted to NTV Financial by its claim that investors would

earn up to a 30% return on their investment through options trading.

62. Nguyen told Investor A that his name was “Vu Nguyen” and claimed to

have received his Masters in Business Administration from California State

Polytechnic University, Pomona (“Cal Poly”) before working on Wall Street.

63. Nguyen promised Investor A a 16% fixed annual return on investment.

Nguyen said he would generate these returns through buying and selling options.

Nguyen did not disclose how he would go about buying and selling options, but told

Investor A that he would use investor funds to keep investing in more and more

options. All of this led Investor A to believe that Nguyen would be pooling Investor

A’s money with other investor money so as to increase the overall volume of options

trading in the NTLF Fund.

64. Nguyen also led Investor A to believe that investor funds would be kept

in a separate account in order to protect those funds, so that if Investor A ever

requested to redeem the principal, Nguyen could withdraw that money from the

COMPLAINT 14

separate account and return it to Investor A.

65. Nguyen never identified himself as “Richard Nguyen” to Investor A and

never disclosed to Investor A that he had sustained two felony convictions and two

adverse administrative rulings under the name Richard Nguyen.

66. After speaking with Nguyen over the telephone, Investor A invested

$5,000 in the NTLF Fund and soon began receiving quarterly payments between 3%

and 4%. Nguyen sent Investor A statement-like updates via email that showed

Investor A’s initial investment and the dividend amount for that quarter.

2. Investor B

67. In or about April 2018, Nguyen met face-to-face with Investor B at a

restaurant in Orange County, California. Investor B arranged to meet with Nguyen

after watching one or more videos about NTV Financial on a Vietnamese-language

television station.

68. Nguyen told Investor B that if Investor B invested in the NTLF Fund,

Nguyen would guarantee a minimum return of 16% annually and no loss of principal.

Nguyen told Investor B that he had worked with Goldman Sachs for 15-20 years and

would generate the returns through buying and selling stocks. Nguyen led Investor B

to believe that other investors were investing in the NTLF Fund and that everyone

would share in the profits of the Fund.

69. Nguyen told Investor B that he also went by the name “Richard

Nguyen,” but never told Investor B he had suffered two felony convictions and two

administrative sanctions under that name.

70. Investor B invested $50,000 in the NTLF Fund on the same day Investor

B met face-to-face with Nguyen. Nguyen did not have Investor B sign any

investment adviser agreements or similar paperwork, but told Investor B the

investment could be redeemed at any time.

71. After investing $50,000 in the NTLF Fund, Investor B soon began

receiving quarterly dividend payments. In the beginning, the quarterly payments

COMPLAINT 15

were occasionally higher than 4%. Later, Nguyen told Investor B that all future

payments would be fixed at 4% quarterly and 16% annually.

72. Nguyen sent Investor B statement-like updates via email that showed

Investor B’s initial investment and the dividend for that quarter. Investor B later

invested more than $50,000 in the NTLF Fund and ultimately invested a total of

approximately $300,000 in the NTLF Fund.

3. Client C

73. In or about August 2018, Client C allowed Nguyen to begin managing

her investment account at TD Ameritrade.

74. Client C has never met Nguyen and only knows what he looks like

through watching the videos she has watched through her television network. Client

C did, however, speak with one of Nguyen’s employees over the telephone, who

explained to Client C how to open a TD Ameritrade account, told Client C they

would manage the account, and that any profits would be split in half (along with the

taxes) between Client C and Nguyen.

75. Client C recalls seeing videos of Nguyen claiming to have an MBA and

to have worked at Goldman Sachs and as an investment banker. Client C viewed

these qualifications as very important in deciding to allow Nguyen to manager the

investment account at TD Ameritrade because it led Client C to believe he knew

more about what he was doing and had a higher chance of success.

76. Client C’s investment account has not made any money through

allowing Nguyen to manage it but Client C can see that Nguyen has been trading in

the account.

77. Client C never heard Nguyen referred to as “Richard Vu Nguyen” and

was not aware that Nguyen had been convicted any crimes, including dependent adult

abuse. Client C would have wanted to know about Nguyen’s convictions before

allowing him to manager the investment account and would not have given Nguyen

money if Client C knew about his conviction for dependent adult abuse.

