SEC v. Jose D. Rocha, No. 1:23-cv-11779, District of Massachusetts (July 30, 2025) — Complaint

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________________
)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,  )
)
 Plaintiff,      )
)
 v.            )  Civil Action No.
)
JOSE D. ROCHA,        )  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
              )
      Defendant.      )
              )
___________________________________________ )

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Commission”) alleges the
following against defendant Jose D. Rocha (“Rocha”) and demands a jury trial:
SUMMARY
1. From at least September 2020 through April 2022, Rocha deceived at least 13
investors into giving him at least $1 million dollars by promising to invest their money in
securities of his choosing with returns of 12% per month.  Instead, unbeknownst to his
investors, Rocha spent the majority of the funds to feed his gambling habit and embark on a
luxury lifestyle.  Also unbeknownst to investors and contrary to what he was telling investors
about their investment principal and returns, Rocha lost what was left of the investors’ money
through substantial investment losses in his personal brokerage accounts.  To conceal his
wrongdoing, Rocha made Ponzi-like payments to investors by using later investor money to pay
small amounts to earlier investors to give the false impression their money was secure.

2

2. Rocha took the money from his investors under a series of false pretenses.  First,
Rocha touted that he was a successful investor, even offering online seminars in options trading
to the general public.  To the contrary, Rocha had only started investing in 2019 and
consistently lost money.
3. Second, Rocha misrepresented to the investors that all their funds would be
invested in securities.  Instead, the majority of investor funds remained in Rocha’s personal
bank account.
4. Third, Rocha misrepresented that the invested funds were earning 12% monthly
and investors could redeem their money in whole or in part, at any time.  In reality, he had spent
or lost almost all the investors’ money.
5. Fourth, Rocha did not tell his investors that he would use their money to
withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos, take several high-end trips to Las Vegas
and Florida, and purchase luxury goods and services.
6. Fifth, Rocha moved some investor funds into his personal brokerage accounts
where he lost money trading.  He did not tell his investors that he did not segregate or
separately account for any of the investor funds or that he was trading their money at a loss.
7. When a few investors inquired about their money, Rocha fabricated account
statements.  These account statements contained fake account balances and repeated the bogus
promise of 12% monthly investment returns.  Rocha also falsely confirmed by text an investor’s
own 12% monthly return calculations.  Rocha congratulated the investor on becoming a
millionaire from having invested $211,000 with Rocha, when Rocha knew he had spent or
otherwise lost all the investor’s money.

3

8. By engaging in the conduct alleged, Rocha violated, and unless restrained and
enjoined, will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities
Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(“Advisers Act”).
9. Based on these violations, the Commission seeks: (a) permanent injunctions; (b)
disgorgement of Rocha’s ill-gotten gains, plus prejudgment interest; (c) civil penalties due to
the egregious nature of Rocha’s violations; and (d) such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the enforcement authority
conferred upon it by Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)], Section 21(d) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], and Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C.
§80b-9(d)].
11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22(a) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), 78aa], and Sections 209(d), 209(e) and 214 of the Advisers Act [15
U.S.C. §§80b-9(d), 80b-9(e), 80b-14].
12. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15
U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Section 214 of the
Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-14] because a substantial part of the acts constituting the alleged
violations occurred in Massachusetts and Rocha resides in Massachusetts and transacts business
here.

4

13. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Rocha directly or
indirectly made use of the mails or the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce.
14. Rocha’s conduct involved fraud, deceit, or deliberate or reckless disregard of
regulatory requirements, and resulted in substantial loss, or significant risk of substantial loss, to
other persons.
DEFENDANT
15. Jose D. Rocha, 37, is a citizen of the Republic of Cabo Verde who resides in
Brockton, Massachusetts.  Rocha has never been associated with any entity registered with the
Commission.  Rocha acted as an unregistered investment adviser for the investors described in
this complaint by having induced investors to give him funds to invest in securities based in part
on his touted investment experience and promised investment performance.  As an investment
adviser, Rocha owed his investors a fiduciary duty to, among other things, act for their benefit
and exercise the utmost good faith in dealing with them, including making full and fair
disclosure of all material facts and employing reasonable care to avoid misleading them.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Rocha Obtained Investor Funds under False Pretenses

16. Rocha started investing in securities in only the past few years.  He opened his
first brokerage account in October 2019, and reported investment transactions involving less
than $4,000 that year on his federal income tax return.
17. In subsequent years, Rocha has conducted heavy day-trading activity in his
personal brokerage accounts on margin, meaning that he borrowed money from his broker to
place several purchases and sales of securities on a daily basis.  For example, Rocha had
approximately $2.5 million and $4.2 million annual volume of trades—meaning the total dollar

