SEC v. Joseph A. Rubbo; Angela Rubbo Beckcom Monaco; Beckcom; and Steven J. Dykes, No. 0:17-cv-62345, Southern District of Florida (Nov. 30, 2017) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )
)
Pb~ti~ )
~ )
)
JOSEPH A. RUBBO, ANGELA RUBBO MONACO )
BECKCOM, and STEVEN J. DYKES, )
)
Defendants )
)
)
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges as follows:
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Defendants Joseph A.
Rubbo ("Rubbo") and Angela Rubbo Beckcom Monaco ("Monaco") operated a scheme in which
they offered and sold investments and/or issued restricted shares
of stock in VIP TV, LLC, VIP
Television Inc., and The Spongebuddy, LLC ( collectively "VIP") to at least
11 investors
nationwide and raised at least $5.4 million.
2. Rubbo and Monaco, SEC recidivists previously enjoined from similar misconduct
in 2002 actions, controlled VIP. They hired Defendant Steven
J. Dykes, an unregistered broker
with a criminal history, to cold call investors and pitch investments in VIP.
3. Monaco falsely represented that VIP would become profitable by using investors'
proceeds to develop the VIP businesses. Instead, Rubbo and Monaco misappropriated investor
funds and paid themselves and related parties more than $2.6 million. Rubbo and Monaco

further
paid
Dykes
more
than
$568,000,
including
at
least
$150,000
in
undisclosed
sales
commissions.
4.
As
a  result
of
the
conduct
alleged
in
this
Complaint
Defendants
Rubbo
and
Monaco
violated
Section
l 7(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
of
1933
("Securities
Act")
[
15
U.S.C.
§77q(a)]
(as
to
Rubbo
Sections
l 7(a)(l)
and
(3)
only);
Section
IO(b)
of
the
Securities
Exchange
Act
of
1934
("Exchange
Act")
[15
U.S.C.
§78j(b)];
and
Exchange
Act
Rule
IOb-5
[17
C.F.R.
§240.l0b-5]
(as
to
Rubbo,
Rules
10b-5(a)
and
(c)
only).
Defendant
Dykes
violated
Section
15(a)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§78o(a)]
and
Defendants
Rubbo
and
Monaco
aided
and
abetted
Dykes's
violations
of
Section
15(a)
of
the
Exchange
Act.
Unless
restrained
and
enjoined,
the
Defendants
are
reasonably
likely
to
continue
to
violate
the
federal
securities
laws.
II.
5.
DEFENDANTS
AND
RELEVANT
ENTITIES
Rubbo,
age
54,
resides
in
Coral
Springs,
Florida.
He
was
a  manager
of
ANJ
Productions,
LLC,
and
The
Spongebuddy,
LLC,
originally
located
in
Fort
Lauderdale
and
Oakland
Park,
Florida.
Rubbo
served
as
the
public
face
of
VIP
TV,
attending
premieres
at
entertainment
venues
and
touting
VIP
TV's
success
at
promoting
local
merchants
and
events,
also
appearing
in
many
of
the
hundreds
of
videos
VIP
TV
provided
through
its
Y ouTube
channel.
In
October
2017,
the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office
for
the
District
of
Colorado
charged
Rubbo
with
conspiracy
to
commit
mail
fraud,
securities
fraud,
and
money
laundering
related
to
among
other
things,
the
VIP
investments
(U.S.
v.
Rubbo
et
al.,
Case
No.
l 7-cr-411-RBJ).
In
2002,
the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office
for
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
charged
Rubbo
with
racketeering,
money
laundering,
and
mail
and
wire
fraud
for
his
conduct
in
connection
with
a
boiler
room
operation
(U.S.
v.
Graziano,
et
al.,
Case
No.
02-60049
er-Hurley).
In
2003,
Rubbo
pied
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
commit
racketeering
and
was
sentenced
to
52
months
incarceration,
2

