SEC v. Kronus Financial Corporation; Finser International Corporation; and Andrew H. Jacobus, No. 1:25-cv-22411, Southern District of Florida (May 29, 2025) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

            Plaintiff,

v.

KRONUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
FINSER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
AND ANDREW H. JACOBUS,

            Defendants.
   /

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

            Plaintiff            Securities            and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) alleges as follows:

I.          INTRODUCTION
1. Between  at  least  May  2015  and  April  2024  (the  “Relevant  Period”),  Defendants
Andrew H. Jacobus (“Jacobus”), Finser International Corporation (“Finser”), and Kronus Financial
Corporation  (“Kronus”)  misappropriated  approximately  $17.3  million  from  40  advisory  clients
(“Clients”),  most  of  whom  are  Venezuelan  nationals  and  include  Catholic  dioceses  and  elderly
individuals.
2. During the Relevant Period, Jacobus advised Clients to invest in investment funds he
purportedly  managed,  as  well  as  other  securities.    He  abused  his  position  of  trust  based  on  his
fiduciary  duty  as  an  investment  adviser  to  several  Clients  by  duping  them  into  depositing
approximately $39.7 million into various bank and brokerage accounts he controlled, from which he
misappropriated  Client  funds  and  made  $7.8  million  in  Ponzi-like  payments  to  certain  Clients  and
other investors.

2

3. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants violated Section
17(a)  of  the  Securities  Act  of  1933  (“Securities  Act”)  [15  U.S.C.  §§  77q(a)];  Section  10(b)  of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“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  Investment  Advisers  Act  of  1940
(“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1) and (2)].
4. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to violate the federal securities laws.  The
Commission  seeks  injunctive  relief,  as  well  as  disgorgement  with  prejudgment  interest,  and  civil
penalties against Defendants.  The Commission also seeks an order imposing a permanent conduct-
based injunction against Jacobus.
II.        DEFENDANTS
5. Kronus was  a  Florida  corporation  with  its  principal  place  of  business  in  Miami,
Florida from February 2017 through its administrative dissolution on September 27, 2024.  Kronus
served  as  a  holding  company  for  assets  and  offered  consulting  services.    Jacobus  was  the  sole
owner, president, and director of Kronus.
6. Finser  was  a  Florida  corporation  located  in  Coral  Gables,  Florida  from  April  2010
through its administrative dissolution on September 27, 2024.  Jacobus was the director, president,
and  sole  owner  of  Finser.    Finser  was  registered  with  the  Commission  as  an  investment  adviser
between  June  2010  and  January  2021,  when  it  filed  a  Form  ADV-W  to  withdraw  its  registration.
Finser  offered  discretionary  and  non-discretionary  management  and  portfolio  recommendation
services.  On September 24, 2020, Finser and Jacobus agreed to the entry of an administrative order
without admitting or denying allegations that they, among other things, charged performance fees to
an  investment  fund  Finser  managed,  the  Corfiser  SIMI  Fund,  S.V.  (“Corfiser  SIMI  Fund”),  that
were  contrary  to  disclosures,  and  made  misrepresentations  regarding  custody  and  safekeeping  of

3

client  assets.    In  the  Matter  of  Finser  International  Corporation,  Release  No.  5593,  Admin.  Proc.
File No. 3-20068 (Sept. 24, 2020) (the “Commission Order”).
7. Jacobus, age 62, resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  He at all times has been Finser’s
sole  owner,  president,  and  chief  compliance  officer  and  Kronus’s  sole  owner,  president,  and
director.  Jacobus has been in the global asset management business for over 30 years and has held a
Series 65 license.  In June 2024, Jacobus was charged in Broward County, Florida with one count of
first-degree grand theft and has pleaded not guilty.  (Florida v. Jacobus, Case No. 24006502CF10A,
17
th
 Cir. Ct. Broward County, FL).
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This  Court  has  jurisdiction  over  this  action  pursuant  to  Sections  20(b),  20(d),  and
22(a)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §§  77t(b),  77t(d),  and  77v(a)];  Sections  21(d),  21(e),  and
27(a)  of  the  Exchange  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §§  78u(d),  78u(e),  and  78aa(a)];  and  Sections  209(d),
209(e)(1), and 214(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-9(e)(1), and 90b-14(a)].
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in the
Southern District of Florida because many of the Defendants’ actions and transactions constituting
violations of the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Advisers Act occurred in this district, Jacobus
resides in this district, and Finser’s and Kronus’s principal place of business was in this district.
10. In  connection  with  the  conduct  alleged  in  this  Complaint,  Defendants,  directly  and
indirectly, singly or in concert with others, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce,
and the mails.