5

value of all trades placed in the year—in 2020 and 2021, respectively.  Rocha reported
investment losses of $70,000 and $201,000 on his federal income tax returns in 2020 and 2021,
respectively, years in which the major stock market indices rose by double-digit percentages.
18. Rocha first accepted money from investors in or about September 2020.  The
investors did not meet collectively with Rocha to discuss investments and they had no role in
purported investment decisions about their own money.  Rather, Rocha told the investors he
would unilaterally invest their money in securities based on his touted investment experience
and success.
19. For example, Rocha has publicly offered seminars on options trading via
YouTube on which he stated, among other things: “Options trading is a very difficult thing to
learn as a beginner...In this video, my goal is to bring you from zero to hero in a few hours.”
20. The investors did not sign any agreements, receipts, or other kinds of documents
with Rocha regarding their investments, trusting him as their investment adviser to invest and
protect their money.
21. Rocha did not specify any particular investment strategy with the investors—he
falsely stated that he would use his personal brokerage account to invest their money entirely in
securities of his choosing at a substantial profit.  Rocha promised an exorbitant and overly
consistent 12% monthly return on their investment.  Rocha also promised the investors that all
or part of their money would always be available for redemption at any time.
B.   Rocha Did Not Invest Most of the Investors’ Funds

22. Rocha deposited the vast majority of the investor funds (which he received in the
form of personal or cashier’s checks) into his personal bank account.  Rocha commingled the
investor funds with his own personal funds.  The investor funds were a substantial portion of his

6

bank account balance.  Indeed, Rocha had no employment or other sources of income in 2020
or 2021.
23. During the time Rocha took in at least $1 million of investor money, he
transferred less than half that amount to his personal brokerage accounts.  Rocha transferred
funds to his brokerage accounts at times and in amounts that did not correspond to when he
received money from investors.  Rather, Rocha continued to trade on margin and used investor
funds to reduce his margin balance—i.e., pay back his broker money he borrowed to trade.
Rocha did not purchase securities on his investors’ behalf at the time he moved their money into
his personal brokerage account and never maintained separate accounts for his investors.
24. Rocha’s trading in his personal brokerage accounts yielded substantial losses in
2020, 2021 and early 2022.  For example, Rocha transferred $50,000 from his bank account to
his brokerage account on July 20, 2021.  The following day, Rocha purchased 101 shares of a
stock at $940.60 per share.  On September 3, 2021, Rocha sold those shares at $561.00 per
share— a 40% loss in a matter of weeks.
25. Rocha did not keep investor funds in separate accounts.  And he did not maintain
records of what happened to his investors’ money in his own account.  For example, Rocha did
not allocate any investment positions, gains, or losses among the investors.
26. Rocha also did not provide the investors with any tax-related documents, and
reported all investment losses in his personal brokerage accounts on his own personal income
tax returns.
27. Rocha did not routinely send account statements to the investors about their
investments.  Indeed, he couldn’t because he did not maintain separate accounts for his
investors and did not keep any records of how their money was spent.  When investors inquired
from time-to-time, Rocha prepared fake account statements.  These fabricated monthly

7

statements contained the principal amount allegedly invested plus purported “earnings” of
exactly 12% per month for a “total value” of the investment.  These fake statements gave the
investors the impression that their money was secure and growing, whereas in reality Rocha
was squandering most of the investor funds and otherwise sustaining investment losses.
28. Rocha corresponded repeatedly with an investor by text message about the
purported 12% monthly returns.  This investor had given Rocha approximately $123,000 to
invest in June 2021.  On July 2, 2021, Rocha texted the investor: “So you have balance 300K.”
Starting in September 2021, the investor texted Rocha on a monthly basis confirming the 12%
returns.  Rocha responded by giving a thumbs-up or heart sign on most of the messages.
29. This same investor continued giving Rocha money to invest through December
2021 for a total of $211,000.  On March 2, 2022, the investor texted Rocha: “As [of] 3/1/22
$1,066,240.  It’s official my friend...Millionaire.”  Rocha noted he “Loved” the message and
wrote “Yep.  Congratulations.”  The investor responded: “Thank you for everything, it really
means a lot to me.”  In reality, as of March 1, 2022, Rocha had only approximately $68,000
total across all of his bank and brokerage accounts.
C. Rocha Misused the Investors’ Funds

