SEC v. GEXCRYPTO CORP.; GexCrypto Global Trading Corp.; EMILIANO S. RYN; Emiliano “Emil” Ryn; and Ryn, No. 2:23-cv-00191, District of Nevada (Feb. 7, 2023) — Complaint

COMPLAINT
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James M. Carlson (DC Bar No. 981364)
Email:  [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street NE
Washington DC 20549
Telephone: (202) 551-3711
Facsimile: 703-813-9314
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

vs.
GEXCRYPTO CORP. (a/k/a
GexCrypto Global Trading Corp.) and
EMILIANO S. RYN,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”),
alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Between October 2017 and July 2018, Emiliano “Emil” Ryn (“Ryn”)
defrauded 26 investors out of more than $800,000 in an investment scheme primarily
targeted at elderly and technologically unsophisticated individuals in the expatriate
Filipino community in California.  Ryn presented himself as a successful Filipino
entrepreneur in the cryptocurrency space, wearing a Rolex watch and driving a
Maserati.  He positioned himself as someone who would purportedly help members

COMPLAINT
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of his community also become rich through GexCrypto Corp. (a/k/a GexCrypto
Global Trading Corp.) (“GexCrypto”), a purported first-of-its kind crypto asset
trading platform, and via a purported separate crypto asset mining operation
established by Ryn.  Deceived by Ryn and his fraudulent promises of guaranteed
investment returns, investors turned over their life savings in cash to Ryn, with some
even taking out home equity loans to invest with him.
2. The first part of Ryn’s scheme involved the formation of GexCrypto,
purportedly to launch a crypto asset trading platform.  Ryn falsely represented to
investors the superiority of the GexCrypto trading platform’s technology and its one-
of-a-kind customer service.  He did this through, among other ways, a professionally-
produced video available on GexCrypto’s website and other statements on
GexCrypto’s website.
3. In reality, GexCrypto was never operational and the descriptions of
GexCrypto provided to investors were nothing more than Ryn’s aspirations.
4. To raise money purportedly to support and develop further GexCrypto’s
trading platform, Ryn, through GexCrypto, conducted an initial coin offering (“ICO”)
of GexCoins.  The ICO was advertised publicly on GexCrypto’s website and social
media.  The ICO was also promoted directly by Ryn to individual investors.  Ryn and
GexCrypto made the same material misrepresentations about GexCrypto’s existing
operations in marketing and advertising the ICO and guaranteed outsized returns to
investors despite the non-existent trading platform.

COMPLAINT
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. At the same time Ryn recruited investors for GexCrypto, he offered
many of those same individuals the opportunity to invest in a purported crypto asset
mining business in which Ryn would pool investor funds to purchase mining
equipment and pay investors returns based upon the amount of crypto assets mined
(“the Mining Operation”).  Several of Ryn’s investors invested in GexCrypto,
GexCoin, and the Mining Operation.  Ryn promised mining investors guaranteed
outsized returns and repeatedly lied to investors about the mining business’s
operations.
6. None of Ryn’s false promises materialized.  No investment returns were
ever paid, and investors lost their entire investments.
7. As investors began to press Ryn about their promised returns and the
businesses’ operations, Ryn engaged in additional fraudulent lulling conduct by
making additional misstatements to investors.  Among other things, Ryn:  (1) created
and distributed a second worthless digital token to investors, which he falsely passed
off as a GexCoin; (2) falsely told investors he was in the Philippines to register
GexCrypto with the Philippine regulators; and (3) provided two investors with a
fraudulent bank statement purportedly showing that payment of their promised
distributions was imminent.  Ultimately, Ryn halted all communications with
investors.
8. The investments Ryn offered and sold to investors in GexCrypto,
GexCoins, and the Mining Operation were securities.

COMPLAINT
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. Ryn did not register any of his offers or sales of GexCrypto or GexCoins
with the Commission, no registration statement was in effect as to any offer or sale of
GexCrypto or GexCoin, and no exemption from registration applied.
10. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated
Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e; Section
17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a); and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.10b-5.
11. The Commission respectfully requests the Court enter an order: (i)
permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from violating the federal
securities laws, and permanently restraining and enjoining Ryn from engaging in
certain further conduct; (ii) prohibiting Ryn from acting as an officer or director of
any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the
Exchange Act or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; (iii) directing Defendants to pay on a joint and several basis
disgorgement and prejudgment interest thereon; and (iv) directing Defendants to
jointly and severally pay a civil money penalty.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b),
20(d)(1) and 22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) and 77v(a),
and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

COMPLAINT
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
§§ 78(u)(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e), and 78aa(a).  Defendants have, directly or
indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the
mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the
transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged in this Complaint.
13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), and Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a),
because certain of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of conduct constituting
violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district.  In addition,
venue is proper in this district because Defendants GexCrypto and Ryn operated or
resided in this district during the conduct.
DEFENDANTS
14. GexCrypto Corp. (a/k/a GexCrypto Global Trading Corp.)
(“GexCrypto”) is an entity, founded in 2017 and controlled by Ryn, which did
business in Orange County, California, and purported to be “a comprehensive
Cryptocurrency trading platform backed by the world’s first fully incorporated
concierge service.”  GexCrypto Global Trading Corp. was registered in Nevis from
September 28, 2017 through February 4, 2020, but is not currently registered in any
jurisdiction.  GexCrypto does not appear ever to have held any bank accounts,
property, or assets in its own name.  GexCrypto has never been registered with the
Commission in any capacity nor ever had a class of securities registered with the
Commission.

COMPLAINT
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. Emiliano S. Ryn, (“Ryn”), 47, currently resides in Las Vegas, Nevada.
During the relevant period in 2017 and early 2018, Ryn resided in Irvine, California.
Ryn founded GexCrypto in 2017, served as its Chief Executive Officer, controlling
all aspects of its business.  Ryn also founded and controlled the Mining Operation.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.        Background        Facts
 A. Ryn Creates GexCrypto
16. In 2017, Ryn founded GexCrypto in order to purportedly to develop a
crypto asset trading platform and create and distribute a digital token.
17. Ryn hired an individual online to register GexCrypto in Saint Kitts &
Nevis and obtained blank GexCrypto stock certificates.
18. In the summer of 2017, Ryn found two freelance developers based in
India and hired them to create GexCrypto’s trading platform.  The developers, as Ryn
knew, had no experience building a crypto asset trading platform.
19. As a first step, at Ryn’s direction, the developers created a website for
GexCrypto—www.gexcrypto.io—to advertise the trading platform’s capabilities and
GexCrypto’s subsequent ICO of GexCoins.  Ryn reviewed and approved the content
of GexCrypto’s website, which was available to the public worldwide without
restriction, including to U.S. investors.
20. GexCrypto’s website described GexCrypto as the first-of-its-kind crypto
asset trading platform, including as:

COMPLAINT
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i. “a comprehensive Cryptocurrency trading platform backed by the
world’s first fully incorporated concierge service”;

ii. “the most advanced Cryptocurrency trading platform powered by the
most trusted, reliable and experienced technical team.”; and

iii. “hav[ing] an un-matched understanding of the Cryptocurrency market
as well as the global distribution of Cryptocurrency.”

21. In describing what set GexCrypto apart from other currency trading
platforms, the website stated that:
i. “We have diligently studied emerging international regulations and
changing economic scenes which affect the various aspects of
Cryptocurrency in the marketplace.”

ii. “The Cryptocurrency world is undergoing continuous change. There
are countless important developments happening in numerous
countries regarding regulating, controlling and structuring the
cryptocurrency market. Here at GexC we guarantee that we will
continuously stay in front of all global developments related to the
Cryptocurrency market.”

22. The website also distinguished GexCrypto from other currency trading
platforms based upon GexCrypto’s “superior market analysis tools to ensure our
users’ success” and “[s]uperior [r]esources and [p]ractices to [d]eliver [s]uperior
[t]echnology and [s]ervice.”
23. According to the website, GexCrypto’s “superior resources” included
“multi-language technical support” and a “technical team.”
24. The website described the superior multi-language technical support as
follows:  “We speak the languages of our customers. We currently offer multi-lingual
24/7/365 user support in six languages: English, Japanese, Mandarin, Korean,

COMPLAINT
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Spanish, Russian and Hindi. As our user base grows we will be adding to this list to
ensure all of our users’ questions or concerns can be addressed.”
25. The website described the superior technical team as “the world’s best
developers, coders and mathematicians who have diverse experiences in all niches
related to DLTs and cryptography.”
26. The website identified GexCrypto’s “trusted, reliable, and experienced”
leadership team to include Ryn and three additional “co-founders”: the two India-
based developers Ryn had hired online, who were identified as the “CTO” and
“Director of Operation,” and a third individual, the owner of a construction business,
who had made an early investment in GexCrypto.
27. The website identified GexCrypto’s Board to include a head of “PR &
Communications.”  This individual, whose background was in engineering, asked
Ryn why he was listed as head of PR when he had no experience and was not
performing that role.  Ryn told him not to worry.
28. The GexCrypto website also contained a link to a promotional YouTube
video about GexCrypto, which Ryn had hired a videographer to produce.  In the
video, actors discussed the revolutionary nature of blockchain technology and
GexCrypto’s role in it.  The video repeated many of the same claims as on
GexCrypto’s website about its superior technology and services.
29. For example, one actor described GexCrypto as “the most advanced
cryptocurrency trading platform” and “totally unique from the rest of the market.”