three
years
of
supervised
release,
and
ordered
to
pay
$8,158,660
in
restitution.
In
2002,
the
Commission
brought
an
action
against
Rubbo
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
in
an
unrelated
case
involving
a boiler
room
fraud
(SEC
v.
Make
It  Reel
Productions,
Inc.,
et
al.,
Case
No.
02-
60255-CV-Graham)
(the
"Make
it Reel
case").
Rubbo
consented
to
the
entry
of
a final
judgment
enjoining
him
from
antifraud
and
securities
registration
violations
in
connection
with
that
case.
Rubbo
is
not,
and
was
not
at
the
time
of
the
conduct
described
herein,
registered
with
the
Commission
as
a broker
or
dealer
or
associated
with
one.
6.
Monaco,
age
45,
resides
in
Coral
Springs,
Florida.
Monaco,
who
is
Rubbo's
sister,
was
the
Managing
Member
of
ANJ
Productions,
LLC,
VIP
TV,
LLC,
and
The
Spongebuddy,
LLC,
which
were
located
in
Oakland
Park,
Florida,
and
shared
space.
Monaco
founded
VIP
and
Spongebuddy,
and
along
with
Rubbo
controlled
and
had
signatory
power
over
the
companies'
bank
accounts.
Monaco
directly
solicited
investors
and
discussed
the
investment
opportunities
with
potential
investors.
She
signed
numerous
investment
agreements
for
the
VIP
investment
opportunities.
In
November
2017,
the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office
for
the
District
of
Colorado
charged
Monaco
with
mail
fraud,
securities
fraud,
money
laundering,
and
conspiracy
to
commit
mail
fraud
and
wire
fraud
related
to
among
other
things,
the
VIP
investments
(
U.S.
v.
Monaco,
Dykes,
et
al.,
Case
No.
17-cr-417-PAB)
(the
"Monaco
and
Dykes
Criminal
Case").
In
2002,
the
Commission
brought
action
against
Monaco
in
the
Make
it
Reel
case.
Monaco
consented
to
the
entry
of
a final
judgment
enjoining
her
from
antifraud
and
securities
registration
violations
in
connection
with
that
case.
Monaco
is
not,
and
was
not
at
the
time
of
the
conduct
described
herein,
registered
with
the
Commission
as
a broker
or
dealer
or
associated
with
one.
7.
Dykes,
age
61,
resides
in
Fort
Lauderdale,
Florida.
Dykes
was
the
sales
agent
who
initially
solicited
most
of
VIP's
investors.
In
November
2017,
the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office
3

for
the
District
of
Colorado
charged
Dykes
with
mail
fraud,
securities
fraud,
money
laundering,
and
conspiracy
to
commit
mail
fraud
and
wire
fraud  in
the
Monaco
and
Dykes
Criminal
Case.
In
2012,
Dykes
pied
guilty
to
charges
of
grand
theft
brought
in
state
court
in
Broward
County,
Florida,
and
is
serving
probation
for
these
offenses
until
April
2023.
Dykes
is  not,
and
was
not
at
the
time
of
the
conduct
described
herein,
registered
with
the
Commission
as
a broker
or
dealer
or
associated
with
one.
8.
In
April
2014,
Rubbo,
Monaco,
and
Dykes
entered
into
a Consent
Order
with
the
Illinois
Securities
Department,
prohibiting
each
of
them
and
VIP
from
offering
or
selling
securities
to
Illinois
residents.
9.
ANJ
Productions,
LLC,
is
an
inactive Florida
limited
liability
company
formed
in
2011,
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Oakland
Park,
Florida.
ANJ
operated
under
the
fictitious
name
"VIP
TV",
served
as
the
parent
entity
to
all
the
VIP
entities
and
other
related
entities
controlled
by
Rubbo
and
Monaco.
Both
Rubbo
and
Monaco
had
signature
authority
over
ANJ's
bank
accounts.
In
September
2017,
ANJ
Productions,
LLC
was
administratively
dissolved
for
failure
to
file
an
annual
report.
10.
VIP
TV,
LLC,
is
an
inactive
Florida
limited
liability
company
formed
in
2012
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Fort
Lauderdale,
Florida.
VIP
TV
was
purportedly
in
the
business
of
marketing
and
promoting
entertainment
events
and
venues
such
as
nightclubs,
restaurants,
exercise
facilities
and
other
South
Florida
businesses
through
televised
segments
and
infomercials
broadcast
on
a local
cable
television
channel
and
its
Y ouTube
channel.
Rubbo
was
the
executive
producer
at
VIP
TV
and,
along
with
Monaco,
had
control
over
VIP
TV's
bank
accounts,
activities
and
videos.
In
2013,
VIP
TV
was
administratively
dissolved
by
the
state
of
4

Florida;
however
the
proposed
defendants
continued
to
transact
business
and
offer
investments
in
this
entity's
name
through
at  least
2016.
11.
VIP
Television
Inc.,
is  a Florida
corporation
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Oakland
Park,
Florida.
Monaco
formed
VIP
Television
in
2010
and
served
as
its
President
and
CEO.
Monaco
signed
investment
agreements
and
issued
share
certificates
to
investors
on
behalf
of
VIP
Television.
12.
The
Spongebuddy,
LLC,
is
an
inactive
Florida
limited
liability
company
fonned
in
2013
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Oakland
Park,
Florida.
Both
Rubbo
and
Monaco
had
signature
authority
over
the
Spongebuddy's
bank
accounts.
Spongebuddy
was
purportedly
in
the
business
of
developing
and
manufacturing
the
Spongebuddy
product,
a glove-like
sponge
patented
in
September
2014.
The
Spongebuddy
would
allegedly
be
sold
via
the
QVC
cable
channel
and
retailers
such
as
Walgreen's
and
Bed,
Bath
and
Beyond.
In
September
201
7,
The
Spongebuddy,
LLC
was
administratively
dissolved
for
failure
to
file
an
annual
report.
13.
VIP
TV
Limo,
LLC,
is
an
inactive
Florida
limited
liability
company
formed
in
2013
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Oakland
Park,
Florida.
Monaco
formed
VIP
TV
Limo
and
served
as
its
Manager.
Both
Rubbo
and
Monaco
had
signature
authority
over
VIP
TV
Limo'
s  bank
accounts
which
received
investor
funds.
In
September
2017,
VIP
TV
Limo
was
administratively
dissolved
for
failure
to
file
an
annual
report.
14.
VIP's
securities
are
penny
stocks
because
they
do
not
fit
within
any
of
the
exceptions
from
the
definition
of
"penny
stock,"
as
defined
by
Section
3(a)(51)
of
the
Exchange
Act
and
Rule
3a51-1
thereunder.
Among
other
things,
they
were
equity
securities:
(
1)
that
were
not
an
"NMS
stock,"
as
defined
in
17
CFR
242.600(b)(47);
(2)
traded
below
five
dollars
per
share
during
the
relevant
period;
(3)
whose
issuers
had
net
tangible
assets
and
average
revenue
5