COMPLAINT 16

4. Undercover FBI Agent

78. On or about April 8, 2019, Nguyen met face-to-face with a prospective

investor at the offices of NTV Financial. Unbeknownst to Nguyen, the prospective

investor was actually an undercover agent (“UC”) for the FBI, who secretly recorded

his/her face-to-face meeting with Nguyen.

79. Nguyen told UC he could guarantee UC a fixed return of 16% annually,

if UC invested a minimum of $10,000 in the NTLF Fund. Nguyen told UC he was

the fund’s manager and would generate the 16% return by trading stocks and options.

80. Nguyen told UC he would receive quarterly payments (or dividends) of

4% and quarterly statements via email reflecting those payments. Nguyen told UC

that the statements would be prepared by a certified public accountant and described

the investment as 100% safe and fully redeemable at any time. When UC asked

Nguyen about his track record in the last five years, Nguyen told UC he made a

1,000% return annually.

81. Nguyen also offered to personally manage an investment account on

behalf of UC. Nguyen told UC he would need to open the investment account in

UC’s name and deposit a minimum of $100,000 into the account. UC would also

have to give Nguyen the username and password for the investment account, so

Nguyen could start trading on behalf of UC. Nguyen told UC that if trading in the

investment account was profitable, UC would have to take those profits out of the

investment account, deposit them into UC’s checking account, and write Nguyen a

check for half the amount of the profits.

D. The Poor Performance of the NTLF Fund and the Managed Accounts

82. The NTLF Fund has had negative performance since its inception in

February 2018.

83. In managing the Fund, Nguyen engages in a significant amount of

trading in the brokerage accounts holding the investors’ money, principally in

margined option trading. This trading has resulted in large losses and some large

COMPLAINT 17

gains.

84. As a result of these and other losses, in every quarter since the inception

of the NTLF Fund, the overall market value of the Fund’s assets has been less than

the net principal invested in the Fund, sometimes by as much as 69% less, as

illustrated in the table below:

Quarter/Year

Total Bank &
Brokerage

Balance/Value

Net Investor
Deposits

(Accumulated)
Under-

Capitalized
% Under-

Capitalized
Q 1 2018 $ 31,722.85 $ 45,000.00 $ (13,277.15) -29.5%
Q 2 2018 $ 163,959.73 $ 296,000.00 $ (132,040.27) -44.6%
Q 3 2018 $ 589,073.66 $ 897,000.00 $ (307,926.34) -34.3%
Q 4 2018 $ 569,555.22 $ 1,848,500.00 $ (1,278,944.78) -69.2%
Q 1 2019 $ 1,653,230.86 $ 2,209,500.00 $ (556,269.14) -25.2%

85. The brokerage accounts managed by Nguyen on behalf of at least 30

clients have also not performed well.

86. As of March 2019, 17 clients, who deposited a total of about $1.19

million into their accounts, have suffered trading losses totaling almost $570,000.

E. Defendants’ Fraud

87. Defendants misled clients and potential clients to believe that Nguyen

was an experienced financial trader with an impeccable track record trading and that

they would not lose any of their principal if they invested with Defendants. Yet,

Nguyen concealed and lied about his real past, and both the NTLF Fund and the

individually managed brokerage accounts suffered significant losses, including losses

in investor principal.

1. Nguyen’s History of Criminal and Regulatory Sanctions

88. As described infra, Defendants misled investors about Nguyen’s

background by failing to disclose that several years before Nguyen became the

executive director of NTV Financial, he had been convicted of two felonies in federal

and state courts and had been sanctioned twice by the CDC for securities related

misconduct.

COMPLAINT 18

89. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding Nguyen’s

background, particularly his prior criminal history for investment fraud, pertained to

material facts that reasonable investors would have found important in making their

investment decisions.

90. The misrepresentations and omissions regarding Nguyen’s background

were made by Defendants and each of them received money in the form of investors’

funds, by means of those misrepresentations and omissions.

91. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that failing to

disclose Nguyen’s two felony convictions and the fact that he had been sanctioned

twice by the CDC misled investors as to Nguyen’s background and fitness to manage

their investments.

92. At a minimum, Defendants did not exercise reasonable care in failing to

disclose Nguyen’s two felony convictions and the fact that he had been sanctioned

twice by the CDC to investors, and thus were negligent.

2. Nguyen’s Credentials and Employment History

93. As described infra, Defendants made materially false and misleading

statements to clients and potential clients about Nguyen’s credentials and

employment history as an investment adviser. Contrary to Defendants’ statements to

investors, not only had Nguyen never received an MBA from Cal Poly, he never

worked for or had any kind of contractual relationship with Goldman.