COMPLAINT
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The actor further articulated what set GexCrypto apart:  “Most of the trading
platforms over the internet offer either coin or platform, but we offer a blend of both.
Yes, coin and trading platform under one single roof.  Secondly, we offer the world’s
first fully implemented user service.”
30. Along with the actors, Ryn appeared in a segment of his own in the
video.  In Ryn’s segment, he highlighted the expertise of GexCrypto’s management:
“We all have been a part of the crypto community since its inception and are
successful entrepreneurs in several different market segments. We have more than 50
years of experience in management, risk analysis, compliance, and empower other
users of new underlying technology such as blockchain.”  Ryn also emphasized
GexCrypto’s “one hundred percent unique, innovative, and technically superior”
trading platform and GexCrypto’s mission “to deliver the highest possible level of
service to our users,” as well as “demonstrate[ing] an invincible technology
leadership that will undoubtedly make GexCrypto an unsurpassed leader in the world
of ecurrency,” that may “unite the entire globe under one comprehensive trading
platform.”
31. The video further portrayed GexCrypto’s purported “world’s first fully
implemented concierge service” by showing a call bank of personnel answering
telephone calls.
 B. Ryn Conducts an ICO of GexCoins
32. In late 2017 and early 2018, Ryn created and sold GexCoin, a digital

COMPLAINT
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
token issued by GexCrypto.  As described throughout this Complaint, Ryn and
GexCrypto pooled the funds raised from investors from the offers and sales of
GexCoin in a common enterprise to build GexCrypto’s trading platform, and
investors had a reasonable expectation of profits based on the efforts of GexCrypto’s
management and technical team.
33.  GexCrypto solicited investors in a so-called “Initial Coin Offering” or
“ICO” via GexCrypto’s social media accounts and website, including through a
White Paper published in or around November 2017 on GexCrypto’s website.  Ryn
also personally solicited individual investors as described more fully below.  Ryn’s
and GexCrypto’s solicitation of investors for the ICO was specifically directed at
U.S. investors.
34. As with GexCrypto’s website, the White Paper presented GexCrypto as
a fully-operational trading platform.  For example, the White Paper described
GexCrypto as “offer[ing] benefits and returns, above and beyond any other exchange
currently available” and that “[t]he Gex platform caters to both new and seasoned
traders with proprietary guided assistance tools to help users make educated
investment decisions.”
35. Similarly, the White Paper described the existing security features that
the GexCrypto trading platform offered, including: (i) “two-factor authentication;”
(ii) “advanced verification software that maintains and monitors the integrity of the
account;” and (iii) “withdrawal protection,” which “makes the withdrawal process

COMPLAINT
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
completely protected from unauthorized accesses.”
36. The White Paper also highlighted GexCrypto’s management and
technical team as “the most trusted, reliable and experienced crypto veterans,” who
“have been part of the Cryptocurrency community since its inception,” and have a
“deep understanding of the cryptocurrency market and its distribution worldwide.”
37. The terms of the GexCoin ICO were described on GexCrypto’s website
and in the White Paper.  According to the White Paper, 50 million GexCoins were to
be issued in the ICO’s pre-sale phase and 290 million GexCoins in the ICO phase.
During the pre-sale stage (November 11, 2017 – December 10, 2017), investors could
invest in GexCoins at a discounted price.  If investors invested in the ICO before
November 14, 2017, they also would receive “30% extra coin.”  After the pre-sale,
investors could still purchase GexCoins, but at a higher price (during the pre-sale, 1
Bitcoin purchased 50,000 GexCoin, whereas afterward, 1 Bitcoin purchased 40,000
GexCoin).
38. The White Paper explained the returns that investors in the ICO would
make as follows:  “[b]y taking part in the campaign (pre-ICO/ICO) participants will
receive an 8% return (after all relative fees and expenses are deducted) of the total
trading revenue generated over a 24-hour span.”  The White Paper further explained
mechanically how investors were to be paid their returns as follows:  “The funds (in
the form of GexCoin) will be distributed to the investors’ wallet via smart contract
upon the completion of every 24-hour period.”

COMPLAINT
12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. The White Paper also represented that upon completion of the ICO,
GexCoins would be “listed on four leading trading platforms.”
40. The GexCrypto website contained the following disclaimer:  “While
most participants of any citizenship can join the ICO, unfortunately we are unable to
accept participation from citizens or residents of the United States, Canada, China,
and Taiwan due to existing regulations in their respective countries.”  However,
GexCrypto’s website was not restricted in any way and was accessible to U.S.
investors.  Further, Ryn’s and GexCrypto’s solicitation of investors in GexCrypto and
the ICO was specifically targeted to U.S. investors, as described below.
41. In addition to being advertised on the GexCrypto website, the ICO was
advertised and promoted on Facebook, Twitter, Bitcointalk, and other social media
platforms.  In order to generate additional interest in the ICO, GexCrypto hired a
group of online promoters via a Bitcointalk “bounty campaign,” paying them in
GexCoin to hype the GexCrypto ICO via their own social media channels multiple
times each day.  As a limited-time promotion, investors who signed up on the
gexcrypto.io website or who joined the GexCrypto Telegram group were also offered
free GexCoins.
II. Ryn Solicits Individual Investors for
GexCrypto from the Filipino Community

42. In addition to GexCrypto’s online solicitations, from approximately
October 27, 2017 through December 26, 2017, Ryn also directly solicited and

COMPLAINT
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recruited individual U.S. investors for GexCrypto and GexCoins through in person
meetings and via Skype and telephone calls.  During these solicitations, Ryn also
directed investors to the GexCrypto website.
43. As part of these solicitations, Ryn hosted and attended meetings around
Orange County, California.  As part of his efforts to portray GexCrypto as a
successful operational business, Ryn handed out GexCrypto branded merchandise.
44. At these meetings to promote GexCrypto and the ICO, Ryn walked
through the proposed project, how to invest, and the discounts available for early
investing.  During these meetings, Ryn consistently touted the profitability and safety
of investing in GexCrypto and GexCoins.
45. Ryn gained entrée to this group of investors through his initial contact
with Investors 1 and 2, who Ryn met in October 2017 at a “meet up” event in Irvine,
California for people interested in cryptocurrency.  Investor 1 wanted to supplement
his retirement income so that he was not dependent on social security.  Investor 2 was
a home health aide who was seeking financial stability and to build a college fund for
her children. Investors 1 and 2, who are also Filipino, went to dinner with Ryn where
they discussed their multilevel marketing business for investing in cryptocurrency,
and Ryn told them about GexCrypto.  Despite their involvement in the multilevel
marketing business, Investors 1 and 2 had no background in cryptocurrency or digital
technology.
46. Following this meeting, Investors 1 and 2 introduced Ryn to friends and

COMPLAINT
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acquaintances in the Filipino community, who, like them, ultimately invested in
GexCrypto.  These investors included Investor 3—Investor 1’s daughter—Investor
4—the godmother to Investor 2’s daughter—and a number of retirees.
47. In one meeting at Investor 2’s apartment on or around October 27, 2017,
Ryn pitched the investment to Investor 4 and Investor 5, both of whom were looking
for stable income for retirement.   Investor 4 understood from Ryn that if she
invested, she would earn a percentage of profits from trading and mining of
cryptocurrency.  She further understood that if she invested early, she would get “a
lot” of extra tokens.
48. Based on Ryn’s representations at the meeting on or around October 27,
2017, both Investor 4 and Investor 5 decided to invest.  Investor 4 invested $9,000 in
cash, which she borrowed from her credit union, and Investor 5 invested $10,000 in
cash, which he had from the sale of a home in the Philippines. Both investments were
recorded by hand, as well as those of other investors, on a hand-written “GexCrypto”
ledger provided by Ryn and safeguarded by Investor 2.
49. During these meetings with prospective investors, Ryn touted the
profitability and safety of investing in GexCrypto, telling potential investors that their
investments would double or triple in a short period of time.  For example, Investors
4 and 5, both understood after the meeting on or around October 27, 2017, that their
investments would multiply in a few months and that Ryn would return their entire
investment.  Following her investment, Investor 4 texted with Ryn about GexCrypto,

COMPLAINT
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
writing to Ryn on November 7, 2017 “Praying to God the GEX will Prosper” with
Ryn responding the same day “It will for sure sis” (translated from Tagalog).
50. In late October 2017, Ryn met via a video chat with Investor 6, a retiree
looking for a steady and reliable investment to enhance her retirement funds, and
Investor 7, a retiree also looking to supplement her retirement income, to discuss
investing in GexCrypto.  Again, Ryn touted the profitability and safety of investing in
GexCrypto.  Ryn stated that GexCrypto tokens were currently worth $0.06 and that as
the price of the tokens increased, so would the investors’ returns.  Ryn also told
Investors 6 and 7 that if they invested prior to the deadline in mid-November 2017,
they would get an extra 30% bonus in tokens on their investment.  Ryn further told
Investor 6 she would be rich and could buy a car since her car was always breaking
down.  Based upon Ryn’s representations and in order to receive bonus tokens, in
early November 2017, Investor 6 invested $7,000 in cash in GexCrypto and Investor
7 invested $6,170 in cash and Bitcoin in GexCrypto.
51. Ryn also promised certain investors stock in GexCrypto, although such
stock certificates were never issued.  On October 15, 2017 and October 29, 2017, Ryn
sent Investors 2 and 6, respectively, a copy of what a GexCrypto stock certificate
purportedly looked like.  The undated, unsigned certificate identified GexCrypto
Trading Corp. as incorporated under the laws of Nevis and authorized to issue 1,000
shares registered stock.
52. Ryn only accepted investments in cash or crypto assets, telling investors

