SEC v. Marc Henry Menard; and Laesha Jean-Louis, No. 1:24-cv-04149, Eastern District of New York (June 11, 2024) — Complaint

Antonia Apps
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Tejal Shah
Celeste Chase
Travis Hill
Olivia Zach
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, NY 10004-2616
Phone:  (212) 336-9135 (Hill)
Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
        :
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
        :         COMPLAINT
     Plaintiff,  :
        :
  -against-     :          24 Civ. 4149
        :
MARC HENRY MENARD,                           :
    Defendant,   :         JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
                                          :
-and-      :
        :
LAESHA JEAN-LOUIS,                :
    Relief Defendant.  :
________________________________________________:

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against
Defendant Marc Henry Menard (“Menard”) and Relief Defendant Laesha Jean-Louis (“Jean-
Louis”) alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Menard made material misstatements to dozens of investors when soliciting
investments in the form of promissory notes, defrauding investors out of at least $1.65 million.

 2
2. From approximately July 2021 through September 2023 (the “Relevant Period”),
Menard solicited investments from more than 50 individuals, many of whom were members of
the Haitian-American community, by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting his past
investment success, how he would use investor funds, and the returns investors would receive.
3. Menard told a number of investors that he or his business, MarcoTech, would use
their funds to trade in stocks and options, and he lured investors with purportedly guaranteed
interest payments of 10 to 20 % per month—the equivalent of a 120 to 240 % non-compounded
annual return—which Menard knew or recklessly disregarded he could not guarantee, and
ultimately did not pay in full as promised.
4. Menard was not the successful investor he claimed to be.  During the Relevant
Period, Menard lost nearly $700,000 trading securities, primarily using investors’ funds.  But
Menard concealed his losses from prospective investors while falsely boasting of his successful
performance.
5. Menard also misappropriated a significant amount of investor money for his
personal use by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury vehicles, international
travel, gifts, rent and other personal expenses, as well as to make payments to prior investors in a
Ponzi-like manner, contrary to investors’ expectations that he would use their money to trade.
6. Menard also diverted significant amounts of investor money to Jean-Louis, with
whom he had a romantic relationship.
7. When Menard could no longer make promised interest payments to investors or
repay the principal on their investments, he resorted to additional falsehoods to conceal his
scheme, including by inflating the balance in his bank account while falsely or misleadingly
claiming that he could not return some investors’ money because the bank had frozen his funds.

 3
8. In total, investors entrusted Menard with at least $1.65 million and incurred
substantial losses as a result of his failure to repay them as promised.
VIOLATIONS
9. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant
Menard violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §
77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“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 Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-
6(2), 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8].
10. Unless Menard is restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions,
and courses of business of similar type and object.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
11. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], Exchange Act Section
21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], and Advisers Act Sections 209(d) and 209(e) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d)
and 80b-9(e)].
12. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Menard from
violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges he has violated; (b)
permanently enjoining Menard from directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through
any entity owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of
any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent him from purchasing or
selling securities for his own personal accounts; (c) ordering Menard to disgorge all ill-gotten

 4
gains he received and to pay prejudgment interest thereon, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections
21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; (d) ordering
Menard to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §
77t(d)], Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)] and Advisers Act Section 209(e)
[15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; (e) permanently prohibiting Menard from serving as an officer or
director of any company that has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12
[15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act
Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; (f) ordering Jean-Louis to pay, with prejudgment
interest, all ill-gotten gains by which she was unjustly enriched, pursuant to Exchange Act
Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; and
(g) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section
22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Advisers Act
Section 214 [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].
14. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities
of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and
courses of business alleged herein.
15. Venue lies in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Securities Act Section
22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Advisers Act
Section 214 [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].  Certain of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of
business alleged in this complaint occurred within the Eastern District of New York, including

