“Auto-Surfing”: What You Need to Know

From the SEC website:

“Auto-Surfing”: What You Need to Know

In the world of marketing, people often get compensated — with cash or free products and services— for doing fairly easy things, like sampling new ice-cream flavors, filling out surveys, or allowing a firm to monitor the television shows you watch or the websites you visit.  While some “money for nothing” opportunities may be perfectly legitimate, others can turn out to be frauds.

“Auto-surfing” is a form of online advertising that purportedly generates advertising revenue for companies that want to increase traffic to their websites.  The premise behind auto-surfing is that companies that advertise on the Internet are willing to pay to increase traffic to their web sites.  These companies hire an auto-surf firm or “host,” which in turn pays individual web surfers to view certain websites on an automatically rotating basis.  The more sites the individual visits, the more money he or she stands to earn.

While auto-surfing may sound easy and appealing — and risk-free — there can be a hitch.  Some auto-surf programs require their surfers to pay to participate, although perhaps not initially.  When you first sign up to auto-surf, the firm might assign a limited number of sites for you to visit and pay you accordingly.  Once you’ve made a modest amount of money, the firm might encourage — or even require — you to purchase a “membership” so that you can maximize your earnings.  The program will promise high — often double or triple digit — returns on your investment in the program, often within days or weeks of joining.

The line you’ll hear is that the more you click, the more you collect.  But the reality is that any scheme that requires you to pay to participate — and promises handsome rewards in no time at all for little to no effort on your part — bears many of the hallmarks of a “Ponzi” or pyramid scheme.  These schemes look deceptively legitimate because the fraudsters behind them typically use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors.  But eventually the pyramid will collapse when it gets too big.  It’s simply not possible to “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul” forever.

The SEC warns investors to be wary of any sort of “get rich scheme quick” scheme — and to be especially leery of opportunities that require you to pay to play.  Before you pay a dime to make extra cash in your spare time, be sure to do a little due diligence:

  • If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Compare promised yields with current returns on well-known stock indexes.  Any investment opportunity that claims you’ll get substantially more could be highly risky — and that means you might lose money.

  • Check out the company before you invest. Contact the secretary of state where the company is incorporated to find out whether the company is a corporation in good standing.  Also call your state securities regulator to see whether the company, its officers, or the promoters of the opportunity have a history of complaints or fraud.  If a supposedly upright business lists only a P.O. box, you’ll want to do a lot of work before sending your money!

  • Steer Clear of Testimonials. Watch out if the company’s promotional materials, contain “testimonials” from supposedly satisfied customers, especially if all the “testimonials” are full of praise.

  • “Guaranteed returns” aren’t. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and the level of risk typically correlates with the return you can expect to receive.  Low risk generally means low yields, and high yields typically involve high risk.  If your money is perfectly safe, you’ll most likely get a low return.  High returns represent potential rewards for folks who are willing to take big risks.  Most fraudsters spend a lot of time trying to convince investors that extremely high returns are “guaranteed” or “can’t miss.”  Don’t believe it.

For more information on investing wisely and avoiding costly mistakes, please visit the Investor Information section of the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov/investor.shtml.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/autosurf.htm

Click here to view the original article along with the SEC’s disclaimer

SEC v. Matthew D. Weitzman


U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONLitigation Release No. 21078 / June 10, 2009

SEC v. Matthew D. Weitzman, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 09 CV 5353 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2009)

SEC Charges New York-Based Investment Adviser for Stealing Client Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) today charged an investment adviser who lives in Armonk, N.Y., for orchestrating a scheme in which he stole more than $6 million in investor funds for his own personal use, in some instances victimizing clients who were terminally ill or mentally impaired.

The SEC alleges that Matthew D. Weitzman sold securities in clients’ brokerage accounts and illegally funneled their money to a bank account that he secretly controlled. While Weitzman spent the money on a multi-million dollar home, cars, and other luxury items, he provided false account statements to clients often showing inflated account balances and securities holdings. Weitzman also submitted to a broker-dealer phony letters from clients that purported to authorize the money transfers. When clients questioned Weitzman about the transfers they did not authorize, he misrepresented that he was withdrawing their funds to make legitimate investments.