below the thresholds of Rule 3a51-1 (g)( 1 );  and ( 4) did not meet any of the other exceptions from
the definition
of "penny stock" contained in Rule 3a51-l under the Exchange Act. The
Defendants participated in the offering of penny stock by soliciting investors for VIP (Monaco
and Dykes) and/or paying Dykes transaction-based compensation to sell penny stocks to
investors (Monaco and Rubbo).
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b ), 20( d) and
22(a)
of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a)]; and Sections 2l(d), 2l(e),
and 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa(a)].
16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in
the Southern District
of Florida because many of the acts and transactions constituting the
violations alleged in this complaint occurred in this District. Moreover, the Defendants reside in
the Southern District
of Florida and VIP had its principal offices in this District which the
individual Defendants worked from.
17. In connection with the conduct alleged in the Complaint, Defendants, directly and
indirectly, singly
or in concert with others, made use of the means or instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation or communication in the
interstate commerce, and
of the mails.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18. Starting in 2013, Monaco and Dykes, who was VIP's lead sales agent, contacted
prospective investors,
many of whom were elderly and unsophisticated, via cold-calls and in-
person meetings to invest in the VIP offerings.
6

19.
VIP
offered
investors
two
investment
products:
restricted
shares
of
stock
and
investment
agreements
with
a fixed
rate
of
return.
20.
The
investment
agreements
varied,
but
essentially
required
an
investment
of
money
with
a  return
tied
to
the
gross
revenues
generated
by
VIP's
businesses.
In
all
instances
management
retained
control
of
the
companies
and
business
decisions.
21.
Monaco
and
sales
agents,
including
Dykes,
told
investors
that
VIP's
investment
program
was
entirely
passive
and
would
generate
returns
from
revenue
generated
from
each
of
the
companies.
22.
VIP
provided
investors
information
that
the
value
of
their
investments
would
increase
through
the
success
of
the
VIP
businesses
and
the
potential
sale
of
VIP
to
larger
companies.
23.
Dykes
told
VIP's
largest
investor
that
the
Starz
cable
channel
and
Pandora
Radio
were
both
interested
in
buying
VIP
and
would
"roll-up"
VIP
into
these
entities.
VIP's
largest
investor
decided
to
continue
investing
with
VIP
based
on
these
representations
and
the
expectation
that
he
would
sell
his
stock
for
a profit.
24.
Similarly,
sales
agents,
as
well
as
Monaco,
told
the
same
investor
that
the
Spongebuddy
product
was
in
the
last
stages
of
development,
would
be
featured
on
the
television
show
"Shark
Tank,"
marketed
on
the
QVC
cable
television
channel,
as
well
as
sold
at Walgreens
and
Bed,
Bath
and
Beyond.
25.
VIP's
largest
investors,
who
are
elderly,
entered
into
I 0-year
agreements
with
VIP,
which
entitled
investors
to
I 0%
of
VIP's
quarterly
profit
from
selling
the
Spongebuddy
product
and
40%
of
the
annual
profit.
These
same
investors
entered
into
similar
agreements
to
7

purchase revenue interests that paid quarterly returns, as well as restricted shares of VIP TV
stock.
26. Monaco signed the agreements which specified that
VIP's management made all
decisions with respect to the development
of the business and the marketing of its services or
products and the "investor shall act as an investor only" with no active participation in the
company business.
27. From January 2013 through April 2017, VIP raised approximately $5.4 million
from
11 investors.
V.
28.
Misrepresentation to Investors and Scheme Conduct
Monaco orally and in agreements distributed to investors, as well as through
directing Dykes' s  sales efforts to investors, made misrepresentations that investor funds would
be used to benefit the VIP companies.
29. Based on Monaco's and Dykes' s  representations to investors, as well as the
investment agreements signed
by Monaco, investors believed their funds were being used to
improve and expand the entertainment promotions business, and to manufacture, distribute, and
sell the Spongebuddy product.
30. Contrary to these representations, Rubbo and Monaco did not use the vast
majority
of investor funds for business operations. Instead, investor monies flowed into bank
accounts
of ANJ Production, LLC, The Spongebuddy, LLC, and VIP TV Limo, LLC, and were
controlled by Rubbo and Monaco who misappropriated a  substantial amount
of funds and paid
undisclosed commissions.
8

