In re Forbush & Associates and Daniel

                                                 UNITED                                                 STATES OF AMERICA 

                                                                     Before                                                                     the

                                    SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 56410 / September 13, 2007 
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT 
Release No. 2690 / September 13, 2007 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12771 
In the Matter of 
Forbush & Associates and Daniel 
J. Forbush, CPA, 
Respondents. 
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 
SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 
RULE 102(e) OF THE COMMISSION’S 
RULES OF PRACTICE, MAKING FINDINGS, 
AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 
AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER 
I.                                                                             
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that 
cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Forbush & Associates and 
Daniel J. Forbush, CPA (collectively “Respondents”), pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and that public administrative proceedings be, and 
hereby are, instituted against Forbush & Associates pursuant to Section 4C
1
 of the Exchange Act 
and Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.
2 
1 
Section 4C provides, in relevant part, that: 
The  Commission  may  censure  any  person,  or  deny,  temporarily  or  permanently,  
to  any  person  the  privilege  of  appearing  or  practicing  before  the  Commission  in  
any way, if that person is found . . . to have willfully violated, or willfully aided 
and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities laws or the rules and 
regulations thereunder. 
2 
Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) provides, in relevant part, that: 

                                                                            II.                                                                            
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted an 
Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 
purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 
Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the 
findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of 
these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order Instituting 
Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 4C and 21C of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 
Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as 
set forth below. 
III. 
On the basis of this Order and Respondents’ Offer, the Commission finds
3
 that: 
A.        RESPONDENTS        
1. Forbush & Associates (the “Firm”) is a Nevada partnership and a public 
accounting firm headquartered in Reno, Nevada.  The Firm audited SulphCo, Inc.’s financial 
statements for the company’s 2003 fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.  SulphCo, Inc. 
dismissed the Firm as its independent auditor on May 14, 2004.   
2. Daniel J. Forbush, CPA (“Forbush”), age 54, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in the state of Nevada since 1986.  Before becoming licensed in Nevada, Forbush 
became licensed as a CPA in California in 1978.  Forbush was the engagement partner in 
connection with the Firm’s audit of SulphCo, Inc.’s financial statements for the company’s 2003 
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.   
B.        FACTS        
1. SulphCo, Inc. (“SulphCo”) is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters in 
Sparks, Nevada. SulphCo’s common stock trades on the American Stock Exchange under the 
symbol SUF and is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange 
Act. SulphCo reported no revenues for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and total assets 
The Commission may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the 
privilege  of  appearing  or  practicing  before  it  in  any  way  to  any  person  who  is  
found . . . to have willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation 
of  any  provision  of  the  Federal  securities  laws  or  the  rules  and  regulations  
thereunder. 
The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondents’ Offer of Settlement and are not 
binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding. 
2

3 

of $2 million.   
2. SulphCo has at all relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley 
Act of 2002 (the “Act”). 
3. The Firm audited SulphCo’s 2003 financial statements included in SulphCo’s 
annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on March 29, 
2004. As part of that audit, the Firm prepared and issued an audit report dated March 25, 2004 
(the “SulphCo audit report”), which the company included in its 2003 Form 10-KSB.  SulphCo 
paid the Firm $15,000 for the audit work.
4 
4. At the time the Firm issued the SulphCo audit report, it was not registered with 
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “Board”), as required by Section 102(a) 
of the Act. 
5. Forbush was the engagement partner on the Firm’s audit of SulphCo’s 2003 
financial statements.  Forbush participated in the preparation and issuance of the SulphCo audit 
report. 
C. VIOLATIONS 
1. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.”
5 
2. The provisions of Section 102(a) of the Act became effective on October 22, 
2003.
6 
3. Based on the conduct described above, the Firm willfully
7
 violated Section 102(a) 
4 
During the course of the Commission’s investigation, the Firm voluntarily reimbursed 
SulphCo the $15,000 in audit fees through the provision of non-audit services.  In view of the 
Firm’s reimbursement, the Commission is not ordering disgorgement in this matter. 
5 
A violation of the Act or any rule that the Board issues under the Act is treated for all 
purposes in the same manner as a violation of the Exchange Act, including with respect to 
penalties. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C.A. § 7202(b)(1) (West 2002). 
6 
Section 102(a) became effective “[b]eginning 180 days after the date of the determination 
of the Commission under Section 101(d)” of the Act that the Board was prepared to undertake its 
statutory responsibilities. The Commission made the required determination on April 25, 2003.  
See
 Order Regarding Section 101(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Securities Act Release 
No. 8223, Exchange Act Release No. 47746, 2003 WL 1956164  (Apr. 25, 2003). 
7 
“Willfully” as used in this Offer means intentionally committing the act that constitutes 
the violation. There is no requirement that the actor also be aware that he is violating a rule or 
3