 5
that Menard’s operations were primarily located in Nassau County, New York, and certain of the
investors who were defrauded by Menard were residents of Nassau County, New York.
DEFENDANT
16. Menard, age 40, was a resident of New York at the time of the conduct described
below but Menard’s current whereabouts are unknown.  Menard is the owner and sole operator
of MarcoTech and functioned as its investment adviser.
RELIEF DEFENDANT
17. Jean-Louis, age 30, resides in New York, and had a romantic relationship with
Menard during part of the Relevant Period.  She received significant amounts of investor money
through Menard.
RELEVANT ENTITY
18. MarcoTech was incorporated in New York in 2022 and is currently registered
with the New York Department of State as a limited liability company with a corporate address
in Mineola, New York.  MarcoTech has no known active office location, and is solely owned by
Menard, who used MarcoTech as a vehicle to accept investor funds and carry out his fraud.
FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

19. Menard used his standing within the Haitian-American community to lure friends
and other community members into investing with him or MarcoTech based on false and
misleading representations.
20. Menard and MarcoTech issued promissory notes pursuant to which the applicable
issuer guaranteed monthly interest payments to investors of 10 to 20 % of their principal
investment.  At times, investors did not collect their monthly interest payments and instead rolled

 6
over the accrued interest into a new investment.
21. Until 2022, the promissory notes were generally issued by Menard personally, but
beginning in 2022, some of the notes Menard provided to investors identified the borrower as
MarcoTech, which he at times described as his investment business.
22. The promissory notes that Menard provided to investors often contained
unexecuted signature lines for the borrower (Menard or MarcoTech).
23. In oral conversations or other communications before investing, Menard typically
led purchasers of the promissory notes to believe that he would use their money for trading.
Regardless of whether a promissory note identified Menard personally or MarcoTech as the
borrower, Menard both held himself out and functioned as the sole decision-maker with respect
to trading.
24. Based on communications with Menard, at least some investors understood that
Menard’s compensation for managing their investments would come from any trading profits
that exceeded investors’ guaranteed returns.
25. Once Menard obtained investors’ money, he generally pooled their funds in bank
accounts owned either by MarcoTech or Menard personally (collectively, the “Bank Accounts”).
On certain occasions, he directed that investors send their money to a bank account belonging to
Jean-Louis.
26. During the Relevant Period, the primary source of income in the Bank Accounts
was money from investors.
II. MENARD’S MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS AND FRAUDULENT SCHEME
27. As referenced above, Menard commonly led purchasers of the promissory notes
to believe that he would use their money to conduct trades.  For example, when soliciting

 7
investments, Menard had conversations in which he explicitly told at least some prospective
investors that he would use their money to trade stocks.
28. Menard did not generally disclose his intention to use investor funds for other
purposes, such as to pay personal expenses or make repayments to other investors.
29. Nevertheless, contrary to investors’ expectations, Menard at times made payments
due under the promissory notes in a Ponzi-like manner, using money in the Bank Accounts from
other investors.
30. By way of example, in August 2021, Menard received a $55,800 investment from
Investor-A.  Over the ensuing eight days, Menard transferred only $13,000 to a brokerage
account to conduct trading but used more than $34,000 for other purposes, including payments to
other investors totaling at least $19,250.
31. Menard also used money in the Bank Accounts—which came primarily from
investors—to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses.  For example, Menard
used the Bank Accounts to pay for luxury cars, including a BMW and a Mercedes-Benz,
international travel, and monthly rent at a luxury apartment building.
32. During the Relevant Period, Menard also directed a net of at least $146,880
consisting primarily of investor funds to his girlfriend, Jean-Louis, through a combination of
sending her money from the Bank Accounts, routing investor deposits directly into Jean-Louis’s
account, and paying for her expenses, including $60,000 for a downpayment on a BMW.
33. At times, Menard diverted investor money for purposes other than trading within
hours or days of receiving new investor funds.
34. As an illustrative example, on or about June 29, 2022, Menard received a $15,000
investment in one of the Bank Accounts from Investor-B, who understood that Menard would