94. Goldman has no record of Nguyen ever being employed there.

95. Nor did Goldman ever have any contract with Nguyen for his so-called

“10-day trading rule,” or for anything else.

96. Defendants’ misrepresentations regarding Nguyen’s business

relationship with Goldman and his prior employment at that company pertained to

material facts that reasonable investors would have found important in making their

investment decisions.

97. The misrepresentations regarding Nguyen’s business relationship with

COMPLAINT 19

Goldman and his prior employment at that company were made by Defendants and

each of them received money in the form of investors’ funds, by means of those

misrepresentations.

98. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that claiming

Nguyen had a business relationship with Goldman and had previously been employed

there misled investors as to Nguyen’s background and fitness to manage their

investments.

99. At a minimum, Defendants did not exercise reasonable care in their

representations to investors regarding Nguyen’s business relationship with Goldman

and prior employment there, and thus were negligent.

3. The Fund’s Guaranteed “100%” Redemption Right

100. As described infra, Defendants misled Fund investors as to their ability

to withdraw their monies at any time.

101. On the NTV Financial website, Defendants told investors a “Net

Capital” reserve equal to 35% would be created and kept in a “segregated account” as

part of a “No Net Loss” policy. However, none of the investor funds were placed

into a segregated account and used to create a net capital reserve equal to 35% of the

NTLF Fund.

102. Defendants misled investors and potential investors to believe that

investing with NTV Financial would be 100% safe, the accounts would “never,

never” fail to make money, Nguyen had a track record of earning as high as a 1,000

percent return annually, and investors could redeem their principal investment at any

time. In reality, Nguyen suffered significant realized and unrealized losses of

investors funds despite his so-called 10-day trading rule and despite continuing to pay

some investors their guaranteed returns.

COMPLAINT 20

103. This undercapitalization of the Fund relative to the investors’ right of

redemption between February 2018 and March 2019 is further illustrated in the chart

below:

104. Reasonable investors would have considered it important in their

investment decision to know that Defendants could not honor the right of redemption

due to the NTLF Fund being undercapitalized at the time they invested.

105. The misrepresentations and omissions regarding the ability of investors

to withdraw their money from the Fund were all made by Defendants and each of

them received money in the form of investors’ funds, by means of those

misrepresentations and omissions.

106. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that statements

regarding investors’ ability to withdraw their money from the Fund on demand

misled investors.

107. At a minimum, defendants failed to exercise reasonable care when

making representations to investors about their ability to withdraw money on demand

from the Fund.

$‐

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

Under Capitalization

Net Invested Fund AssetsCOMPLAINT 21

4. The Poor Performance of the NTLF Fund

108. As described infra, Defendants misled investors in the NTLF Fund with

respect to the Fund’s positive performance.

109. Defendants represented that the Fund was achieving double digit returns

while concealing that the Fund had significant losses.

110. Defendants falsely represented to the UC that returns of 1,000% had

been achieved.

111. Reasonable investors would have considered it important in their

investment decision to know that the Fund was experiencing losses.

112. The misrepresentations regarding the Fund’s performance were made by

Defendants, and each of them received money in the form of investors’ funds, by

means of those misrepresentations and omissions.

113. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that statements

regarding the NTLF Fund’s performance misled investors as to how Defendants’

investments were faring.

114. At a minimum, defendants failed to exercise reasonable care when

making representations to investors about the NTLF Fund’s performance.

5. Defendants’ Misuse of Investor Funds

115. As described infra, Defendants misled investors in the NTLF Fund with

respect to how investor funds would be handled and spent.

116. During a video aired in February 2018 Nguyen told investors their

money would be “bundled into one account or one fund.” Instead, there was no

actual “fund”; rather, investor money was moved around between bank and brokerage

accounts held in the name of Nguyen, NTV Financial, and Relief Defendant Mai Do.

117. Defendants were also misappropriating, and allowing others to

misappropriate, large sums of money from bank accounts commingled with investor

funds. While some of the deposits into those bank accounts also came from non-

investor funds, including Defendants’ other businesses, the undisclosed and

COMPLAINT 22

unauthorized expenditures exceeded those non-investor funds that were deposited by

approximately $600,000.