COMPLAINT
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that ICOs can only be invested in via cash or crypto assets.  The majority of investors
solicited in person paid Ryn in cash.  Ryn raised just over $371,000 in cash and 2
Bitcoins from 25 GexCrypto and GexCoin investors.
III.     Material     Misrepresentations to GexCrypto Investors
53. As described above, Ryn and GexCrypto made materially false
representations to investors online via the website and the White Paper and in-person
to individual investors about the operations of GexCrypto, GexCrypto’s experienced
management team, and GexCrypto’s guaranteed returns.
54. Ryn and GexCrypto knew or were reckless in not knowing that these
misrepresentations were false.
55. Despite portraying GexCrypto as an operational, world-class trading
platform with superior service and technology, the GexCrypto platform was never
built and was never operational.  Accordingly, it had none of the features described in
detail on the website, in the White Paper, in the YouTube video, and by Ryn, such as
user-support in six languages and enhanced security features.
56. GexCrypto’s expert team of “the most trusted, reliable and experienced
crypto veterans” as described in GexCrypto’s White Paper and portrayed on
GexCrypto’s website did not exist.  As described above, GexCrypto’s purported
“CTO” (Chief Technology Officer) and GexCrypto’s purported “Director of
Operation” were the two India-based developers Ryn met and hired online.  Ryn’s
purported GexCrypto “co-founder,” the owner of a construction business, was merely

COMPLAINT
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an early investor who also had no experience in the crypto industry.
57. Ryn admitted in SEC testimony that the trading platform never existed
and that the depictions in the YouTube video on GexCrypto’s website were false, but
that the video was published on GexCrypto’s website because he thought it “look[ed]
kind of cool.”
58. Ryn’s promises to investors of profits from the trading business,
including representations in the White Paper that investors would receive an “8%
return [  ] of the total trading revenue generated over a 24-hour span” and
representations to individual investors that their investments would double or triple,
were false.  The trading platform did not exist.
IV.     The     Crypto     Asset Mining Investment
59. At the same time Ryn was pitching his fake trading platform to
investors, he offered the same group of Filipino investors another prospect to make
money by investing in a purported crypto asset mining business (“the Mining
Operation”).  Ryn told investors that he would pool their money to purchase mining
equipment, and they would be paid investment returns based upon the amount of
Ethereum mined.
60. Before a technological change in the Fall of 2022, the “ethereum” block
chain validated new blocks or transactions via a process known as “Mining,”
whereby computers connected to the network could attempt to solve complex
computational problems required to validate a new block, in exchange for rewards in

COMPLAINT
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the form of “Eth,” the crypto asset that is the “native token” to the Ethereum
blockchain.  This process, known as “mining,” requires significant computational
power, including potentially significant electrical power
61. The investments in the purported crypto asset mining business were
investment contracts and therefore securities.
62. Investor 1, now deceased, was particularly interested in learning more
about cryptocurrency and how to make money in the crypto world.  Beginning in
November 2017, Ryn and Investor 1 began discussing, including through text
messages, the potential mining business and the computer equipment needed to run
the mining business, as well as the need for investors to fund this potential mining
business.  For example, on November 20, 2017, Ryn texted Investor 1: “Elder
brother, let’s push for the big investors. Ethereum is about to take off” (partially
translated from Tagalog).
63. After searching for several weeks for locations to house the Mining
Operation, it was ultimately decided to set up the operation in Investor 1’s garage.
Although housed at Investor 1’s home, Ryn oversaw all aspects of the Mining
Operation, including, collecting investor funds, purchasing the equipment, instructing
Investor 1 regarding the equipment, and responding to Investor 1’s frequent texts
with questions about how to operate the machines.  Similarly, in March 2018, after
Investor 1 passed away, Ryn instructed Investor 1’s daughter – Investor 3 – how to
operate the machines.  All investors in the Mining Operation relied entirely on Ryn’s

COMPLAINT
19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
efforts for the enterprise to succeed, and Investors 1 and 3 acted solely at Ryn’s
direction.
64. Ryn recruited investors for the Mining Operation through in-person
meetings, telephone calls and text messages.
65. For example, on November 20, 2017, Ryn texted Investor 6, writing
“Are you familiar with mining ma’am?” (translated from Tagalog).  She responded
“not yet” (translated from Tagalog), and he followed up by sending her images of
mining equipment.
66. During a video chat with Investors 6 and 7 in November 2017, Ryn
pitched the mining investment in more detail.  Ryn told them that if they invested
with him, he would use their money to buy crypto mining equipment and that the
investment provided a guaranteed return, since the mining happens around the clock.
Ryn declared that the minimum investment was $100,000, and he promised that their
monthly returns would be $10K, $15K, $20K or even $50K, a promise Ryn repeated
to other investors.  Investor 6 understood from the conversation with Ryn that she
would be able to withdraw her original investment after three months and leave the
profits with Ryn, which he would use to buy more equipment.  Ryn told her the
additional equipment would increase both the mining capacity and her future returns.
67.  Ryn’s promises of guaranteed returns to investors in the Mining
Operation were false.  By mid-December, Ryn had purchased some crypto mining
equipment, but only some of it was operational.  Moreover, the business was not

COMPLAINT
20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
generating the profits that Ryn was promising to investors – a minimum of $10,000
per month.  No profits were ever distributed to investors.
68. Ryn again only accepted cash from investors for the Mining Operation,
some of whom were in Northern California.  As a result, on multiple occasions Ryn
drove from Irvine to San Francisco to pick up large amounts of cash from investors,
including on January 6, 2018, when he collected $48,000 in cash from Investor 7 and
in a trip on or around February 22 – February 24, 2018, Ryn collected an additional
$100,000 in cash from Investor 6.  Upon Investor 7’s insistence, Ryn signed a receipt
acknowledging the $48,000 investment.
69. Ryn showed up to pick up Investor 6’s payment in February 2018 in his
Maserati, allowing Investor 6 and other investors to take pictures of themselves with
the car.  Ryn sent copies of these photos to various investors.
70. Ryn raised at least $448,500 from seven investors for the Mining
Operation.  Investor 1 took out a $200,000 home equity loan and sold property in the
Philippines in order to invest in the Mining Operation.  Investor 2 used the funds she
was saving for her children’s college education to invest $100,000.  When Investor 5
told Ryn he had no more money to invest in the Mining Operation, Ryn tried to
convince him to hand over the deed to a property he owned in the Philippines.
Investor 6 took out a $90,000 home equity loan in order to make a $100,000
investment in the Mining Operation. Investor 7 withdrew $48,000 from her 401K to
invest in the Mining Operation.

COMPLAINT
21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
71. At the same time that Ryn was obtaining money from investors in cash
for GexCrypto, GexCoins and the Mining Operation, he made several large purchases
of luxury items in cash, including a $52,000 Maserati in November 2017, a vacation
to Hawaii with his family in December 2017, and a $7,000 Rolex watch in March
2018.
72. After obtaining money from the Mining Operation investors, Ryn
engaged in lulling conduct by making multiple additional material misrepresentations
to investors regarding the business.  These include Ryn telling investors he:  (1) was
moving the mining business to Las Vegas because of lower electricity costs; (2) had
been visiting and researching locations in Las Vegas, including a solar farm; and (3)
had ultimately secured a warehouse in Las Vegas for the Mining Operation.  These
statements regarding moving the Mining Operation to Las Vegas were false – Ryn
did not visit any locations in search of a location and never secured a space in Las
Vegas.
73. Ryn knowingly or recklessly made these material misrepresentations to
investors.
V. Defendants’ Continued Deception and Misrepresentations
74. When none of the promised returns for GexCrypto and the Mining
Operation materialized, investors began pressing Ryn for information regarding their
investments.
75. In order to keep the fraud from being exposed, Ryn knowingly or

COMPLAINT
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recklessly engaged in additional deception and lies.  These include:  (1) creating and
distributing a worthless new digital coin to investors that Ryn passed off as a
GexCoin; (2) telling investors he was traveling to the Philippines to meet with
Filipino regulators about GexCrypto; and (3) providing a fraudulent bank statement
to two investors as proof that their promised investment distribution was forthcoming.
A. Ryn Provided Alternative, Worthless Tokens
76. In the spring of 2018, as investors repeatedly questioned Ryn for updates
regarding their investments, and with no promised returns to pay investors from
either GexCrypto or the Mining Operation, Ryn created a second token
“GeXCHANGE.”
77. GeXCHANGE is a unique digital token existing on a separate smart
contract than GexCoin.  Ryn learned how to make the tokens from searching the
internet for how to create a digital token days before distributing the coins to
investors.
78. Despite the fact that the GeXCHANGE token was a completely different
token than the GexCoin, Ryn passed the GeXCHANGE token off as the GexCoin,
including that the GeXCHANGE tokens were investors’ promised distributions from
GexCrypto and the Mining Operation and that the GeXCHANGE tokens had the
same value as the GexCoin.
79. Ryn made a large distribution of the GeXCHANGE tokens to Investor 3,
who distributed them to the other investors following Ryn’s instructions.