 8
use his funds exclusively for trading.
35. Prior to Investor-B’s deposit, the relevant account had a balance of only
$20,122.52 as of June 28, 2022.  Over the course of the next 1-2 days, Menard exhausted all the
funds in that account, including Investor-B’s money, on payments to possible investors and other
expenditures unrelated to trading.
36. Of the minimum $1.65 million Menard raised from investors and deposited into
Bank Accounts, at least $200,000 was never transferred to a brokerage account for trading.
37. Menard’s use of investor money to make payments to other investors and pay
personal expenses was contrary to his express representation to at least some investors that he
would use investor money for trading.
38. Menard did use some investor money to trade stocks and options, but during the
Relevant Period, he lost approximately $696,197 on his trades.
39. Menard had negative returns in 11 out of 16 months of active trading during the
Relevant Period and conducted no trades during 3 months of the Relevant Period.
40. However, Menard concealed his losses from prospective and existing investors,
instead falsely pitching them on his supposed trading expertise.
41. For example, in or about July 2021, Menard stated orally to a group of
prospective investors at a meeting in Uniondale, New York, that he was in the top 1 % of traders
in the country.
42. In fact, from July 2020 through June 2021, Menard had lost approximately
$33,547.41 on his trades.
43. In or around September 2021, Menard told then prospective Investor-B that he
had been trading for a couple of years and was a millionaire because of his investments.  Shortly

 9
thereafter, Investor-B invested $10,000 with Menard.
44. Similarly, when soliciting Investor-C in or around January 2022, Menard stated,
in substance, that he had been trading for years and was gifted at investing and trading.  After
speaking with Menard, Investor-C made an initial investment of $10,000 on January 31, 2022.
45. The foregoing statements regarding Menard’s trading performance and success
were false or misleading because, while Menard had been trading since at least July 2020, he had
net profits on his trades of less than $20,000 as of September 2021, and net losses of more than
$400,000 as of January 2022.
46. By August 2022, Menard had lost more than $650,000 on trading, including more
than $600,000 during the Relevant Period, and was running out of money to consistently pay
monthly interest to investors and return their principal as promised.
47. Yet, Menard continued to tout his purportedly successful trading performance.
For example, in an August 2022 text message exchange, Menard attempted to solicit additional
funds by writing, “I trade bro.  I’m good.  I make money everyday as usual.”
48. Some of Menard’s investors were unsophisticated in securities and invested with
Menard or his entity, MarcoTech, largely because of Menard’s claimed (but fictitious) trading
success.
49. Menard’s representations regarding his trading success and his use of investor
funds were important because profitable trading would have provided a source of funds for
Menard and MarcoTech to make their promised payments to investors under the promissory
notes.
50. By late 2022, though, Menard increasingly missed monthly interest payments to
investors, leading many investors to request the return of their money.  Rather than inform

 10
investors that he no longer had sufficient funds to make consistent monthly interest payments or
repay their principal, Menard continued to deceive them.
51. For example, sometime in or after August 2022, Menard sent multiple investors a
text message containing a screenshot of an ATM receipt showing an account balance of
approximately $8 million.  Menard wrote in the text message: “$3M [is] for people I invested
for.  And the rest is mine.”  This falsely conveyed to investors that Menard and/or MarcoTech
owned a bank account with a balance of $8 million at or around the time of the message.
52. In fact, from August 2022 through the end of the Relevant Period, the combined
balances in the Bank Accounts never exceeded $265,000.
53. Menard also provided false excuses to some investors as to why he could not
make their promised interest payments or return their principal.
54. For example, Menard stopped making monthly interest payments to Investor-D in
or around August 2022.
55. In October 2022, Menard blamed his inability to make the promised monthly
payments to Investor-D on a problem with “the Feds” resulting from the number of transactions
in the Bank Accounts.  This was at the very least misleading because, following Menard’s
trading losses and misappropriation of investor funds, he did not have enough money to satisfy
his obligations to all investors under their promissory notes.
56. Menard also told at least several investors that he could not make promised
payments because his bank accounts were frozen, at times blaming the bank’s limit on the
number or frequency of transactions.  This was at the very least misleading: Menard could not
repay all investors as promised because he did not have enough funds to do so.
57. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false or misleading when he told at