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Weitzman is the co-founder and a principal of AFW Wealth Advisors, the business name for AFW Asset Management, Inc., a registered investment adviser located in Purchase, N.Y., with an office in Natick, Mass. Weitzman also served as AFW’s compliance officer.

The SEC alleges that Weitzman either sold securities held in the clients’ accounts or redeemed shares held in money market funds in order to acquire cash for the unauthorized transfers, because the clients’ brokerage accounts at the broker-dealer generally did not hold more than a minimal amount of cash. He also siphoned money from clients’ Individual Retirement Accounts. Once he had the looted funds under his control in the AFW bank account, Weitzman either withdrew the clients’ funds or transferred the money directly into one of his personal bank accounts.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Weitzman in some instances misappropriated funds from AFW clients who were unlikely to be scrutinizing their account statements. For example, Weitzman misappropriated a total of approximately $430,000 in a series of unauthorized transfers from a client who was terminally ill. Weitzman later misappropriated $85,000 in two separate unauthorized transfers from the account of the client’s widow. Furthermore, the SEC alleges that Weitzman targeted an elderly couple with compromised mental capacities, misappropriating approximately $400,000 of their money.

The SEC’s complaint charges Weitzman with violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and with aiding and abetting violations of Section 204 and Rules 204-2(a)-3 and 204-2(a)(7) also of the Advisers Act. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, financial penalties, an asset freeze, a sworn accounting, an order prohibiting the destruction of documents, and a requirement that Weitzman notify the SEC and obtain approval of the court before he files for bankruptcy protection.

Weitzman agreed to settle the SEC’s claims and, without admitting or denying the allegations, consented to the entry of a judgment that will grant the SEC the full relief that it seeks, but will defer the determination of the financial amounts of the settlement until a later date. The agreement to resolve the SEC’s action is subject to approval by the court.

The SEC’s investigation is continuing.

SEC Complaint

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21078.htm

SEC Charges Operators of $80 Million Ponzi Scheme Targeting Korean-Americans

Click here for Korean translation of the release.

Washington, D.C., June 9, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two California men and two companies they control for conducting an $80 million Ponzi scheme that targeted Korean-American investors with false promises of extraordinarily high returns from foreign currency (forex) trading.

The SEC alleges that Peter C. Son, of Danville, Calif., and Jin K. Chung, of Los Altos, Calif., lured approximately 500 investors in the United States, South Korea, and Taiwan into their investment scheme in which funds were not traded in the forex market as claimed, but instead used to pay cash “returns” to certain investors in Ponzi-like fashion. They also misappropriated investor money for their own personal use, including mortgage payments on Son’s multi-million dollar home. The SEC is seeking an emergency court order to freeze the defendants’ assets.

“Son and Chung portrayed themselves and their companies as highly successful in the forex industry, while in reality the tremendous forex trading profits they claimed did not exist,” said Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “They placed ads in Korean-language newspapers and used sales agents to target Korean-Americans in typical affinity fraud fashion as they preyed on the trust within close-knit communities.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in San Francisco, Son and Chung operated their scheme through SNC Asset Management, Inc. (SNCA) and SNC Investments, Inc. (SNCI), which maintained offices in Pleasanton, Calif., and New York City. Son and Chung promised investors spectacular annual returns of up to 36 percent from forex trading, and told investors that SNCA had generated 50 percent profits from such trading each year since 2003.

The SEC alleges that Son and Chung faked SNCA’s supposed forex trading profits, providing investors with monthly account statements showing fictitious returns. Son and Chung drained SNCA’s and SNCI’s bank accounts as their Ponzi scheme was collapsing and transferred investor funds to accounts they controlled overseas. In addition to paying Son’s mortgage, investor funds were used to provide capital infusions to SNCI and pay Son’s wife a salary for which she did no work.

Among other emergency relief for investors, the SEC seeks court orders prohibiting the defendants from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws; freezing their assets and compelling them to return overseas assets to the U.S.; and requiring them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and pay financial penalties.

Son appeared in federal court in Oakland, Calif., yesterday on federal criminal charges. Separately today, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced civil fraud charges against Son, Chung, SNCA, and SNCI.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the National Futures Association.

# # #

For more information, contact:

Marc J. Fagel
Regional Director, SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office
(415) 705-2449

Michael S. Dicke
Associate Regional Director-Enforcement, SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office
(415) 705-2458

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-131.htm