COMPLAINT
23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80. For example, on April 18, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 3 with instructions
regarding how to distribute the GeXCHANGE tokens to investors and how many
tokens each investor should receive based upon the amount of their investments in
GexCrypto and the Mining Operation.  Ryn never told Investor 3 that the tokens he
was directing her to distribute to investors were not GexCoins, but GeXCHANGE
tokens instead.
81. On April 19, 2018, Ryn distributed 20,000 GeXCHANGE tokens to
Investor 6’s cryptocurrency wallet and informed Investor 6 that it had been done.
Ryn never told Investor 6 that the 20,000 tokens he distributed were GeXCHANGE
tokens and not GexCoins.
82. Ryn continued distributing and having the GeXCHANGE tokens
distributed, over 8.5 million GeXCHANGE tokens, to investors into at least June
2018 without informing them that they were not GexCoins.
83. Ryn made representations earlier to investors regarding the value of the
GexCoin, including, for example to Investor 6 on April 16, 2018 that 1,000 GexCoin
were worth “$110 right now. 300,000 gex equals $33k,” and to other investors that
the GexCoin was worth $0.11, when distributing the GeXCHANGE tokens to
investors.  These statements were materially misleading as Ryn never informed them
that those purported values did not apply to the GeXCHANGE tokens, because it was
not the same token.

COMPLAINT
24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 B. Ryn’s Fake Trip to the Philippines
84. In the spring of 2018, as investors continued to press Ryn for updates
regarding their investments, Ryn told investors that he was traveling to the
Philippines to discuss registering the trading platform with the Central Bank of
Philippines and the Filipino securities regulators.
85. For example, on May 3, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 6, writing “I will be
in the Philippines next week for gexcrypto to talk to the SEC for the exchange”
(translated from Tagalog).  Ryn further explained in the same text message chain with
Investor 6 that there would not be any distributions from the Mining Operation that
month because the operation would be delayed while he was in the Philippines.
86. Similarly, on May 2, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 4, “Going to Philippines
next -week to talk with security and exchange commission then central bank of
philippines to present the trading platform. This very good news for all of us.”  In a
May 8, 2018 text message told Investor 4 that he was on a “4 pm flight [out of] John
Wayne airport” and flying “United to Hawaii then Hawaii airline to Manila.”
87. Later in May, when investors reach out for updates, in response, they
received texts purportedly from Ryn’s son that his father has been hospitalized in
Manila and would not be home until the following week.
88. Ryn’s statements to investors regarding his trip to the Philippines and his
meetings with Filipino regulators about GexCrypto were false, which Ryn admitted in
SEC testimony.  Ryn also admitted in testimony that he does not even have a valid

COMPLAINT
25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
passport to travel abroad.
C. Ryn Falsified a Bank Statement
and Provided It to Certain Investors

89. Ryn’s deceit to investors culminated in his creating and distributing a
fraudulent bank statement to two investors, Investors 6 and 7, to try to convince them
that after repeated delays in payment, the investors’ distribution of profits was on the
way.
90. Upon request from Ryn and in order for Ryn to make her and Investor
7’s promised, but yet unpaid, monthly mining distribution, on July 4, 2018, Investor 6
provided Ryn via text with bank account information for her and Investor 7.  The next
day, Ryn replied to Investors 6 and 7 that he had received the bank information and
the distribution was coming “tomorrow.”
91. After not receiving the distribution as promised, Investor 6 continued to
press Ryn as to where it was.  In response, on July 7, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 6 that
the distribution would be made on Monday, July 9, 2018 around noon.   When the
distribution still had not been made by that date, Investor 6 again followed up with
Ryn.  Ryn initially told Investor 6 via text on July 9, 2018 that he would make the
deposit later that day.  However, later that day, Ryn informed Investor 6 that he could
not make the deposit because “Ma'am Chase doesn't accept non customer deposit.
They don't allow. You can call your bank to verify it. I have Citibank” (partially
translated from Tagalog).  Ryn informed Investor 6 that the following day, he would

COMPLAINT
26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
open a Chase bank account and make the deposit.
92. Ryn’s representation to Investor 6 that he had a bank account at Citibank
was false.  At the time, Ryn did not have any bank accounts because of his history of
bouncing checks.  However, Ryn had access to his son’s bank account at Chase.  Ryn
put that access to use, emailing to himself on July 10, 2018, a copy of a recent bank
statement from his son’s Chase bank account.  The account statement showed that the
account was overdrawn by $161.47.
93. That day, Ryn altered the same bank statement in order to reflect that (i)
he was the account holder; (ii) the address on the account was his previous address in
California, rather than his current one in Las Vegas where he was living with his son
and other family members; and (iii) a pending deposit of $125,000.
94. Later on July 10, 2018, Ryn sent an image of the fraudulent bank
statement via text to Investor 6, telling her that once the $125,000 deposit cleared he
would make an online transfer to her and Investor 7.
95. When the promised online transfer did not occur, Investor 6 again
followed up with Ryn via texts on July 11 and July 15, asking when the transfer
would be completed. Ryn repeated his lies, telling Investor 6 “Don’t you worry.  It
should be good tomorrow” (translated from Tagalog).
96. In an additional lie to Investors 6 and 7 about the promised payment, on
July 16, 2018, Ryn texted them to say that the transfer “was done [at] midnight,”
(translated from Tagalog) and to thank them for waiting.

COMPLAINT
27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
97. No transfer was ever made to Investors 6 and 7.  Neither Investors 6 and
7 nor any of the other investors received any distribution of profits from their
investments in either the Mining Operation or GexCrypto.
VI.     The GexCrypto, GexCoin, and
Mining Operation Investments Were Securities

98. The investments in GexCrypto, GexCoin, and the Mining Operation
were investment contracts and therefore securities, the offer or sale of which was not
registered with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.  Neither
the GexCrypto nor GexCoin securities were exempt from registration.
99.  GexCrypto and GexCoin investors tendered cash and crypto assets into
a common enterprise, with the reasonable expectation that they would receive a profit
based upon Ryn’s and the GexCrypto team’s running of a successful crypto asset
trading platform and based upon Ryn’s overseeing of a successful mining operation.
Investments in GexCrypto, including through the purchase of GexCoins—which
embodied the investment opportunity into GexCrypto’s trading platform business and
as such were offered and sold as investment contracts and therefore securities as that
term is defined under Section 2(a)(1) of the 33 Act—were repeatedly described and
marketed as “investments.”  Investments in the Mining Operation were similarly
marketed as an opportunity to profit from Ryn’s oversight of the Mining Operation
which included Ryn’s pooling of investor funds for the purchase of mining
equipment, and distributing profits to investors to investors based upon the amount of

COMPLAINT
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ETH successfully mined.
100. The GexCrypto and GexCoin investment offerings did not qualify for
any exemption to the securities registration requirements, and neither Ryn nor
GexCrypto sought any such exemption.
COUNT I
Unregistered Offers and Sales of Securities in Violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c)
of the Securities Act
101. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
102. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants GexCrypto and
Ryn directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, to offer to sell or to sell
securities, or to carry or cause such securities to be carried through the mails or in
interstate commerce for the purpose of sale of delivery after sale.
103. No valid registration statement has been filed with the Commission or
has been in effect with respect to any offering or sale alleged herein. There was no
exemption applicable for the offer and sale of the GexCrypto or GexCoin securities
from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.
104. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, GexCrypto and Ryn violated, and
unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].

COMPLAINT
29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNT II
Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
105. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
106. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants, and each of
them, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, and by the use of means
or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use
of the mails directly or indirectly: (a) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a
material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in
transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
107. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants each violated,
and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
COUNT III
Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
108. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
109. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants, and each of

COMPLAINT
30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
them, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, and
by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of
the facilities of a national securities exchange: (a) employed devices, schemes, or
artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a
material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts,
practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit
upon other persons.
110. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants each violated,
and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, 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.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests the Court find that
Defendants committed the violations charged and that, as a result of these violations,
Defendants received ill-gotten gains; and enter judgments:
I.
Permanent Injunctions
Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with
them, and each of them, from directly or indirectly violating the federal securities
laws alleged in this Complaint; and further permanently restraining and enjoining

COMPLAINT
31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant Ryn, his officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in
active concert or participation with him, and each of them, 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 account.
II.
Disgorgement
Ordering Defendants to disgorge on a joint and several basis, with prejudgment
interest, the net profits they received from their ill-gotten gains as a result of the acts
or courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint, pursuant to Section 21(d)(7) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)].
III.
Penalties
Ordering Defendants to pay on a joint and several basis civil penalties pursuant
to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];
IV.
Officer and Director Bar
Prohibiting Defendant Ryn from acting as an officer or director of any issuer
that has a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12 of

COMPLAINT
32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78o(d)], 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)].]; and
V.
Further Relief
Granting such other and further relief as the Court determines to be necessary
and appropriate.
VI.
Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests the Court retain jurisdiction over
this action and over Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all
orders and decrees that may hereby be entered, or to entertain any suitable application
or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
Dated:  February 6, 2023                               Respectfully          submitted,

/s/  James M. Carlson
JAMES M. CARLSON
Supervisory Trial Counsel
(DC Bar No. 981364)
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F. Street, NE
Washington, DC  20549
Tel: 202-551-3711
Fax: 703-813-9314

COMPLAINT
33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Email:  [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff Securities and
Exchange Commission

COMPLAINT 1  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

James M. Carlson (DC Bar No. 981364) 
Email:  [email protected] 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street NE 
Washington DC 20549 
Telephone: (202) 551-3711  
Facsimile: 703-813-9314  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 

 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 
 

vs. 

GEXCRYPTO CORP. (a/k/a 
GexCrypto Global Trading Corp.) and 
EMILIANO S. RYN, 

 
Defendants. 

 

  
 
Case No.  
 