30. Rather than investing in securities as promised, Rocha kept and spent the
majority of the investor funds in his personal bank account to feed his gambling habit and a new
luxury lifestyle.  During the time of his scheme, Rocha withdrew more than $200,000 at casinos
and spent tens of thousands of dollars at expensive restaurants, designer clothing stores and the
Apple store.
31. Rocha also took luxury gambling trips to Las Vegas and Miami.  For example, in
late April and early May 2021, Rocha deposited approximately $70,000 from three investors
into his personal bank account.  In the following weeks, Rocha transferred just $20,000 into his

8

brokerage account (largely to offset his margin balance) while withdrawing $3,000 at a local
casino and taking a luxury trip to Miami.  On that trip Rocha spent over $6,000 at a luxury
hotel, $3,500 to charter a yacht, over $1,000 at a casino, and almost $800 on airline tickets.
32. In Ponzi-scheme fashion, Rocha also used later-invested funds to pay small
amounts back to earlier investors.  Rocha made these payments to give these investors the false
impression their funds were secure and available on demand.
33. Rocha’s investors lost virtually everything they invested with Rocha—none have
been made whole much less earned a profit.  Rocha’s personal bank and brokerage accounts
have minimal balances today.  In the end, Rocha lived a lavish lifestyle at his investors’ expense
all the while repeatedly lying to his investors about their purported account balances and
investment returns.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act)
34. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1-33 above.
35. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, in the offer or sale of
securities: (a) has employed or is employing devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) has
obtained money or property by making untrue statements of material fact or omitting material
facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading; or (c) has engaged or is engaging
in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon the
purchasers of such securities.

9

36. By reason of the conduct described above, Rocha has violated, and unless
enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder)
37. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1-33 above.
38. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the
means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the facilities of a national securities
exchange or the mail: (a) has employed or is employing devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; (b) has made or is making untrue statements of material fact or has omitted or are is to
state material fact(s) necessary to make the statements made not misleading; or (c) has engaged
or is engaging in acts, practices, or courses of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon
certain persons.
39. By engaging in the conduct described above, Rocha has violated, and unless
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].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act)
40. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1-33 above.
41. At all relevant times, Rocha was an “investment adviser” within the meaning of
Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-2(a)(11)].

10

42. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha directly or indirectly, acting intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently and by use of the means or instruments of transportation
or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, as an investment adviser:
(1) has employed or is employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a client or
prospective client; and (2) has engaged or is engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of
business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client.
43. By engaging in the conduct described above, Rocha violated and, unless
enjoined, will continue to violate, Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C.
§§80b-6(1), 80b-6(2)].
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court:
A. Enter a permanent injunction restraining Rocha and any persons in active concert
or participation with him who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or
otherwise, including facsimile transmission or overnight delivery service, from directly or
indirectly engaging in the conduct described above, or in conduct of a similar purport and
effect, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder; and
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-6(1), 80b-6(2)];
B. Enter a permanent injunction restraining Rocha from, directly or indirectly,
including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by Rocha, participating in
the offer or sale of any security to investors or potential investors, including but not limited to
soliciting or accepting funds from any investor or potential investor in the offer or sale of any
securities, provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Rocha from purchasing or
selling registered securities for his own personal account;

11

C. Require Rocha to disgorge his ill-gotten gains, plus pre-judgment interest;
D. Require Rocha to pay appropriate civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section
20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-9(e)];
E. Retain jurisdiction over this action to implement and carry out the terms of all
orders and decrees that may be entered; and
F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
The Commission demands a jury in this matter for all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
By its attorneys,
/s/ Alfred A. Day
Alfred A. Day (MA BBO No. 654436)
Senior Trial Counsel
Boston Regional Office
33 Arch Street, 24th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 573-4537
[email protected]

Dated: August 3, 2023

1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS  

  

___________________________________________  

)  

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,  )  

)  

 Plaintiff,      )  

)  

 v.            )  Civil Action No.  

)  

JOSE D. ROCHA,        )  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED  

              )  

      Defendant.      )    

              )  

___________________________________________ )  

  

COMPLAINT  

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Commission”) alleges the 

following against defendant Jose D. Rocha (“Rocha”) and demands a jury trial:  

SUMMARY  

1. From at least September 2020 through April 2022, Rocha deceived at least 13 

investors into giving him at least $1 million dollars by promising to invest their money in 

securities of his choosing with returns of 12% per month.  Instead, unbeknownst to his 

investors, Rocha spent the majority of the funds to feed his gambling habit and embark on a 

luxury lifestyle.  Also unbeknownst to investors and contrary to what he was telling investors 

about their investment principal and returns, Rocha lost what was left of the investors’ money 

through substantial investment losses in his personal brokerage accounts.  To conceal his 

wrongdoing, Rocha made Ponzi-like payments to investors by using later investor money to pay 

small amounts to earlier investors to give the false impression their money was secure.   

