SEC v. TIMOTHY J. ATKINSON; JAY PASSERINO; ALL IN PUBLISHING, LLC; WILLIAM E. BERRY; BERRY MEDIAWORKS, LLC; and SHMUEL POLLEN, No. 1:18-cv-23993, Southern District of Florida (Sept. 27, 2018) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. ____________-CIV-

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

                v.

TIMOTHY J. ATKINSON, JAY PASSERINO,
ALL IN PUBLISHING, LLC, WILLIAM E.
BERRY, BERRY MEDIAWORKS, LLC and
SHMUEL POLLEN,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”) alleges:
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
1. This case concerns U.S.-based marketers who engaged in a massive fraud
involving the offer and sale of securities called “binary options” through false, misleading and
otherwise deceptive videos, websites, and other forms of marketing promoted on the Internet and
disseminated via spam email to tens of millions of prospective investors in the U.S. and globally.
2. Beginning in at least October 2013 through at least November 2016 (“Relevant
Period”), Defendant Timothy Atkinson and his assistant, Defendant Jay Passerino, through their
firm, Defendant All In Publishing, LLC (“AIP”) (collectively, the “Marketing Defendants”),
conducted numerous marketing campaigns that fraudulently solicited and induced investors to
open and fund unregistered, off-exchange binary options trading accounts.  A binary option is a
financial instrument with a payoff value tied to the price of another financial asset, such as a

2

share of stock, but which gives the holder no right to purchase or sell such underlying asset.  In
offering these binary options, the Marketing Defendants acted as so-called “affiliate marketers,”
who typically sell a third party’s goods or services, often over the Internet, and receive a
commission for each sale.  Here, the Marketing Defendants promoted the purchase of binary
options securities from unregistered third-party brokers.
3. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns included professional videos that touted a
free software trading program running on autopilot that was supposedly capable of generating
large profits for investors who opened accounts on the instructions that followed the videos.
These videos purported to show actual investors and real results, including people enjoying rich
lifestyles achieved through binary options trading, and “live” demonstrations of people opening
and funding accounts in “real time” and seeing their trading balances increase automatically.
The participants in the videos insisted to viewers that these were actual events.
4. Yet what was depicted was entirely fiction.  Paid actors pretended to be recent
millionaires; fake testimonials claimed falsely that there was great wealth made by investing in,
and using the free trading software to purchase, binary options; and fabricated photos showed
only fictional account statements.  The “live” demonstrations of profitable trading were shams.
5. Samples of the Defendants’ videos may be viewed here:
https://www.sec.gov/video-exhibits-SEC-v-  Atkinson
.  The videos are incorporated into this
Complaint by reference as examples of the Defendants’ fraudulent materials.
6.  Atkinson wrote the scripts underlying the videos or paid Defendant Shmuel
Pollen, a New Jersey-based Internet scriptwriter, to create the scripts for use in these campaigns.
Atkinson then paid Defendant William Berry and his production firm, Defendant Berry
MediaWorks, LLC, to turn the scripts into videos.  Berry hired actors and rented expensive

3

homes, luxury cars and other props that supported the illusion that the videos’ participants had
accumulated great wealth by making the investment touted in the videos.
7. The Marketing Defendants created websites for each marketing campaign.  The
websites featured videos and visual materials from the videos, and operated as platforms for
recipients of spam and video viewers to be misled further by the Defendants’ scheme.  The
websites then funneled readers to “recommended” brokers for funding new accounts t o trade in
binary options.  The websites often misled investors to continue to believe, as featured in many
videos, that trading and profit-making would start automatically with the initial deposit of funds.
8. The Marketing Defendants received a flat commission from a broker, customarily
between approximately $350 and $450, for every investor who viewed their materials and then
opened and funded a binary options account for trading.  Over the Relevant Period, the
Marketing Defendants received millions in commissions from brokers.
9. Atkinson was part of an informal group of prominent binary options marketers in
the U.S. and abroad who coordinated their activities via an invitation-only Skype chat.   In these
chats, marketers announced their upcoming campaigns and agreed to disseminate each other’s
materials through their own email lists, thus vastly expanding the universe of possible investors
to be defrauded.  The Marketing Defendants paid their fellow marketers a commission each time
they sent AIP campaign materials to those who then opened and funded accounts.  As a result,
millions of prospective investors viewed the Marketing Defendants’ fraudulent promotional
materials.  The Marketing Defendants also participated for a commission in the campaigns of
their fellow marketers, earning substantial sums of additional money based on fraudulent
offering materials.  The Marketing Defendants disseminated the campaign materials of their

4

fellow marketers to their own email lists and received a flat commission from fellow marketers
for every recipient of those emails who then opened and funded accounts for trading.
10. As a result of these campaigns, approximately 50,000 investors deposited with
brokers an aggregate of approximately $12.5 million to initially fund accounts to trade binary
options.  After initially funding accounts, investors were often fraudulently induced by brokers to
deposit even more funds.  Most investors eventually lost most or all of their money, with total
losses in at least the tens of millions of dollars.
11. In their private Skype chats, Atkinson and other marketers ridiculed investors who
traded binary options based on their marketing materials, calling the investors demeaning names.
In one May 2014 chat, Atkinson laughingly talked about raising “charity” for customers who lost
money investing in binary options.  Atkinson asked another marketer, Antonio Giacca, if he had
started a charity “for all the fallen customers of your last offer?  Customers Come First Fund?”
Giacca replied, “[D]oing a fund raiser for them, to put them back on track, so we can scam them
again.”  Atkinson replied, “LOL exactly!”  Giacca responded, “[T]he whole idea is to show them
that there is hope, then take it all away one time lol.” Atkinson answered, “[J]ust ONE more time
hahahaha . . . love the slogan son!”
12. By virtue of this conduct and other conduct described in this Complaint, the
Marketing Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a),  and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934
(the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.  The
Marketing Defendants were substantial participants in an illegal offering or sale of unregistered
securities and also violated the registration provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. § 77e.  Defendant Atkinson is liable for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act

5

and Rule 10b-5 directly and also, under Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b),
for activities taken through or by means of AIP, Passerino, and fellow marketers who he enlisted
to publish his fraudulent campaigns.  Defendant Atkinson also violated Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 as a control person of AIP, and is liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. § 78t(a).  The Marketing Defendants are each further liable pursuant to Section 15(b) of
the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77o(b), and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, as aiders and
abettors of each other in fraud that violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and of such fraud by fellow marketers whose binary
options campaigns the Marketing Defendants substantially assisted in publicizing.
13. By writing scripts and making videos for and with knowledge of the Marketing
Defendants’ fraudulent binary options campaigns, and for and with knowledge of the fraudulent
binary options campaigns of others not named in this Complaint, Defendants Pollen and Berry
(and Berry Mediaworks), respectively, are liable pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act,
15 U.S.C. § 77o(b), and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(e), as aiders and
abettors of fraud in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.   Berry is further liable for violations of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 as a control person of Berry Mediaworks.
14. The Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary relief,
including, but not limited to, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions, and such other relief
as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.  Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court,
each of the Defendants is likely to continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged herein.

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. The Commission brings 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) & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1),
21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e)
& 78aa(a).  Defendants each have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the
activities alleged in this Complaint, including by making use of the Internet to offer securities
and sending or receiving interstate email and participating in interstate voice or video calls.
16. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act and
Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act because Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business
in the Southern District of Florida, and acts and transactions in violation of the federal securities
laws as alleged in this Complaint have occurred within this district, among other places.
DEFENDANTS
17. All In Publishing, LLC (“AIP”) was established as an Arizona limited liability
company in 2012.  On or about February 19, 2014, AIP became a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  During the Relevant Period,
Timothy Atkinson was the owner and president of AIP.
18. Timothy Joseph Atkinson (“Atkinson”), age 38, resides in Miami, Florida.
During the Relevant Period, he was the sole owner and president of AIP.  Atkinson was also a
signatory to and controlled AIP’s bank accounts, and controlled and supervised all AIP business.
19. Jay Passerino (“Passerino”), age 37, resides in Miami-Dade County and/or
Broward County, Florida.  During the Relevant Period, he lived and worked in Miami, Florida.
From January 2014 through approximately October 2016, he oversaw the day-to-day operations

7

of AIP, represented himself to others as the Vice President of AIP, and shared in AIP’s profits
for his services.  During the Relevant Period, Passerino was also a signatory to AIP’s bank
accounts and conducted AIP business in his own name and also in the name of an entity called
Gasher, Inc.  Passerino was described by Atkinson as Atkinson’s “right hand man” at AIP.
20. William E. Berry (“Berry”), age 59, resides in Portland, Oregon.  Berry directed,
edited, and produced videos used in marketing campaigns for binary options, including for
Atkinson, but also for other affiliate marketers fraudulently offering binary options to investors.
21. Berry Mediaworks, LLC (“BMW”) is  an Oregon limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Wilsonville, Oregon.  During the Relevant Period, Berry
directed and controlled BMW’s operations and billed many of his services through BMW.
22. Shmuel Pollen (“Pollen”), age 30, resides in Rockaway, New Jersey.  Pollen
wrote scripts for the video productions used in approximately eight affiliate marketing
campaigns for binary options, including scripts for six AIP campaigns.
FACTS
I. AFFILIATE MARKETING IN BINARY OPTIONS SECURITIES
23. Binary options are financial instruments with a value tied to the price of other
financial assets, including securities.  An investor chooses whether the underlying asset’s price
will be above or below a certain price at a particular time (e.g., will Apple stock be above $100
per share at 1 p.m. on a particular day).  The options are considered “binary” because they carry
only two possibilities: the investor whose prediction is correct makes money; the investor whose
prediction is incorrect loses the investment.  Unlike other types of options, a binary option does
not give the holder the right to purchase or sell the underlying asset—instead, it is “cash settled.”
24. Binary options referencing a security or securities within the meaning of Section
2(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1), and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act,

8

15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10), are themselves “securities” within the meaning of those provisions.
25.  “ Affiliate marketing” is a form of performance-based marketing primarily
conducted via email solicitations and promotional materials made available on Internet websites.
“Affiliate marketers” typically promote a product or service owned or provided by a third party
(e.g., a vendor.)   Affiliate marketers are paid a commission by the vendor when they induce
customers to buy the vendor’s product or service.  Here, binary options brokers paid the
Marketing Defendants a pre-set commission (typically $350 to $450) for each investor who
opened and funded a n account with those brokers after viewing fraudulent marketing materials.
II. THE FRAUDULENT OFFER OR SALE OF BINARY OPTIONS
26. During the Relevant Period, the Marketing Defendants launched, primarily
through AIP, at least twenty (20) affiliate marketing campaigns for binary options, including:
(1) Automated Income App (from at least late 2013/early 2014);
(2) Golden Goose Method (from at least January 2014 until at least March 2014);
(3) Push Button Millionaire ( from at least Feb. 2014 until at least Sept. 2015);
(4) Rock Star Commissions (from at least March 2014);
(5) Auto Money App (from at least June 2014 until at least July 2015);
(6) Cash Code (from at least June 2014 until at least April 2016);
(7) Free Money System (from at least June 2014);
(8) Free Money App ( from at least June 2014 until at least June 2015);
(9) Quick Cash System (from at least June 2014 until at least May 2016);
(10) Easy Money Machines ( from at least June 2014 until at least June 2015);
(11) Free Cash (from at least July 2014 until at least October 2015);
(12) Secret Millionaire Society (from at least Oct.  2014 until at least June 2015);
(13) Cash Software ( from at least October 2014 until at least December 2014);
(14) Push Button Commissions ( from at least Jan. 2015 until at least April 2015);
(15) Binary Cash Creator ( from at least May 2015);
(16) Free Millionaire System (from at least May 2015);
(17) Easy Money Method (from at least May 2015);
(18) Fast Cash (from at least October 2015 until at least June 2016);
(19) Push Money App (from at least June 2016  until at least October 2016); and
(20) Click Money System (from at least October 2016).

27. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns typically promoted free software,
applications, or trading systems (hereinafter “software”) that purported to successfully trade

9

automatically in binary options related to securities and other assets.  The Marketing Defendants
lured individuals in the marketing materials by promising free access to the software.
28. The touted software did not exist, or did not produce the results promised.  The
Marketing Defendants’ true goals were not to provide any such software but to earn commissions
via brokers by inducing prospective investors to open and fund a binary options trading account.
29. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns typically worked as follows:

10

30. Each marketing campaign for binary options conducted by the Marketing
Defendants included:  (1) a website; (2) at least one video; and (3) emails known as “swipes.”
Each of these components included materially false or misleading statements and artifices or
devices designed to elicit interest and deceive recipients with false appearances of fact, so
recipients would open and fund binary options trading accounts and earn the Marketing
Defendants substantial commissions from the brokers.  The Marketing Defendants knowingly
used these three components in their marketing campaigns, and they did so with knowledge of
their false, misleading and deceptive nature.
A. Marketing Defendants’ Websites
31. In each campaign, the Marketing Defendants sent bulk email solicitations
designed to entice recipients to click an embedded electronic link in the email that routed the
user to the corresponding binary options campaign website.   The websites served as the vehicles
through which the Marketing Defendants carried out their binary options campaigns.  The
Marketing Defendants paid for and registered the domain names associated with each website,
which generally included some variation of the campaign name, e.g., http://automoneyapp.com.
32. Passerino (or others that Passerino oversaw) had primary responsibility for
creating and formatting websites, registering the campaign website domains, setting up the
hosting mechanism, uploading the Marketing Defendants’ content, and managing the technical
aspects of the campaign.  Passerino also ensured that the links on website pages correctly
directed interested persons to the campaign videos and ultimately to broker pages.  Atkinson
usually tested the functionality of the campaign websites.  Passerino was primarily responsible
for sending out the spam emails containing each campaign’s website to prospective investors.

11

33. The AIP campaigns’ websites generally contained multiple webpages.  One page
contained a streaming video, along with a field for entry of a name and email address.  The
Marketing Defendants mined that personal data to add to their email lists for future spamming.
34. Other webpages often included other videos about the trading software and forms
to register or open a binary options account with specific “recommended” brokers.  These
webpages emphasized the import of opening and funding the accounts.  A webpage for the AIP
campaign, “Push Button Commissions,” for example, said the broker account was “essential for
success,” as the software was “coded to work directly with this broker.”
35. New accounts could be opened through the webpages registered and hosted by the
Marketing Defendants, but controlled by selected brokers or intermediaries.
36. The Marketing Defendants’ websites typically said that a minimum of $250 was
required to activate the software, but they encouraged investors to provide more, saying “the
more you deposit the better your profit will be.”
37. The AIP website pages f requently stated that the individual would be trading
binary options, and also made clear that the trading would occur automatically upon funding the
account.   For example, the Push Button Commissions website stated that the software “will do
EVERYTHING for you to make a profit.”  It added:  “As soon as you have made your deposit
with the broker, the APP will activate, start trading and begin making you instant profits . . . .”
38. AIP websites also included so-called “disclaimers” that themselves were false and
misleading.   Website disclaimers for the binary options campaign, “Push Money App,” for
example, said that all persons portrayed in the videos were “real and verified;” that the video
showed actual “examples” of trading results; that the industry was “one of the few where one can

12

write their own check in terms of earnings;” and that “[a]ny claims made of actual earnings or
examples of actual results can be verified upon request.”  None of that was true.
B. Marketing Defendants’ Fraudulent Videos
39. The Marketing Defendants’ binary option websites each contained at least one
streaming video about the trading product.   They created or procured videos for most of the
binary options marketing campaigns that they launched on their own, and they intentionally or
recklessly included materially false or misleading statements in the videos that they streamed, in
order to trick viewers into opening and funding accounts with brokers.
40. Atkinson often bragged about the quality of these videos and their realistic nature,
and referred to them as “movies.”  Atkinson wrote the scripts underlying the videos or retained
Defendant Pollen to do so.   Pollen wrote at least six scripts for the Marketing Defendants and
two additional scripts for other binary options affiliate marketers.  Atkinson reviewed Pollen’s
scripts, often made edits, and approved the final version.
41. For each campaign, Atkinson or Pollen created a story about the advertised
trading system and success stories from people who supposedly used the software system.  The
scripts purported to describe real events, but the statements in the scripts were complete fiction.
The events were not based on actual events; instead, they told made-up stories experienced by
make-believe people.  When Atkinson retained Pollen to write a script, he provided Pollen with a
general fictional story idea and directed him to use extreme hyperbole in creating a full script.
The scripts also uniformly contained false and misleading statements about profits, risk of loss,
the system’s functionality and performance.  The software systems as described did not exist.
42. Pollen knew or recklessly failed to know that his scripts were false and
misleading.  He also knew that the Marketing Defendants would use his scripts to create videos

13

they would disseminate to prospective investors.   Pollen was concerned enough about his role
that he used a pen name, “Mike Williams,” to conceal his involvement in writing these scripts.
During the Relevant Period, Atkinson paid Pollen approximately $85,000 for scripts.
43. The Marketing Defendants provided finished scripts to Berry and retained Berry
and BMW to create videos from those scripts.  Berry created at least eighteen (18) videos for the
Marketing Defendants’ binary options campaigns.  Affiliate marketers viewed Berry as the “go
to guy” for high-quality videos that increased the likelihood of success in their solicitations.
Berry produced videos for at least sixty-four (64) separate fraudulent binary options marketing
campaigns launched by various marketers, including the Marketing Defendants.
44. Berry’s videos typically followed the scripts created by Atkinson or Pollen (or if
not Atkinson or Pollen, his other clients).  Berry knew that the underlying scripts were fiction
and knew that his videos based on those scripts were false and misleading to prospective
investors.  Berry also knew that the Marketing Defendants disseminated these videos to induce
prospective investors to open and fund accounts and trade binary options.
45. Atkinson had substantial input into Berry’s videos.  Atkinson often provided
Berry with certain false images that were included in the videos, selected the setting or location
for the shoot, and chose the actors.  Atkinson reviewed the videos and approved the final copies.
46. At Atkinson’s direction, Passerino uploaded the final copies onto the websites for
AIP’s campaigns.  Passerino knew that each video was materially false and misleading and did
not reflect actual results when he posted them online and disseminated emails linking to them.
47. The Marketing Defendants, Pollen and Berry purposefully created the scripts and
videos used in AIP campaigns to be deceptive or misleading.  They incorporated various devices
in the scripts and videos to create the false perception that they were describing actual events.

14

1. Actors, Props and Claims of “Real” Profits
48. None of the Marketing Defendants’ binary options videos involved real users or
creators of the advertised system.  Instead, the videos featured actors who described themselves
as inventors or owners of the software and who served as hosts of the stories.  They told how
they supposedly came to invent or acquire the software, which ran on autopilot and provided
them millions of dollars, and guaranteed that viewers would enjoy similar results.
49. As scripted, the actors brazenly lied about their roles and the fictional story lines,
insisting that scenes shown in the videos were actual events.  An actor in the video for the
campaign “Secret Millionaire Society” said, for example:
•  “See, anyone can throw numbers around and whip up some proof shots.
All the scammers do it.  This isn’t that.  This is a completely different
playing field.  And you’re going to see real proof . . . you can’t deny . . .
and . . . in a way you’ve never seen before in your life.”

• “Everything I’m about to tell you is 100% real and was experienced by me
firsthand.”

Those statements, and many like them in other videos, were false.
50. Pollen made up the characters’ names in his scripts — sometimes using a
“random name generator” available on Google.
51. The Marketing Defendants, Pollen, and Berry incorporated lavish, movie-style
props in the scripts and videos in order to mislead viewers into believing that the characters
enjoyed rich lifestyles because of their success trading binary options.  Atkinson or Pollen
specified the type of props to use, and Berry rented those items – mansions, luxury vehicles, a
private jet – from third parties for purposes of creating the videos.

15

2. False “Live Trading Results”
52. Marketing Defendants’ videos purported to show actual trading results achieved
in “real time.”   For example, Berry produced the video for the binary options campaign “Cash
Code,” which was hosted by “Robert Allan.”  The video showed a “live” video of Allan’s
account balance with big red letters across the screen, “LIVE ONLINE PROOF.”  Allan said he
“just” deposited $250 “risk-free” into his account and he will “show you the money it makes
LIVE over the next 60 seconds.  We can back up every word we say with real life results.”  The
video then showed the account balance increasing eleven times in under one minute before
settling at $356,910.  Allan, however, was a fictional character portrayed by an actor, and there
was no trading account or any trading profits from Cash Code.  Instead, Berry fabricated the
trading result “proof” displayed in the video at Atkinson’s request.
53. Similarly, the video for the AIP campaign “Push Money App” told a supposed
running story concerning a group of “beta testers” invited to try the newest “PMA” trading
system.   The video showed these beta testers “registering” new brokerage accounts on their
laptops, which Berry filmed by incorporating “fake clicking” sounds to simulate typing on
keyboards.  The beta testers then refreshed their accounts and, in 60 seconds, supposedly saw
small profits in “real” time.  The video later fast-forwarded to a party some months later, when
these same beta testers – now wearing more expensive clothing – celebrated their newfound
wealth resulting from using the trading software.  Each claimed to have a bank account ranging
from $600,000 to $1 million. In reality, the beta-testers were actors and there was no live trading.
Atkinson wrote the scripts for the Push Money App campaign.

16

3. False Proof & Testimonials
54. Marketing Defendants’ videos typically included fake “testimonials” in which
purported past users of the advertised trading systems told how they supposedly came to receive
large profits – indeed, some were now supposedly millionaires – by using the promoted software.
They described how the software had generated profits automatically and how their newfound
wealth had changed their lives.
55. Atkinson wrote or directed Pollen to include such fake testimonials in scripts.
Berry used images from the Internet to create fake photos of account balances that he included in
his videos to support these testimonials.  For example:
• The Push Money App video included false images of investors holding
checks reflecting supposed Push Money App profits – “Pamela Reid,”
$45,091.72; “Allen Squires,” $85,783.49; “Jack Harwick,” $129,912.21.

• The video for “Free Money System” included people saying they became
millionaires in three months and screenshots of false bank and PayPal
accounts;

• In the video for “Fast Cash,” a 61-year-old army veteran named Gordon
Powers claimed he deposited $250 in his trading account and, ten minutes
later, saw more than $11,000 in his account.

56. Atkinson knew that such testimonials were false but incorporated them in his
videos because he knew they were persuasive and provided supposed “objective proof” to
viewers that the software was real.  In one Skype chat, Atkinson urged other binary options
marketers to make extreme claims in their marketing materials because they would result in more
sales.  Atkinson said he “just spent 3 months crafting an offer . . . with crazy social proof etc.,”
adding that the best approach was to “show the software making trades and making money.”   In
another Skype chat, Atkinson bragged to his marketer colleagues about trying to “scam”
investors with “18 fake testimonials.”

17

57. Pollen, who drafted certain testimonials, also knew they were false.  In fabricating
dollar amounts in his testimonials, Pollen intentionally used specific amounts – down to the
penny – because he viewed them as more realistic.
58. Berry also knew the testimonials in his videos were fake.  At times Berry
juxtaposed pictures of people he copied from the Internet next to quotes attesting to their
purported experience with the software to create the illusion of attribution to a real person.  He
created dozens of fake bank and trading statements for the Push Money App video that was
ultimately disseminated to millions of prospective investors.  Berry also at times re-used bank
and trading account statements from prior projects.
4. False Guarantees of Profits
59. In addition to showing purported profits from these binary options trading
programs, Marketing Defendants’ videos falsely depicted that profitable trading had occurred
100 percent of the time and guaranteed a similar success rate going forward.  For example:
• The “Secret Millionaire Society” video stated:  “And when you do get to
the end of this video, you will also be rewarded with a guaranteed $1000
in your first 60 seconds and $10,000 in your first two days for free . . .
You never lose . . .  the money will just grow and grow.”

• The “ Cash Code” video stated: “And our success rate? It’s pretty clear.
It’s 100% accuracy.  All of our clients are financially independent within
60 days of using this system . . .  on average.”  Later, the video said:  “a
system either works or it doesn’t.  And if it works . . . it works every time.
And this one works.  Period.”

• The “Auto Money App” campaign video promised: “All you need to do is
. . . fill in your contact details . . . deposit $250, and within sixty seconds,
watch your $250 investment turn into $400 . . . then from $400 to $15,000
in your first week, six figures in your first month, and over a million by
day 90.  This is real money that will be in your bank account as soon as
you complete the last step.”