of the Act. 
4. Based on the conduct described above, Forbush caused the Firm’s violation of 
Section 102(a) of the Act. 
D.        FINDINGS        
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Firm willfully violated Section 
102(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and that Forbush caused the Firm’s violation of 
Section 102(a) of the Act. 
E. UNDERTAKING 
Respondents undertake not to request, demand, or accept, directly or indirectly, any 
compensation from SulphCo in connection with the audit work associated with the SulphCo 
audit report. In determining whether to accept the Offer, the Commission has considered this 
undertaking. 
IV. 
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions 
agreed to in Respondents’ Offer. 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, effective immediately, that: 
1. Forbush & Associates 
A. The Firm shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations 
and any future violations of Section 102(a) of the Act. 
B. The Firm is censured. 
C. The Firm may practice before the Commission as an independent accountant 
provided that: 
1. It is registered with the Board in accordance with the Act, and such 
registration continues to be effective; and 
2. It has submitted to the Commission staff (attention: Office of the 
Chief Accountant) the Board’s letter notifying the Firm that its registration application has been 
approved. 
statute.  See
 Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d 408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Tager v. SEC, 344 F.2d 5, 8 
(2d Cir. 1965). 
4 

2. Daniel J. Forbush, CPA 
A. Forbush shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations 
and any future violations of Section 102(a) of the Act. 
B. Forbush may practice before the Commission as an independent accountant 
provided that: 
1. The public accounting firm with which he is associated is 
registered with the Board in accordance with the Act, and such registration continues to be 
effective; and 
2. He has submitted to the Commission staff (attention: Office of the 
Chief Accountant) the Board’s letter notifying the public accounting firm with which he is 
associated that its registration application has been approved. 
By the Commission. 
       Nancy M. Morris
       Secretary 
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Before the

   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 56410 / September 13, 2007 

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT 
Release No. 2690 / September 13, 2007 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12771 

In the Matter of 

Forbush & Associates and Daniel 
J. Forbush, CPA, 

Respondents. 

ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 
SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 
RULE 102(e) OF THE COMMISSION’S 
RULES OF PRACTICE, MAKING FINDINGS, 
AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 
AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER 

I. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that 
cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Forbush & Associates and 
Daniel J. Forbush, CPA (collectively “Respondents”), pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and that public administrative proceedings be, and 
hereby are, instituted against Forbush & Associates pursuant to Section 4C1 of the Exchange Act 
and Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.2 

1 Section 4C provides, in relevant part, that: 

The Commission may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently, 
to any person the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission in 
any way, if that person is found . . . to have willfully violated, or willfully aided 
and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities laws or the rules and 
regulations thereunder. 

2 Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) provides, in relevant part, that: 



 II. 

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted an 
Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 
purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 
Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the 
findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of 
these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order Instituting 
Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 4C and 21C of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 
Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as 
set forth below. 

III. 

On the basis of this Order and Respondents’ Offer, the Commission finds3 that: 

A. RESPONDENTS 

1. Forbush & Associates (the “Firm”) is a Nevada partnership and a public 
accounting firm headquartered in Reno, Nevada.  The Firm audited SulphCo, Inc.’s financial 
statements for the company’s 2003 fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.  SulphCo, Inc. 
dismissed the Firm as its independent auditor on May 14, 2004.   

2. Daniel J. Forbush, CPA (“Forbush”), age 54, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in the state of Nevada since 1986.  Before becoming licensed in Nevada, Forbush 
became licensed as a CPA in California in 1978.  Forbush was the engagement partner in 
connection with the Firm’s audit of SulphCo, Inc.’s financial statements for the company’s 2003 
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.   

