SEC v. Anthony Michael Holland, No. 1:22-cv-00590, Western District of Texas (June 16, 2022) — Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
_________________________________________
§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
 §
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY MICHAEL HOLLAND,
Defendant.
§
§
§ Civil Action No.:
§
§
   1:22-cv-00590
§
§
§

§
_
________________________________________
§
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) alleges:
SUMMARY
1.This case involves misconduct by Anthony Michael Holland (the “Defendant” or
“Holland”) the former Chief Administrative Officer and City Secretary for the City of Johnson
City, Texas (“City”).  In approximately August 2018, Holland created falsified financial
statements for the City’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2016 and a falsified audit report for
those financial statements (together, the “Falsified Documents”).  Holland caused the Falsified
Documents to be posted to the City’s public website and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board’s (“MSRB”) Electronic Municipal Market Access reporting system (“EMMA”), where
they were made publicly available to investors in the City’s outstanding municipal securities.
2.Holland created the Falsified Documents to prevent discovery of his ongoing
embezzlement of City funds.  Between 2015 and 2020, Holland stole approximately $1 million
from the City, including $107,137 during fiscal year 2016.  To hide his theft, Holland delayed

2

the annual independent audit of the City’s 2016 financial statements.  By mid-2018, in response
to pressure and repeated inquiries about the status of the outstanding audit, Holland created the
Falsified Documents by changing dates on the City’s 2015 financial statements and audit report.
Holland provided the Falsified Documents to the City’s mayor and municipal advisor, knowing
that the material would be posted to the City’s public website and the EMMA system and made
available to investors.  The Falsified Documents were posted to the EMMA system in June 2019
and were publicly available on that system until late April 2020.
 3. The Falsified Documents contained material misrepresentations and omissions
about the City’s 2016 finances.  Among other things, the financial statements understated the
City’s total revenues by approximately 8%, understated the City’s total expenses by
approximately 23%, and overstated the City’s total outstanding debt by approximately 5%.  The
financial statements also did not reflect that Holland embezzled $107,137, nearly 5% of the
City’s total revenues, during fiscal year 2016.  The audit report also falsely represented that the
City’s 2016 financial statements had been audited by an independent auditor.
 4.  As a result of this conduct, Holland violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
DEFENDANT
 5. Anthony M. Holland, age 36, is a resident of San Antonio, Texas.  Holland has
worked for at least fifteen years in administrative positions for several Texas cities and a school
district.  From 2013 to 2020, Holland served as Chief Administrative Officer and City Secretary
for Johnson City, and was responsible for the administration and operation of all municipal
departments, projects, and oversight of the City's finances and records.  Holland’s

3

responsibilities included directing and maintaining the central accounting system, preparing
financial statements, and overseeing preparation of information for annual audits and reviewing
audit reports.  In December 2021, in a plea agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Western District of Texas, Holland pled guilty to one count of Theft from a State or Local
Government that Receives Federal Program Funds, in violation of Section 666(a)(1)(A) of Title
18 of the United States Code.  The charge is based on Holland’s embezzlement of funds from the
City.
OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY
 6. City of Johnson City, Texas is a political subdivision and municipal corporation
of the State of Texas, duly organized and existing under the laws of Texas. The City was
incorporated in 1902 and is the county seat of Blanco County. The City operates under the
mayor-council form of government, and is governed by the mayor and five council members.
The City’s population was 1,627 as of 2020.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 7. The SEC brings this action pursuant to authority conferred upon it by Sections
21(d) and 21(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78(u)(e)].
 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d), 21(e), and
27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].
 9. Venue is proper in this District, because the City is  located within this District and
the acts constituting violations of the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint occurred
within this District.
 10. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant directly or
indirectly made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails.

4

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background on the City’s Municipal Securities

 11. The City issued and sold municipal securities to investors in 2012 and in 2015.
In connection with those municipal securities offerings and in compliance with Rule 15c2-12
promulgated under the Exchange Act, the City undertook to provide investors in the City’s
securities with what is known as “continuing disclosure.”   Specifically, the City agreed to
provide investors with annual audited financial statements.  The financial statements were to be
provided to investors through the MSRB’s EMMA system within six months after the end of the
City’s fiscal year (September 30).  The City’s municipal advisor typically received the City’s
annual audited financial statements from Holland and submitted them to EMMA.
 12.       During the relevant period, Holland oversaw and managed financial and
accounting matters for the City, including oversight of the City’s central accounting system and
preparation of the City’s annual financial statements.  Holland was responsible for initiating the
audit of the City’s financial statements by an independent auditor each year and for providing
information to the City’s independent auditor in connection with the audit.