18

5. Falsely Describing Trading Systems as Automated Trading
60. The Marketing Defendants’ videos also claimed that trading profits resulted
“automatically.”  For example, “Auto Money App” claimed: “My system trades binary options
for you on complete autopilot.  You only have to push one button to make money and you
actually earn money in 60 seconds.”  Similarly, the “Fast Cash” video said: “We make hundreds
of dollars and even thousands of dollars every 60 seconds on autopilot with the Fast Cash Biz.”
61. However, the trading systems as described in the Marketing Defendants’
campaigns did not exist.  If any software existed, it was not programmed to auto-trade accounts
but rather to provide trading signals from which users could make trading decisions themselves.
6. False Statements that Individuals Must Act Quickly
62. To create a false urgency to open and fund accounts, the Marketing Defendants’
videos also falsely claimed that the opportunity to use the trading software was limited and that
viewers needed to act at once.   For example, an actor in “Cash Code” claimed that the link to the
video was sent to only a limited number of individuals, that they accept only 10 people per day,
and the “button” to register is only available for ten minutes.
63. In fact, no such limitations existed.   Pollen, at Atkinson’s direction or at least
with his approval, purposely included a “squeeze” or fake limited availability and time restriction
in his scripts to create a sense of urgency for prospective investors to invest.
C. Marketing Defendants’ Fraudulent Emails
64. The third fraudulent component of the Marketing Defendants’ binary options
marketing campaigns was emails.  The Marketing Defendants widely disseminated their binary
options campaigns to millions of email addresses.  The Marketing Defendants often used email
lists that targeted recipients who they believed would be most receptive to their fraud scheme.

19

65. The Marketing Defendants wrote or hired Pollen and others to write short targeted
emails (called “swipes”) for their campaigns, primarily to prod individuals who received the
initial solicitation but did not immediately open and fund a new trading account.
66. Atkinson retained and directed Pollen and other writers to create false email
swipes about the trading software that would lure individuals to review the marketing materials.
67. For example, in or about June 2014, Atkinson retained the services of a
copywriter to generate swipes for the Free Money System campaign.  He explained to the
copywriter that the Free Money System was “about making free money from a system that trades
binary options” and directed the copywriter: “We want hypey spam emails . . . Try to create
subject lines that trick people to open the emails ..[.] Then short, precise swipes to get them to
click thru.  That is our goal.”  The copywriter then wrote at least ten such emails.  Atkinson
forwarded these emails (along with his emails to the copywriter that referred to tricking people)
to Passerino, directing Passerino to post the spam emails for dissemination by sub-affiliates.
68. These emails included such false statements as,
• “Have you heard of [sic] new free money system that created over 150
millionaires? ... And get this – most of them made their first million in
only 90 days”;

• “My millionaire buddy is literally giving away $648 (and you’re also
going to learn about the free money system he used to bank over
$850K in profit within 90 days)”;

• “I’ve used this FREE money system and made over $6,500 in the last
72 hours. And that’s without paying a single dime”;

• “So I signed up for this free money system a few weeks ago and since
then ... I’ve somehow banked over $100K in profits ... All I know is
my bank account keeps on growing bigger and I barely have to do any
work...”; and

• “Our software will only be available for FREE for a limited time - as
of now, there is only 5 more free slots available.”

20

69. The Marketing Defendants created and/or procured similarly deceptive email
swipes for each binary options campaign.  Some campaigns used as many as approximately one
hundred different fraudulent email swipes to send to prospective investors.
70. Some email swipes created the false impression that they originated from the
individuals (but who in fact were fictional) depicted in the Marketing Defendants’ videos.  These
emails fooled prospective investors by making the solicitation appear persuasive and credible.
The swipes also uniformly contained false and misleading statements about the trading software.
71. For example, on or about February 23, 2016, an email sent to prospects was
purportedly signed by the founders of the fake Push Money App company.  That email contained
numerous false statements, including:
We have just closed a special deal with one of our major brokers.
Everyone that registers their PM App today gets a matching
deposit bonus . . . up to $10k if you’re so fortunate . . .  Just in the
past 24 hrs the PM App has made the new members a combined
$118,927.36.  Just in the last 24hrs!  My friend, you are missing
out on serious money if you haven’t activated your app yet.  I
know last year you were scammed with the Binary Options bots.
Trust me, this is not one of those scams.  Not even close.  PMA
Company received the Most Profitable Trading System award at
the NY convention of 2015.  Yes we are a real, legit company that
really wants to help you become filthy rich.

In fact, the Marketing Defendants sent out that email, not any founder of a trading app company;
the trading results of purported users in the email were fake; there were no “beta testers” or any
2015 convention; and there was never a company called PMA Company.
72. Later, in May 2016, the Marketing Defendants again provided prospective
investors with false and misleading email swipes, again purportedly from Push Money App
founders.   A swipe received by one prospective investor, a disabled veteran living on disability
payments, reminded him to fund his trading account “to make possibly 7 figures in 180 days just

21

like our first group of beta testers!”  Another swipe stressed the software’s “limited availability”
and urged the recipient to fund his account “so you’ll be able to start making money right away.”
73. Solicitation materials used by the Marketing Defendants frequently depicted
trading account screenshots with trading by the software, or trading available through the
account or the software, in security assets or binary options that reference security assets.   For
example, the Automated Income App, Free Money System, and Push Money App videos
combined showed nearly a dozen screenshots of trading accounts through which the supposed
software and user could trade binary options with reference to stocks and indices.
III. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS RECRUITED OTHER AFFILIATE
MARKETERS TO DISSEMINATE THEIR FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGNS

74. During the Relevant Period, the Marketing Defendants were among various other
affiliate marketers, in the U.S. and elsewhere, who created and disseminated such marketing
materials as described in this Complaint.  The Marketing Defendants and these other affiliates
depended on each other to “support” their respective campaigns through email spams, in order to
reach as many prospective investors as possible.   The affiliate who launched a new campaign
essentially paid other affiliates to spam the new campaign’s marketing materials to these other
affiliates’ email lists, which vastly broadened the number of persons who received the materials.
Such email lists ranged   from thousands to millions of email addresses.  When a third-party
affiliate spammed another affiliate’s launch, the third-party affiliate was called a “sub-affiliate.”
75. Atkinson and other major affiliate marketers for binary options, in the U.S. and
abroad, coordinated their campaigns by speaking via an invitation-only Skype chat.  The
members of this loose confederation used an Internet “calendar” system to coordinate the
scheduling of marketing campaigns, ensuring that they did not launch competing campaigns on
the same date.  As launch dates approached, an a ffiliate announced his upcoming campaign on

22

Skype and asked his colleagues in fraud (in a “sub-affiliate” role) to support his campaign by
emailing potential investors.  The affiliate marketer provided his marketing materials to sub-
affiliates to spam prospective investors.  The affiliate launching a new campaign typically shared
his commissions with those sub-affiliates who successfully induced a prospect in the sub-
affiliates’ email lists to open and fund a trading account at the affiliate’s broker.
76. Using the Skype chat, Atkinson recruited sub-affiliates to spam AIP’s latest
binary options campaigns.  Atkinson offered to pay sub-affiliates a commission of approximately
$250-$300 each time a person, after receiving AIP marketing materials from a sub-affiliate,
opened and funded an account with the campaign’s recommended broker.
77. Atkinson also ran contests that offered prizes to the most successful sub-affiliates,
to create incentives for their continued spamming.  The Marketing Defendants r egularly paid
thousands of dollars as prizes in these contests and in at least one instance awarded a Rolex
watch to the winner.
78. Passerino provided the false and misleading swipes to the sub-affiliates to use in
their emails.  Passerino monitored the effectiveness of AIP campaigns and the effectiveness of
the sub-affiliates in spamming AIP’s campaigns to prospective investors.
79. The Marketing Defendants, directly and indirectly through sub-affiliates, and as
part of the approximately twenty (20) binary options campaigns they launched, disseminated
tens of millions of emails to prospective investors containing false and misleading information.
IV. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS ALSO ACTED AS “SUB-AFFILIATES”
BY SPAMMING OTHER MARKETERS’ BINARY OPTIONS CAMPAIGNS

80. In addition to launching their own campaigns, Marketing Defendants acted as
“sub-affiliates” during the Relevant Period and disseminated fraudulent solicitations in the U.S.

23

and abroad for approximately fourteen (14) fraudulent binary options campaigns launched by
other marketers.  These campaigns included at least the following nine known by name:
(1) Autobitcoin Cash (from at least February 2014);
(2) Binary Pilot (from at least about February 2014);
(3) Daily Binary Profit/Binary Profits Daily (from at least March 2014);
(4) Income Rush (from at least March 2014);
(5) Profit Partners (from at least March 2014);
(6) Easy Profits (from at least March 2014);
(7) Money Platform (from at least January 2015);
(8) Copy Op (from at least February 2015 until at least May 2015); and
(9) Copy Trade Profit (from at least April 2015).
81. These binary options campaigns worked like the campaigns the Marketing
Defendants themselves launched, including by deceiving potential investors through a website,
one or more videos, and various email swipes.
82. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, the
campaigns they participated in as sub-affiliates routinely included materially false or misleading
information or artifices or devices designed to elicit interest and deceive recipients with either
false statements or false appearances of fact.
83. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, t hese
campaigns typically touted “free” and “automatic” trading with software that did not exist,
offered false guarantees of extraordinary profits by trading, and used false proof in the form of
fabricated account statements, fictitious “live” demonstrations, and fake testimonials.
84. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, the true
goal of these campaigns was not to provide any such software or trading systems that worked as
claimed but rather to earn commissions through “recommended” brokers by inducing individuals
to open and fund a binary options trading account.

24

85. When acting as a sub-affiliate for other marketers’ campaigns, the Marketing
Defendants received commissions for each person to whom they sent the affiliate’s marketing
materials, and who opened and funded an account.  The Marketing Defendants also frequently
earned prizes based on their performance, including thousands of dollars and/or in kind rewards.
86. The Marketing Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the
materials they disseminated as sub-affiliates were false, misleading and deceptive.  Atkinson
even joked with other affiliates about mailing out their solicitations knowing they were “scams.”
87. Passerino was responsible for sending out emails when the Marketing Defendants
acted as a sub-affiliate for other’s campaigns.  Marketing Defendants, primarily by Passerino,
sent thousands of solicitation emails when acting as sub-affiliates for binary options campaigns.
V. ATKINSON DISPARAGED INVESTORS IN SKYPE CHATS
88. In their Skype chats, Atkinson and other binary options marketers ridiculed
individuals who opened and funded accounts with binary options brokers after watching the
marketers’ videos.  In one example, an April 2015 chat, Atkinson and other marketers joked
about the fraudulent nature of recent binary options campaigns.  One marketer referred to the
latest binary offer, sarcastically, “[H]ow come it now takes 30 days to become a millionaire?  last
(sic) time it was only 7 . . . and [A]ntonio [Giacca] promises it in 60 seconds!”  Atkinson replied,
“[H]ahaha . . . that is some funny shit lol . . . we could call these scams anything and they will
buy it.”  In another Skype, Atkinson mocked U.S. recipients of his fraudulent solicitations as
“stupid” and bragged, “I guess that’s why I love living here easy scammin [(sic)] [.]”
89. Atkinson referred to his binary options marketing scheme as “like the Holy
Grail,” “because we can make any claims we want and it’s not on us, it’s on the broker.”  He told
a network of his sub-affiliates on one of his campaigns, “  - I invested over $50,000 on the sales

25

videos.  - I'm giving away $100,000 in cash prizes. -   C utting edge sales funnel.  -   Hired a big gun
just for this and boy he rocks!  .... I feel like Kayne West when he creates music. He gets all the
best minds in music in the world to his studio to help him. I took this same approach with this
offer.  With the Binary market unstable I wanted to make sure we all cashed in BIG before the
wave crumbles and crashes. I have put all my chips in on this offer .... Let’s all milk this binary
wave while we can and let my new CRAZY offer help reach your income goals for 2015.”
90. But in testimony during the Commission’s investigation, Atkinson claimed
(falsely) to know nearly nothing about binary options, the brokers involved in payments to him,
or what triggered payment to AIP.  He claimed (falsely) that his videos were a function of his
artistic vision, not efforts to sell binary options.  He claimed that his chat messages were jokes.
VI. PASSERINO BRAGGED THEY WERE CROOKS, THEN TOOK THE FIFTH
91. Passerino bragged to other marketers about his role at AIP: “Tim doesn’t pay me,
I pay him . . . latr!!!!!crooksssss”.  Yet during the investigation leading to this Complaint, the
Commission subpoenaed Passerino to give testimony under oath about his role and such
statements as this one.  Passerino was asked numerous questions about his involvement in
disseminating binary options campaigns and in the activities of Atkinson and AIP.  Passerino
declined to answer the questions asked of him in testimony by invoking his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination.
VII. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS OFTEN COORDINATED WITH
BINARY OPTIONS BROKERS THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY

92. The Marketing Defendants’ profits depended on individuals opening and funding
accounts with the binary options brokers identified in the marketing materials; the Marketing
Defendants received commissions only if customers opened and deposited funds in those

26

brokers’ accounts.   If customers received the AIP campaign materials and did not open and fund
an account, the Marketing Defendants received nothing.
93. Instead of coordinating their campaigns directly with brokers, the Marketing
Defendants worked with a broker intermediary that maintained direct relationships with binary
options marketers and brokers.  The broker intermediary coordinated with the Marketing
Defendants and brokers to launch marketing campaigns that would result in large numbers of
individuals opening and funding new binary options accounts with those brokers.
94. For example, the broker intermediary selected the “recommended” brokers
identified on the Marketing Defendants’ campaigns and directed individuals to particular brokers
to open accounts and begin binary options trading.  The intermediary also worked with brokers
to ensure that their sales representatives personally solicited persons who received the Marketing
Defendants’ videos but did not immediately open accounts, to encourage them to fund accounts
and begin trading.   The broker intermediary also worked to ensure that brokers used the
Marketing Defendants’ fraudulent marketing materials to re-solicit these prospects via email and
sales calls.  For example, before the Marketing Defendants launched a new marketing campaign,
the intermediary disseminated links to the campaign website to brokers with instructions for
them to watch the video before contacting prospective investors.
95. The broker intermediary also handled Marketing Defendants’ commission
payments.   Brokers paid the Marketing Defendants approximately $350 to $450 each time
someone who received the Marketing Defendants’ videos and materials opened and funded a
new trading account.  The broker intermediary received those funds from the brokers and made
the commission payments to the Marketing Defendants.