31. Rubbo and Monaco used investor proceeds to pay approximately $2.6 million to
insiders and related parties, including approximately: $632,000
to Rubbo; $621,500 to Monaco;
and $1,306,000 to relatives.
32. Rubbo and Monaco also paid at least $568,000 to Dykes, at least $150,000
of
which was undisclosed commissions directly related to investor sales.
33. Additionally, and as part
of their fraudulent scheme, Rubbo and Monaco
commingled investor monies and used investor funds for personal use, to pay expenses such
as
restaurants,  retail stores, the down payment for a  luxury vehicle, credit card bills, and for other
expenses such as to pay $15,000
to the IRS on behalf of related parties.
34. Rubbo and/or Monaco also made payments
to unrelated business ventures for
purported construction work, as well
as a contractor's business licensure, and financed a used car
lot operated by Rubbo' s brother-in-law and Monaco's husband.
35. Additionally, Rubbo and/or Monaco diverted funds for the benefit
of family
members, including their brothers, mother, nieces and nephews.
36. While Rubbo and Monaco misappropriated millions
of dollars in compensation
and commissions
to themselves and others from 2014 through April 2017, VIP paid only
approximately $56,000 in returns to investors.
COUNTI
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(l) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against Rubbo and Monaco)
37. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
38. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, in the
offer or sale
of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication
9

in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly
employed devi~es, schemes or artifices to defraud.
39. By reason
of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco, directly and indirectly have
violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section
l 7(a)(l) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)(l )].
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against Monaco)
40. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as
if fully set forth herein.
41. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Monaco, in the offer or sale
of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate
commerce or by the use
of the mails, directly or indirectly negligently obtained money or
property by means of untrue statements of material facts and omissions to state material facts
necessary to make the statements made, in the light
of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading.
42.
By reason of the foregoing, Monaco directly and indirectly has violated, and
unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section l 7(a)(2)
of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2)].
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against Rubbo and Monaco)
43. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
10

44. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, in the
offer or sale
of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication
in interstate commerce and by the use
of the mails, directly or indirectly negligently engaged in
transactions, practices and courses
of business which have operated, are now operating or will
operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers.
45. By reason
of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco, directly and indirectly, have
violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely
to continue to violate, Section l 7(a)(3) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3)].
COUNTIV
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Rubbo and Monaco)
46. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as
if fully set forth herein.
47. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, directly
and indirectly, by use
of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails
in connection with the purchase or sale
of securities, knowingly or recklessly employed devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud.
48.
By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco directly and indirectly violated,
and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue
to violate, Section 1 0(b) of the Exchange
Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 1 0b-5(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.1 0b-5(a), thereunder.
11

COUNTV
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Monaco)
49. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as
if fully set forth herein.
50. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Monaco, directly and
indirectly,
by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly made untrue
statements
of material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
51. By reason
of the foregoing, Monaco directly and indirectly violated, and unless
enjoined, is reasonably likely
to continue to violate, Section 1 0(b) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rules 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b), thereunder.
COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(c)
OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Rubbo and Monaco)
52. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as
if fully set forth herein.
53. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, directly
and indirectly,
by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails
in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts,
practices and courses
of business which operated as a  fraud upon the purchasers of such
securities.
12

54. By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco directly and indirectly violated,
and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely
to continue to violate, Section 1 O(b) of the Exchange
Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5(c), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c), thereunder.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS
OF SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Dykes)
55. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
56. Defendant Dykes made use
of the mails and other means or instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, to effect transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or
sale
of securities, without being associated with a  broker or dealer that was registered with the
Commission in accordance with Section 15(b)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(b)].
57. By reason
of the foregoing, Defendant Dykes directly and indirectly violated, and
unless enjoined, is reasonably likely
to continue to violate, Section l 5(a) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].
COUNT VIII
AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS
OF
SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Rubbo and Monaco)
58. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint
as if fully restated herein.
59. Defendant  Dykes acted as broker or dealer and has made use
of the mails or any
means or instrumentality
of interstate commerce to effect transactions in securities, or to induce
or attempt
to induce the purchase or sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or
dealer that was registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b)
of the
13

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(b)] in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78o(a)].
60. Defendants Rubbo and Monaco, knowingly or recklessly, substantially assisted
Defendant Dykes's violations
of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless enjoined,
Defendants Rubbo and Monaco are reasonably likely
to continue to provide substantial
assistance
to Dykes's violations.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE,
the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find the
Defendants committed the violations alleged, and:
A.
Permanent Injunctive Relief
Issue a  Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining: (a) Defendant Rubbo from
violating Sections l 7(a)(l) and (3)
of the Securities Act, Section IO(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(a) and (c); (b) Defendant Monaco from violating Section 17(a)
of the
Securities Act, Section I0(b)
of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rule l0b-5; (3) Defendant
Dykes from violating Section 15(a)
of the Exchange Act; and (4) Defendants Rubbo and Monaco
from aiding and abetting Dykes's violations
of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.
B.
Disgorgement with Prejudgment Interest
Issue an Order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten profits or proceeds
received from investors as a  result
of the acts and/or courses of conduct complained of herein,
with prejudgment interest thereon.
14