4

IV.       FACTUAL       ALLEGATIONS
A. BACKGROUND
11. In  2001,  Jacobus  established  and  became  the  sole  owner  of  a  currency  exchange
provider  in  Venezuela.    In  June  2010,  Jacobus  established  Finser,  an  SEC-registered  investment
adviser, and began offering advisory services to the currency exchange provider’s clientele.  From
June 2010 through at least 2016, Finser charged its clients a one percent management fee.  From at
least January 2014, Jacobus also paid himself a salary.  Through Finser and the currency exchange
provider,  Jacobus  provided  currency  exchange  services  to  over  1,000  individuals  and  entities  until
Jacobus largely exited the currency exchange business in 2017.  Although Finser had filed its SEC
Form  ADV-W  and  withdrawn  its  registration  with  the  Commission  in  January  2021,  Finser  and
Jacobus continued to accept advisory clients through October 2021.
12. Throughout  the  Relevant  Period,  Jacobus  primarily  directed  clients  to  deposit  their
money  into  one  of  several  Jacobus-controlled  U.S.  bank  and  brokerage  accounts,  most  of  which
were  held  in  the  name  of  Finser  and  later  Kronus,  promising  to  invest  and  manage  their  money.
Jacobus directed other clients to open individual brokerage accounts at a U.S.-based broker-dealer,
with  Finser  and/or  Jacobus  listed  as  the  investment  adviser  on  the  accounts  or  Jacobus  as  having
trading authorization.
13. Jacobus  initially  established  Kronus  in  2017  to  serve  as  a  holding  company  for
certain assets, including ownership stakes in a U.S.-based coffee company and a real estate project
in  Chile.    In  August  2018,  Jacobus  sought  to  rebrand  the  Finser  advisory  business  and  introduced
Kronus  to  his  current  clients  via  email.    All  advisory  services  formerly  provided  by  the  various
entities Jacobus managed and operated, including the Corfiser SIMI Fund, would now be managed
under the Kronus name.

5

B. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES LAWS

14. Throughout   the   Relevant   Period,   Jacobus,   through   Finser   and   Kronus,   raised
approximately $39.7 million from Clients who believed they were investing in securities including
the  Corfiser  SIMI  Fund  and  Initial  Public  Offering  (“IPO”)  stocks.    Through  emails  and  in
conversations,  Jacobus  made  various  misrepresentations  to  Clients,  many  with  whom  he  had
longstanding relationships.
i. Defendants’ Fraud Regarding Corfiser SIMI Fund, Kronus Fund, and
Other Investments

15. Primarily,  from  as  early  as  2013  and  at  least  through  May  2018,  Jacobus,  through
Finser and Kronus, offered and sold limited partnership interests in the Corfiser SIMI Fund to many
Clients.  He informed them that some or all of their funds would be invested in the Corfiser SIMI
Fund,  which  purportedly  invested  in  IPOs.    During  the  Relevant  Period,  Jacobus  provided  at  least
one  Client  with  the  private  placement  memorandum  (“PPM”)  for  the  Corfiser  SIMI  Fund,  and
several others with subscription agreements for the fund.  Per the PPM, Finser charged the Corfiser
SIMI Fund a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee.  Jacobus misrepresented to at least
two Clients that the Corfiser SIMI Fund would yield annual returns of 12%.
16. Periodic newsletters sent to Clients by Jacobus on behalf of Finser during this time,
including the Relevant Period, falsely reflected monthly returns ranging from 0.84% to over 4.13%.
Representations made by Finser and Jacobus about the Corfiser SIMI Fund almost always reflected
a  purported  positive  return.    Throughout  the  Relevant  Period,  Clients  received  monthly  statements
from  Finser,  which  were  fabricated  by  Jacobus,  reflecting  the  Clients’  purported  investment
balances in the Corfiser SIMI Fund.  They could also log onto the Web-based Finser platform and
see the same fictitious balances.