27

96. None of the brokers with whom the Marketing Defendants indirectly worked was
registered with the Commission in any capacity.  None of the their products, the binary options
securities offered or sold to investors who were brought to these unregistered brokers by the
Marketing Defendants, were registered as securities with the Commission.
97. Additionally, on at least two occasions, a broker intermediary provided Marketing
Defendants with binary options videos that contained materially false and misleading statements.
Defendants intentionally or recklessly included and disseminated this false or misleading
information as part of their marketing campaigns.
VIII. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS TRIED TO COVER THEIR TRACKS
98. In or about October or November 2016, the Marketing Defendants removed
and/or disabled access to AIP’s binary options campaign websites.
99. In or about October or November 2016, the Marketing Defendants deleted and/or
otherwise destroyed videos, emails, websites, and other documents and communications related
to binary options, including Skype communications and materials related to Facebook.
100. The Marketing Defendants took these steps after they received a subpoena from
the Commission requesting binary options campaign communications and documents.
IX. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS SCAMMED TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF INDIVIDUALS, EARNING THEMSELVES MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
101. Between October 2013 and June 2016, AIP’s financial accounts received
approximately twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) resulting from the Marketing
Defendants’ affiliate marketing activities, including, and primarily, fraudulent binary options
solicitations.  The Marketing Defendants received payments from brokers, broker intermediaries,
payment processors, and affiliate networks, among others.  A portion of these earnings stemmed
from their role as sub-affiliates for other fraudulent binary options campaigns.

28

102. Between October 2013 and October 2016, AIP deposited over one million and
eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) into a bank account in the name of Gasher, Inc.
This account was controlled by Passerino, who controlled Gasher.
103. Between January 2014 and June 2016, at least 68,000 persons opened and funded
binary options trading accounts in connection with the Marketing Defendants’ campaigns.
104. The amount of money individuals deposited when opening a new account varied.
Generally, customers were required to deposit at least $250 initially.  Therefore, the 68,000
accounts opened between January 2014 and June 2016, resulted in deposits of at least $17
million in trading accounts after making it through Defendants’ deceptive binary options funnels.
105. The amount of total deposits and losses was much higher as brokers continued to
solicit prospective investors to deposit additional funds, often relying on the Marketing
Defendants’ marketing materials to do so.
106. Tens of millions of individuals received Defendants’ fraudulent solicitations.  For
example, in less than 3 weeks, the Push Money App website had over 2 million visitors and the
campaign generated commissions for the Marketing Defendants for almost nine months.
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
(against all Marketing Defendants)

107. Paragraphs 1 -106 are realleged   and incorporated by reference herein.
108. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct
described above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of means or
instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails:

29

(a)  with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
(b)  obtained money or property by means of 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; or
(c)  engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or
would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
109. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless
enjoined will again violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
(against all Marketing Defendants)

110. Paragraphs 1 -106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
111. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct
described above, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, by
the use of means or instrumentalities or interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a
national securities exchange, with scienter:
(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.

30

112. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless
enjoined will again 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.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unregistered Offer or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act
(against all Marketing Defendants)

113. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
114. No registration statement had been filed or was in effect for any of the security-
based binary options offered or sold through the Marketing Defendants’ marketing campaigns.
115. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct
described above, directly or indirectly, made use of means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or to sell such securities.
116. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless
enjoined will again violate, Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud In Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
By or Through Means of Others;
Violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act
(Against Atkinson)

117. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
118. Atkinson with scienter created and disseminated such marketing materials as
described above by and through the means of others and in the various manners described above.
119. Atkinson, for example, enlisted sub-affiliates to spam his and AIP’s materially
false and misleading binary options campaign materials to tens of thousands of prospective
investors.  He offered to pay sub-affiliates for each time a prospect, after receiving materials

31

from a sub-affiliate, opened and funded a binary options account with the campaign’s
recommended broker.  He also ran contests that offered prizes to the most successful sub-
affiliates, to create incentives for further disseminating these fraudulent campaigns.
120. Atkinson, by exercising control of, or providing directives or incentives to,  AIP
and Passerino, also disseminated materially false and misleading binary options marketing
materials by and through AIP and Passerino.  Atkinson controlled, directed, or incentivized the
dissemination of such materials by and through AIP and Passerino both that he created or caused
to be created and that other affiliate marketers created and then provided to him or AIP for
dissemination (that is, where he/AIP acted on others’ campaigns a s a sub-affiliate marketer).
121. By reason of the foregoing, Atkinson directly or indirectly engaged in acts and
things which it would be unlawful for Atkinson to do under 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, by and through the means
of other persons, in violation of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b).  Unless
enjoined, Atkinson will again violate Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
(Against all Marketing Defendants)

122. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
123. The Marketing Defendants each violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. § 77q(a).  The Marketing Defendants also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial
assistance to each of the other Marketing Defendants’ violations of Section 17(a) and knowingly
or recklessly provided substantial assistance to violations of Section 17(a) by other affiliate
marketers launching the fraudulent binary options campaigns identified in this Complaint.

32

124. By reason of the foregoing, Section 15(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §
77o(b), deems each of the Marketing Defendants to be in violation of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided, and unless
enjoined, each of them will again aid and abet violations of Section 17(a)
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
(Against all Marketing Defendants)

125. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
126. The Marketing Defendants each violated 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.  The Marketing Defendants
also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to each of the other Marketing
Defendants’ violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and knowingly or recklessly provided
substantial assistance to violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by other affiliate marketers
launching the fraudulent binary options campaigns identified in this Complaint.
127. By reason of the foregoing, Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §
78t(e), deems each of the Marketing Defendants to be in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was
provided.  Unless enjoined, each of them will again aid and abet violations of those provisions.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Control Person Liability for Violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by AIP
(against Atkinson)

128. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

33

129. When AIP violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder (including directly and as an aider and abettor of violations) and Section
20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b), Atkinson directly or indirectly controlled AIP.
130. Atkinson induced directly or indirectly the acts constituting AIP’s violations and
cannot establish that he acted in good faith and was not a culpable participant in the violations.
131. By reason of the foregoing, Atkinson is jointly and severally liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), with and to the same extent as AIP for
AIP’s violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Unless
enjoined, Atkinson will again act as a control person of AIP in connection with such violations.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
(Against Pollen, Berry and BWM)

132. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
133. Pollen, Berry,  and BMW each knowingly or recklessly provided substantial
assistance to violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), by the
Marketing Defendants.  Berry and BWM each also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial
assistance to violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by other affiliate marketers
launching fraudulent binary options campaigns, in addition to the Marketing Defendants.
134. By reason of the foregoing, Section 15(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §
77o(b), deems each of them to be in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act to the same
extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided.  Unless enjoined, Pollen, Berry and
BMW will again aid and abet violations of Section 17(a).

34

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
(Against Pollen, Berry and BMW)
135. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
136. Pollen, Berry, and BMW each knowingly or recklessly provided substantial
assistance to violations of 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, by the Marketing Defendants.  Berry and BWM each also
knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by other affiliate marketers launching fraudulent binary options
campaigns, in addition to the Marketing Defendants.
137. By reason of the foregoing, Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §
78t(e), deems each of them to be in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided.  Unless enjoined,
Pollen, Berry and BMW will again aid and abet violations of those provisions.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Control Person Liability for Violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by BMW
(against Berry)

138. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
139. When BMW violated 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 (as an aider and abettor of violations of the
Marketing Defendants and of other marketers),  Berry directly or indirectly controlled BMW.
140. Berry induced directly or indirectly the acts constituting BMW’s violations and
cannot establish that he acted in good faith and was not a culpable participant in the violations.

35

141. By reason of the foregoing, Berry is jointly and severally liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), with and to the same extent as BMW for
its deemed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Unless enjoined, he
will again act as a control person of BMW in connection with such violations.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
a) Find that Defendants committed the alleged violations;
b) Order Defendants to disgorge, with prejudgment interest, all ill-gotten gains
he or it received or derived from the activities set forth in this Complaint, and to repatriate
any ill-gotten funds or assets he or it caused to be sent overseas;
c) Order Defendants to pay civil penalties under 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);
d) Order Defendant Atkinson and Defendant Berry liable for the liabilities of his
entity, Defendant AIP or Defendant BMW, respectively, as control persons;
e) Order all Defendants prohibited from, directly or indirectly, including through
any entity he owns or control, participating in the marketing, offer or sale of securities over
the Internet or by email or other forms of electronic communication;
f) Permanently enjoin Defendants Atkinson, Passerino, and AIP from directly or
indirectly violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e & 77q(a),
and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78t(b), and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5;

36

g) Permanently enjoin Defendants Pollen, Berry,  and BMW from directly or
indirectly violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and 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;
h) Retain jurisdiction over this action in order to implement and carry out the
terms of all orders and decrees that it may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or
motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court; and
i) Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary or appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

 The Commission demands a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a jury.

Dated:  September 27, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth W. Donnelly

Kenneth W. Donnelly (trial counsel)
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (202) 551-4946

Attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20549-5949
Tel. (202) 551-6000
Fax (202) 772-9282
Of Counsel:

Jennifer A. Leete
Michael S. Fuchs
Jason M. Anthony

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 
Case No. ____________-CIV-    

 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 
                v. 
 
TIMOTHY J. ATKINSON, JAY PASSERINO, 
ALL IN PUBLISHING, LLC, WILLIAM E. 
BERRY, BERRY MEDIAWORKS, LLC and 
SHMUEL POLLEN, 
 

Defendants. 
 

  
 
 
 
 

 
COMPLAINT 

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

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 

1. This case concerns U.S.-based marketers who engaged in a massive fraud 

involving the offer and sale of securities called “binary options” through false, misleading and 

otherwise deceptive videos, websites, and other forms of marketing promoted on the Internet and 

disseminated via spam email to tens of millions of prospective investors in the U.S. and globally. 

2. Beginning in at least October 2013 through at least November 2016 (“Relevant 

Period”), Defendant Timothy Atkinson and his assistant, Defendant Jay Passerino, through their 

firm, Defendant All In Publishing, LLC (“AIP”) (collectively, the “Marketing Defendants”), 

conducted numerous marketing campaigns that fraudulently solicited and induced investors to 

open and fund unregistered, off-exchange binary options trading accounts.  A binary option is a 

financial instrument with a payoff value tied to the price of another financial asset, such as a 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 1 of 36



2 
 

share of stock, but which gives the holder no right to purchase or sell such underlying asset.  In 

offering these binary options, the Marketing Defendants acted as so-called “affiliate marketers,” 

who typically sell a third party’s goods or services, often over the Internet, and receive a 

commission for each sale.  Here, the Marketing Defendants promoted the purchase of binary 

options securities from unregistered third-party brokers.    

3. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns included professional videos that touted a 

free software trading program running on autopilot that was supposedly capable of generating 

large profits for investors who opened accounts on the instructions that followed the videos.  