COMPLAINT 
 

 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”), 

alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. Between October 2017 and July 2018, Emiliano “Emil” Ryn (“Ryn”) 

defrauded 26 investors out of more than $800,000 in an investment scheme primarily 

targeted at elderly and technologically unsophisticated individuals in the expatriate 

Filipino community in California.  Ryn presented himself as a successful Filipino 

entrepreneur in the cryptocurrency space, wearing a Rolex watch and driving a 

Maserati.  He positioned himself as someone who would purportedly help members 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 1 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 2  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of his community also become rich through GexCrypto Corp. (a/k/a GexCrypto 

Global Trading Corp.) (“GexCrypto”), a purported first-of-its kind crypto asset 

trading platform, and via a purported separate crypto asset mining operation 

established by Ryn.  Deceived by Ryn and his fraudulent promises of guaranteed 

investment returns, investors turned over their life savings in cash to Ryn, with some 

even taking out home equity loans to invest with him. 

2. The first part of Ryn’s scheme involved the formation of GexCrypto, 

purportedly to launch a crypto asset trading platform.  Ryn falsely represented to 

investors the superiority of the GexCrypto trading platform’s technology and its one-

of-a-kind customer service.  He did this through, among other ways, a professionally-

produced video available on GexCrypto’s website and other statements on 

GexCrypto’s website.   

3. In reality, GexCrypto was never operational and the descriptions of 

GexCrypto provided to investors were nothing more than Ryn’s aspirations.    

4. To raise money purportedly to support and develop further GexCrypto’s 

trading platform, Ryn, through GexCrypto, conducted an initial coin offering (“ICO”) 

of GexCoins.  The ICO was advertised publicly on GexCrypto’s website and social 

media.  The ICO was also promoted directly by Ryn to individual investors.  Ryn and 

GexCrypto made the same material misrepresentations about GexCrypto’s existing 

operations in marketing and advertising the ICO and guaranteed outsized returns to 

investors despite the non-existent trading platform.    

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 2 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 3  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. At the same time Ryn recruited investors for GexCrypto, he offered 

many of those same individuals the opportunity to invest in a purported crypto asset 

mining business in which Ryn would pool investor funds to purchase mining 

equipment and pay investors returns based upon the amount of crypto assets mined 

(“the Mining Operation”).  Several of Ryn’s investors invested in GexCrypto, 

GexCoin, and the Mining Operation.  Ryn promised mining investors guaranteed 

outsized returns and repeatedly lied to investors about the mining business’s 

operations.  

6. None of Ryn’s false promises materialized.  No investment returns were 

ever paid, and investors lost their entire investments.   

7. As investors began to press Ryn about their promised returns and the 

businesses’ operations, Ryn engaged in additional fraudulent lulling conduct by 

making additional misstatements to investors.  Among other things, Ryn:  (1) created 

and distributed a second worthless digital token to investors, which he falsely passed 

off as a GexCoin; (2) falsely told investors he was in the Philippines to register 

GexCrypto with the Philippine regulators; and (3) provided two investors with a 

fraudulent bank statement purportedly showing that payment of their promised 

distributions was imminent.  Ultimately, Ryn halted all communications with 

investors.   

8. The investments Ryn offered and sold to investors in GexCrypto, 

GexCoins, and the Mining Operation were securities.  

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 3 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 4  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. Ryn did not register any of his offers or sales of GexCrypto or GexCoins 

with the Commission, no registration statement was in effect as to any offer or sale of 

GexCrypto or GexCoin, and no exemption from registration applied.  

10. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated 

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e; Section 

17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a); and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5.  

11. The Commission respectfully requests the Court enter an order: (i) 

permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from violating the federal 

securities laws, and permanently restraining and enjoining Ryn from engaging in 

certain further conduct; (ii) prohibiting Ryn from acting as an officer or director of 

any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the 

Exchange Act; (iii) directing Defendants to pay on a joint and several basis 

disgorgement and prejudgment interest thereon; and (iv) directing Defendants to 

jointly and severally pay a civil money penalty.   

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

12. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 

20(d)(1) and 22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) and 77v(a), 

and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 4 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 5  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§§ 78(u)(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e), and 78aa(a).  Defendants have, directly or 

indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the 

mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the 

transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged in this Complaint. 

13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), and Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a), 

because certain of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of conduct constituting 

violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district.  In addition, 

venue is proper in this district because Defendants GexCrypto and Ryn operated or 

resided in this district during the conduct. 

DEFENDANTS 

14. GexCrypto Corp. (a/k/a GexCrypto Global Trading Corp.) 

(“GexCrypto”) is an entity, founded in 2017 and controlled by Ryn, which did 

business in Orange County, California, and purported to be “a comprehensive 

Cryptocurrency trading platform backed by the world’s first fully incorporated 

concierge service.”  GexCrypto Global Trading Corp. was registered in Nevis from 

September 28, 2017 through February 4, 2020, but is not currently registered in any 

jurisdiction.  GexCrypto does not appear ever to have held any bank accounts, 

property, or assets in its own name.  GexCrypto has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity nor ever had a class of securities registered with the 

Commission.   

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 5 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 6  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. Emiliano S. Ryn, (“Ryn”), 47, currently resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

During the relevant period in 2017 and early 2018, Ryn resided in Irvine, California.  

Ryn founded GexCrypto in 2017, served as its Chief Executive Officer, controlling 

all aspects of its business.  Ryn also founded and controlled the Mining Operation.   

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I. Background Facts 

 A. Ryn Creates GexCrypto 

16. In 2017, Ryn founded GexCrypto in order to purportedly to develop a 

crypto asset trading platform and create and distribute a digital token.    

17. Ryn hired an individual online to register GexCrypto in Saint Kitts & 

Nevis and obtained blank GexCrypto stock certificates. 

18. In the summer of 2017, Ryn found two freelance developers based in 

India and hired them to create GexCrypto’s trading platform.  The developers, as Ryn 

knew, had no experience building a crypto asset trading platform.  

19. As a first step, at Ryn’s direction, the developers created a website for 

GexCrypto—www.gexcrypto.io—to advertise the trading platform’s capabilities and 

GexCrypto’s subsequent ICO of GexCoins.  Ryn reviewed and approved the content 

of GexCrypto’s website, which was available to the public worldwide without 

restriction, including to U.S. investors.  

20. GexCrypto’s website described GexCrypto as the first-of-its-kind crypto 

asset trading platform, including as:  

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 6 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 7  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i. “a comprehensive Cryptocurrency trading platform backed by the 
world’s first fully incorporated concierge service”; 
 

ii. “the most advanced Cryptocurrency trading platform powered by the 
most trusted, reliable and experienced technical team.”; and 
 

iii. “hav[ing] an un-matched understanding of the Cryptocurrency market 
as well as the global distribution of Cryptocurrency.” 

 
21. In describing what set GexCrypto apart from other currency trading 

platforms, the website stated that: 

i. “We have diligently studied emerging international regulations and 
changing economic scenes which affect the various aspects of 
Cryptocurrency in the marketplace.” 

 
ii. “The Cryptocurrency world is undergoing continuous change. There 

are countless important developments happening in numerous 
countries regarding regulating, controlling and structuring the 
cryptocurrency market. Here at GexC we guarantee that we will 
continuously stay in front of all global developments related to the 
Cryptocurrency market.” 

 
22. The website also distinguished GexCrypto from other currency trading 

platforms based upon GexCrypto’s “superior market analysis tools to ensure our 

users’ success” and “[s]uperior [r]esources and [p]ractices to [d]eliver [s]uperior 

[t]echnology and [s]ervice.” 

23. According to the website, GexCrypto’s “superior resources” included 

“multi-language technical support” and a “technical team.” 

24. The website described the superior multi-language technical support as 

follows:  “We speak the languages of our customers. We currently offer multi-lingual 

24/7/365 user support in six languages: English, Japanese, Mandarin, Korean, 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 7 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 8  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Spanish, Russian and Hindi. As our user base grows we will be adding to this list to 

ensure all of our users’ questions or concerns can be addressed.” 

25. The website described the superior technical team as “the world’s best 

developers, coders and mathematicians who have diverse experiences in all niches 

related to DLTs and cryptography.” 

26. The website identified GexCrypto’s “trusted, reliable, and experienced” 

leadership team to include Ryn and three additional “co-founders”: the two India-

based developers Ryn had hired online, who were identified as the “CTO” and 

“Director of Operation,” and a third individual, the owner of a construction business, 

who had made an early investment in GexCrypto. 

27. The website identified GexCrypto’s Board to include a head of “PR & 

Communications.”  This individual, whose background was in engineering, asked 

Ryn why he was listed as head of PR when he had no experience and was not 

performing that role.  Ryn told him not to worry. 

28. The GexCrypto website also contained a link to a promotional YouTube 

video about GexCrypto, which Ryn had hired a videographer to produce.  In the 

video, actors discussed the revolutionary nature of blockchain technology and 

GexCrypto’s role in it.  The video repeated many of the same claims as on 

GexCrypto’s website about its superior technology and services.   

29. For example, one actor described GexCrypto as “the most advanced 

cryptocurrency trading platform” and “totally unique from the rest of the market.”  

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 8 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 9  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The actor further articulated what set GexCrypto apart:  “Most of the trading 

platforms over the internet offer either coin or platform, but we offer a blend of both.  

Yes, coin and trading platform under one single roof.  Secondly, we offer the world’s 

first fully implemented user service.” 

30. Along with the actors, Ryn appeared in a segment of his own in the 

video.  In Ryn’s segment, he highlighted the expertise of GexCrypto’s management:  

“We all have been a part of the crypto community since its inception and are 

successful entrepreneurs in several different market segments. We have more than 50 

years of experience in management, risk analysis, compliance, and empower other 

users of new underlying technology such as blockchain.”  Ryn also emphasized 

GexCrypto’s “one hundred percent unique, innovative, and technically superior” 

trading platform and GexCrypto’s mission “to deliver the highest possible level of 

service to our users,” as well as “demonstrate[ing] an invincible technology 

leadership that will undoubtedly make GexCrypto an unsurpassed leader in the world 

of ecurrency,” that may “unite the entire globe under one comprehensive trading 

platform.” 