 11
least some investors that he was a successful trader and that he made millions of dollars by
trading, when in fact he lost money trading prior to and during the Relevant Period.
58. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false when he told at least some
investors he would use their money for trading, when in fact, he planned to, and did, use investor
money for other purposes throughout the Relevant Period.
59. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false or misleading when he told
investors that he or MarcoTech would pay monthly interest payments equal to a 10 to 20 %
monthly return when his trading profits were insufficient to sustain those payments and he and
MarcoTech had no other significant source of income besides money from new investors.
60. Pursuant to Menard’s fraudulent scheme, he successfully solicited at least $1.65
million from more than 50 investors.  Although Menard made some payments of principal and
interest, investors, in the aggregate, did not receive the full return of their principal, let alone
their promised interest.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)

61. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 60.
62. Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale of
securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce or the mails, (i) knowingly or recklessly has employed one or more devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud, (ii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has obtained money or
property by means of one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has engaged in

 12
one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
63. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. §
77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder

64. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 60.
65. Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or
recklessly has: (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (ii) made one
or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of
business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
66. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2)

67. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 60.

 13
68. At all relevant times, Menard was an investment adviser, under Advisers Act
Section 202(11) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)].
69. Menard, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate
commerce, directly or indirectly has: (i) knowingly or recklessly employed one or more devices,
schemes, or artifices to defraud any client or prospective client, and/or (ii) knowingly, recklessly,
or negligently engaged in one or more transactions, practices, and courses of business which
operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client.
70. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2) [15
U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2)].
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Advisers Act Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 Thereunder

71. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 60.
72. At all relevant times, Menard was an investment adviser, under Advisers Act
Section 202(11) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)], to a pooled investment vehicle, as defined in Rule
206(4)-8(b) [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8(b)].
73. Menard knowingly, recklessly, or negligently (i) made one or more untrue
statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, not
misleading, to investors or prospective investors in the pooled investment vehicle; and/or (ii)
engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business that were fraudulent, deceptive, or
manipulative, with respective to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment
vehicle.
74. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,

 14
has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Section 206(4) [15 U.S.C. §
80b-6] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8]
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unjust Enrichment
(Relief Defendant Jean-Louis)

75. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 60.
76. Jean-Louis received at least $146,880 in ill-gotten gains from Menard, and Jean-
Louis has no legitimate claim to these ill-gotten gains.
77. Jean-Louis obtained at least $146,880 under circumstances in which it is not just,
equitable, or conscionable for her to retain the funds.
78. Jean-Louis has therefore been unjustly enriched in the amount of at least
$146,880.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final
Judgment:
I.
Permanently enjoining Menard and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all
persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly,
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the 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), 80(b)-6(2), 80b-6(4)] and Rule
206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8];

 15
II.
Permanently enjoining Menard from directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to,
through any entity owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or
sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent him from
purchasing or selling securities for his own personal accounts.
III.
Ordering Menard to disgorge all ill-gotten gains he received directly or indirectly, with
pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations, pursuant to Exchange Act
Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)];
IV.
Ordering Menard to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], 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];
V.
Permanently barring Menard from acting as an officer or director of any public company
pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)];
VI.
Ordering Jean-Louis to pay, with prejudgment interest, all ill-gotten gains by which she
was unjustly enriched, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15
U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)];

 16
VII.
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND

 The Commission demands a trial by jury.

Dated: New York, New York
 June 11, 2024

      Respectfully submitted,

By:       /s/  Antonia Apps
Antonia Apps
Tejal Shah
Celeste Chase
Travis Hill
Olivia Zach
Attorneys for Plaintiff
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10004-2616
Tel: (212) 336-9135 (Hill)
Email: [email protected]

Antonia Apps 

REGIONAL DIRECTOR 

Tejal Shah 

Celeste Chase 

Travis Hill 

Olivia Zach 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION  

New York Regional Office 

100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 

New York, NY 10004-2616 

Phone:  (212) 336-9135 (Hill)  

Email: [email protected] 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

________________________________________________     

        : 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : 

        :         COMPLAINT 

     Plaintiff,  : 

        :  

  -against-     :          24 Civ. 4149 

        : 

MARC HENRY MENARD,                           : 

    Defendant,   :         JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

                                          : 

-and-      : 