These videos purported to show actual investors and real results, including people enjoying rich 

lifestyles achieved through binary options trading, and “live” demonstrations of people opening 

and funding accounts in “real time” and seeing their trading balances increase automatically.  

The participants in the videos insisted to viewers that these were actual events. 

4. Yet what was depicted was entirely fiction.  Paid actors pretended to be recent 

millionaires; fake testimonials claimed falsely that there was great wealth made by investing in, 

and using the free trading software to purchase, binary options; and fabricated photos showed 

only fictional account statements.  The “live” demonstrations of profitable trading were shams. 

5. Samples of the Defendants’ videos may be viewed here: 

https://www.sec.gov/video-exhibits-SEC-v-Atkinson.  The videos are incorporated into this 

Complaint by reference as examples of the Defendants’ fraudulent materials. 

6.  Atkinson wrote the scripts underlying the videos or paid Defendant Shmuel 

Pollen, a New Jersey-based Internet scriptwriter, to create the scripts for use in these campaigns.  

Atkinson then paid Defendant William Berry and his production firm, Defendant Berry 

MediaWorks, LLC, to turn the scripts into videos.  Berry hired actors and rented expensive 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 2 of 36

https://www.sec.gov/video-exhibits-SEC-v-Atkinson


3 
 

homes, luxury cars and other props that supported the illusion that the videos’ participants had 

accumulated great wealth by making the investment touted in the videos. 

7. The Marketing Defendants created websites for each marketing campaign.  The 

websites featured videos and visual materials from the videos, and operated as platforms for 

recipients of spam and video viewers to be misled further by the Defendants’ scheme.  The 

websites then funneled readers to “recommended” brokers for funding new accounts to trade in 

binary options.  The websites often misled investors to continue to believe, as featured in many 

videos, that trading and profit-making would start automatically with the initial deposit of funds.  

8. The Marketing Defendants received a flat commission from a broker, customarily 

between approximately $350 and $450, for every investor who viewed their materials and then 

opened and funded a binary options account for trading.  Over the Relevant Period, the 

Marketing Defendants received millions in commissions from brokers. 

9. Atkinson was part of an informal group of prominent binary options marketers in 

the U.S. and abroad who coordinated their activities via an invitation-only Skype chat.   In these 

chats, marketers announced their upcoming campaigns and agreed to disseminate each other’s 

materials through their own email lists, thus vastly expanding the universe of possible investors 

to be defrauded.  The Marketing Defendants paid their fellow marketers a commission each time 

they sent AIP campaign materials to those who then opened and funded accounts.  As a result, 

millions of prospective investors viewed the Marketing Defendants’ fraudulent promotional 

materials.  The Marketing Defendants also participated for a commission in the campaigns of 

their fellow marketers, earning substantial sums of additional money based on fraudulent 

offering materials.  The Marketing Defendants disseminated the campaign materials of their 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 3 of 36



4 
 

fellow marketers to their own email lists and received a flat commission from fellow marketers 

for every recipient of those emails who then opened and funded accounts for trading. 

10. As a result of these campaigns, approximately 50,000 investors deposited with 

brokers an aggregate of approximately $12.5 million to initially fund accounts to trade binary 

options.  After initially funding accounts, investors were often fraudulently induced by brokers to 

deposit even more funds.  Most investors eventually lost most or all of their money, with total 

losses in at least the tens of millions of dollars. 

11. In their private Skype chats, Atkinson and other marketers ridiculed investors who 

traded binary options based on their marketing materials, calling the investors demeaning names.  

In one May 2014 chat, Atkinson laughingly talked about raising “charity” for customers who lost 

money investing in binary options.  Atkinson asked another marketer, Antonio Giacca, if he had 

started a charity “for all the fallen customers of your last offer?  Customers Come First Fund?”  

Giacca replied, “[D]oing a fund raiser for them, to put them back on track, so we can scam them 

again.”  Atkinson replied, “LOL exactly!”  Giacca responded, “[T]he whole idea is to show them 

that there is hope, then take it all away one time lol.” Atkinson answered, “[J]ust ONE more time 

hahahaha . . . love the slogan son!” 

12. By virtue of this conduct and other conduct described in this Complaint, the 

Marketing Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 

1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 

(the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.  The 

Marketing Defendants were substantial participants in an illegal offering or sale of unregistered 

securities and also violated the registration provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 77e.  Defendant Atkinson is liable for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 4 of 36



5 
 

and Rule 10b-5 directly and also, under Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b), 

for activities taken through or by means of AIP, Passerino, and fellow marketers who he enlisted 

to publish his fraudulent campaigns.  Defendant Atkinson also violated Section 10(b) and Rule 

10b-5 as a control person of AIP, and is liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 78t(a).  The Marketing Defendants are each further liable pursuant to Section 15(b) of 

the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77o(b), and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, as aiders and 

abettors of each other in fraud that violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) 

of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and of such fraud by fellow marketers whose binary 

options campaigns the Marketing Defendants substantially assisted in publicizing. 

13. By writing scripts and making videos for and with knowledge of the Marketing 

Defendants’ fraudulent binary options campaigns, and for and with knowledge of the fraudulent 

binary options campaigns of others not named in this Complaint, Defendants Pollen and Berry 

(and Berry Mediaworks), respectively, are liable pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 77o(b), and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(e), as aiders and 

abettors of fraud in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Berry is further liable for violations of Section 10(b) 

and Rule 10b-5 as a control person of Berry Mediaworks. 

14. The Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary relief, 

including, but not limited to, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions, and such other relief 

as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.  Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, 

each of the Defendants is likely to continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged herein.  

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 5 of 36



6 
 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. The Commission brings 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) & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1), 

21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) 

& 78aa(a).  Defendants each have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the 

activities alleged in this Complaint, including by making use of the Internet to offer securities 

and sending or receiving interstate email and participating in interstate voice or video calls. 

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

Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act because Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business 

in the Southern District of Florida, and acts and transactions in violation of the federal securities 

laws as alleged in this Complaint have occurred within this district, among other places. 

DEFENDANTS 

17. All In Publishing, LLC (“AIP”) was established as an Arizona limited liability 

company in 2012.  On or about February 19, 2014, AIP became a Florida limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  During the Relevant Period, 

Timothy Atkinson was the owner and president of AIP.   

18. Timothy Joseph Atkinson (“Atkinson”), age 38, resides in Miami, Florida.  

During the Relevant Period, he was the sole owner and president of AIP.  Atkinson was also a 

signatory to and controlled AIP’s bank accounts, and controlled and supervised all AIP business.    

19. Jay Passerino (“Passerino”), age 37, resides in Miami-Dade County and/or 

Broward County, Florida.  During the Relevant Period, he lived and worked in Miami, Florida.  

From January 2014 through approximately October 2016, he oversaw the day-to-day operations 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 6 of 36



7 
 

of AIP, represented himself to others as the Vice President of AIP, and shared in AIP’s profits 

for his services.  During the Relevant Period, Passerino was also a signatory to AIP’s bank 

accounts and conducted AIP business in his own name and also in the name of an entity called 

Gasher, Inc.  Passerino was described by Atkinson as Atkinson’s “right hand man” at AIP. 

20. William E. Berry (“Berry”), age 59, resides in Portland, Oregon.  Berry directed, 

edited, and produced videos used in marketing campaigns for binary options, including for 

Atkinson, but also for other affiliate marketers fraudulently offering binary options to investors. 

21. Berry Mediaworks, LLC (“BMW”) is an Oregon limited liability company with 

its principal place of business in Wilsonville, Oregon.  During the Relevant Period, Berry 

directed and controlled BMW’s operations and billed many of his services through BMW.  

22. Shmuel Pollen (“Pollen”), age 30, resides in Rockaway, New Jersey.  Pollen 

wrote scripts for the video productions used in approximately eight affiliate marketing 

campaigns for binary options, including scripts for six AIP campaigns. 

FACTS 

I. AFFILIATE MARKETING IN BINARY OPTIONS SECURITIES 

23. Binary options are financial instruments with a value tied to the price of other 

financial assets, including securities.  An investor chooses whether the underlying asset’s price 

will be above or below a certain price at a particular time (e.g., will Apple stock be above $100 

per share at 1 p.m. on a particular day).  The options are considered “binary” because they carry 

only two possibilities: the investor whose prediction is correct makes money; the investor whose 

prediction is incorrect loses the investment.  Unlike other types of options, a binary option does 

not give the holder the right to purchase or sell the underlying asset—instead, it is “cash settled.” 

24. Binary options referencing a security or securities within the meaning of Section 

2(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1), and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act, 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 7 of 36



8 
 

15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10), are themselves “securities” within the meaning of those provisions. 

25.  “Affiliate marketing” is a form of performance-based marketing primarily 

conducted via email solicitations and promotional materials made available on Internet websites.  

“Affiliate marketers” typically promote a product or service owned or provided by a third party 

(e.g., a vendor.)   Affiliate marketers are paid a commission by the vendor when they induce 

customers to buy the vendor’s product or service.  Here, binary options brokers paid the 

Marketing Defendants a pre-set commission (typically $350 to $450) for each investor who 

opened and funded an account with those brokers after viewing fraudulent marketing materials. 

II. THE FRAUDULENT OFFER OR SALE OF BINARY OPTIONS  

26. During the Relevant Period, the Marketing Defendants launched, primarily 

through AIP, at least twenty (20) affiliate marketing campaigns for binary options, including:  

(1) Automated Income App (from at least late 2013/early 2014);  
(2) Golden Goose Method (from at least January 2014 until at least March 2014);  
(3) Push Button Millionaire (from at least Feb. 2014 until at least Sept. 2015);  
(4) Rock Star Commissions (from at least March 2014);  
(5) Auto Money App (from at least June 2014 until at least July 2015);  
(6) Cash Code (from at least June 2014 until at least April 2016);  
(7) Free Money System (from at least June 2014);  
(8) Free Money App (from at least June 2014 until at least June 2015);  
(9) Quick Cash System (from at least June 2014 until at least May 2016);  
(10) Easy Money Machines (from at least June 2014 until at least June 2015);  
(11) Free Cash (from at least July 2014 until at least October 2015);  
(12) Secret Millionaire Society (from at least Oct. 2014 until at least June 2015); 
(13) Cash Software (from at least October 2014 until at least December 2014);  
(14) Push Button Commissions (from at least Jan. 2015 until at least April 2015);  
(15) Binary Cash Creator (from at least May 2015);  
(16) Free Millionaire System (from at least May 2015);  
(17) Easy Money Method (from at least May 2015);  
(18) Fast Cash (from at least October 2015 until at least June 2016);  
(19) Push Money App (from at least June 2016  until at least October 2016); and  
(20) Click Money System (from at least October 2016). 

 
27. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns typically promoted free software, 

applications, or trading systems (hereinafter “software”) that purported to successfully trade 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 8 of 36



9 
 

automatically in binary options related to securities and other assets.  The Marketing Defendants 

lured individuals in the marketing materials by promising free access to the software. 

28. The touted software did not exist, or did not produce the results promised.  The 

Marketing Defendants’ true goals were not to provide any such software but to earn commissions 

via brokers by inducing prospective investors to open and fund a binary options trading account. 

29. The Marketing Defendants’ campaigns typically worked as follows:  

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 9 of 36



10 
 

30. Each marketing campaign for binary options conducted by the Marketing 

Defendants included:  (1) a website; (2) at least one video; and (3) emails known as “swipes.”   

Each of these components included materially false or misleading statements and artifices or 

devices designed to elicit interest and deceive recipients with false appearances of fact, so 

recipients would open and fund binary options trading accounts and earn the Marketing 

Defendants substantial commissions from the brokers.  The Marketing Defendants knowingly 

used these three components in their marketing campaigns, and they did so with knowledge of 

their false, misleading and deceptive nature. 

A. Marketing Defendants’ Websites 

31. In each campaign, the Marketing Defendants sent bulk email solicitations 

designed to entice recipients to click an embedded electronic link in the email that routed the 

user to the corresponding binary options campaign website.   The websites served as the vehicles 

through which the Marketing Defendants carried out their binary options campaigns.  The 

Marketing Defendants paid for and registered the domain names associated with each website, 

which generally included some variation of the campaign name, e.g., http://automoneyapp.com.    