31. The video further portrayed GexCrypto’s purported “world’s first fully 

implemented concierge service” by showing a call bank of personnel answering 

telephone calls. 

 B. Ryn Conducts an ICO of GexCoins 

32. In late 2017 and early 2018, Ryn created and sold GexCoin, a digital 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 9 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 10  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

token issued by GexCrypto.  As described throughout this Complaint, Ryn and 

GexCrypto pooled the funds raised from investors from the offers and sales of 

GexCoin in a common enterprise to build GexCrypto’s trading platform, and 

investors had a reasonable expectation of profits based on the efforts of GexCrypto’s 

management and technical team. 

33.  GexCrypto solicited investors in a so-called “Initial Coin Offering” or 

“ICO” via GexCrypto’s social media accounts and website, including through a 

White Paper published in or around November 2017 on GexCrypto’s website.  Ryn 

also personally solicited individual investors as described more fully below.  Ryn’s 

and GexCrypto’s solicitation of investors for the ICO was specifically directed at 

U.S. investors. 

34. As with GexCrypto’s website, the White Paper presented GexCrypto as 

a fully-operational trading platform.  For example, the White Paper described 

GexCrypto as “offer[ing] benefits and returns, above and beyond any other exchange 

currently available” and that “[t]he Gex platform caters to both new and seasoned 

traders with proprietary guided assistance tools to help users make educated 

investment decisions.” 

35. Similarly, the White Paper described the existing security features that 

the GexCrypto trading platform offered, including: (i) “two-factor authentication;” 

(ii) “advanced verification software that maintains and monitors the integrity of the 

account;” and (iii) “withdrawal protection,” which “makes the withdrawal process 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 10 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 11  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

completely protected from unauthorized accesses.” 

36. The White Paper also highlighted GexCrypto’s management and 

technical team as “the most trusted, reliable and experienced crypto veterans,” who 

“have been part of the Cryptocurrency community since its inception,” and have a 

“deep understanding of the cryptocurrency market and its distribution worldwide.” 

37. The terms of the GexCoin ICO were described on GexCrypto’s website 

and in the White Paper.  According to the White Paper, 50 million GexCoins were to 

be issued in the ICO’s pre-sale phase and 290 million GexCoins in the ICO phase.  

During the pre-sale stage (November 11, 2017 – December 10, 2017), investors could 

invest in GexCoins at a discounted price.  If investors invested in the ICO before 

November 14, 2017, they also would receive “30% extra coin.”  After the pre-sale, 

investors could still purchase GexCoins, but at a higher price (during the pre-sale, 1 

Bitcoin purchased 50,000 GexCoin, whereas afterward, 1 Bitcoin purchased 40,000 

GexCoin). 

38. The White Paper explained the returns that investors in the ICO would 

make as follows:  “[b]y taking part in the campaign (pre-ICO/ICO) participants will 

receive an 8% return (after all relative fees and expenses are deducted) of the total 

trading revenue generated over a 24-hour span.”  The White Paper further explained 

mechanically how investors were to be paid their returns as follows:  “The funds (in 

the form of GexCoin) will be distributed to the investors’ wallet via smart contract 

upon the completion of every 24-hour period.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 11 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 12  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39. The White Paper also represented that upon completion of the ICO, 

GexCoins would be “listed on four leading trading platforms.”  

40. The GexCrypto website contained the following disclaimer:  “While 

most participants of any citizenship can join the ICO, unfortunately we are unable to 

accept participation from citizens or residents of the United States, Canada, China, 

and Taiwan due to existing regulations in their respective countries.”  However, 

GexCrypto’s website was not restricted in any way and was accessible to U.S. 

investors.  Further, Ryn’s and GexCrypto’s solicitation of investors in GexCrypto and 

the ICO was specifically targeted to U.S. investors, as described below.   

41. In addition to being advertised on the GexCrypto website, the ICO was 

advertised and promoted on Facebook, Twitter, Bitcointalk, and other social media 

platforms.  In order to generate additional interest in the ICO, GexCrypto hired a 

group of online promoters via a Bitcointalk “bounty campaign,” paying them in 

GexCoin to hype the GexCrypto ICO via their own social media channels multiple 

times each day.  As a limited-time promotion, investors who signed up on the 

gexcrypto.io website or who joined the GexCrypto Telegram group were also offered 

free GexCoins. 

II. Ryn Solicits Individual Investors for 
GexCrypto from the Filipino Community 

 
42. In addition to GexCrypto’s online solicitations, from approximately 

October 27, 2017 through December 26, 2017, Ryn also directly solicited and 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 12 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 13  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recruited individual U.S. investors for GexCrypto and GexCoins through in person 

meetings and via Skype and telephone calls.  During these solicitations, Ryn also 

directed investors to the GexCrypto website.   

43. As part of these solicitations, Ryn hosted and attended meetings around 

Orange County, California.  As part of his efforts to portray GexCrypto as a 

successful operational business, Ryn handed out GexCrypto branded merchandise.   

44. At these meetings to promote GexCrypto and the ICO, Ryn walked 

through the proposed project, how to invest, and the discounts available for early 

investing.  During these meetings, Ryn consistently touted the profitability and safety 

of investing in GexCrypto and GexCoins. 

45. Ryn gained entrée to this group of investors through his initial contact 

with Investors 1 and 2, who Ryn met in October 2017 at a “meet up” event in Irvine, 

California for people interested in cryptocurrency.  Investor 1 wanted to supplement 

his retirement income so that he was not dependent on social security.  Investor 2 was 

a home health aide who was seeking financial stability and to build a college fund for 

her children. Investors 1 and 2, who are also Filipino, went to dinner with Ryn where 

they discussed their multilevel marketing business for investing in cryptocurrency, 

and Ryn told them about GexCrypto.  Despite their involvement in the multilevel 

marketing business, Investors 1 and 2 had no background in cryptocurrency or digital 

technology.    

46. Following this meeting, Investors 1 and 2 introduced Ryn to friends and 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 13 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 14  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

acquaintances in the Filipino community, who, like them, ultimately invested in 

GexCrypto.  These investors included Investor 3—Investor 1’s daughter—Investor 

4—the godmother to Investor 2’s daughter—and a number of retirees.  

47. In one meeting at Investor 2’s apartment on or around October 27, 2017, 

Ryn pitched the investment to Investor 4 and Investor 5, both of whom were looking 

for stable income for retirement.   Investor 4 understood from Ryn that if she 

invested, she would earn a percentage of profits from trading and mining of 

cryptocurrency.  She further understood that if she invested early, she would get “a 

lot” of extra tokens.  

48. Based on Ryn’s representations at the meeting on or around October 27, 

2017, both Investor 4 and Investor 5 decided to invest.  Investor 4 invested $9,000 in 

cash, which she borrowed from her credit union, and Investor 5 invested $10,000 in 

cash, which he had from the sale of a home in the Philippines. Both investments were 

recorded by hand, as well as those of other investors, on a hand-written “GexCrypto” 

ledger provided by Ryn and safeguarded by Investor 2.                

49. During these meetings with prospective investors, Ryn touted the 

profitability and safety of investing in GexCrypto, telling potential investors that their 

investments would double or triple in a short period of time.  For example, Investors 

4 and 5, both understood after the meeting on or around October 27, 2017, that their 

investments would multiply in a few months and that Ryn would return their entire 

investment.  Following her investment, Investor 4 texted with Ryn about GexCrypto, 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 14 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 15  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

writing to Ryn on November 7, 2017 “Praying to God the GEX will Prosper” with 

Ryn responding the same day “It will for sure sis” (translated from Tagalog). 

50. In late October 2017, Ryn met via a video chat with Investor 6, a retiree 

looking for a steady and reliable investment to enhance her retirement funds, and 

Investor 7, a retiree also looking to supplement her retirement income, to discuss 

investing in GexCrypto.  Again, Ryn touted the profitability and safety of investing in 

GexCrypto.  Ryn stated that GexCrypto tokens were currently worth $0.06 and that as 

the price of the tokens increased, so would the investors’ returns.  Ryn also told 

Investors 6 and 7 that if they invested prior to the deadline in mid-November 2017, 

they would get an extra 30% bonus in tokens on their investment.  Ryn further told 

Investor 6 she would be rich and could buy a car since her car was always breaking 

down.  Based upon Ryn’s representations and in order to receive bonus tokens, in 

early November 2017, Investor 6 invested $7,000 in cash in GexCrypto and Investor 

7 invested $6,170 in cash and Bitcoin in GexCrypto.   

51. Ryn also promised certain investors stock in GexCrypto, although such 

stock certificates were never issued.  On October 15, 2017 and October 29, 2017, Ryn 

sent Investors 2 and 6, respectively, a copy of what a GexCrypto stock certificate 

purportedly looked like.  The undated, unsigned certificate identified GexCrypto 

Trading Corp. as incorporated under the laws of Nevis and authorized to issue 1,000 

shares registered stock.    

52. Ryn only accepted investments in cash or crypto assets, telling investors 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 15 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 16  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that ICOs can only be invested in via cash or crypto assets.  The majority of investors 

solicited in person paid Ryn in cash.  Ryn raised just over $371,000 in cash and 2 

Bitcoins from 25 GexCrypto and GexCoin investors. 