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 1 of 11



 

2 

 

2. Rocha took the money from his investors under a series of false pretenses.  First, 

Rocha touted that he was a successful investor, even offering online seminars in options trading 

to the general public.  To the contrary, Rocha had only started investing in 2019 and 

consistently lost money.  

3. Second, Rocha misrepresented to the investors that all their funds would be 

invested in securities.  Instead, the majority of investor funds remained in Rocha’s personal 

bank account.   

4. Third, Rocha misrepresented that the invested funds were earning 12% monthly 

and investors could redeem their money in whole or in part, at any time.  In reality, he had spent 

or lost almost all the investors’ money. 

5. Fourth, Rocha did not tell his investors that he would use their money to 

withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos, take several high-end trips to Las Vegas 

and Florida, and purchase luxury goods and services.  

6. Fifth, Rocha moved some investor funds into his personal brokerage accounts 

where he lost money trading.  He did not tell his investors that he did not segregate or 

separately account for any of the investor funds or that he was trading their money at a loss. 

7. When a few investors inquired about their money, Rocha fabricated account 

statements.  These account statements contained fake account balances and repeated the bogus 

promise of 12% monthly investment returns.  Rocha also falsely confirmed by text an investor’s 

own 12% monthly return calculations.  Rocha congratulated the investor on becoming a 

millionaire from having invested $211,000 with Rocha, when Rocha knew he had spent or 

otherwise lost all the investor’s money.      

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 2 of 11



 

3 

 

8. By engaging in the conduct alleged, Rocha violated, and unless restrained and 

enjoined, will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities 

Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 

10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

(“Advisers Act”).   

9. Based on these violations, the Commission seeks: (a) permanent injunctions; (b) 

disgorgement of Rocha’s ill-gotten gains, plus prejudgment interest; (c) civil penalties due to 

the egregious nature of Rocha’s violations; and (d) such other and further relief as the Court 

deems just and proper.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the enforcement authority 

conferred upon it by Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)], Section 21(d) of 

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], and Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 

§80b-9(d)].  

11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22(a) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), 78aa], and Sections 209(d), 209(e) and 214 of the Advisers Act [15 

U.S.C. §§80b-9(d), 80b-9(e), 80b-14].  

12. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Section 214 of the 

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-14] because a substantial part of the acts constituting the alleged 

violations occurred in Massachusetts and Rocha resides in Massachusetts and transacts business 

here.   

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 3 of 11



 

4 

 

13. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Rocha directly or 

indirectly made use of the mails or the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce. 

14. Rocha’s conduct involved fraud, deceit, or deliberate or reckless disregard of 

regulatory requirements, and resulted in substantial loss, or significant risk of substantial loss, to 

other persons.   

DEFENDANT  

15. Jose D. Rocha, 37, is a citizen of the Republic of Cabo Verde who resides in 

Brockton, Massachusetts.  Rocha has never been associated with any entity registered with the 

Commission.  Rocha acted as an unregistered investment adviser for the investors described in 

this complaint by having induced investors to give him funds to invest in securities based in part 

on his touted investment experience and promised investment performance.  As an investment 

adviser, Rocha owed his investors a fiduciary duty to, among other things, act for their benefit 

and exercise the utmost good faith in dealing with them, including making full and fair 

disclosure of all material facts and employing reasonable care to avoid misleading them.   

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS  

A. Rocha Obtained Investor Funds under False Pretenses 
 

16. Rocha started investing in securities in only the past few years.  He opened his 

first brokerage account in October 2019, and reported investment transactions involving less 

than $4,000 that year on his federal income tax return.   

17. In subsequent years, Rocha has conducted heavy day-trading activity in his 

personal brokerage accounts on margin, meaning that he borrowed money from his broker to 

place several purchases and sales of securities on a daily basis.  For example, Rocha had 

approximately $2.5 million and $4.2 million annual volume of trades—meaning the total dollar 

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 4 of 11



 

5 

 

value of all trades placed in the year—in 2020 and 2021, respectively.  Rocha reported 

investment losses of $70,000 and $201,000 on his federal income tax returns in 2020 and 2021, 

respectively, years in which the major stock market indices rose by double-digit percentages. 