32. Passerino (or others that Passerino oversaw) had primary responsibility for 

creating and formatting websites, registering the campaign website domains, setting up the 

hosting mechanism, uploading the Marketing Defendants’ content, and managing the technical 

aspects of the campaign.  Passerino also ensured that the links on website pages correctly 

directed interested persons to the campaign videos and ultimately to broker pages.  Atkinson 

usually tested the functionality of the campaign websites.  Passerino was primarily responsible 

for sending out the spam emails containing each campaign’s website to prospective investors.    

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 10 of 36

http://automoneyapp.com/


11 
 

33. The AIP campaigns’ websites generally contained multiple webpages.  One page 

contained a streaming video, along with a field for entry of a name and email address.  The 

Marketing Defendants mined that personal data to add to their email lists for future spamming. 

34. Other webpages often included other videos about the trading software and forms 

to register or open a binary options account with specific “recommended” brokers.  These 

webpages emphasized the import of opening and funding the accounts.  A webpage for the AIP 

campaign, “Push Button Commissions,” for example, said the broker account was “essential for 

success,” as the software was “coded to work directly with this broker.” 

35. New accounts could be opened through the webpages registered and hosted by the 

Marketing Defendants, but controlled by selected brokers or intermediaries. 

36. The Marketing Defendants’ websites typically said that a minimum of $250 was 

required to activate the software, but they encouraged investors to provide more, saying “the 

more you deposit the better your profit will be.” 

37. The AIP website pages frequently stated that the individual would be trading 

binary options, and also made clear that the trading would occur automatically upon funding the 

account.   For example, the Push Button Commissions website stated that the software “will do 

EVERYTHING for you to make a profit.”  It added:  “As soon as you have made your deposit 

with the broker, the APP will activate, start trading and begin making you instant profits . . . .”    

38. AIP websites also included so-called “disclaimers” that themselves were false and 

misleading.   Website disclaimers for the binary options campaign, “Push Money App,” for 

example, said that all persons portrayed in the videos were “real and verified;” that the video 

showed actual “examples” of trading results; that the industry was “one of the few where one can 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 11 of 36



12 
 

write their own check in terms of earnings;” and that “[a]ny claims made of actual earnings or 

examples of actual results can be verified upon request.”  None of that was true.  

B. Marketing Defendants’ Fraudulent Videos 

39. The Marketing Defendants’ binary option websites each contained at least one 

streaming video about the trading product.   They created or procured videos for most of the 

binary options marketing campaigns that they launched on their own, and they intentionally or 

recklessly included materially false or misleading statements in the videos that they streamed, in 

order to trick viewers into opening and funding accounts with brokers. 

40. Atkinson often bragged about the quality of these videos and their realistic nature, 

and referred to them as “movies.”  Atkinson wrote the scripts underlying the videos or retained 

Defendant Pollen to do so.   Pollen wrote at least six scripts for the Marketing Defendants and  

two additional scripts for other binary options affiliate marketers.  Atkinson reviewed Pollen’s 

scripts, often made edits, and approved the final version. 

41. For each campaign, Atkinson or Pollen created a story about the advertised 

trading system and success stories from people who supposedly used the software system.  The 

scripts purported to describe real events, but the statements in the scripts were complete fiction.  

The events were not based on actual events; instead, they told made-up stories experienced by 

make-believe people.  When Atkinson retained Pollen to write a script, he provided Pollen with a 

general fictional story idea and directed him to use extreme hyperbole in creating a full script.  

The scripts also uniformly contained false and misleading statements about profits, risk of loss, 

the system’s functionality and performance.  The software systems as described did not exist. 

42. Pollen knew or recklessly failed to know that his scripts were false and 

misleading.  He also knew that the Marketing Defendants would use his scripts to create videos 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 12 of 36



13 
 

they would disseminate to prospective investors.  Pollen was concerned enough about his role 

that he used a pen name, “Mike Williams,” to conceal his involvement in writing these scripts.  

During the Relevant Period, Atkinson paid Pollen approximately $85,000 for scripts. 

43. The Marketing Defendants provided finished scripts to Berry and retained Berry 

and BMW to create videos from those scripts.  Berry created at least eighteen (18) videos for the 

Marketing Defendants’ binary options campaigns.  Affiliate marketers viewed Berry as the “go 

to guy” for high-quality videos that increased the likelihood of success in their solicitations.  

Berry produced videos for at least sixty-four (64) separate fraudulent binary options marketing 

campaigns launched by various marketers, including the Marketing Defendants.   

44. Berry’s videos typically followed the scripts created by Atkinson or Pollen (or if 

not Atkinson or Pollen, his other clients).  Berry knew that the underlying scripts were fiction 

and knew that his videos based on those scripts were false and misleading to prospective 

investors.  Berry also knew that the Marketing Defendants disseminated these videos to induce 

prospective investors to open and fund accounts and trade binary options. 

45. Atkinson had substantial input into Berry’s videos.  Atkinson often provided 

Berry with certain false images that were included in the videos, selected the setting or location 

for the shoot, and chose the actors.  Atkinson reviewed the videos and approved the final copies.    

46. At Atkinson’s direction, Passerino uploaded the final copies onto the websites for 

AIP’s campaigns.  Passerino knew that each video was materially false and misleading and did 

not reflect actual results when he posted them online and disseminated emails linking to them.  

47. The Marketing Defendants, Pollen and Berry purposefully created the scripts and 

videos used in AIP campaigns to be deceptive or misleading.  They incorporated various devices 

in the scripts and videos to create the false perception that they were describing actual events.   

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 13 of 36



14 
 

1. Actors, Props and Claims of “Real” Profits 

48. None of the Marketing Defendants’ binary options videos involved real users or 

creators of the advertised system.  Instead, the videos featured actors who described themselves 

as inventors or owners of the software and who served as hosts of the stories.  They told how 

they supposedly came to invent or acquire the software, which ran on autopilot and provided 

them millions of dollars, and guaranteed that viewers would enjoy similar results. 

49. As scripted, the actors brazenly lied about their roles and the fictional story lines, 

insisting that scenes shown in the videos were actual events.  An actor in the video for the 

campaign “Secret Millionaire Society” said, for example:   

•  “See, anyone can throw numbers around and whip up some proof shots.  
All the scammers do it.  This isn’t that.  This is a completely different 
playing field.  And you’re going to see real proof . . . you can’t deny . . . 
and . . . in a way you’ve never seen before in your life.”   
 

• “Everything I’m about to tell you is 100% real and was experienced by me 
firsthand.” 

 
Those statements, and many like them in other videos, were false. 

50. Pollen made up the characters’ names in his scripts — sometimes using a 

“random name generator” available on Google.    

51. The Marketing Defendants, Pollen, and Berry incorporated lavish, movie-style 

props in the scripts and videos in order to mislead viewers into believing that the characters 

enjoyed rich lifestyles because of their success trading binary options.  Atkinson or Pollen 

specified the type of props to use, and Berry rented those items – mansions, luxury vehicles, a 

private jet – from third parties for purposes of creating the videos.     

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 14 of 36



15 
 

2. False “Live Trading Results”  

52. Marketing Defendants’ videos purported to show actual trading results achieved 

in “real time.”   For example, Berry produced the video for the binary options campaign “Cash 

Code,” which was hosted by “Robert Allan.”  The video showed a “live” video of Allan’s 

account balance with big red letters across the screen, “LIVE ONLINE PROOF.”  Allan said he 

“just” deposited $250 “risk-free” into his account and he will “show you the money it makes 

LIVE over the next 60 seconds.  We can back up every word we say with real life results.”  The 

video then showed the account balance increasing eleven times in under one minute before 

settling at $356,910.  Allan, however, was a fictional character portrayed by an actor, and there 

was no trading account or any trading profits from Cash Code.  Instead, Berry fabricated the 

trading result “proof” displayed in the video at Atkinson’s request.   

53. Similarly, the video for the AIP campaign “Push Money App” told a supposed 

running story concerning a group of “beta testers” invited to try the newest “PMA” trading 

system.   The video showed these beta testers “registering” new brokerage accounts on their 

laptops, which Berry filmed by incorporating “fake clicking” sounds to simulate typing on 

keyboards.  The beta testers then refreshed their accounts and, in 60 seconds, supposedly saw 

small profits in “real” time.  The video later fast-forwarded to a party some months later, when 

these same beta testers – now wearing more expensive clothing – celebrated their newfound 

wealth resulting from using the trading software.  Each claimed to have a bank account ranging 

from $600,000 to $1 million. In reality, the beta-testers were actors and there was no live trading.   

Atkinson wrote the scripts for the Push Money App campaign. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 15 of 36



16 
 

3. False Proof & Testimonials  

54. Marketing Defendants’ videos typically included fake “testimonials” in which 

purported past users of the advertised trading systems told how they supposedly came to receive 

large profits – indeed, some were now supposedly millionaires – by using the promoted software.  

They described how the software had generated profits automatically and how their newfound 

wealth had changed their lives.  

55. Atkinson wrote or directed Pollen to include such fake testimonials in scripts.  

Berry used images from the Internet to create fake photos of account balances that he included in 

his videos to support these testimonials.  For example:  

• The Push Money App video included false images of investors holding 
checks reflecting supposed Push Money App profits – “Pamela Reid,” 
$45,091.72; “Allen Squires,” $85,783.49; “Jack Harwick,” $129,912.21.   
 

• The video for “Free Money System” included people saying they became 
millionaires in three months and screenshots of false bank and PayPal 
accounts;    
 

• In the video for “Fast Cash,” a 61-year-old army veteran named Gordon 
Powers claimed he deposited $250 in his trading account and, ten minutes 
later, saw more than $11,000 in his account.   

 
56. Atkinson knew that such testimonials were false but incorporated them in his 

videos because he knew they were persuasive and provided supposed “objective proof” to 

viewers that the software was real.  In one Skype chat, Atkinson urged other binary options 

marketers to make extreme claims in their marketing materials because they would result in more 

sales.  Atkinson said he “just spent 3 months crafting an offer . . . with crazy social proof etc.,” 

adding that the best approach was to “show the software making trades and making money.”   In 

another Skype chat, Atkinson bragged to his marketer colleagues about trying to “scam” 

investors with “18 fake testimonials.” 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 16 of 36



17 
 

57. Pollen, who drafted certain testimonials, also knew they were false.  In fabricating 

dollar amounts in his testimonials, Pollen intentionally used specific amounts – down to the 

penny – because he viewed them as more realistic.   

58. Berry also knew the testimonials in his videos were fake.  At times Berry 

juxtaposed pictures of people he copied from the Internet next to quotes attesting to their 

purported experience with the software to create the illusion of attribution to a real person.  He 

created dozens of fake bank and trading statements for the Push Money App video that was 

ultimately disseminated to millions of prospective investors.  Berry also at times re-used bank 

and trading account statements from prior projects.   

4. False Guarantees of Profits    

59. In addition to showing purported profits from these binary options trading 

programs, Marketing Defendants’ videos falsely depicted that profitable trading had occurred 

100 percent of the time and guaranteed a similar success rate going forward.  For example:   

• The “Secret Millionaire Society” video stated:  “And when you do get to 
the end of this video, you will also be rewarded with a guaranteed $1000 
in your first 60 seconds and $10,000 in your first two days for free . . .   
You never lose . . .  the money will just grow and grow.”  
 

• The “Cash Code” video stated: “And our success rate? It’s pretty clear.  
It’s 100% accuracy.  All of our clients are financially independent within 
60 days of using this system . . .  on average.”  Later, the video said:  “a 
system either works or it doesn’t.  And if it works . . . it works every time.  
And this one works.  Period.” 
  

• The “Auto Money App” campaign video promised: “All you need to do is 
. . . fill in your contact details . . . deposit $250, and within sixty seconds, 
watch your $250 investment turn into $400 . . . then from $400 to $15,000 
in your first week, six figures in your first month, and over a million by 
day 90.  This is real money that will be in your bank account as soon as 
you complete the last step.”     

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 17 of 36



18 
 

5. Falsely Describing Trading Systems as Automated Trading 

60. The Marketing Defendants’ videos also claimed that trading profits resulted 

“automatically.”  For example, “Auto Money App” claimed: “My system trades binary options 

for you on complete autopilot.  You only have to push one button to make money and you 

actually earn money in 60 seconds.”  Similarly, the “Fast Cash” video said: “We make hundreds 

of dollars and even thousands of dollars every 60 seconds on autopilot with the Fast Cash Biz.”   

61. However, the trading systems as described in the Marketing Defendants’ 

campaigns did not exist.  If any software existed, it was not programmed to auto-trade accounts 

but rather to provide trading signals from which users could make trading decisions themselves.   