Holland Created the Falsified Documents
13. Holland’s position with the City gave him access to the City’s cash accounts.
Between January 2015 and September 2020, Holland stole approximately $1.12 million from the
City by directing payments to his personal bank accounts, sometimes using a fictitious corporate
name to disguise the transactions.  Generally, Holland transferred funds in amounts between
$500 and $10,000 approximately one to three times a month from the City’s cash account to his

5

personal bank accounts.  He used the stolen funds for personal living expenses.  His largest
single theft was $302,800 in mid-October 2016, just after the close of the City’s 2016 fiscal year.
Amounts stolen by Holland for fiscal years ended September 30 were as follows:  2015: $69,759;
2016: $107,137; 2017: $389,497; 2018: $168,002; 2019: $159,562; and 2020: $229,140.
14.    In order to avoid detection of his theft, Holland did not initiate the audit of the
City’s 2016 financial statements after the conclusion of the fiscal year on September 30, 2016.
For several months he ignored requests for information from the City’s mayor and its municipal
advisor about the audit and provided excuses for the lack of audited financial statements.
15.   Holland falsely told the mayor and the municipal advisor that he was waiting on
financial information from the City’s auditor and that he would shortly provide the fiscal year
2016 financial statements and the audit report.  In reality, Holland had not even contacted the
City’s auditor to commence the audit when he made those statements.
16.   Holland delayed the audit past the City’s March 31, 2017 deadline for submitting
the audited financial statements to EMMA.  Beginning in January 2018, Holland began to
receive requests from the rating agency that rated the City’s outstanding securities a bout the
status of the City’s fiscal year 2016 audit.  Holland continued to delay, and in May 2018, the
rating agency withdrew its rating of the City’s securities.
17.   In July and August 2018, the mayor and the City’s municipal advisor were still
asking Holland for the 2016 financial statements and audit report.  By that point they were also
asking for the City’s fiscal year 2017 financial statements and audit report, which had been due
to be filed in EMMA in March 2018.
18. In response to this pressure, Holland created the Falsified Documents.  He t ook a
copy of the City’s fiscal year 2015 financial statements and the auditor’s audit report for the

6

2015 financial statements and changed most references to “2015” to “2016”.  In financial charts
which had two year comparisons, he also changed most references to “2014” to “2015.”
19.   Total assets, total liabilities, total revenues, total expenses, total outstanding debt,
and other key figures purportedly for the year ended September 30, 2016 in the falsified 2016
financial statements were the exact same amounts reported for the year ended September 30,
2015 in the City’s fiscal year 2015 financial statements and were inaccurate as 2016 figures.
20.      Holland edited the 2015 independent auditor report to make it appear as if was the
2016 independent auditor report, in essence, misrepresenting that the fiscal year 2016 financial
statements had been audited by the City’s independent auditor.
21. On August 15, 2018, Holland emailed the Falsified Documents (the 2016
financial statements and the 2016 audit report) to the mayor, who was not aware of the
falsifications and posted the Falsified Documents to the City’s public website.  On August 20,
2018, Holland also sent the Falsified Documents to the City’s municipal advisor.  He did not
disclose to either that the documents had been falsified.  The municipal advisor, who was not
aware of the falsifications, uploaded the Falsified Documents to the MSRB’s EMMA system in
June 2019, at which point the Falsified Documents were available to the public, including
investors in the City’s securities.
The Falsified Documents Were Materially False and Misleading
22.  The Falsified Documents contained materially false and misleading statements
and omissions about the City’s financial condition and financial statements.
23.   In comparison to the City’s actual fiscal year 2016 financial statements (which
were eventually completed and audited in March 2020), the falsified financial statements

7

understated the City’s total revenues by approximately 8%, understated the City’s total expenses
by approximately 23%, and overstated the City’s total outstanding debt by approximately 5%.
24.   The financial statements also did not disclose Holland’s embezzlement of
$107,137 from the City, representing nearly 5% of the City’s total revenues for fiscal year 2016.
25. Further, the financial statements falsely stated that the City was not aware of any
subsequent events that would materially impact the financial statements.  This was false because
Holland embezzled an additional $302,800 less than two weeks after the end of fiscal year 2016.
26.  Finally, the falsified audit report was materially false because it stated that the
2016 financial statements had been audited in compliance with generally accepted audit
principles, when in fact, they had not been audited at all.
27.       The Falsified Documents were available to investors on EMMA from June 2019
until April 28, 2020.  During the time the Falsified Documents were available to investors on
EMMA, investors engaged in secondary trading in the City’s outstanding municipal bonds.