Civil
Money
Penalties
Issue
an
Order directing
the
Defendants
to
pay
civil
money
penalties
pursuant
to
Section
20(d)
of
the
Securities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
77t(d)]
and
Section
2l(d)
of
the
Exchange
Act,
15
u.s.c.
§
78(d).
D.
Penny
Stock
Bars
Issue
an
Order
pursuant
to
Section
20(g)
of
the
Securities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
77t(g)]
and
Section
2l(d)(6)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
78u(d)(6)]
barring
Defendants
from
participating
in
any
offering
of
a  penny
stock,
including
engaging
in
activities
with
a  broker,
dealer,
or
issuer for
purposes
of
issuing,
trading,
or
inducing
or
attempting
to
induce
the
purchase
or
sale
of
any
penny
stock.
E.
Further
Relief
Grant
such
other
and
further
relief
as
may be
necessary
and
appropriate.
15

F.
Retention  of J urisdiction
Fm1her,  the Commission  respectfully reques ts that  the Court retain  jurisdi ction over  this
action· in order to implem ent and carry  out the tenm of all orders  and decrees that may hereby  be
entered,
or to ente11ain any suitable  application or  motion by  th e Commissio n  fo r  additional relief
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Dated:
November 30, 2017
Res pectfolly s ubmitted,
B
y:~~---..____
....
Christine Nestor
Senior Trial Counsel
Florid a
Bar No. 597211
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6367
E-mail:  [email protected]
Linda S. Schmidt
Senio r Counsel
Florida Bar No. 0 156337
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6315
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
Miami, Flo1icla 33131
Telephone: (305) 982-6300
Facsimile : (305) 536-4 154
16

Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) 
) 

Pb~ti~ ) 
~ ) 

) 
JOSEPH A. RUBBO, ANGELA RUBBO MONACO ) 
BECKCOM, and STEVEN J. DYKES, ) 

) 
Defendants ) 

) 
) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges as follows: 

I. 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Defendants Joseph A. 

Rubbo ("Rubbo") and Angela Rubbo Beckcom Monaco ("Monaco") operated a scheme in which 

they offered and sold investments and/or issued restricted shares of stock in VIP TV, LLC, VIP 

Television Inc., and The Spongebuddy, LLC ( collectively "VIP") to at least 11 investors 

nationwide and raised at least $5.4 million. 

2. Rubbo and Monaco, SEC recidivists previously enjoined from similar misconduct 

in 2002 actions, controlled VIP. They hired Defendant Steven J. Dykes, an unregistered broker 

with a criminal history, to cold call investors and pitch investments in VIP. 

3. Monaco falsely represented that VIP would become profitable by using investors' 

proceeds to develop the VIP businesses. Instead, Rubbo and Monaco misappropriated investor 

funds and paid themselves and related parties more than $2.6 million. Rubbo and Monaco 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 2 of 16

further paid Dykes more than $568,000, including at least $150,000 in undisclosed sales 

commissions. 

4. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint Defendants Rubbo and 

Monaco violated Section l 7(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") [ 15 U.S.C. 

§77q(a)] (as to Rubbo Sections l 7(a)(l) and (3) only); Section IO(b) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)]; and Exchange Act Rule IOb-5 [17 C.F.R. 

§240.l0b-5] (as to Rubbo, Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) only). Defendant Dykes violated Section 15(a) 

of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(a)] and Defendants Rubbo and Monaco aided and abetted 

Dykes's violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless restrained and enjoined, the 

Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal securities laws. 

II. 

5. 

DEFENDANTS AND RELEVANT ENTITIES 

Rubbo, age 54, resides in Coral Springs, Florida. He was a manager of ANJ 

Productions, LLC, and The Spongebuddy, LLC, originally located in Fort Lauderdale and 

Oakland Park, Florida. Rubbo served as the public face of VIP TV, attending premieres at 

entertainment venues and touting VIP TV's success at promoting local merchants and events, 

also appearing in many of the hundreds of videos VIP TV provided through its Y ouTube 

channel. In October 2017, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado charged 

Rubbo with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering related to 

among other things, the VIP investments (U.S. v. Rubbo et al., Case No. l 7-cr-411-RBJ). In 

2002, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida charged Rubbo with 

racketeering, money laundering, and mail and wire fraud for his conduct in connection with a 

boiler room operation (U.S. v. Graziano, et al., Case No. 02-60049 er-Hurley). In 2003, Rubbo 

pied guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering and was sentenced to 52 months incarceration, 

2 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 3 of 16

three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $8,158,660 in restitution. In 2002, the 

Commission brought an action against Rubbo in the Southern District of Florida in an unrelated 

case involving a boiler room fraud (SEC v. Make It Reel Productions, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-

60255-CV-Graham) (the "Make it Reel case"). Rubbo consented to the entry of a final judgment 

enjoining him from antifraud and securities registration violations in connection with that case. 