18. Rocha first accepted money from investors in or about September 2020.  The 

investors did not meet collectively with Rocha to discuss investments and they had no role in 

purported investment decisions about their own money.  Rather, Rocha told the investors he 

would unilaterally invest their money in securities based on his touted investment experience 

and success.   

19. For example, Rocha has publicly offered seminars on options trading via 

YouTube on which he stated, among other things: “Options trading is a very difficult thing to 

learn as a beginner…In this video, my goal is to bring you from zero to hero in a few hours.” 

20. The investors did not sign any agreements, receipts, or other kinds of documents 

with Rocha regarding their investments, trusting him as their investment adviser to invest and 

protect their money.   

21. Rocha did not specify any particular investment strategy with the investors—he 

falsely stated that he would use his personal brokerage account to invest their money entirely in 

securities of his choosing at a substantial profit.  Rocha promised an exorbitant and overly 

consistent 12% monthly return on their investment.  Rocha also promised the investors that all 

or part of their money would always be available for redemption at any time.   

B.   Rocha Did Not Invest Most of the Investors’ Funds 
 

22. Rocha deposited the vast majority of the investor funds (which he received in the 

form of personal or cashier’s checks) into his personal bank account.  Rocha commingled the 

investor funds with his own personal funds.  The investor funds were a substantial portion of his 

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 5 of 11



 

6 

 

bank account balance.  Indeed, Rocha had no employment or other sources of income in 2020 

or 2021.   

23. During the time Rocha took in at least $1 million of investor money, he 

transferred less than half that amount to his personal brokerage accounts.  Rocha transferred 

funds to his brokerage accounts at times and in amounts that did not correspond to when he 

received money from investors.  Rather, Rocha continued to trade on margin and used investor 

funds to reduce his margin balance—i.e., pay back his broker money he borrowed to trade.  

Rocha did not purchase securities on his investors’ behalf at the time he moved their money into 

his personal brokerage account and never maintained separate accounts for his investors.   

24. Rocha’s trading in his personal brokerage accounts yielded substantial losses in 

2020, 2021 and early 2022.  For example, Rocha transferred $50,000 from his bank account to 

his brokerage account on July 20, 2021.  The following day, Rocha purchased 101 shares of a 

stock at $940.60 per share.  On September 3, 2021, Rocha sold those shares at $561.00 per 

share— a 40% loss in a matter of weeks.  

25. Rocha did not keep investor funds in separate accounts.  And he did not maintain 

records of what happened to his investors’ money in his own account.  For example, Rocha did 

not allocate any investment positions, gains, or losses among the investors.   

26. Rocha also did not provide the investors with any tax-related documents, and 

reported all investment losses in his personal brokerage accounts on his own personal income 

tax returns.     

27. Rocha did not routinely send account statements to the investors about their 

investments.  Indeed, he couldn’t because he did not maintain separate accounts for his 

investors and did not keep any records of how their money was spent.  When investors inquired 

from time-to-time, Rocha prepared fake account statements.  These fabricated monthly 

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 6 of 11



 

7 

 

statements contained the principal amount allegedly invested plus purported “earnings” of 

exactly 12% per month for a “total value” of the investment.  These fake statements gave the 

investors the impression that their money was secure and growing, whereas in reality Rocha 

was squandering most of the investor funds and otherwise sustaining investment losses. 

28. Rocha corresponded repeatedly with an investor by text message about the 

purported 12% monthly returns.  This investor had given Rocha approximately $123,000 to 

invest in June 2021.  On July 2, 2021, Rocha texted the investor: “So you have balance 300K.”  

Starting in September 2021, the investor texted Rocha on a monthly basis confirming the 12% 

returns.  Rocha responded by giving a thumbs-up or heart sign on most of the messages.   

29. This same investor continued giving Rocha money to invest through December 

2021 for a total of $211,000.  On March 2, 2022, the investor texted Rocha: “As [of] 3/1/22 

$1,066,240.  It’s official my friend…Millionaire.”  Rocha noted he “Loved” the message and 

wrote “Yep.  Congratulations.”  The investor responded: “Thank you for everything, it really 

means a lot to me.”  In reality, as of March 1, 2022, Rocha had only approximately $68,000 

total across all of his bank and brokerage accounts.       