Discovery of the Fraud

 28.  In mid-February 2020, a financial examiner with a State of Texas entity, which
was an investor in the City’s 2015 securities, discovered the Falsified Documents that had been
posted on EMMA.  The investor alerted the City’s auditor, which then notified the City about the
Falsified Documents and that the fiscal year 2016 financial statements had not yet been audited.
29. After being notified, the City began an investigation.  Holland made multiple false
statements in connection with that investigation, including creating a false document in an
attempt to hide that he had created the Falsified Documents.  During the audit of the City’s 2017

8

fiscal year financial statements, Holland also provided the City’s auditor with a series of
fraudulent documents to hide his embezzlement.
30.   Despite Holland’s attempts to hide his conduct, in mid-September the auditor
discovered Holland’s embezzlement and the theft was reported to the police.  In September 2020,
Holland resigned his position with the City.
 31.  In December 2021, Holland was criminally charged by the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas and pled guilty to one count of Theft from a
State or Local Government and admitted to stealing over $1 million from the City for his
personal benefit.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder

32. The SEC incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set
forth herein.
 33. By  engaging  in  the  acts  and  conduct  alleged  herein,  Defendant,  directly  or
indirectly,  in  connection  with  the  purchase  or  sale  of  securities,  by  the  use  of  any  means  or
instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities
exchange, knowingly or with severe recklessness:
a. employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
b. made untrue statements of material facts 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; and,
c. engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

9

 34.  Defendant  violated  and,  unless  restrained  and  enjoined,  will  continue  to  violate
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5].
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment:
I.
Finding that the Defendant committed the violations alleged in this Complaint.

II.
Permanently enjoining, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Defendant from violating 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].
II I.
 Ordering Defendant to disgorge the ill-gotten gains he received as a result of the
violations alleged herein, plus prejudgment interest on that amount.
IV.
 Ordering  Defendant  to  pay  a  civil  penalty  pursuant  to  Section  21(d)(3)  of  the  Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)].
V.
 Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant from: (i) participating in any issuance,
purchase, offer, or sale of municipal securities, including but not limited to engaging or
communicating with a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, bond
insurer, nationally recognized statistical rating organization, regulatory authority or commission,

10

investor, issuer or obligated person for purposes of issuing, purchasing, offering, or selling any
municipal security; and (ii) participating in the preparation of materials or information,
including, without limitation, the preparation of financial statements or projections, which he
should reasonably expect to be submitted to the MSRB’s EMMA system in connection with an
offering or a continuing disclosure obligation, or which he should reasonably expect to be
provided to investors in connection with any offering (including a private placement) of
municipal securities, provided however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendant from
purchasing or selling municipal securities for his own personal account;
VI.
Ordering Defendant to provide a copy of the Judgment by email or mail within 10 days of
the entry of the Judgment to any issuer of municipal securities or obligated person with which
Defendant is employed as of the date of the entry of the Judgment.
VII.
 Retaining jurisdiction over this action to implement and carry out the terms of all orders
and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional
relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.
VIII.
 Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated:  June 16, 2022.
      Respectfully submitted,
  /s/William P. Hicks
      William P. Hicks
      Senior Trial Counsel
      Georgia Bar No. 351649
      [email protected]

11

      M. Graham Loomis
      Regional Trial Counsel
      Georgia Bar No. 457868
      [email protected]

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE
Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30326
Tel: 404-842-7600
Fax: 404-842-7679

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 
_________________________________________ 

§  
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE § 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANTHONY MICHAEL HOLLAND, 

Defendant. 

