Tag Archives: Broker investigation

DC Solar Ponzi – Loss Recovery

DC Solar is accused of operating a large Ponzi-type scheme concerning  a number of tax equity investment funds from 2015-2018.  The company, whose products include solar generators as well as light towers that can be used at sports events, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2019 in Reno, Nevada.  This Ponzi scheme, as with most Ponzi schemes, is about a failure of investigation as much as the underlying fraud.

In a February 8, 2019 affidavit related to those bankruptcy proceedings, an FBI agent said the manner in which the Benecia, California-based company appeared to have operated reflected “evidence of a Ponzi-type investment fraud scheme.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused DC Solar’s owners by name of engaging in a Ponzi scheme, according to a separate court filing.

As late as December 20, 2018, DC Solar had been seen in the business media as an “Energy Powerhouse.”  The company was well known and sponsored a NASCAR team.  Those fortunes reversed quickly.

Sufficient investigation by advisors would have revealed insufficient lease revenue and that the funds coming in to compensate the lack of lease revenue was simply investor money.  As such, payments of profits was simply earlier investors receiving the investment funds of newer investors.  Detecting such arrangements is the charge of brokers, advisors and their firms as part of their due diligence obligations.

Civil action has been commenced against the property of DC Solar, which is considered the defendant in the case. Because it is a civil action, no criminal charges need be placed against the property’s owner, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

However, 87 defendant items are traceable to an investment fraud and money laundering scheme run by companies described in other court documents as those associated with DC Solar.

The defendant properties listed are $62,546110.43 in multiple domestic and foreign bank accounts; $1,944,091.07 in cash seized at the Carpoffs’ Martinez home and Benicia offices; an estimated $500,000 worth of jewelry and other personal items; and a $782,949 money transfer for that luxury box at the Raiders NFL football team’s future stadium in Las Vegas, Nev.

Most of the bank accounts had been opened with China Bank and Trust, which is based in Taiwan with multiple international subsidiaries, according to its website. Other accounts were opened with E-trade, J.P. Morgan, BBVA Compass and Bank of America, the attorneys wrote.

Once of the largest victims is Berkshire Hathaway.  Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc on Wednesday said a $377 million charge it incurred recently was tied to a solar generation company that U.S. authorities have linked to fraud.

 

Attention Matthew Eckstein investors

Investors of Matthew Eckstein please call 1-866-817-0201.  Mr. Eckstein was previously employed by Sisk Investment Services and Gould, Ambroson & Associates.   Initial consultations are free and confidential.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently expelled Eckstein when he failed to appear at a regulatory hearing to contest allegations of severe misdeeds in his handling of securities portfolios.

Stock handcuffsEckstein engaged in a practice referred to as “selling away.”  A form of fraud, this is a practice where a securities broker sells a private security without the approval of a licensed securities firm.  This prevents the firm from vetting the investment to determine legitimacy and that the funds received actually are used to purchase the investment.

In a selling away situation, the investment is commonly of a company that the broker either owns, has an interest or that a friend or relative owns.  This is a common form of fraud and one in which his employing firm should have had supervisory mechanisms in place to detect and prevent.

The investments at issue in the present matter were investments in Conmac Capital and Conmac Funding.

In recommending that his customers make the Conmac investment, Eckstein knowingly, or at a minimum, recklessly, made false and misleading statements regarding the investment—saying, for example, that it was “fully guaranteed,” when it was not, and describing it as comparable to a certificate of deposit with a bank (“CD”), when it was not.

Eckstein, the Respondent in the FINRA suit, also persuaded one of his customers to liquidate close to $300,000 in mutual fund holdings in order to invest in the Issuer, representing that the investment would be sufficient to fund her retirement while the mutual fund investments would not. He had no basis, however, for urging the customer to replace her mutual funds with an investment in the Issuer. He had conducted no due diligence on the investment. Moreover, he never disclosed to his customers his lack of a basis for his representations and recommendations, and his lack of due diligence—material information to any reasonable investor.

“Respondent also failed to disclose financial connections to investors that would have caused a reasonable investor to question Respondent’s objectivity and the safety of his or her money.” He did not disclose that nearly all of the money that his customers gave him to invest in the Issuer was deposited into a bank account in the name of an affiliate of the Issuer, and that Respondent had access to those investor funds as a signatory on the bank account. “Respondent also did not disclose that KB had given him over $100,000.”

Eckstein and his employer are currently defendants in multiple suits concerning the his fraud.  These suits are largely being handled through the FINRA arbitration process.  Investors waive certain rights to bring claims in court when signing account opening documents with FINRA-licensed securities brokerages.