6. False Statements that Individuals Must Act Quickly    

62. To create a false urgency to open and fund accounts, the Marketing Defendants’ 

videos also falsely claimed that the opportunity to use the trading software was limited and that 

viewers needed to act at once.   For example, an actor in “Cash Code” claimed that the link to the 

video was sent to only a limited number of individuals, that they accept only 10 people per day, 

and the “button” to register is only available for ten minutes. 

63. In fact, no such limitations existed.   Pollen, at Atkinson’s direction or at least 

with his approval, purposely included a “squeeze” or fake limited availability and time restriction 

in his scripts to create a sense of urgency for prospective investors to invest. 

C. Marketing Defendants’ Fraudulent Emails 

64. The third fraudulent component of the Marketing Defendants’ binary options 

marketing campaigns was emails.  The Marketing Defendants widely disseminated their binary 

options campaigns to millions of email addresses.  The Marketing Defendants often used email 

lists that targeted recipients who they believed would be most receptive to their fraud scheme.  

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 18 of 36



19 
 

65. The Marketing Defendants wrote or hired Pollen and others to write short targeted 

emails (called “swipes”) for their campaigns, primarily to prod individuals who received the 

initial solicitation but did not immediately open and fund a new trading account.   

66. Atkinson retained and directed Pollen and other writers to create false email 

swipes about the trading software that would lure individuals to review the marketing materials. 

67. For example, in or about June 2014, Atkinson retained the services of a 

copywriter to generate swipes for the Free Money System campaign.  He explained to the 

copywriter that the Free Money System was “about making free money from a system that trades 

binary options” and directed the copywriter: “We want hypey spam emails . . . Try to create 

subject lines that trick people to open the emails ..[.] Then short, precise swipes to get them to 

click thru.  That is our goal.”  The copywriter then wrote at least ten such emails.  Atkinson 

forwarded these emails (along with his emails to the copywriter that referred to tricking people) 

to Passerino, directing Passerino to post the spam emails for dissemination by sub-affiliates. 

68. These emails included such false statements as,  

• “Have you heard of [sic] new free money system that created over 150 
millionaires? … And get this – most of them made their first million in 
only 90 days”; 
 

• “My millionaire buddy is literally giving away $648 (and you’re also 
going to learn about the free money system he used to bank over 
$850K in profit within 90 days)”; 
 

• “I’ve used this FREE money system and made over $6,500 in the last 
72 hours. And that’s without paying a single dime”; 
 

• “So I signed up for this free money system a few weeks ago and since 
then ... I’ve somehow banked over $100K in profits … All I know is 
my bank account keeps on growing bigger and I barely have to do any 
work...”; and 
 

• “Our software will only be available for FREE for a limited time - as 
of now, there is only 5 more free slots available.” 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 19 of 36



20 
 

 
69. The Marketing Defendants created and/or procured similarly deceptive email 

swipes for each binary options campaign.  Some campaigns used as many as approximately one 

hundred different fraudulent email swipes to send to prospective investors.      

70. Some email swipes created the false impression that they originated from the 

individuals (but who in fact were fictional) depicted in the Marketing Defendants’ videos.  These 

emails fooled prospective investors by making the solicitation appear persuasive and credible.  

The swipes also uniformly contained false and misleading statements about the trading software.  

71. For example, on or about February 23, 2016, an email sent to prospects was 

purportedly signed by the founders of the fake Push Money App company.  That email contained 

numerous false statements, including:  

We have just closed a special deal with one of our major brokers.  
Everyone that registers their PM App today gets a matching 
deposit bonus . . . up to $10k if you’re so fortunate . . .  Just in the 
past 24 hrs the PM App has made the new members a combined 
$118,927.36.  Just in the last 24hrs!  My friend, you are missing 
out on serious money if you haven’t activated your app yet.  I 
know last year you were scammed with the Binary Options bots.  
Trust me, this is not one of those scams.  Not even close.  PMA 
Company received the Most Profitable Trading System award at 
the NY convention of 2015.  Yes we are a real, legit company that 
really wants to help you become filthy rich.  
 

In fact, the Marketing Defendants sent out that email, not any founder of a trading app company; 

the trading results of purported users in the email were fake; there were no “beta testers” or any 

2015 convention; and there was never a company called PMA Company.       

72. Later, in May 2016, the Marketing Defendants again provided prospective 

investors with false and misleading email swipes, again purportedly from Push Money App 

founders.   A swipe received by one prospective investor, a disabled veteran living on disability 

payments, reminded him to fund his trading account “to make possibly 7 figures in 180 days just 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 20 of 3621 
 

like our first group of beta testers!”  Another swipe stressed the software’s “limited availability” 

and urged the recipient to fund his account “so you’ll be able to start making money right away.”  

73. Solicitation materials used by the Marketing Defendants frequently depicted 

trading account screenshots with trading by the software, or trading available through the 

account or the software, in security assets or binary options that reference security assets.   For 

example, the Automated Income App, Free Money System, and Push Money App videos 

combined showed nearly a dozen screenshots of trading accounts through which the supposed 

software and user could trade binary options with reference to stocks and indices.   

III. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS RECRUITED OTHER AFFILIATE 
MARKETERS TO DISSEMINATE THEIR FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGNS 

 
74. During the Relevant Period, the Marketing Defendants were among various other 

affiliate marketers, in the U.S. and elsewhere, who created and disseminated such marketing 

materials as described in this Complaint.  The Marketing Defendants and these other affiliates 

depended on each other to “support” their respective campaigns through email spams, in order to 

reach as many prospective investors as possible.   The affiliate who launched a new campaign 

essentially paid other affiliates to spam the new campaign’s marketing materials to these other 

affiliates’ email lists, which vastly broadened the number of persons who received the materials.    

Such email lists ranged from thousands to millions of email addresses.  When a third-party 

affiliate spammed another affiliate’s launch, the third-party affiliate was called a “sub-affiliate.” 

75. Atkinson and other major affiliate marketers for binary options, in the U.S. and 

abroad, coordinated their campaigns by speaking via an invitation-only Skype chat.  The 

members of this loose confederation used an Internet “calendar” system to coordinate the 

scheduling of marketing campaigns, ensuring that they did not launch competing campaigns on 

the same date.  As launch dates approached, an affiliate announced his upcoming campaign on 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 21 of 36



22 
 

Skype and asked his colleagues in fraud (in a “sub-affiliate” role) to support his campaign by 

emailing potential investors.  The affiliate marketer provided his marketing materials to sub-

affiliates to spam prospective investors.  The affiliate launching a new campaign typically shared 

his commissions with those sub-affiliates who successfully induced a prospect in the sub-

affiliates’ email lists to open and fund a trading account at the affiliate’s broker.   

76. Using the Skype chat, Atkinson recruited sub-affiliates to spam AIP’s latest 

binary options campaigns.  Atkinson offered to pay sub-affiliates a commission of approximately 

$250-$300 each time a person, after receiving AIP marketing materials from a sub-affiliate, 

opened and funded an account with the campaign’s recommended broker. 

77. Atkinson also ran contests that offered prizes to the most successful sub-affiliates, 

to create incentives for their continued spamming.  The Marketing Defendants regularly paid 

thousands of dollars as prizes in these contests and in at least one instance awarded a Rolex 

watch to the winner. 

78. Passerino provided the false and misleading swipes to the sub-affiliates to use in 

their emails.  Passerino monitored the effectiveness of AIP campaigns and the effectiveness of 

the sub-affiliates in spamming AIP’s campaigns to prospective investors. 

79. The Marketing Defendants, directly and indirectly through sub-affiliates, and as 

part of the approximately twenty (20) binary options campaigns they launched, disseminated  

tens of millions of emails to prospective investors containing false and misleading information. 

IV. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS ALSO ACTED AS “SUB-AFFILIATES” 
BY SPAMMING OTHER MARKETERS’ BINARY OPTIONS CAMPAIGNS 

 
80. In addition to launching their own campaigns, Marketing Defendants acted as 

“sub-affiliates” during the Relevant Period and disseminated fraudulent solicitations in the U.S. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 22 of 36



23 
 

and abroad for approximately fourteen (14) fraudulent binary options campaigns launched by 

other marketers.  These campaigns included at least the following nine known by name: 

(1) Autobitcoin Cash (from at least February 2014); 
(2) Binary Pilot (from at least about February 2014); 
(3) Daily Binary Profit/Binary Profits Daily (from at least March 2014); 
(4) Income Rush (from at least March 2014); 
(5) Profit Partners (from at least March 2014); 
(6) Easy Profits (from at least March 2014); 
(7) Money Platform (from at least January 2015); 
(8) Copy Op (from at least February 2015 until at least May 2015); and 
(9) Copy Trade Profit (from at least April 2015).   

81. These binary options campaigns worked like the campaigns the Marketing 

Defendants themselves launched, including by deceiving potential investors through a website, 

one or more videos, and various email swipes. 

82. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, the 

campaigns they participated in as sub-affiliates routinely included materially false or misleading 

information or artifices or devices designed to elicit interest and deceive recipients with either 

false statements or false appearances of fact. 

83. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, these 

campaigns typically touted “free” and “automatic” trading with software that did not exist, 

offered false guarantees of extraordinary profits by trading, and used false proof in the form of 

fabricated account statements, fictitious “live” demonstrations, and fake testimonials. 

84. As with the campaigns the Marketing Defendants themselves launched, the true 

goal of these campaigns was not to provide any such software or trading systems that worked as 

claimed but rather to earn commissions through “recommended” brokers by inducing individuals 

to open and fund a binary options trading account. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 23 of 36



24 
 

85. When acting as a sub-affiliate for other marketers’ campaigns, the Marketing 

Defendants received commissions for each person to whom they sent the affiliate’s marketing 

materials, and who opened and funded an account.  The Marketing Defendants also frequently 

earned prizes based on their performance, including thousands of dollars and/or in kind rewards.   

86. The Marketing Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the 

materials they disseminated as sub-affiliates were false, misleading and deceptive.  Atkinson 

even joked with other affiliates about mailing out their solicitations knowing they were “scams.” 

87. Passerino was responsible for sending out emails when the Marketing Defendants 

acted as a sub-affiliate for other’s campaigns.  Marketing Defendants, primarily by Passerino, 

sent thousands of solicitation emails when acting as sub-affiliates for binary options campaigns. 

V. ATKINSON DISPARAGED INVESTORS IN SKYPE CHATS 

88. In their Skype chats, Atkinson and other binary options marketers ridiculed 

individuals who opened and funded accounts with binary options brokers after watching the 

marketers’ videos.  In one example, an April 2015 chat, Atkinson and other marketers joked 

about the fraudulent nature of recent binary options campaigns.  One marketer referred to the 

latest binary offer, sarcastically, “[H]ow come it now takes 30 days to become a millionaire?  last 

(sic) time it was only 7 . . . and [A]ntonio [Giacca] promises it in 60 seconds!”  Atkinson replied, 

“[H]ahaha . . . that is some funny shit lol . . . we could call these scams anything and they will 

buy it.”  In another Skype, Atkinson mocked U.S. recipients of his fraudulent solicitations as 

“stupid” and bragged, “I guess that’s why I love living here easy scammin [(sic)] [.]” 

89. Atkinson referred to his binary options marketing scheme as “like the Holy 

Grail,” “because we can make any claims we want and it’s not on us, it’s on the broker.”  He told 

a network of his sub-affiliates on one of his campaigns, “- I invested over $50,000 on the sales 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 24 of 36



25 
 

videos.  - I'm giving away $100,000 in cash prizes. - Cutting edge sales funnel.  - Hired a big gun 

just for this and boy he rocks!  …. I feel like Kayne West when he creates music. He gets all the 

best minds in music in the world to his studio to help him. I took this same approach with this 

offer.  With the Binary market unstable I wanted to make sure we all cashed in BIG before the 

wave crumbles and crashes. I have put all my chips in on this offer …. Let’s all milk this binary 

wave while we can and let my new CRAZY offer help reach your income goals for 2015.” 

90. But in testimony during the Commission’s investigation, Atkinson claimed 

(falsely) to know nearly nothing about binary options, the brokers involved in payments to him, 

or what triggered payment to AIP.  He claimed (falsely) that his videos were a function of his 

artistic vision, not efforts to sell binary options.  He claimed that his chat messages were jokes. 