III. Material Misrepresentations to GexCrypto Investors 

53. As described above, Ryn and GexCrypto made materially false 

representations to investors online via the website and the White Paper and in-person 

to individual investors about the operations of GexCrypto, GexCrypto’s experienced 

management team, and GexCrypto’s guaranteed returns.   

54. Ryn and GexCrypto knew or were reckless in not knowing that these 

misrepresentations were false. 

55. Despite portraying GexCrypto as an operational, world-class trading 

platform with superior service and technology, the GexCrypto platform was never 

built and was never operational.  Accordingly, it had none of the features described in 

detail on the website, in the White Paper, in the YouTube video, and by Ryn, such as 

user-support in six languages and enhanced security features.   

56. GexCrypto’s expert team of “the most trusted, reliable and experienced 

crypto veterans” as described in GexCrypto’s White Paper and portrayed on 

GexCrypto’s website did not exist.  As described above, GexCrypto’s purported 

“CTO” (Chief Technology Officer) and GexCrypto’s purported “Director of 

Operation” were the two India-based developers Ryn met and hired online.  Ryn’s 

purported GexCrypto “co-founder,” the owner of a construction business, was merely 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 16 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 17  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an early investor who also had no experience in the crypto industry.   

57. Ryn admitted in SEC testimony that the trading platform never existed 

and that the depictions in the YouTube video on GexCrypto’s website were false, but 

that the video was published on GexCrypto’s website because he thought it “look[ed] 

kind of cool.”  

58. Ryn’s promises to investors of profits from the trading business, 

including representations in the White Paper that investors would receive an “8% 

return [  ] of the total trading revenue generated over a 24-hour span” and 

representations to individual investors that their investments would double or triple, 

were false.  The trading platform did not exist.  

IV. The Crypto Asset Mining Investment 

59. At the same time Ryn was pitching his fake trading platform to 

investors, he offered the same group of Filipino investors another prospect to make 

money by investing in a purported crypto asset mining business (“the Mining 

Operation”).  Ryn told investors that he would pool their money to purchase mining 

equipment, and they would be paid investment returns based upon the amount of 

Ethereum mined. 

60. Before a technological change in the Fall of 2022, the “ethereum” block 

chain validated new blocks or transactions via a process known as “Mining,” 

whereby computers connected to the network could attempt to solve complex 

computational problems required to validate a new block, in exchange for rewards in 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 17 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 18  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the form of “Eth,” the crypto asset that is the “native token” to the Ethereum 

blockchain.  This process, known as “mining,” requires significant computational 

power, including potentially significant electrical power 

61. The investments in the purported crypto asset mining business were 

investment contracts and therefore securities.    

62. Investor 1, now deceased, was particularly interested in learning more 

about cryptocurrency and how to make money in the crypto world.  Beginning in 

November 2017, Ryn and Investor 1 began discussing, including through text 

messages, the potential mining business and the computer equipment needed to run 

the mining business, as well as the need for investors to fund this potential mining 

business.  For example, on November 20, 2017, Ryn texted Investor 1: “Elder 

brother, let’s push for the big investors. Ethereum is about to take off” (partially 

translated from Tagalog).  

63. After searching for several weeks for locations to house the Mining 

Operation, it was ultimately decided to set up the operation in Investor 1’s garage.  

Although housed at Investor 1’s home, Ryn oversaw all aspects of the Mining 

Operation, including, collecting investor funds, purchasing the equipment, instructing 

Investor 1 regarding the equipment, and responding to Investor 1’s frequent texts 

with questions about how to operate the machines.  Similarly, in March 2018, after 

Investor 1 passed away, Ryn instructed Investor 1’s daughter – Investor 3 – how to 

operate the machines.  All investors in the Mining Operation relied entirely on Ryn’s 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 18 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 19  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

efforts for the enterprise to succeed, and Investors 1 and 3 acted solely at Ryn’s 

direction. 

64. Ryn recruited investors for the Mining Operation through in-person 

meetings, telephone calls and text messages.   

65. For example, on November 20, 2017, Ryn texted Investor 6, writing 

“Are you familiar with mining ma’am?” (translated from Tagalog).  She responded 

“not yet” (translated from Tagalog), and he followed up by sending her images of 

mining equipment.  

66. During a video chat with Investors 6 and 7 in November 2017, Ryn 

pitched the mining investment in more detail.  Ryn told them that if they invested 

with him, he would use their money to buy crypto mining equipment and that the 

investment provided a guaranteed return, since the mining happens around the clock.  

Ryn declared that the minimum investment was $100,000, and he promised that their 

monthly returns would be $10K, $15K, $20K or even $50K, a promise Ryn repeated 

to other investors.  Investor 6 understood from the conversation with Ryn that she 

would be able to withdraw her original investment after three months and leave the 

profits with Ryn, which he would use to buy more equipment.  Ryn told her the 

additional equipment would increase both the mining capacity and her future returns.  

67.  Ryn’s promises of guaranteed returns to investors in the Mining 

Operation were false.  By mid-December, Ryn had purchased some crypto mining 

equipment, but only some of it was operational.  Moreover, the business was not 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 19 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 20  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

generating the profits that Ryn was promising to investors – a minimum of $10,000 

per month.  No profits were ever distributed to investors. 

68. Ryn again only accepted cash from investors for the Mining Operation, 

some of whom were in Northern California.  As a result, on multiple occasions Ryn 

drove from Irvine to San Francisco to pick up large amounts of cash from investors, 

including on January 6, 2018, when he collected $48,000 in cash from Investor 7 and 

in a trip on or around February 22 – February 24, 2018, Ryn collected an additional 

$100,000 in cash from Investor 6.  Upon Investor 7’s insistence, Ryn signed a receipt 

acknowledging the $48,000 investment.    

69. Ryn showed up to pick up Investor 6’s payment in February 2018 in his 

Maserati, allowing Investor 6 and other investors to take pictures of themselves with 

the car.  Ryn sent copies of these photos to various investors.   

70. Ryn raised at least $448,500 from seven investors for the Mining 

Operation.  Investor 1 took out a $200,000 home equity loan and sold property in the 

Philippines in order to invest in the Mining Operation.  Investor 2 used the funds she 

was saving for her children’s college education to invest $100,000.  When Investor 5 

told Ryn he had no more money to invest in the Mining Operation, Ryn tried to 

convince him to hand over the deed to a property he owned in the Philippines.  

Investor 6 took out a $90,000 home equity loan in order to make a $100,000 

investment in the Mining Operation. Investor 7 withdrew $48,000 from her 401K to 

invest in the Mining Operation.   

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 20 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 21  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

71. At the same time that Ryn was obtaining money from investors in cash 

for GexCrypto, GexCoins and the Mining Operation, he made several large purchases 

of luxury items in cash, including a $52,000 Maserati in November 2017, a vacation 

to Hawaii with his family in December 2017, and a $7,000 Rolex watch in March 

2018.    

72. After obtaining money from the Mining Operation investors, Ryn 

engaged in lulling conduct by making multiple additional material misrepresentations 

to investors regarding the business.  These include Ryn telling investors he:  (1) was 

moving the mining business to Las Vegas because of lower electricity costs; (2) had 

been visiting and researching locations in Las Vegas, including a solar farm; and (3) 

had ultimately secured a warehouse in Las Vegas for the Mining Operation.  These 

statements regarding moving the Mining Operation to Las Vegas were false – Ryn 

did not visit any locations in search of a location and never secured a space in Las 

Vegas. 

73. Ryn knowingly or recklessly made these material misrepresentations to 

investors. 

V. Defendants’ Continued Deception and Misrepresentations 

74. When none of the promised returns for GexCrypto and the Mining 

Operation materialized, investors began pressing Ryn for information regarding their 

investments.   

75. In order to keep the fraud from being exposed, Ryn knowingly or 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 21 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 22  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recklessly engaged in additional deception and lies.  These include:  (1) creating and 

distributing a worthless new digital coin to investors that Ryn passed off as a 

GexCoin; (2) telling investors he was traveling to the Philippines to meet with 

Filipino regulators about GexCrypto; and (3) providing a fraudulent bank statement 

to two investors as proof that their promised investment distribution was forthcoming.   

A. Ryn Provided Alternative, Worthless Tokens 

76. In the spring of 2018, as investors repeatedly questioned Ryn for updates 

regarding their investments, and with no promised returns to pay investors from 

either GexCrypto or the Mining Operation, Ryn created a second token 

“GeXCHANGE.” 

77. GeXCHANGE is a unique digital token existing on a separate smart 

contract than GexCoin.  Ryn learned how to make the tokens from searching the 

internet for how to create a digital token days before distributing the coins to 

investors.   

78. Despite the fact that the GeXCHANGE token was a completely different 

token than the GexCoin, Ryn passed the GeXCHANGE token off as the GexCoin, 

including that the GeXCHANGE tokens were investors’ promised distributions from 

GexCrypto and the Mining Operation and that the GeXCHANGE tokens had the 

same value as the GexCoin.  

79. Ryn made a large distribution of the GeXCHANGE tokens to Investor 3, 

who distributed them to the other investors following Ryn’s instructions.   

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 22 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 23  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

80. For example, on April 18, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 3 with instructions 

regarding how to distribute the GeXCHANGE tokens to investors and how many 

tokens each investor should receive based upon the amount of their investments in 

GexCrypto and the Mining Operation.  Ryn never told Investor 3 that the tokens he 

was directing her to distribute to investors were not GexCoins, but GeXCHANGE 

tokens instead.   

81. On April 19, 2018, Ryn distributed 20,000 GeXCHANGE tokens to 

Investor 6’s cryptocurrency wallet and informed Investor 6 that it had been done.  