C. Rocha Misused the Investors’ Funds 
 

30. Rather than investing in securities as promised, Rocha kept and spent the 

majority of the investor funds in his personal bank account to feed his gambling habit and a new 

luxury lifestyle.  During the time of his scheme, Rocha withdrew more than $200,000 at casinos 

and spent tens of thousands of dollars at expensive restaurants, designer clothing stores and the 

Apple store.   

31. Rocha also took luxury gambling trips to Las Vegas and Miami.  For example, in 

late April and early May 2021, Rocha deposited approximately $70,000 from three investors 

into his personal bank account.  In the following weeks, Rocha transferred just $20,000 into his 

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 7 of 11



 

8 

 

brokerage account (largely to offset his margin balance) while withdrawing $3,000 at a local 

casino and taking a luxury trip to Miami.  On that trip Rocha spent over $6,000 at a luxury 

hotel, $3,500 to charter a yacht, over $1,000 at a casino, and almost $800 on airline tickets. 

32. In Ponzi-scheme fashion, Rocha also used later-invested funds to pay small 

amounts back to earlier investors.  Rocha made these payments to give these investors the false 

impression their funds were secure and available on demand.    

33. Rocha’s investors lost virtually everything they invested with Rocha—none have 

been made whole much less earned a profit.  Rocha’s personal bank and brokerage accounts 

have minimal balances today.  In the end, Rocha lived a lavish lifestyle at his investors’ expense 

all the while repeatedly lying to his investors about their purported account balances and 

investment returns.    

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF  

(Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act)  

34. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1-33 above.  

35. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, 

knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, in the offer or sale of 

securities: (a) has employed or is employing devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (b) has 

obtained money or property by making untrue statements of material fact or omitting material 

facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading; or (c) has engaged or is engaging 

in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchasers of such securities.  

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 8 of 11



 

9 

 

36. By reason of the conduct described above, Rocha has violated, and unless 

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

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF  

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

37. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1-33 above.  

38. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, 

knowingly or recklessly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the 

means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the facilities of a national securities 

exchange or the mail: (a) has employed or is employing devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; (b) has made or is making untrue statements of material fact or has omitted or are is to 

state material fact(s) necessary to make the statements made not misleading; or (c) has engaged 

or is engaging in acts, practices, or courses of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon 

certain persons.  

39. By engaging in the conduct described above, Rocha has violated, and unless 

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].  

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF  

(Violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act) 

40. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1-33 above. 

41. At all relevant times, Rocha was an “investment adviser” within the meaning of 

Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-2(a)(11)]. 

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 9 of 11



 

10 

 

42. By reason of the foregoing, Rocha directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, 

knowingly, recklessly, or negligently and by use of the means or instruments of transportation 

or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, as an investment adviser: 

(1) has employed or is employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a client or 

prospective client; and (2) has engaged or is engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of 

business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client. 

43. By engaging in the conduct described above, Rocha violated and, unless 

enjoined, will continue to violate, Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 

§§80b-6(1), 80b-6(2)].  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF  

WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court:  

A. Enter a permanent injunction restraining Rocha and any persons in active concert 

or participation with him who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or 

otherwise, including facsimile transmission or overnight delivery service, from directly or 

indirectly engaging in the conduct described above, or in conduct of a similar purport and 

effect, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; Section 10(b) of 

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder; and 

Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-6(1), 80b-6(2)];  

B. Enter a permanent injunction restraining Rocha from, directly or indirectly, 

including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by Rocha, participating in 

the offer or sale of any security to investors or potential investors, including but not limited to  

soliciting or accepting funds from any investor or potential investor in the offer or sale of any 

securities, provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Rocha from purchasing or 

selling registered securities for his own personal account;  

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 10 of 11



 

11 

 

C. Require Rocha to disgorge his ill-gotten gains, plus pre-judgment interest;  

D. Require Rocha to pay appropriate civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section  

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

U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-9(e)];  

E. Retain jurisdiction over this action to implement and carry out the terms of all 

orders and decrees that may be entered; and  

F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.  

JURY DEMAND  

The Commission demands a jury in this matter for all claims so triable.  

Respectfully submitted,  

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION  

By its attorneys,  

/s/ Alfred A. Day     

Alfred A. Day (MA BBO No. 654436) 

Senior Trial Counsel 

Boston Regional Office  

33 Arch Street, 24th Floor  

Boston, MA 02110  

(617) 573-4537  

[email protected]  

  

Dated: August 3, 2023  

Case 1:23-cv-11779   Document 1   Filed 08/03/23   Page 11 of 11