        : 

LAESHA JEAN-LOUIS,                : 

    Relief Defendant.  : 

________________________________________________: 

 

 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against 

Defendant Marc Henry Menard (“Menard”) and Relief Defendant Laesha Jean-Louis (“Jean-

Louis”) alleges as follows:   

SUMMARY 

1. Menard made material misstatements to dozens of investors when soliciting 

investments in the form of promissory notes, defrauding investors out of at least $1.65 million. 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1



 2 

2. From approximately July 2021 through September 2023 (the “Relevant Period”), 

Menard solicited investments from more than 50 individuals, many of whom were members of 

the Haitian-American community, by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting his past 

investment success, how he would use investor funds, and the returns investors would receive.  

3. Menard told a number of investors that he or his business, MarcoTech, would use 

their funds to trade in stocks and options, and he lured investors with purportedly guaranteed 

interest payments of 10 to 20 % per month—the equivalent of a 120 to 240 % non-compounded 

annual return—which Menard knew or recklessly disregarded he could not guarantee, and 

ultimately did not pay in full as promised.  

4. Menard was not the successful investor he claimed to be.  During the Relevant 

Period, Menard lost nearly $700,000 trading securities, primarily using investors’ funds.  But 

Menard concealed his losses from prospective investors while falsely boasting of his successful 

performance. 

5. Menard also misappropriated a significant amount of investor money for his 

personal use by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury vehicles, international 

travel, gifts, rent and other personal expenses, as well as to make payments to prior investors in a 

Ponzi-like manner, contrary to investors’ expectations that he would use their money to trade. 

6. Menard also diverted significant amounts of investor money to Jean-Louis, with 

whom he had a romantic relationship. 

7. When Menard could no longer make promised interest payments to investors or 

repay the principal on their investments, he resorted to additional falsehoods to conceal his 

scheme, including by inflating the balance in his bank account while falsely or misleadingly 

claiming that he could not return some investors’ money because the bank had frozen his funds.  

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2



 3 

8. In total, investors entrusted Menard with at least $1.65 million and incurred 

substantial losses as a result of his failure to repay them as promised. 

VIOLATIONS 

9. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant 

Menard violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §   

77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“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 Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-

6(2), 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8]. 

10. Unless Menard is restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, 

and courses of business of similar type and object.   

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

11. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], Exchange Act Section 

21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], and Advisers Act Sections 209(d) and 209(e) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d) 

and 80b-9(e)]. 

12. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Menard from 

violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges he has violated; (b) 

permanently enjoining Menard from directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through 

any entity owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of 

any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent him from purchasing or 

selling securities for his own personal accounts; (c) ordering Menard to disgorge all ill-gotten 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3



 4 

gains he received and to pay prejudgment interest thereon, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 

21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; (d) ordering 

Menard to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 

77t(d)], Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)] and Advisers Act Section 209(e) 

[15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; (e) permanently prohibiting Menard from serving as an officer or 

director of any company that has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 

[15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act 

Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; (f) ordering Jean-Louis to pay, with prejudgment 

interest, all ill-gotten gains by which she was unjustly enriched, pursuant to Exchange Act 

Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; and 

(g) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.   

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 

22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Advisers Act 

Section 214 [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14]. 

14. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged herein. 

15. Venue lies in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Securities Act Section 

22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Advisers Act 

Section 214 [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].  Certain of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of 

business alleged in this complaint occurred within the Eastern District of New York, including 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4



 5 

that Menard’s operations were primarily located in Nassau County, New York, and certain of the 

investors who were defrauded by Menard were residents of Nassau County, New York. 

DEFENDANT 

16. Menard, age 40, was a resident of New York at the time of the conduct described 

below but Menard’s current whereabouts are unknown.  Menard is the owner and sole operator 

of MarcoTech and functioned as its investment adviser. 

RELIEF DEFENDANT 

17. Jean-Louis, age 30, resides in New York, and had a romantic relationship with 

Menard during part of the Relevant Period.  She received significant amounts of investor money 

through Menard. 