6

17. In  September  2018,  Jacobus  announced  to  Clients  via  email  that  the  Corfiser  SIMI
Fund  would  begin  operating  under  the  name  “Kronus  High  Yield  Fund”  a/k/a  Kronus  Financial
Fund (“Kronus Fund”).  Jacobus informed Clients that redemption requests from the Kronus Fund
would have a one-year waiting period from the date of investment.  In June 2019, Jacobus also sent
an email to Clients with restrictions and instructions on redemptions from the Kronus Fund.  Until
at  least  January  2022,  Clients  continued  to  receive  email  newsletters  from  Jacobus  and  Kronus
reflecting  the  purported  activity  of  the  Kronus  Fund,  including  IPO  holdings,  transactions,  and
market information.  As with the Corfiser SIMI Fund, the newsletters continually reflected fictitious
positive  returns  for  the  Kronus  Fund.    Certain  Clients  made  additional  investments  with  Finser,
Kronus, and Jacobus after receiving a newsletter during the Relevant Period that contained material
misrepresentations about the Corfiser SIMI Fund’s performance.
18. In  addition  to  the  purported  Corfiser  SIMI  Fund  and  Kronus  Fund  investments,
Jacobus also lied to several Clients about the legitimacy of and returns on their investments, as well
as  their  access  to  their  money.    Specifically,  he  misrepresented  to  some  Clients  that  their  assets
would  be  invested  in  fixed  interest  portfolios  or  variable  interest  portfolios.    Jacobus  falsely  told
others that they would have access to their money at all times.  Finally, Jacobus falsely told at least
one Client that the Client’s investment would yield a 6.5% annual gain minus a one percent fee for
Jacobus’s services.
19. In  reality,  Jacobus  did  not  invest  any  of  these  Clients’  funds  in  the  Corfiser  SIMI
Fund,  Kronus  Fund,  in  any  fixed  or  variable  portfolio,  or  in  any  investment  that  yielded  the
promised  returns.    Instead,  Jacobus  directed  Clients  to  deposit  their  money  in  one  of  several  bank
and  brokerage  accounts  he  or  his  related  entities  controlled,  then  used  the  funds,  among  other
things,  to  invest  in  securities  for  Finser’s  and  Kronus’s  benefit,  to  repay  a  loan  in  Finser’s  name,

7

and  to  fund  Jacobus’s  personal  bank  accounts.    During  the  Relevant  Period,  Clients  deposited
approximately  $39.7  million  in  Jacobus-controlled  bank  and  brokerage  accounts.    Clients  did  not
receive the promised returns and did not have access to their money.
20. Defendants    attempted    to    conceal    their    misrepresentations,    misuse,    and
misappropriation  of  Clients’  funds  by  providing  certain  Clients  with  documents  from  Finser  and
Kronus that reflected fictitious account balances and holdings.
ii. Brokerage Account Fraud

21. Jacobus  also  misrepresented  to  Clients  the  nature  and  balance  of  their  investments
held in brokerage accounts that he, through Finser and Kronus, managed and controlled.  During the
Relevant Period, through independent financial advisory arrangements, Jacobus opened or assisted
some  Clients  in  opening  brokerage  accounts  at  various  U.S.-based  broker-dealers.    Through  this
arrangement, Jacobus managed the brokerage accounts for these Clients.  While some of the funds
deposited in these accounts were invested in securities, unbeknownst to the Clients, approximately
$10.8  million  from  these  brokerage  accounts  were  diverted  to  Finser  and  Kronus-controlled  bank
and brokerage accounts between 2019 and 2023.
22. Jacobus  again  attempted  to  conceal  from  these  Clients  the  true  securities  holdings
and  balances  they  had  in  their  brokerage  accounts  by  sending  periodic  account  statements  that
contained  fictitious  holdings  and  balances.    For  example,  in  September  2021,  Jacobus  provided  a
Client with a brokerage statement corresponding to that Client’s brokerage account for the month of
August  2021,  which  reflected  an  ending  balance  of  over  $3.8  million,  comprised  of  cash  and
securities positions.  The true account statement for that period reflects that the account had a zero
balance, no trading activity, and no securities positions for or during the month of August 2021.
23. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Jacobus  also  recommended  that  18  Clients  open
brokerage  accounts  at  a  certain  U.S.-based  broker-dealer.    With  Jacobus’s  assistance,  each  opened

8

an  account  at  that  broker-dealer  and  listed  Finser  and/or  Jacobus  as  the  investment  adviser  for  the
account,  for  which  service  Jacobus  received  a  monthly  management  fee.    During  the  account-
opening process, Jacobus was able to create usernames and passwords for, or otherwise manipulate
access to, accounts belonging to several of these Clients.  When certain Clients inquired about their
brokerage  account  holdings  and  balances,  Jacobus  sent  them  doctored  statements  that  appeared  to
be from the broker-dealer, via email or message applications.  During the Relevant Period, Clients
received  over  50  altered  statements  that  contained  inflated  balances  totaling  approximately  $2.9
million over the true collective amount.
24. Between 2022 and 2023, Jacobus misappropriated approximately $3.5 million out of
the brokerage accounts of these unsuspecting Clients.
iii. Fraud Regarding Client Redemptions

