Notable litigation filed during March 2024 includes SEC v. Sanchez, et al. and four related actions captioned Dottore v. FC Real Estate Development Co., Dottore v. Kensington Pointe Ltd., Dottore v. Seibert Enterprises, Ltd., and Dottore v. Harper.
SEC v. Sanchez, et al., No. 4:24-cv-939 (S.D. Tex.)
The SEC filed suit against the defendant schemers in Texas federal court for losses arising from an alleged multi-million-dollar Ponzi scheme targeting the Latin American community to invest in the crypto asset, CryptoFX, and foreign-exchange markets. The complaint alleges that the schemers misrepresented to investors that their funds would be used in a crypto and foreign-exchange trading program, but the funds were instead used to make Ponzi payments, pay commissions to salespeople in a multi-level marketing scheme, and were used for personal purchases by CryptoFX executives, including some defendants, causing investors to incur financial losses. The SEC seeks recovery under theories of violations of several provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act, permanent injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties.
Dottore v. FC Real Estate Development Co., No. CV-2024-03-1005, Dottore v. Kensington Pointe Ltd., No. CV-2024-03-1097, Dottore v. Seibert Enterprises, Ltd., No. CV-2024-03-1096, Dottore v. Harper., No. CV-2024-03-1360 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Summit Cnty.)
A court-appointed receiver filed four separate lawsuits in Ohio state court against Ponzi scheme “net winner” investors, all of whom allegedly received fictitious profits to the detriment of other defrauded investors, did not give value in exchange for what they received from the receivership entities, and did not invest in good faith in the Ponzi scheme. These actions stem from prior litigation filed by the State of Ohio Department of Commerce against Mark Dente and other defendants who allegedly operated the Dente-AEM Ponzi scheme by inducing investors with promises of significant returns on real estate investments, but instead used investor money as a personal slush fund and used new investor money to pay earlier investors. The receiver seeks recovery under the Ohio Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to avoid the transfers and recover several million dollars received by defendants, to impose a constructive trust over the funds to be distributed equitably among the Ponzi scheme victims, for post-judgment interest, and for costs of the action including attorneys’ fees.