Rubbo is not, and was not at the time of the conduct described herein, registered with the 

Commission as a broker or dealer or associated with one. 

6. Monaco, age 45, resides in Coral Springs, Florida. Monaco, who is Rubbo's 

sister, was the Managing Member of ANJ Productions, LLC, VIP TV, LLC, and The 

Spongebuddy, LLC, which were located in Oakland Park, Florida, and shared space. Monaco 

founded VIP and Spongebuddy, and along with Rubbo controlled and had signatory power over 

the companies' bank accounts. Monaco directly solicited investors and discussed the investment 

opportunities with potential investors. She signed numerous investment agreements for the VIP 

investment opportunities. In November 2017, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 

Colorado charged Monaco with mail fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy 

to commit mail fraud and wire fraud related to among other things, the VIP investments ( U.S. v. 

Monaco, Dykes, et al., Case No. 17-cr-417-PAB) (the "Monaco and Dykes Criminal Case"). In 

2002, the Commission brought action against Monaco in the Make it Reel case. Monaco 

consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining her from antifraud and securities registration 

violations in connection with that case. Monaco is not, and was not at the time of the conduct 

described herein, registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or associated with one. 

7. Dykes, age 61, resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dykes was the sales agent 

who initially solicited most of VIP's investors. In November 2017, the U.S. Attorney's Office 

3 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 4 of 16

for the District of Colorado charged Dykes with mail fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, 

and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in the Monaco and Dykes Criminal Case. In 

2012, Dykes pied guilty to charges of grand theft brought in state court in Broward County, 

Florida, and is serving probation for these offenses until April 2023. Dykes is not, and was not 

at the time of the conduct described herein, registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer 

or associated with one. 

8. In April 2014, Rubbo, Monaco, and Dykes entered into a Consent Order with the 

Illinois Securities Department, prohibiting each of them and VIP from offering or selling 

securities to Illinois residents. 

9. ANJ Productions, LLC, is an inactive Florida limited liability company formed in 

2011, with its principal place of business in Oakland Park, Florida. ANJ operated under the 

fictitious name "VIP TV", served as the parent entity to all the VIP entities and other related 

entities controlled by Rubbo and Monaco. Both Rubbo and Monaco had signature authority over 

ANJ's bank accounts. In September 2017, ANJ Productions, LLC was administratively 

dissolved for failure to file an annual report. 

10. VIP TV, LLC, is an inactive Florida limited liability company formed in 2012 

with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. VIP TV was purportedly in the 

business of marketing and promoting entertainment events and venues such as nightclubs, 

restaurants, exercise facilities and other South Florida businesses through televised segments and 

infomercials broadcast on a local cable television channel and its Y ouTube channel. Rubbo was 

the executive producer at VIP TV and, along with Monaco, had control over VIP TV's bank 

accounts, activities and videos. In 2013, VIP TV was administratively dissolved by the state of 

4 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 5 of 16

Florida; however the proposed defendants continued to transact business and offer investments in 

this entity's name through at least 2016. 

11. VIP Television Inc., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in 

Oakland Park, Florida. Monaco formed VIP Television in 2010 and served as its President and 

CEO. Monaco signed investment agreements and issued share certificates to investors on behalf 

of VIP Television. 

12. The Spongebuddy, LLC, is an inactive Florida limited liability company fonned 

in 2013 with its principal place of business in Oakland Park, Florida. Both Rubbo and Monaco 

had signature authority over the Spongebuddy's bank accounts. Spongebuddy was purportedly 

in the business of developing and manufacturing the Spongebuddy product, a glove-like sponge 

patented in September 2014. The Spongebuddy would allegedly be sold via the QVC cable 

channel and retailers such as Walgreen's and Bed, Bath and Beyond. In September 201 7, The 

Spongebuddy, LLC was administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report. 

13. VIP TV Limo, LLC, is an inactive Florida limited liability company formed in 

2013 with its principal place of business in Oakland Park, Florida. Monaco formed VIP TV 

Limo and served as its Manager. Both Rubbo and Monaco had signature authority over VIP TV 

Limo' s bank accounts which received investor funds. In September 2017, VIP TV Limo was 

administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report. 