118. The following are examples of some of the undisclosed and authorized

expenditures Defendants made between February 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019, while

NTV Financial was undercapitalized:

Expenditure Amount

Payments toward the purchase of a
$1 million home in the name of Relief Defendant Mai Do

$354,000

Cash Withdrawals $224,000

Payments to jewelry and watch stores $148,000

Purchase of Car and a Motorcycle (Harley Davidson) $109,000

TOTAL $835,000

119. Investors were not aware that their funds were being deposited into these

bank accounts and commingled with non-investor money, including Defendants’

other businesses, or that a portion of investor funds was being used for these and

other undisclosed and unauthorized purposes.

120. Reasonable investors would have considered it important in their

investment decision to know that investor funds were being used for purposes other

than what Defendants disclosed to them at the time they invested.

121. The misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding how

investor funds would be handled and spent were all made by Defendants and each of

them received money in the form of investors’ funds by means of those

misrepresentations and omissions.

122. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that investor funds

were being mishandled and misappropriated and that their statements regarding how

investor funds would be handled and spent misled investors.

123. At a minimum, defendants failed to exercise reasonable care when

COMPLAINT 23

handling and spending investors’ funds, and in making representations to investors

about how investor funds would be handled and spent.

F. Relief Defendant Do’s Unjust Enrichment

124. Relief Defendant Mai Do, whom Nguyen held out as the CFO of NTV

Financial, received investor funds from Defendants.

125. During the relevant time period, Do received investor funds from

Defendants into several bank and brokerage accounts held in her name.

126. Additionally, Do received approximately $354,000 in the form of

payments towards the purchase of a $1 million home in her name.

127. Do had no legitimate claim to these monies, since they were derived

from the fraudulent scheme outlined above and constituted ill-gotten gains.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fraud in the Connection with the Purchase and Sale of Securities

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

(against all Defendants)

128. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

128 above.

129. NTV Financial and Nguyen each defrauded prospective and actual

investors and clients by making false and misleading statements about Nguyen’s

background and employment history. NTV Financial and Nguyen misled Fund

investors about the NTLF Fund’s very existence, its performance, the ability of

investors to withdraw their money from the Fund, how investor money would be

spent, and the overall nature of the investment. In soliciting clients for the separately

managed accounts, NTV Financial and Nguyen misrepresented past trading

performance. Further, NTV Financial and Nguyen also misappropriated investor

funds.

130. By engaging in the conduct described above, NTV Financial and

Nguyen, and each of them, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or

COMPLAINT 24

sale of a security, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of

the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange: (a) employed devices,

schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or

omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the

light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c)

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

a fraud or deceit upon other persons.

131. NTV Financial and Nguyen knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that

they employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of a

material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the

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

misleading; and engaged in acts, practices or courses of conduct that operated as a

fraud on the investing public by the conduct described in detail above.

132. By engaging in the conduct described above, NTV Financial and

Nguyen violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section

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

10b-5(c) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a), 240.10b-5(b) & 240.10b-5(c).

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

(against all Defendants)

133. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

128 above.

134. NTV Financial and Nguyen each defrauded prospective and actual

investors and clients by making and obtaining money via false and misleading

statements about Nguyen’s background and employment history. NTV Financial and

Nguyen misled Fund investors about the NTLF Fund’s very existence, its

performance, the ability of investors to withdraw their money from the Fund, how

COMPLAINT 25

investor money would be spent, and the overall nature of the investment. In soliciting

clients for the separately managed accounts, NTV Financial and Nguyen

misrepresented past trading performance. Further, NTV Financial and Nguyen also

misappropriated investor funds.

135. By engaging in the conduct described above, NTV Financial and

Nguyen, and each of them, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, and

by the use of means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate

commerce or by use of the mails directly or indirectly: (a) employed devices,

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

statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order

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

made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of

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

136. Defendants NTV Financial and Nguyen, with scienter, employed

devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; with scienter or negligence, obtained

money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to

state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and, with scienter or

negligence, engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated

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

137. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants NTV Financial

and Nguyen violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate,

Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§

77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(2), & 77q(a)(3).

COMPLAINT 26

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fraud by an Investment Adviser

Violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act

(against all Defendants)

138. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

128 above.

139. Defendants NTV Financial and Nguyen each defrauded actual and

potential separately managed account clients by making false and misleading

statements and omissions to investors about Nguyen’s background and employment

history and Defendants’ trading results.