RELEVANT ENTITY 

18. MarcoTech was incorporated in New York in 2022 and is currently registered 

with the New York Department of State as a limited liability company with a corporate address 

in Mineola, New York.  MarcoTech has no known active office location, and is solely owned by 

Menard, who used MarcoTech as a vehicle to accept investor funds and carry out his fraud. 

FACTS 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

 

19. Menard used his standing within the Haitian-American community to lure friends 

and other community members into investing with him or MarcoTech based on false and 

misleading representations. 

20. Menard and MarcoTech issued promissory notes pursuant to which the applicable 

issuer guaranteed monthly interest payments to investors of 10 to 20 % of their principal 

investment.  At times, investors did not collect their monthly interest payments and instead rolled 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5



 6 

over the accrued interest into a new investment.  

21. Until 2022, the promissory notes were generally issued by Menard personally, but 

beginning in 2022, some of the notes Menard provided to investors identified the borrower as 

MarcoTech, which he at times described as his investment business. 

22. The promissory notes that Menard provided to investors often contained 

unexecuted signature lines for the borrower (Menard or MarcoTech). 

23. In oral conversations or other communications before investing, Menard typically 

led purchasers of the promissory notes to believe that he would use their money for trading.  

Regardless of whether a promissory note identified Menard personally or MarcoTech as the 

borrower, Menard both held himself out and functioned as the sole decision-maker with respect 

to trading. 

24. Based on communications with Menard, at least some investors understood that 

Menard’s compensation for managing their investments would come from any trading profits 

that exceeded investors’ guaranteed returns. 

25. Once Menard obtained investors’ money, he generally pooled their funds in bank 

accounts owned either by MarcoTech or Menard personally (collectively, the “Bank Accounts”).  

On certain occasions, he directed that investors send their money to a bank account belonging to 

Jean-Louis. 

26. During the Relevant Period, the primary source of income in the Bank Accounts 

was money from investors.   

II. MENARD’S MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS AND FRAUDULENT SCHEME 

27. As referenced above, Menard commonly led purchasers of the promissory notes 

to believe that he would use their money to conduct trades.  For example, when soliciting 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6



 7 

investments, Menard had conversations in which he explicitly told at least some prospective 

investors that he would use their money to trade stocks.  

28. Menard did not generally disclose his intention to use investor funds for other 

purposes, such as to pay personal expenses or make repayments to other investors. 

29. Nevertheless, contrary to investors’ expectations, Menard at times made payments 

due under the promissory notes in a Ponzi-like manner, using money in the Bank Accounts from 

other investors. 

30. By way of example, in August 2021, Menard received a $55,800 investment from 

Investor-A.  Over the ensuing eight days, Menard transferred only $13,000 to a brokerage 

account to conduct trading but used more than $34,000 for other purposes, including payments to 

other investors totaling at least $19,250. 

31. Menard also used money in the Bank Accounts—which came primarily from 

investors—to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses.  For example, Menard 

used the Bank Accounts to pay for luxury cars, including a BMW and a Mercedes-Benz, 

international travel, and monthly rent at a luxury apartment building.   

32. During the Relevant Period, Menard also directed a net of at least $146,880 

consisting primarily of investor funds to his girlfriend, Jean-Louis, through a combination of 

sending her money from the Bank Accounts, routing investor deposits directly into Jean-Louis’s 

account, and paying for her expenses, including $60,000 for a downpayment on a BMW. 

33. At times, Menard diverted investor money for purposes other than trading within 

hours or days of receiving new investor funds.  

34. As an illustrative example, on or about June 29, 2022, Menard received a $15,000 

investment in one of the Bank Accounts from Investor-B, who understood that Menard would 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7



 8 

use his funds exclusively for trading.   

35. Prior to Investor-B’s deposit, the relevant account had a balance of only 

$20,122.52 as of June 28, 2022.  Over the course of the next 1-2 days, Menard exhausted all the 

funds in that account, including Investor-B’s money, on payments to possible investors and other 

expenditures unrelated to trading. 

36. Of the minimum $1.65 million Menard raised from investors and deposited into 

Bank Accounts, at least $200,000 was never transferred to a brokerage account for trading. 