§ 
§ 
§ Civil Action No.: 
§
§   1:22-cv-00590
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

_________________________________________§ 

COMPLAINT  

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

SUMMARY  

1. This case involves misconduct by Anthony Michael Holland (the “Defendant” or

“Holland”) the former Chief Administrative Officer and City Secretary for the City of Johnson 

City, Texas (“City”).  In approximately August 2018, Holland created falsified financial 

statements for the City’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2016 and a falsified audit report for 

those financial statements (together, the “Falsified Documents”).  Holland caused the Falsified 

Documents to be posted to the City’s public website and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board’s (“MSRB”) Electronic Municipal Market Access reporting system (“EMMA”), where 

they were made publicly available to investors in the City’s outstanding municipal securities.    

2. Holland created the Falsified Documents to prevent discovery of his ongoing

embezzlement of City funds.  Between 2015 and 2020, Holland stole approximately $1 million 

from the City, including $107,137 during fiscal year 2016.  To hide his theft, Holland delayed 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 1 of 11



 

2 
 

the annual independent audit of the City’s 2016 financial statements.  By mid-2018, in response 

to pressure and repeated inquiries about the status of the outstanding audit, Holland created the 

Falsified Documents by changing dates on the City’s 2015 financial statements and audit report.  

Holland provided the Falsified Documents to the City’s mayor and municipal advisor, knowing 

that the material would be posted to the City’s public website and the EMMA system and made 

available to investors.  The Falsified Documents were posted to the EMMA system in June 2019 

and were publicly available on that system until late April 2020.   

 3. The Falsified Documents contained material misrepresentations and omissions 

about the City’s 2016 finances.  Among other things, the financial statements understated the 

City’s total revenues by approximately 8%, understated the City’s total expenses by 

approximately 23%, and overstated the City’s total outstanding debt by approximately 5%.  The 

financial statements also did not reflect that Holland embezzled $107,137, nearly 5% of the 

City’s total revenues, during fiscal year 2016.  The audit report also falsely represented that the 

City’s 2016 financial statements had been audited by an independent auditor.      

 4.  As a result of this conduct, Holland violated Section 10(b) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 

C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

DEFENDANT 

 5. Anthony M. Holland, age 36, is a resident of San Antonio, Texas.  Holland has 

worked for at least fifteen years in administrative positions for several Texas cities and a school 

district.  From 2013 to 2020, Holland served as Chief Administrative Officer and City Secretary 

for Johnson City, and was responsible for the administration and operation of all municipal 

departments, projects, and oversight of the City's finances and records.  Holland’s 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 2 of 11



 

3 
 

responsibilities included directing and maintaining the central accounting system, preparing 

financial statements, and overseeing preparation of information for annual audits and reviewing 

audit reports.  In December 2021, in a plea agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office 

for the Western District of Texas, Holland pled guilty to one count of Theft from a State or Local 

Government that Receives Federal Program Funds, in violation of Section 666(a)(1)(A) of Title 

18 of the United States Code.  The charge is based on Holland’s embezzlement of funds from the 

City. 

OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY 

 6. City of Johnson City, Texas is a political subdivision and municipal corporation 

of the State of Texas, duly organized and existing under the laws of Texas. The City was 

incorporated in 1902 and is the county seat of Blanco County. The City operates under the 

mayor-council form of government, and is governed by the mayor and five council members. 

The City’s population was 1,627 as of 2020.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

 7. The SEC brings this action pursuant to authority conferred upon it by Sections 

21(d) and 21(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78(u)(e)].  

 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 

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

 9. Venue is proper in this District, because the City is located within this District and 

the acts constituting violations of the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint occurred 

within this District. 

 10. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant directly or 

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

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 3 of 11



 

4 
 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Background on the City’s Municipal Securities 
 

 11. The City issued and sold municipal securities to investors in 2012 and in 2015.   

In connection with those municipal securities offerings and in compliance with Rule 15c2-12 

promulgated under the Exchange Act, the City undertook to provide investors in the City’s 

securities with what is known as “continuing disclosure.”   Specifically, the City agreed to 

provide investors with annual audited financial statements.  The financial statements were to be 

provided to investors through the MSRB’s EMMA system within six months after the end of the 

City’s fiscal year (September 30).  The City’s municipal advisor typically received the City’s 

annual audited financial statements from Holland and submitted them to EMMA.   