14. VIP's securities are penny stocks because they do not fit within any of the 

exceptions from the definition of "penny stock," as defined by Section 3(a)(51) of the Exchange 

Act and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder. Among other things, they were equity securities: ( 1) that were 

not an "NMS stock," as defined in 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47); (2) traded below five dollars per 

share during the relevant period; (3) whose issuers had net tangible assets and average revenue 

5 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 6 of 16

below the thresholds of Rule 3a51-1 (g)( 1 ); and ( 4) did not meet any of the other exceptions from 

the definition of "penny stock" contained in Rule 3a51- l under the Exchange Act. The 

Defendants participated in the offering of penny stock by soliciting investors for VIP (Monaco 

and Dykes) and/or paying Dykes transaction-based compensation to sell penny stocks to 

investors (Monaco and Rubbo). 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b ), 20( d) and 

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a)]; and Sections 2l(d), 2l(e), 

and 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa(a)]. 

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in 

the Southern District of Florida because many of the acts and transactions constituting the 

violations alleged in this complaint occurred in this District. Moreover, the Defendants reside in 

the Southern District of Florida and VIP had its principal offices in this District which the 

individual Defendants worked from. 

17. In connection with the conduct alleged in the Complaint, Defendants, directly and 

indirectly, singly or in concert with others, made use of the means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation or communication in the 

interstate commerce, and of the mails. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

18. Starting in 2013, Monaco and Dykes, who was VIP's lead sales agent, contacted 

prospective investors, many of whom were elderly and unsophisticated, via cold-calls and in­

person meetings to invest in the VIP offerings. 

6 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 7 of 16

19. VIP offered investors two investment products: restricted shares of stock and 

investment agreements with a fixed rate of return. 

20. The investment agreements varied, but essentially required an investment of 

money with a return tied to the gross revenues generated by VIP's businesses. In all instances 

management retained control of the companies and business decisions. 

21. Monaco and sales agents, including Dykes, told investors that VIP's investment 

program was entirely passive and would generate returns from revenue generated from each of 

the companies. 

22. VIP provided investors information that the value of their investments would 

increase through the success of the VIP businesses and the potential sale of VIP to larger 

companies. 

23. Dykes told VIP's largest investor that the Starz cable channel and Pandora Radio 

were both interested in buying VIP and would "roll-up" VIP into these entities. VIP's largest 

investor decided to continue investing with VIP based on these representations and the 

expectation that he would sell his stock for a profit. 

24. Similarly, sales agents, as well as Monaco, told the same investor that the 

Spongebuddy product was in the last stages of development, would be featured on the television 

show "Shark Tank," marketed on the QVC cable television channel, as well as sold at Walgreens 

and Bed, Bath and Beyond. 

25. VIP's largest investors, who are elderly, entered into I 0-year agreements with 

VIP, which entitled investors to I 0% of VIP's quarterly profit from selling the Spongebuddy 

product and 40% of the annual profit. These same investors entered into similar agreements to 

7 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 8 of 16

purchase revenue interests that paid quarterly returns, as well as restricted shares of VIP TV 

stock. 

26. Monaco signed the agreements which specified that VIP's management made all 

decisions with respect to the development of the business and the marketing of its services or 

products and the "investor shall act as an investor only" with no active participation in the 

company business. 

27. From January 2013 through April 2017, VIP raised approximately $5.4 million 

from 11 investors. 

V. 

28. 

Misrepresentation to Investors and Scheme Conduct 

Monaco orally and in agreements distributed to investors, as well as through 

directing Dykes' s sales efforts to investors, made misrepresentations that investor funds would 

be used to benefit the VIP companies. 

29. Based on Monaco's and Dykes' s representations to investors, as well as the 

investment agreements signed by Monaco, investors believed their funds were being used to 

improve and expand the entertainment promotions business, and to manufacture, distribute, and 

sell the Spongebuddy product. 

30. Contrary to these representations, Rubbo and Monaco did not use the vast 

majority of investor funds for business operations. Instead, investor monies flowed into bank 

accounts of ANJ Production, LLC, The Spongebuddy, LLC, and VIP TV Limo, LLC, and were 

controlled by Rubbo and Monaco who misappropriated a substantial amount of funds and paid 

undisclosed commissions. 

8 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 9 of 16

31. Rubbo and Monaco used investor proceeds to pay approximately $2.6 million to 

insiders and related parties, including approximately: $632,000 to Rubbo; $621,500 to Monaco; 

and $1,306,000 to relatives. 

32. Rubbo and Monaco also paid at least $568,000 to Dykes, at least $150,000 of 

which was undisclosed commissions directly related to investor sales. 

33. Additionally, and as part of their fraudulent scheme, Rubbo and Monaco 

commingled investor monies and used investor funds for personal use, to pay expenses such as 

restaurants, retail stores, the down payment for a luxury vehicle, credit card bills, and for other 

expenses such as to pay $15,000 to the IRS on behalf of related parties. 

34. Rubbo and/or Monaco also made payments to unrelated business ventures for 

purported construction work, as well as a contractor's business licensure, and financed a used car 

lot operated by Rubbo' s brother-in-law and Monaco's husband. 

35. Additionally, Rubbo and/or Monaco diverted funds for the benefit of family 

members, including their brothers, mother, nieces and nephews. 

36. While Rubbo and Monaco misappropriated millions of dollars in compensation 

and commissions to themselves and others from 2014 through April 2017, VIP paid only 

approximately $56,000 in returns to investors. 