37. Menard’s use of investor money to make payments to other investors and pay 

personal expenses was contrary to his express representation to at least some investors that he 

would use investor money for trading.  

38. Menard did use some investor money to trade stocks and options, but during the 

Relevant Period, he lost approximately $696,197 on his trades.  

39. Menard had negative returns in 11 out of 16 months of active trading during the 

Relevant Period and conducted no trades during 3 months of the Relevant Period. 

40. However, Menard concealed his losses from prospective and existing investors, 

instead falsely pitching them on his supposed trading expertise. 

41. For example, in or about July 2021, Menard stated orally to a group of 

prospective investors at a meeting in Uniondale, New York, that he was in the top 1 % of traders 

in the country. 

42. In fact, from July 2020 through June 2021, Menard had lost approximately 

$33,547.41 on his trades. 

43. In or around September 2021, Menard told then prospective Investor-B that he 

had been trading for a couple of years and was a millionaire because of his investments.  Shortly 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8



 9 

thereafter, Investor-B invested $10,000 with Menard. 

44. Similarly, when soliciting Investor-C in or around January 2022, Menard stated, 

in substance, that he had been trading for years and was gifted at investing and trading.  After 

speaking with Menard, Investor-C made an initial investment of $10,000 on January 31, 2022. 

45. The foregoing statements regarding Menard’s trading performance and success 

were false or misleading because, while Menard had been trading since at least July 2020, he had 

net profits on his trades of less than $20,000 as of September 2021, and net losses of more than 

$400,000 as of January 2022. 

46. By August 2022, Menard had lost more than $650,000 on trading, including more 

than $600,000 during the Relevant Period, and was running out of money to consistently pay 

monthly interest to investors and return their principal as promised. 

47. Yet, Menard continued to tout his purportedly successful trading performance.  

For example, in an August 2022 text message exchange, Menard attempted to solicit additional 

funds by writing, “I trade bro.  I’m good.  I make money everyday as usual.” 

48. Some of Menard’s investors were unsophisticated in securities and invested with 

Menard or his entity, MarcoTech, largely because of Menard’s claimed (but fictitious) trading 

success. 

49. Menard’s representations regarding his trading success and his use of investor 

funds were important because profitable trading would have provided a source of funds for 

Menard and MarcoTech to make their promised payments to investors under the promissory 

notes. 

50. By late 2022, though, Menard increasingly missed monthly interest payments to 

investors, leading many investors to request the return of their money.  Rather than inform 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9



 10 

investors that he no longer had sufficient funds to make consistent monthly interest payments or 

repay their principal, Menard continued to deceive them.   

51. For example, sometime in or after August 2022, Menard sent multiple investors a 

text message containing a screenshot of an ATM receipt showing an account balance of 

approximately $8 million.  Menard wrote in the text message: “$3M [is] for people I invested 

for.  And the rest is mine.”  This falsely conveyed to investors that Menard and/or MarcoTech 

owned a bank account with a balance of $8 million at or around the time of the message. 

52. In fact, from August 2022 through the end of the Relevant Period, the combined 

balances in the Bank Accounts never exceeded $265,000.  

53. Menard also provided false excuses to some investors as to why he could not 

make their promised interest payments or return their principal. 

54. For example, Menard stopped making monthly interest payments to Investor-D in 

or around August 2022. 

55. In October 2022, Menard blamed his inability to make the promised monthly 

payments to Investor-D on a problem with “the Feds” resulting from the number of transactions 

in the Bank Accounts.  This was at the very least misleading because, following Menard’s 

trading losses and misappropriation of investor funds, he did not have enough money to satisfy 

his obligations to all investors under their promissory notes. 

56. Menard also told at least several investors that he could not make promised 

payments because his bank accounts were frozen, at times blaming the bank’s limit on the 

number or frequency of transactions.  This was at the very least misleading: Menard could not 

repay all investors as promised because he did not have enough funds to do so. 

57. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false or misleading when he told at 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10



 11 

least some investors that he was a successful trader and that he made millions of dollars by 

trading, when in fact he lost money trading prior to and during the Relevant Period. 

58. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false when he told at least some 

investors he would use their money for trading, when in fact, he planned to, and did, use investor 

money for other purposes throughout the Relevant Period. 

59. Menard knew or recklessly disregarded it was false or misleading when he told 

investors that he or MarcoTech would pay monthly interest payments equal to a 10 to 20 % 

monthly return when his trading profits were insufficient to sustain those payments and he and 

MarcoTech had no other significant source of income besides money from new investors.  

60. Pursuant to Menard’s fraudulent scheme, he successfully solicited at least $1.65 

million from more than 50 investors.  Although Menard made some payments of principal and 

interest, investors, in the aggregate, did not receive the full return of their principal, let alone 

their promised interest.    

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

 

61. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 60. 

62. Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale of 

securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or the mails, (i) knowingly or recklessly has employed one or more devices, 

schemes or artifices to defraud, (ii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has obtained money or 

property by means of one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material 

fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which 

they were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has engaged in 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11



 12 

one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a 

fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

63. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

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

 

64. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 60. 

65. Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or 

recklessly has: (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (ii) made one 

or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts 

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

were made, not misleading; and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of 

business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

66. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] 

and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

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

 

67. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 60. 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12



 13 

68. At all relevant times, Menard was an investment adviser, under Advisers Act 

Section 202(11) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)].  

69. Menard, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly has: (i) knowingly or recklessly employed one or more devices, 

schemes, or artifices to defraud any client or prospective client, and/or (ii) knowingly, recklessly, 

or negligently engaged in one or more transactions, practices, and courses of business which 

operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client. 

70. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2) [15 

U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2)].  

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violations of Advisers Act Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 Thereunder 

 

71. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 60. 

72. At all relevant times, Menard was an investment adviser, under Advisers Act 

Section 202(11) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)], to a pooled investment vehicle, as defined in Rule 

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

73. Menard knowingly, recklessly, or negligently (i) made one or more untrue 

statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, not 

misleading, to investors or prospective investors in the pooled investment vehicle; and/or (ii) 

engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business that were fraudulent, deceptive, or 

manipulative, with respective to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment 

vehicle. 

74. By reason of the foregoing, Menard, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13



 14 

has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Section 206(4) [15 U.S.C. § 

80b-6] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8] 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unjust Enrichment 

(Relief Defendant Jean-Louis) 

 

75. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 60. 

76. Jean-Louis received at least $146,880 in ill-gotten gains from Menard, and Jean-

Louis has no legitimate claim to these ill-gotten gains. 

77. Jean-Louis obtained at least $146,880 under circumstances in which it is not just, 

equitable, or conscionable for her to retain the funds. 

78. Jean-Louis has therefore been unjustly enriched in the amount of at least 

$146,880. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final 

Judgment:  

I. 

Permanently enjoining Menard and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all 

persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly, 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the 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), 80(b)-6(2), 80b-6(4)] and Rule 

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

 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14



 15 

II. 

Permanently enjoining Menard from directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, 

through any entity owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or 

sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent him from 

purchasing or selling securities for his own personal accounts. 

III. 

Ordering Menard to disgorge all ill-gotten gains he received directly or indirectly, with 

pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations, pursuant to Exchange Act 

Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; 

IV. 

Ordering Menard to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], 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]; 

V. 

Permanently barring Menard from acting as an officer or director of any public company 

pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)];  

VI. 

Ordering Jean-Louis to pay, with prejudgment interest, all ill-gotten gains by which she 

was unjustly enriched, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 21(d)(7) [15 

U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; 

 

 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15



 16 

VII. 

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

 

 The Commission demands a trial by jury.  

 

Dated: New York, New York     

 June 11, 2024 

 

      Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

By:       /s/  Antonia Apps   

Antonia Apps 

Tejal Shah 

Celeste Chase 

Travis Hill 

Olivia Zach 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

New York Regional Office 

100 Pearl Street 

New York, New York 10004-2616 

Tel: (212) 336-9135 (Hill) 

Email: [email protected] 

 

Case 1:24-cv-04149   Document 1   Filed 06/11/24   Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16