 12.   During the relevant period, Holland oversaw and managed financial and 

accounting matters for the City, including oversight of the City’s central accounting system and 

preparation of the City’s annual financial statements.  Holland was responsible for initiating the 

audit of the City’s financial statements by an independent auditor each year and for providing 

information to the City’s independent auditor in connection with the audit.   

 

   

Holland Created the Falsified Documents 

13. Holland’s position with the City gave him access to the City’s cash accounts.  

Between January 2015 and September 2020, Holland stole approximately $1.12 million from the 

City by directing payments to his personal bank accounts, sometimes using a fictitious corporate 

name to disguise the transactions.  Generally, Holland transferred funds in amounts between 

$500 and $10,000 approximately one to three times a month from the City’s cash account to his 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 4 of 11



 

5 
 

personal bank accounts.  He used the stolen funds for personal living expenses.  His largest 

single theft was $302,800 in mid-October 2016, just after the close of the City’s 2016 fiscal year.  

Amounts stolen by Holland for fiscal years ended September 30 were as follows:  2015: $69,759; 

2016: $107,137; 2017: $389,497; 2018: $168,002; 2019: $159,562; and 2020: $229,140. 

14.    In order to avoid detection of his theft, Holland did not initiate the audit of the 

City’s 2016 financial statements after the conclusion of the fiscal year on September 30, 2016.  

For several months he ignored requests for information from the City’s mayor and its municipal 

advisor about the audit and provided excuses for the lack of audited financial statements.   

15.   Holland falsely told the mayor and the municipal advisor that he was waiting on 

financial information from the City’s auditor and that he would shortly provide the fiscal year 

2016 financial statements and the audit report.  In reality, Holland had not even contacted the 

City’s auditor to commence the audit when he made those statements.   

16.   Holland delayed the audit past the City’s March 31, 2017 deadline for submitting 

the audited financial statements to EMMA.  Beginning in January 2018, Holland began to 

receive requests from the rating agency that rated the City’s outstanding securities about the 

status of the City’s fiscal year 2016 audit.  Holland continued to delay, and in May 2018, the 

rating agency withdrew its rating of the City’s securities.  

17.   In July and August 2018, the mayor and the City’s municipal advisor were still 

asking Holland for the 2016 financial statements and audit report.  By that point they were also 

asking for the City’s fiscal year 2017 financial statements and audit report, which had been due 

to be filed in EMMA in March 2018.   

18. In response to this pressure, Holland created the Falsified Documents.  He took a 

copy of the City’s fiscal year 2015 financial statements and the auditor’s audit report for the 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 5 of 11



 

6 
 

2015 financial statements and changed most references to “2015” to “2016”.  In financial charts 

which had two year comparisons, he also changed most references to “2014” to “2015.”  

19.   Total assets, total liabilities, total revenues, total expenses, total outstanding debt, 

and other key figures purportedly for the year ended September 30, 2016 in the falsified 2016 

financial statements were the exact same amounts reported for the year ended September 30, 

2015 in the City’s fiscal year 2015 financial statements and were inaccurate as 2016 figures.   

20.      Holland edited the 2015 independent auditor report to make it appear as if was the 

2016 independent auditor report, in essence, misrepresenting that the fiscal year 2016 financial 

statements had been audited by the City’s independent auditor. 

21. On August 15, 2018, Holland emailed the Falsified Documents (the 2016 

financial statements and the 2016 audit report) to the mayor, who was not aware of the 

falsifications and posted the Falsified Documents to the City’s public website.  On August 20, 

2018, Holland also sent the Falsified Documents to the City’s municipal advisor.  He did not 

disclose to either that the documents had been falsified.  The municipal advisor, who was not 

aware of the falsifications, uploaded the Falsified Documents to the MSRB’s EMMA system in 

June 2019, at which point the Falsified Documents were available to the public, including 

investors in the City’s securities.    

The Falsified Documents Were Materially False and Misleading 

22.  The Falsified Documents contained materially false and misleading statements 

and omissions about the City’s financial condition and financial statements.   

23.   In comparison to the City’s actual fiscal year 2016 financial statements (which 

were eventually completed and audited in March 2020), the falsified financial statements 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 6 of 11



 

7 
 

understated the City’s total revenues by approximately 8%, understated the City’s total expenses 

by approximately 23%, and overstated the City’s total outstanding debt by approximately 5%.   

24.   The financial statements also did not disclose Holland’s embezzlement of 

$107,137 from the City, representing nearly 5% of the City’s total revenues for fiscal year 2016.   