COUNTI 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(l) OF THE SECURITIES ACT 
(Against Rubbo and Monaco) 

37. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

38. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, in the 

offer or sale of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication 

9 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 10 of 16

in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly 

employed devi~es, schemes or artifices to defraud. 

39. By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco, directly and indirectly have 

violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section l 7(a)(l) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(l )]. 

COUNT II 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT 
(Against Monaco) 

40. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

41. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Monaco, in the offer or sale 

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

commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly negligently obtained money or 

property by means of untrue statements of material facts and omissions to state material facts 

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

made, not misleading. 

42. By reason of the foregoing, Monaco directly and indirectly has violated, and 

unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section l 7(a)(2) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2)]. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a)(3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT 
(Against Rubbo and Monaco) 

43. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

10 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 11 of 16

44. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, in the 

offer or sale of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication 

in interstate commerce and by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly negligently engaged in 

transactions, practices and courses of business which have operated, are now operating or will 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers. 

45. By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco, directly and indirectly, have 

violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section l 7(a)(3) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3)]. 

COUNTIV 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 
(Against Rubbo and Monaco) 

46. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

47. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, directly 

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

in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, 

schemes or artifices to defraud. 

48. By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco directly and indirectly violated, 

and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 1 0(b) of the Exchange 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 1 0b-5(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.1 0b-5(a), thereunder. 

11 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 12 of 16

COUNTV 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 
(Against Monaco) 

49. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

50. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Monaco, directly and 

indirectly, by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails in 

connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly made untrue 

statements of material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the 

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 

51. By reason of the foregoing, Monaco directly and indirectly violated, and unless 

enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 1 0(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rules 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b), thereunder. 

COUNT VI 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION lO(b) AND RULE 10b-5(c) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 
(Against Rubbo and Monaco) 

52. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

53. From no later than January 2013 through April 2017, Rubbo and Monaco, directly 

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

in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, 

practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud upon the purchasers of such 

securities. 

12 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 13 of 16

54. By reason of the foregoing, Rubbo and Monaco directly and indirectly violated, 

and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 1 O(b) of the Exchange 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5(c), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c), thereunder. 

COUNT VII 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 
(Against Dykes) 

55. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

56. Defendant Dykes made use of the mails and other means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, to effect transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or 

sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or dealer that was registered with the 

Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(b)]. 

57. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Dykes directly and indirectly violated, and 

unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section l 5(a) of the Exchange Act 

[15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]. 

COUNT VIII 

AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF 
SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 

(Against Rubbo and Monaco) 

58. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint 

as if fully restated herein. 

59. Defendant Dykes acted as broker or dealer and has made use of the mails or any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect transactions in securities, or to induce 

or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or 

dealer that was registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the 

13 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 14 of 16

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(b)] in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78o(a)]. 

60. Defendants Rubbo and Monaco, knowingly or recklessly, substantially assisted 

Defendant Dykes's violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless enjoined, 

Defendants Rubbo and Monaco are reasonably likely to continue to provide substantial 

assistance to Dykes's violations. 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find the 

Defendants committed the violations alleged, and: 

A. 

Permanent Injunctive Relief 

Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining: (a) Defendant Rubbo from 

violating Sections l 7(a)(l) and (3) of the Securities Act, Section IO(b) of the Exchange Act, and 

Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(a) and (c); (b) Defendant Monaco from violating Section 17(a) of the 

Securities Act, Section I0(b) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rule l0b-5; (3) Defendant 

Dykes from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act; and (4) Defendants Rubbo and Monaco 

from aiding and abetting Dykes's violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. 

B. 

Disgorgement with Prejudgment Interest 

Issue an Order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten profits or proceeds 

received from investors as a result of the acts and/or courses of conduct complained of herein, 

with prejudgment interest thereon. 

14 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 15 of 16

Civil Money Penalties 

Issue an Order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section 

20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 2l(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 

u.s.c. § 78(d). 

D. 

Penny Stock Bars 

Issue an Order pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)] and 

Section 2l(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)] barring Defendants from 

participating in any offering of a penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, 

dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase 

or sale of any penny stock. 

E. 

Further Relief 

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

15 



Case 0:17-cv-62345-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2017   Page 16 of 16

F. 

Retention of Jurisdiction 

Fm1her, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this 

action· in order to implement and carry out the tenm of all orders and decrees that may hereby be 

entered , or to ente11ain any suitab le application or motion by the Commission fo r additional relief 

within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Dated: November 30, 20 17 Respectfol ly submitted, 

By:~~- --..____ 
.... 

Chri stine Nestor 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Florida Bar No. 597211 
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6367 
E-mail : [email protected] 

Linda S. Schmidt 
Senior Counsel 
Florida Bar No. 0156337 
Direct Dial: (305) 982-63 15 
E-mail: [email protected] 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 
Miami, Flo1icla 33 131 
Telephone: (305) 982-6300 
Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

16