Joint agency approach nets Ponzi schemers who targeted members of a church.
In civil proceedings issued in the Central District of California, Brett M. Bartlett, his father-in-law Scott A. Miller, and their companies are alleged to have made fraudulent securities offerings that raised at least USD20.5 million, some of which Bartlett and Miller misused for personal expenses.
The SEC says that from at least June 2018 to May 2020, Bartlett and Miller raised funds from more than 1,000 investors nationwide by selling promissory notes, stock, and fraudulent gold contracts through their companies, Dynasty Toys Inc., The 7M eGroup Corp., Concept Management Company LLC, and Dynasty Inc.
When soliciting investors, many of them from a large church in central Illinois, it is alleged that Bartlett frequently invoked his Christian faith and attributed his alleged success to divine intervention to win investor trust. The complaint further alleges that, to stave off demand for cash payouts from their unsuccessful business ventures, Bartlett and Miller misled investors, made more than USD11 million in Ponzi-like payments and sent to investors USD21 million in bad cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. In addition, Bartlett and Miller misappropriated more than USD1.2 million for personal use, including vacations, entertainment, and payments for a luxury rental home.
In a parallel investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois announced criminal charges against Bartlett, 7Me, and Dynasty Toys.
That office has not published details of the charges and the basis upon which corporate entities are charged with criminal offences that are not offences of strict liability.
However, there is a policy document issued by all hte US Attorneys about "monitor selection for Corporate Criminal Enforcement." That is a remarkable document that appears to provide the framework by which a company may be charged with its officers and then enter into an agreement for enforcement which would not be ordered by a criminal court.
Crazy idea: is this a way by which a company agrees to make a settlement while the officers walk free, or with reduced penalties especially financial penalties? If so, where does that stand when we think about bribery and corruption?