Ryn never told Investor 6 that the 20,000 tokens he distributed were GeXCHANGE 

tokens and not GexCoins.   

82. Ryn continued distributing and having the GeXCHANGE tokens 

distributed, over 8.5 million GeXCHANGE tokens, to investors into at least June 

2018 without informing them that they were not GexCoins.    

83. Ryn made representations earlier to investors regarding the value of the 

GexCoin, including, for example to Investor 6 on April 16, 2018 that 1,000 GexCoin 

were worth “$110 right now. 300,000 gex equals $33k,” and to other investors that 

the GexCoin was worth $0.11, when distributing the GeXCHANGE tokens to 

investors.  These statements were materially misleading as Ryn never informed them 

that those purported values did not apply to the GeXCHANGE tokens, because it was 

not the same token.  

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 23 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 24  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 B. Ryn’s Fake Trip to the Philippines 

84. In the spring of 2018, as investors continued to press Ryn for updates 

regarding their investments, Ryn told investors that he was traveling to the 

Philippines to discuss registering the trading platform with the Central Bank of 

Philippines and the Filipino securities regulators.   

85. For example, on May 3, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 6, writing “I will be 

in the Philippines next week for gexcrypto to talk to the SEC for the exchange” 

(translated from Tagalog).  Ryn further explained in the same text message chain with 

Investor 6 that there would not be any distributions from the Mining Operation that 

month because the operation would be delayed while he was in the Philippines.   

86. Similarly, on May 2, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 4, “Going to Philippines 

next -week to talk with security and exchange commission then central bank of 

philippines to present the trading platform. This very good news for all of us.”  In a 

May 8, 2018 text message told Investor 4 that he was on a “4 pm flight [out of] John 

Wayne airport” and flying “United to Hawaii then Hawaii airline to Manila.”  

87. Later in May, when investors reach out for updates, in response, they 

received texts purportedly from Ryn’s son that his father has been hospitalized in 

Manila and would not be home until the following week.  

88. Ryn’s statements to investors regarding his trip to the Philippines and his 

meetings with Filipino regulators about GexCrypto were false, which Ryn admitted in 

SEC testimony.  Ryn also admitted in testimony that he does not even have a valid 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 24 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 25  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

passport to travel abroad.   

C. Ryn Falsified a Bank Statement 
and Provided It to Certain Investors 

 
89. Ryn’s deceit to investors culminated in his creating and distributing a 

fraudulent bank statement to two investors, Investors 6 and 7, to try to convince them 

that after repeated delays in payment, the investors’ distribution of profits was on the 

way. 

90. Upon request from Ryn and in order for Ryn to make her and Investor 

7’s promised, but yet unpaid, monthly mining distribution, on July 4, 2018, Investor 6 

provided Ryn via text with bank account information for her and Investor 7.  The next 

day, Ryn replied to Investors 6 and 7 that he had received the bank information and 

the distribution was coming “tomorrow.”   

91. After not receiving the distribution as promised, Investor 6 continued to 

press Ryn as to where it was.  In response, on July 7, 2018, Ryn texted Investor 6 that 

the distribution would be made on Monday, July 9, 2018 around noon.   When the 

distribution still had not been made by that date, Investor 6 again followed up with 

Ryn.  Ryn initially told Investor 6 via text on July 9, 2018 that he would make the 

deposit later that day.  However, later that day, Ryn informed Investor 6 that he could 

not make the deposit because “Ma'am Chase doesn't accept non customer deposit. 

They don't allow. You can call your bank to verify it. I have Citibank” (partially 

translated from Tagalog).  Ryn informed Investor 6 that the following day, he would 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 25 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 26  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

open a Chase bank account and make the deposit.  

92. Ryn’s representation to Investor 6 that he had a bank account at Citibank 

was false.  At the time, Ryn did not have any bank accounts because of his history of 

bouncing checks.  However, Ryn had access to his son’s bank account at Chase.  Ryn 

put that access to use, emailing to himself on July 10, 2018, a copy of a recent bank 

statement from his son’s Chase bank account.  The account statement showed that the 

account was overdrawn by $161.47. 

93. That day, Ryn altered the same bank statement in order to reflect that (i) 

he was the account holder; (ii) the address on the account was his previous address in 

California, rather than his current one in Las Vegas where he was living with his son 

and other family members; and (iii) a pending deposit of $125,000.     

94. Later on July 10, 2018, Ryn sent an image of the fraudulent bank 

statement via text to Investor 6, telling her that once the $125,000 deposit cleared he 

would make an online transfer to her and Investor 7.  

95. When the promised online transfer did not occur, Investor 6 again 

followed up with Ryn via texts on July 11 and July 15, asking when the transfer 

would be completed. Ryn repeated his lies, telling Investor 6 “Don’t you worry.  It 

should be good tomorrow” (translated from Tagalog).  

96. In an additional lie to Investors 6 and 7 about the promised payment, on 

July 16, 2018, Ryn texted them to say that the transfer “was done [at] midnight,” 

(translated from Tagalog) and to thank them for waiting. 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 26 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 27  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

97. No transfer was ever made to Investors 6 and 7.  Neither Investors 6 and 

7 nor any of the other investors received any distribution of profits from their 

investments in either the Mining Operation or GexCrypto.    

VI. The GexCrypto, GexCoin, and 
Mining Operation Investments Were Securities 

 
98. The investments in GexCrypto, GexCoin, and the Mining Operation 

were investment contracts and therefore securities, the offer or sale of which was not 

registered with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.  Neither 

the GexCrypto nor GexCoin securities were exempt from registration.  

99.  GexCrypto and GexCoin investors tendered cash and crypto assets into 

a common enterprise, with the reasonable expectation that they would receive a profit 

based upon Ryn’s and the GexCrypto team’s running of a successful crypto asset 

trading platform and based upon Ryn’s overseeing of a successful mining operation.  

Investments in GexCrypto, including through the purchase of GexCoins—which 

embodied the investment opportunity into GexCrypto’s trading platform business and 

as such were offered and sold as investment contracts and therefore securities as that 

term is defined under Section 2(a)(1) of the 33 Act—were repeatedly described and 

marketed as “investments.”  Investments in the Mining Operation were similarly 

marketed as an opportunity to profit from Ryn’s oversight of the Mining Operation 

which included Ryn’s pooling of investor funds for the purchase of mining 

equipment, and distributing profits to investors to investors based upon the amount of 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 27 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 28  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ETH successfully mined. 

100. The GexCrypto and GexCoin investment offerings did not qualify for 

any exemption to the securities registration requirements, and neither Ryn nor 

GexCrypto sought any such exemption. 

COUNT I 

Unregistered Offers and Sales of Securities in Violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) 
of the Securities Act 

101. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

102. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants GexCrypto and 

Ryn directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, to offer to sell or to sell 

securities, or to carry or cause such securities to be carried through the mails or in 

interstate commerce for the purpose of sale of delivery after sale. 

103. No valid registration statement has been filed with the Commission or 

has been in effect with respect to any offering or sale alleged herein. There was no 

exemption applicable for the offer and sale of the GexCrypto or GexCoin securities 

from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. 

104. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, GexCrypto and Ryn violated, and 

unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)]. 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 28 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 29  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT II 

Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act  

105. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

106. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants, and each of 

them, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, and by the use of means 

or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use 

of the mails directly or indirectly: (a) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a 

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in 

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

fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.  

107. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants each violated, 

and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the 

Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).  

COUNT III 

Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

108. The SEC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

100, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

109. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants, and each of 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 29 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 30  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, and 

by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of 

the facilities of a national securities exchange: (a) employed devices, schemes, or 

artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a 

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts, 

practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit 

upon other persons.  

110. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants each violated, 

and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, 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.  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests the Court find that 

Defendants committed the violations charged and that, as a result of these violations, 

Defendants received ill-gotten gains; and enter judgments: 

I. 

Permanent Injunctions  

Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

them, and each of them, from directly or indirectly violating the federal securities 

laws alleged in this Complaint; and further permanently restraining and enjoining 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 30 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 31  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Ryn, his officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in 

active concert or participation with him, and each of them, 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 account. 

II. 

Disgorgement 

Ordering Defendants to disgorge on a joint and several basis, with prejudgment 

interest, the net profits they received from their ill-gotten gains as a result of the acts 

or courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint, pursuant to Section 21(d)(7) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)]. 

III. 

Penalties 

Ordering Defendants to pay on a joint and several basis civil penalties pursuant 

to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];  

IV. 

Officer and Director Bar 

Prohibiting Defendant Ryn from acting as an officer or director of any issuer 

that has a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12 of 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 31 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 32  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to 

Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78o(d)], 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)].]; and 

V. 

Further Relief 

Granting such other and further relief as the Court determines to be necessary 

and appropriate. 

VI. 

Retention of Jurisdiction 

Further, the Commission respectfully requests the Court retain jurisdiction over 

this action and over Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all 

orders and decrees that may hereby be entered, or to entertain any suitable application 

or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this 

Court. 

Dated:  February 6, 2023    Respectfully submitted, 

 
/s/  James M. Carlson    
JAMES M. CARLSON  
Supervisory Trial Counsel 
(DC Bar No. 981364) 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F. Street, NE 
Washington, DC  20549 
Tel: 202-551-3711  
Fax: 703-813-9314 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 32 of 33



  
 

COMPLAINT 33  

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Email:  [email protected] 
 
Counsel for Plaintiff Securities and 
Exchange Commission 

        
  

  

 

Case 2:23-cv-00191   Document 1   Filed 02/06/23   Page 33 of 33