B. FACTS 

1. SulphCo, Inc. (“SulphCo”) is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters in 
Sparks, Nevada. SulphCo’s common stock trades on the American Stock Exchange under the 
symbol SUF and is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange 
Act. SulphCo reported no revenues for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and total assets 

The Commission may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the 
privilege of appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is 
found . . . to have willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation 
of any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations 
thereunder. 

The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondents’ Offer of Settlement and are not 
binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding. 

2


3 



of $2 million.   

2. SulphCo has at all relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley 
Act of 2002 (the “Act”). 

3. The Firm audited SulphCo’s 2003 financial statements included in SulphCo’s 
annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on March 29, 
2004. As part of that audit, the Firm prepared and issued an audit report dated March 25, 2004 
(the “SulphCo audit report”), which the company included in its 2003 Form 10-KSB.  SulphCo 
paid the Firm $15,000 for the audit work.4 

4. At the time the Firm issued the SulphCo audit report, it was not registered with 
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “Board”), as required by Section 102(a) 
of the Act. 

5. Forbush was the engagement partner on the Firm’s audit of SulphCo’s 2003 
financial statements.  Forbush participated in the preparation and issuance of the SulphCo audit 
report. 

C. VIOLATIONS 

1. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.”5 

2. The provisions of Section 102(a) of the Act became effective on October 22, 
2003.6 

3. Based on the conduct described above, the Firm willfully7 violated Section 102(a) 

4 During the course of the Commission’s investigation, the Firm voluntarily reimbursed 
SulphCo the $15,000 in audit fees through the provision of non-audit services.  In view of the 
Firm’s reimbursement, the Commission is not ordering disgorgement in this matter. 

5 A violation of the Act or any rule that the Board issues under the Act is treated for all 
purposes in the same manner as a violation of the Exchange Act, including with respect to 
penalties. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C.A. § 7202(b)(1) (West 2002). 

6 Section 102(a) became effective “[b]eginning 180 days after the date of the determination 
of the Commission under Section 101(d)” of the Act that the Board was prepared to undertake its 
statutory responsibilities. The Commission made the required determination on April 25, 2003.  
See Order Regarding Section 101(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Securities Act Release 
No. 8223, Exchange Act Release No. 47746, 2003 WL 1956164  (Apr. 25, 2003). 

7 “Willfully” as used in this Offer means intentionally committing the act that constitutes 
the violation. There is no requirement that the actor also be aware that he is violating a rule or 

3




of the Act. 

4. Based on the conduct described above, Forbush caused the Firm’s violation of 
Section 102(a) of the Act. 

D. FINDINGS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Firm willfully violated Section 
102(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and that Forbush caused the Firm’s violation of 
Section 102(a) of the Act. 

E. UNDERTAKING 

Respondents undertake not to request, demand, or accept, directly or indirectly, any 
compensation from SulphCo in connection with the audit work associated with the SulphCo 
audit report. In determining whether to accept the Offer, the Commission has considered this 
undertaking. 

IV. 

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions 
agreed to in Respondents’ Offer. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, effective immediately, that: 

1. Forbush & Associates 

A. The Firm shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations 
and any future violations of Section 102(a) of the Act. 

B. The Firm is censured. 

C. The Firm may practice before the Commission as an independent accountant 
provided that: 

1. It is registered with the Board in accordance with the Act, and such 
registration continues to be effective; and 

2. It has submitted to the Commission staff (attention: Office of the 
Chief Accountant) the Board’s letter notifying the Firm that its registration application has been 
approved. 

statute.  See Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d 408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Tager v. SEC, 344 F.2d 5, 8 
(2d Cir. 1965). 

4 



2. Daniel J. Forbush, CPA 

A. Forbush shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations 
and any future violations of Section 102(a) of the Act. 

B. Forbush may practice before the Commission as an independent accountant 
provided that: 

1. The public accounting firm with which he is associated is 
registered with the Board in accordance with the Act, and such registration continues to be 
effective; and 

2. He has submitted to the Commission staff (attention: Office of the 
Chief Accountant) the Board’s letter notifying the public accounting firm with which he is 
associated that its registration application has been approved. 

By the Commission. 

       Nancy  M.  Morris
       Secretary  

5