VI. PASSERINO BRAGGED THEY WERE CROOKS, THEN TOOK THE FIFTH 

91. Passerino bragged to other marketers about his role at AIP: “Tim doesn’t pay me, 

I pay him . . . latr!!!!!crooksssss”.  Yet during the investigation leading to this Complaint, the 

Commission subpoenaed Passerino to give testimony under oath about his role and such 

statements as this one.  Passerino was asked numerous questions about his involvement in 

disseminating binary options campaigns and in the activities of Atkinson and AIP.  Passerino 

declined to answer the questions asked of him in testimony by invoking his Fifth Amendment 

privilege against self-incrimination. 

VII. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS OFTEN COORDINATED WITH 
BINARY OPTIONS BROKERS THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY 

 
92. The Marketing Defendants’ profits depended on individuals opening and funding 

accounts with the binary options brokers identified in the marketing materials; the Marketing 

Defendants received commissions only if customers opened and deposited funds in those 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 25 of 36



26 
 

brokers’ accounts.   If customers received the AIP campaign materials and did not open and fund 

an account, the Marketing Defendants received nothing.  

93. Instead of coordinating their campaigns directly with brokers, the Marketing 

Defendants worked with a broker intermediary that maintained direct relationships with binary 

options marketers and brokers.  The broker intermediary coordinated with the Marketing 

Defendants and brokers to launch marketing campaigns that would result in large numbers of 

individuals opening and funding new binary options accounts with those brokers.  

94. For example, the broker intermediary selected the “recommended” brokers 

identified on the Marketing Defendants’ campaigns and directed individuals to particular brokers 

to open accounts and begin binary options trading.  The intermediary also worked with brokers 

to ensure that their sales representatives personally solicited persons who received the Marketing 

Defendants’ videos but did not immediately open accounts, to encourage them to fund accounts 

and begin trading.   The broker intermediary also worked to ensure that brokers used the 

Marketing Defendants’ fraudulent marketing materials to re-solicit these prospects via email and 

sales calls.  For example, before the Marketing Defendants launched a new marketing campaign, 

the intermediary disseminated links to the campaign website to brokers with instructions for 

them to watch the video before contacting prospective investors. 

95. The broker intermediary also handled Marketing Defendants’ commission 

payments.   Brokers paid the Marketing Defendants approximately $350 to $450 each time 

someone who received the Marketing Defendants’ videos and materials opened and funded a 

new trading account.  The broker intermediary received those funds from the brokers and made 

the commission payments to the Marketing Defendants.    

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 26 of 36



27 
 

96. None of the brokers with whom the Marketing Defendants indirectly worked was 

registered with the Commission in any capacity.  None of the their products, the binary options 

securities offered or sold to investors who were brought to these unregistered brokers by the 

Marketing Defendants, were registered as securities with the Commission. 

97. Additionally, on at least two occasions, a broker intermediary provided Marketing 

Defendants with binary options videos that contained materially false and misleading statements.  

Defendants intentionally or recklessly included and disseminated this false or misleading 

information as part of their marketing campaigns. 

VIII. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS TRIED TO COVER THEIR TRACKS 

98. In or about October or November 2016, the Marketing Defendants removed 

and/or disabled access to AIP’s binary options campaign websites.   

99. In or about October or November 2016, the Marketing Defendants deleted and/or 

otherwise destroyed videos, emails, websites, and other documents and communications related 

to binary options, including Skype communications and materials related to Facebook.   

100. The Marketing Defendants took these steps after they received a subpoena from 

the Commission requesting binary options campaign communications and documents. 

IX. THE MARKETING DEFENDANTS SCAMMED TENS OF THOUSANDS 
OF INDIVIDUALS, EARNING THEMSELVES MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 

101. Between October 2013 and June 2016, AIP’s financial accounts received 

approximately twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) resulting from the Marketing 

Defendants’ affiliate marketing activities, including, and primarily, fraudulent binary options 

solicitations.  The Marketing Defendants received payments from brokers, broker intermediaries, 

payment processors, and affiliate networks, among others.  A portion of these earnings stemmed 

from their role as sub-affiliates for other fraudulent binary options campaigns. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 27 of 36



28 
 

102. Between October 2013 and October 2016, AIP deposited over one million and 

eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) into a bank account in the name of Gasher, Inc.  

This account was controlled by Passerino, who controlled Gasher. 

103. Between January 2014 and June 2016, at least 68,000 persons opened and funded 

binary options trading accounts in connection with the Marketing Defendants’ campaigns.   

104. The amount of money individuals deposited when opening a new account varied.  

Generally, customers were required to deposit at least $250 initially.  Therefore, the 68,000 

accounts opened between January 2014 and June 2016, resulted in deposits of at least $17 

million in trading accounts after making it through Defendants’ deceptive binary options funnels.  

105. The amount of total deposits and losses was much higher as brokers continued to 

solicit prospective investors to deposit additional funds, often relying on the Marketing 

Defendants’ marketing materials to do so.   

106. Tens of millions of individuals received Defendants’ fraudulent solicitations.  For 

example, in less than 3 weeks, the Push Money App website had over 2 million visitors and the 

campaign generated commissions for the Marketing Defendants for almost nine months.    

VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities 
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

(against all Marketing Defendants) 
 

107. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

108. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct 

described above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of means or 

instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 28 of 36



29 
 

(a)  with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; 

(b)  obtained money or property by means of 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; or 

(c)  engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or 

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

109. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless 

enjoined will again violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a). 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities  
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

(against all Marketing Defendants) 
 

110. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

111. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct 

described above, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, by 

the use of means or instrumentalities or interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a 

national securities exchange, with scienter: 

(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. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 29 of 36



30 
 

112. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless 

enjoined will again 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. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unregistered Offer or Sale of Securities   
Violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act 

(against all Marketing Defendants) 
 

113. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

114. No registration statement had been filed or was in effect for any of the security-

based binary options offered or sold through the Marketing Defendants’ marketing campaigns. 

115. The Marketing Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct 

described above, directly or indirectly, made use of means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or to sell such securities. 

116. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Marketing Defendants violated, and unless 

enjoined will again violate, Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud In Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities 
By or Through Means of Others; 

Violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act 
(Against Atkinson) 

 
117. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

118. Atkinson with scienter created and disseminated such marketing materials as 

described above by and through the means of others and in the various manners described above. 

119. Atkinson, for example, enlisted sub-affiliates to spam his and AIP’s materially 

false and misleading binary options campaign materials to tens of thousands of prospective 

investors.  He offered to pay sub-affiliates for each time a prospect, after receiving materials 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 30 of 36



31 
 

from a sub-affiliate, opened and funded a binary options account with the campaign’s 

recommended broker.  He also ran contests that offered prizes to the most successful sub-

affiliates, to create incentives for further disseminating these fraudulent campaigns. 

120. Atkinson, by exercising control of, or providing directives or incentives to, AIP 

and Passerino, also disseminated materially false and misleading binary options marketing 

materials by and through AIP and Passerino.  Atkinson controlled, directed, or incentivized the 

dissemination of such materials by and through AIP and Passerino both that he created or caused 

to be created and that other affiliate marketers created and then provided to him or AIP for 

dissemination (that is, where he/AIP acted on others’ campaigns as a sub-affiliate marketer). 

121. By reason of the foregoing, Atkinson directly or indirectly engaged in acts and 

things which it would be unlawful for Atkinson to do under 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, by and through the means 

of other persons, in violation of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b).  Unless 

enjoined, Atkinson will again violate Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

(Against all Marketing Defendants) 
 
122. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

123. The Marketing Defendants each violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a).  The Marketing Defendants also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial 

assistance to each of the other Marketing Defendants’ violations of Section 17(a) and knowingly 

or recklessly provided substantial assistance to violations of Section 17(a) by other affiliate 

marketers launching the fraudulent binary options campaigns identified in this Complaint. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 31 of 36



32 
 

124. By reason of the foregoing, Section 15(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

77o(b), deems each of the Marketing Defendants to be in violation of Section 17(a) of the 

Securities Act to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided, and unless 

enjoined, each of them will again aid and abet violations of Section 17(a) 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

(Against all Marketing Defendants) 
 
125. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

126. The Marketing Defendants each violated 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.  The Marketing Defendants 

also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to each of the other Marketing 

Defendants’ violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and knowingly or recklessly provided 

substantial assistance to violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by other affiliate marketers 

launching the fraudulent binary options campaigns identified in this Complaint. 

127. By reason of the foregoing, Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

78t(e), deems each of the Marketing Defendants to be in violation of Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was 

provided.  Unless enjoined, each of them will again aid and abet violations of those provisions. 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Control Person Liability for Violations of   
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by AIP 

(against Atkinson) 
 

128. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 32 of 36



33 
 

129. When AIP violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 

Rule 10b-5 thereunder (including directly and as an aider and abettor of violations) and Section 

20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(b), Atkinson directly or indirectly controlled AIP. 

130. Atkinson induced directly or indirectly the acts constituting AIP’s violations and 

cannot establish that he acted in good faith and was not a culpable participant in the violations. 

131. By reason of the foregoing, Atkinson is jointly and severally liable pursuant to 

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), with and to the same extent as AIP for 

AIP’s violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Unless 

enjoined, Atkinson will again act as a control person of AIP in connection with such violations. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

(Against Pollen, Berry and BWM) 
 
132. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

133. Pollen, Berry, and BMW each knowingly or recklessly provided substantial 

assistance to violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), by the 

Marketing Defendants.  Berry and BWM each also knowingly or recklessly provided substantial 

assistance to violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by other affiliate marketers 

launching fraudulent binary options campaigns, in addition to the Marketing Defendants. 

134. By reason of the foregoing, Section 15(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

77o(b), deems each of them to be in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act to the same 

extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided.  Unless enjoined, Pollen, Berry and 

BMW will again aid and abet violations of Section 17(a). 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 33 of 36



34 
 

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

(Against Pollen, Berry and BMW) 

135. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

136. Pollen, Berry, and BMW each knowingly or recklessly provided substantial 

assistance to violations of 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, by the Marketing Defendants.  Berry and BWM each also 

knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to violations of Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by other affiliate marketers launching fraudulent binary options 

campaigns, in addition to the Marketing Defendants. 

137. By reason of the foregoing, Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

78t(e), deems each of them to be in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 

10b-5 to the same extent as the others to whom such assistance was provided.  Unless enjoined, 

Pollen, Berry and BMW will again aid and abet violations of those provisions. 

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Control Person Liability for Violations of   
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by BMW 

(against Berry) 
 

138. Paragraphs 1-106 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 

139. When BMW violated 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 (as an aider and abettor of violations of the 

Marketing Defendants and of other marketers), Berry directly or indirectly controlled BMW. 

140. Berry induced directly or indirectly the acts constituting BMW’s violations and 

cannot establish that he acted in good faith and was not a culpable participant in the violations. 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 34 of 36



35 
 

141. By reason of the foregoing, Berry is jointly and severally liable pursuant to 

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), with and to the same extent as BMW for 

its deemed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Unless enjoined, he 

will again act as a control person of BMW in connection with such violations. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: 

a) Find that Defendants committed the alleged violations; 

b) Order Defendants to disgorge, with prejudgment interest, all ill-gotten gains 

he or it received or derived from the activities set forth in this Complaint, and to repatriate 

any ill-gotten funds or assets he or it caused to be sent overseas; 

c) Order Defendants to pay civil penalties under 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); 

d) Order Defendant Atkinson and Defendant Berry liable for the liabilities of his 

entity, Defendant AIP or Defendant BMW, respectively, as control persons;  

e) Order all Defendants prohibited from, directly or indirectly, including through 

any entity he owns or control, participating in the marketing, offer or sale of securities over 

the Internet or by email or other forms of electronic communication;  

f) Permanently enjoin Defendants Atkinson, Passerino, and AIP from directly or 

indirectly violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e & 77q(a), 

and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78t(b), and Rule 

10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 35 of 36



36 
 

g) Permanently enjoin Defendants Pollen, Berry, and BMW from directly or 

indirectly violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and 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; 

h) Retain jurisdiction over this action in order to implement and carry out the 

terms of all orders and decrees that it may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or 

motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court; and 

i) Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary or appropriate. 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
 
 The Commission demands a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a jury. 
 

Dated:  September 27, 2018  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
/s/ Kenneth W. Donnelly 
 
Kenneth W. Donnelly (trial counsel) 
Email: [email protected] 
Telephone: (202) 551-4946 
 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street, N.E. 
Washington, DC 20549-5949 
Tel. (202) 551-6000 
Fax (202) 772-9282 

Of Counsel: 
 
Jennifer A. Leete 
Michael S. Fuchs 
Jason M. Anthony 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-23993-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2018   Page 36 of 36

mailto:[email protected]