25. Further, the financial statements falsely stated that the City was not aware of any 

subsequent events that would materially impact the financial statements.  This was false because 

Holland embezzled an additional $302,800 less than two weeks after the end of fiscal year 2016.   

26.  Finally, the falsified audit report was materially false because it stated that the 

2016 financial statements had been audited in compliance with generally accepted audit 

principles, when in fact, they had not been audited at all.   

27.   The Falsified Documents were available to investors on EMMA from June 2019 

until April 28, 2020.  During the time the Falsified Documents were available to investors on 

EMMA, investors engaged in secondary trading in the City’s outstanding municipal bonds. 

 

Discovery of the Fraud 
 

 28.  In mid-February 2020, a financial examiner with a State of Texas entity, which 

was an investor in the City’s 2015 securities, discovered the Falsified Documents that had been 

posted on EMMA.  The investor alerted the City’s auditor, which then notified the City about the 

Falsified Documents and that the fiscal year 2016 financial statements had not yet been audited.     

29. After being notified, the City began an investigation.  Holland made multiple false 

statements in connection with that investigation, including creating a false document in an 

attempt to hide that he had created the Falsified Documents.  During the audit of the City’s 2017 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 7 of 11



 

8 
 

fiscal year financial statements, Holland also provided the City’s auditor with a series of 

fraudulent documents to hide his embezzlement.   

30.   Despite Holland’s attempts to hide his conduct, in mid-September the auditor 

discovered Holland’s embezzlement and the theft was reported to the police.  In September 2020, 

Holland resigned his position with the City.   

 31.  In December 2021, Holland was criminally charged by the United States 

Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas and pled guilty to one count of Theft from a 

State or Local Government and admitted to stealing over $1 million from the City for his 

personal benefit.   

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities  

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder 
  

32. The SEC incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

 33. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendant, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities 

exchange, knowingly or with severe recklessness: 

a. employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; 

b. made untrue statements of material facts 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; and, 

c. engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 8 of 11



 

9 
 

 34.  Defendant violated and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to violate 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 

240.10b-5]. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF  

 WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment: 

I. 

Finding that the Defendant committed the violations alleged in this Complaint. 

 

II. 

Permanently enjoining, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Defendant from violating 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].  

III. 

 Ordering Defendant to disgorge the ill-gotten gains he received as a result of the 

violations alleged herein, plus prejudgment interest on that amount.  

IV. 

 Ordering Defendant to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]. 

V. 

 Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant from: (i) participating in any issuance, 

purchase, offer, or sale of municipal securities, including but not limited to engaging or 

communicating with a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, bond 

insurer, nationally recognized statistical rating organization, regulatory authority or commission, 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 9 of 11



 

10 
 

investor, issuer or obligated person for purposes of issuing, purchasing, offering, or selling any 

municipal security; and (ii) participating in the preparation of materials or information, 

including, without limitation, the preparation of financial statements or projections, which he  

should reasonably expect to be submitted to the MSRB’s EMMA system in connection with an 

offering or a continuing disclosure obligation, or which he should reasonably expect to be 

provided to investors in connection with any offering (including a private placement) of 

municipal securities, provided however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendant from 

purchasing or selling municipal securities for his own personal account;  

VI. 

Ordering Defendant to provide a copy of the Judgment by email or mail within 10 days of 

the entry of the Judgment to any issuer of municipal securities or obligated person with which 

Defendant is employed as of the date of the entry of the Judgment.   

VII. 

 Retaining jurisdiction over this action to implement and carry out the terms of all orders 

and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional 

relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

VIII. 

 Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. 

Dated:  June 16, 2022. 

      Respectfully submitted, 

  /s/William P. Hicks 
      William P. Hicks  
      Senior Trial Counsel 
      Georgia Bar No. 351649  
      [email protected] 
 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 10 of 11

mailto:[email protected]


 

11 
 

             
      M. Graham Loomis  
      Regional Trial Counsel  
      Georgia Bar No. 457868  
      [email protected] 
 
 

United States Securities and Exchange Commission 
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE 
Suite 900 
Atlanta, GA 30326 
Tel: 404-842-7600 
Fax: 404-842-7679 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00590   Document 1   Filed 06/16/22   Page 11 of 11

mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]