140. By engaging in the conduct described above, NTV Financial and

Nguyen, and each of them, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails or means and

instrumentalities of interstate commerce employed or are employing devices,

schemes or artifices to defraud clients or prospective clients, and engaged in or are

engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud

or deceit upon clients or prospective clients.

141. NTV Financial and Nguyen, with scienter, employed devices, schemes

or artifices to defraud clients or prospective clients; and with scienter or negligence,

engaged in transactions, practices, or course of business which operated as a fraud or

deceit upon clients or prospective clients.

142. By engaging in the conduct described above, NTV Financial and

Nguyen have violated, and unless restrained and enjoined, are reasonably likely to

continue to violate, Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-

6(1) & 80b-6(2).

COMPLAINT 27

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fraud Involving a Pooled Investment Vehicle

Violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and

Rule 206(4)-8(a)(1) and (a)(2)

(against all Defendants)

143. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

128 above.

144. Defendants held the NTLF Fund out as a pooled investment vehicle.

NTV Financial and Nguyen each defrauded prospective and actual investors by

making false and misleading statements about Nguyen’s background and

employment history. NTV Financial and Nguyen misled Fund investors about the

NTLF Fund’s very existence, its performance, the ability of investors to withdraw

their money from the Fund, how investor money would be spent, and the overall

nature of the investment. Further, NTV Financial and Nguyen also misappropriated

investor funds.

145. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants NTV Financial

and Nguyen, and each of them, directly or indirectly, by engaging in the conduct

described above, while acting as an investment adviser to a pooled investment

vehicle, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails or means or instrumentalities of

interstate commerce: (a) made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state

a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the

circumstances under which there were made, not misleading, to any investor or

prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle; or (b) engaged in acts,

practices, or courses of business that were fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative with

respect to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle.

146. Defendants NTV Financial and Nguyen knew, or were reckless or

negligent in not knowing, that they (a) made untrue statements of a material fact or

omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the

COMPLAINT 28

light of the circumstances under which there were made, not misleading, to any

investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle; and (b) engaged in

acts, practices, or courses of business that were fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative

with respect to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle.

147. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants NTV Financial

and Nguyen have violated, and unless restrained and enjoined, are reasonably likely

to continue to violate, Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4), and

Rule 206(4)-8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unjust Enrichment

(against Relief Defendant Mai Do)

148. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

128 above.

149. Relief Defendant Mai Do received and then retained investor funds from

Defendants NTV Financial and Nguyen in bank and brokerage accounts held in her

name, and received another approximately $354,000 in proceeds. She has no

legitimate claim to these monies.

150. Relief Mai Do obtained the ill-gotten gains described above as part of

the securities law violations alleged above, under circumstances in which it is not

just, equitable, or conscionable for her to retain the funds.

151. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Relief Defendant Mai Do has

been unjustly enriched and must disgorge her ill-gotten gains.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court:

Issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that Defendants committed the

alleged violations.

COMPLAINT 29

II.

152. Issue judgments, in forms consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants NTV

Financial and Nguyen, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys,

and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive

actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and each of them,

from violating the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 17q(a)] and the Exchange [15 U.S.C. §

78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1),

206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2) & (4) and Rule

206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8].

III.

153. Issue, in a form consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, an order prohibiting

Defendants from directly or indirectly, including through any entity they own or

control, accessing any securities brokerage account of any third-party, including

doing so with the consent of the account holder; freezing Defendants’ and the Relief

Defendant’s assets, as well as providing other ancillary relief, including expedited

discovery, preservation of documents, an accounting of Defendants’ and the Relief

Defendant’s assets; and appointing a receiver over defendant NTV Financial and

bank or brokerage accounts into which the funds of Defendants’ investors and/or

clients have flowed.

IV.

154. Order Defendants to disgorge, jointly and severally, all funds received

from their illegal conduct, together with prejudgment interest thereon.

155. Order the Relief Defendant to disgorge the approximately $354,000 in

funds she received from Defendants’ illegal conduct, together with prejudgment

interest thereon.

VI.

COMPLAINT 30

156. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties under Section 20(d) of the

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

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

VII.

157. Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of

equity and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out

the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable

application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

VIII.

158. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may determine to be just

and necessary.

Dated: June 13, 2019

/s/ Douglas M. Miller
DOUGLAS M. MILLER
KELLY C. BOWERS
Attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission

OCR text (58,886c · textlayer · 95% conf)