SEC v. Jared Mitchell, No. LR-26006, Eastern District of New York (May 14, 2024) — Press Release
raw: St. Julien et al.
St. Julien et al., No. 1:16-cv-2193 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2024)
summary
The SEC obtained a final judgment against Jared Mitchell for his role in a scheme to deceive ForceField Energy investors using cash bribes and kickbacks to brokers.
paragraph
Jared Mitchell was charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC alleged Mitchell paid kickbacks to brokers to steer investors toward ForceField Energy stock without disclosure. The court ordered Mitchell to disgorge $82,220 in ill-gotten gains and interest, which was satisfied via a parallel criminal restitution order.
narrative
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment against Jared Mitchell for his involvement in an offering fraud scheme involving ForceField Energy Inc. Starting in 2014, Mitchell, acting as an investor relations professional, used cash bribes and kickbacks to influence registered representatives and unregistered brokers to solicit investors for the stock. These brokers recommended ForceField Energy to customers without disclosing that they were being paid to do so. Mitchell faced charges for violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 10, 2024, the court entered a final judgment by consent, permanently enjoining Mitchell from future violations. He also agreed to disgorge $82,220 in ill-gotten gains and interest, a payment deemed satisfied by a restitution order in a parallel criminal proceeding.
Classified broker-dealer-fraud(confidence 95%). EDGAR detection: forms Form D· recall 29% / precision 9%. detection rule →
Parties
Securities and Exchange CommissionSt. JulienJared Mitchell
Keywords
forcefield energymitchellsecurities exchangefinal againstsecuritiesforcefieldenergyagainstexchange commissionentered finalregistered representativesagainst mitchellmitchell consentconsent whichjulien
Extracted insights
Dollar amounts 1
- $82K $82,220 $10K–$100K
Entities 6
- person certain registered representatives
- company deceiving investors into buying shares of forcefield energy inc
- person forcefield energy defendant
- person Jared Mitchell
- agency Securities and Exchange Commission
- court u.s. district court for the eastern district of new york
Triples 10
- Securities And Exchange Commission Obtains Final Judgment ForceField Energy Defendant
- U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of New York Entered Final Judgment Jared Mitchell
- Jared Mitchell Was Involved In Scheme Deceiving Investors Into Buying Shares Of ForceField Energy Inc
- Securities And Exchange Commission Alleged Engagement In Schemes Mitchell And Others Using Cash Bribes And Kickbacks To Representatives And Brokers
- Jared Mitchell Was Hired To Pay Kickbacks Certain Registered Representatives
- Securities And Exchange Commission Charged Jared Mitchell With Violating Section 17(a) Of The Securities Act Of 1933 And Section 10(b) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And Rule 10b-5
- U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of New York Entered Partial Judgment Jared Mitchell
- U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of New York Entered Final Judgment Jared Mitchell To Disgorge $82,220
- Securities And Exchange Commission Litigation Handled By Bari R. Nadworny And Lindsay S. Moilanen
- Securities And Exchange Commission Litigation Supervised By Sheldon L. Pollock And Daniel Loss
Extracted body text (2,117c)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 26006 / May 14, 2024 Securities and Exchange Commission v. St. Julien et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-2193 (E.D.N.Y. filed May 3, 2016) SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against ForceField Energy Defendant for Role in Alleged Offering Fraud On May 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment against Jared Mitchell, enjoining him from violating certain provisions of the federal securities laws. According to the SEC's complaint, starting in 2014, Mitchell was involved in a scheme to deceive investors into buying shares of ForceField Energy Inc. ("ForceField Energy"). The SEC alleged that Mitchell and others engaged in schemes using cash bribes and other kickbacks to registered representatives and unregistered brokers who solicited investors to buy stock in ForceField Energy. The SEC further alleged that investors were unaware those soliciting them were being paid to steer them to the stock. Mitchell, a purported investor relations professional, was hired to pay kickbacks to certain registered representatives in return for their recommending and purchasing ForceField Energy stock in their customers' accounts. The SEC's complaint charged Mitchell with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On August 16, 2017, the Court entered a partial judgment against Mitchell by consent in which he agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of the charged provisions. On May 10, 2024, the Court entered a final judgment against Mitchell by consent in which he further agreed to disgorge $82,220 in ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest thereon, the payment of which was deemed satisfied by the restitution order in the parallel criminal proceeding, United States v. Mitchell, et al., Crim. No. 16-234 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.). The SEC's litigation is being handled by Bari R. Nadworny and Lindsay S. Moilanen of the New York Regional Office and is being supervised by Sheldon L. Pollock and Daniel Loss.OCR text (2,117c · html-text · 99% conf)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 26006 / May 14, 2024 Securities and Exchange Commission v. St. Julien et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-2193 (E.D.N.Y. filed May 3, 2016) SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against ForceField Energy Defendant for Role in Alleged Offering Fraud On May 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment against Jared Mitchell, enjoining him from violating certain provisions of the federal securities laws. According to the SEC's complaint, starting in 2014, Mitchell was involved in a scheme to deceive investors into buying shares of ForceField Energy Inc. ("ForceField Energy"). The SEC alleged that Mitchell and others engaged in schemes using cash bribes and other kickbacks to registered representatives and unregistered brokers who solicited investors to buy stock in ForceField Energy. The SEC further alleged that investors were unaware those soliciting them were being paid to steer them to the stock. Mitchell, a purported investor relations professional, was hired to pay kickbacks to certain registered representatives in return for their recommending and purchasing ForceField Energy stock in their customers' accounts. The SEC's complaint charged Mitchell with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On August 16, 2017, the Court entered a partial judgment against Mitchell by consent in which he agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of the charged provisions. On May 10, 2024, the Court entered a final judgment against Mitchell by consent in which he further agreed to disgorge $82,220 in ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest thereon, the payment of which was deemed satisfied by the restitution order in the parallel criminal proceeding, United States v. Mitchell, et al., Crim. No. 16-234 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.). The SEC's litigation is being handled by Bari R. Nadworny and Lindsay S. Moilanen of the New York Regional Office and is being supervised by Sheldon L. Pollock and Daniel Loss.