25. Sometime no later than 2021, Jacobus stopped paying certain Clients their promised
returns  on  investment  or  honoring  their  requests  for  return  of  their  principal.    Several  Clients
attempted to contact Jacobus about missing returns or unanswered redemption requests during 2022
and  each  received  unsubstantiated  excuses  for  the  delay  including,  among  others,  liquidity  issues
and regulatory restrictions.  Jacobus made partial payments to some Clients in order to continue to
conceal his misappropriation of their funds.
26. Between January 2022 and April 2022, several Clients received emails purporting to
be  from  an  entity  which  Jacobus  testified  was  Kronus’s  offshore  law  firm.    The  emails  (which
contained  evident  typos)  explained  that  requests  for  account  closures  would  not  be  honored  for  a
12-month period.  In fact, the law firm had not sent the email and it had never used the particular
email address from which the emails were sent.  The  domain  name  used  in  the  purported  offshore
law firm’s emails was registered to Jacobus.

9

27. Eventually,  by  mid-2023,  return  of  any  Client  funds  ceased  and  Jacobus  stopped
communicating with Clients.
iv. Misappropriation of Client Funds

28. Instead  of  investing  Clients’  funds  as  promised,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus
collectively misappropriated at least $17.3 from Clients during the Relevant Period.  This includes
misappropriating approximately $3.2 million from Catholic Church clergy in Venezuela and various
Venezuelan  Catholic  dioceses  and  approximately  $3.5  million  from  certain  Clients’  brokerage
accounts.  Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus did so by directing Client deposits into 11 U.S.-based bank
and brokerage accounts and two U.K.-based bank accounts over which they had sole control and by
accessing  certain  Client  brokerage  accounts  to  which,  unbeknownst  to  the  Clients,  Jacobus  had
login access.
29. From  the  misappropriated  amounts,  Jacobus  directed,  often  through  Finser  and
Kronus, payments of approximately $11.7 million to various U.S.-based and foreign individuals and
entities  largely  unrelated  to  the  advisory  business.    Of  the  remaining  $5.6  million,  Jacobus
misappropriated  Client  funds  to  pay  for,  among  other  things,  his  mortgage,  property  taxes,
educational institutions, real estate purchases, designer and high-end shopping, jewelry, travel, and
luxury vehicles.
30. In  addition  to  the  misappropriated  amounts,  Jacobus,  through  Finser  and  Kronus,
made  approximately  $7.8  million  in  Ponzi-like  payments  to  at  least  25  Clients  and  other  investors
during  the  Relevant  Period.    Jacobus  made  these  payments  from  Client  funds  that  had  been
deposited  in  accounts  he,  Finser,  and  Kronus  controlled.    Several  Clients  received  one  Ponzi-like
payment, but many received several such payments during the Relevant Period.  Finally, during the
Relevant  Period,  Jacobus  paid  himself  a  salary  of  approximately  $4.1  million,  which  he  did  not
disclose to Clients.

10

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act
31. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint.
32. From  at  least  May  2015  through  approximately  April  2024,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and
Kronus,  in  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities  by  use  of  the  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or
communication  in  interstate  commerce  or  by  use  of  the  mails,  directly  or  indirectly,  knowingly  or
recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud.
33. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(1)  of  the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)].
COUNT II
Violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act
34. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
35. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
in  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities  by  use  of  the  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or
communication  in  interstate  commerce  or  by  use  of  the  mails,  directly  and  indirectly,  negligently
obtained  money  or  property  by  means  of  untrue  statements  of  material  facts  or  omissions  to  state
material facts necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading.

11

36. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(2)  of  the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77(q)(a)(2)].
COUNT III
Violation of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
37. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
38. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
in  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities  by  use  of  the  means  or  instruments  of  transportation  or
communication  in  interstate  commerce  or  by  the  use  of  the  mails,  directly  and  indirectly,
negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud or
deceit upon the purchasers.
39. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(3)  of  the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77(q)(a)(3)].
COUNT IV
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a)
40. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
41. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
directly  or  indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  and  instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the
mails, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with
the purchase or sale of securities.

12

42. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  directly  or  indirectly,
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  10(b)  of  the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].
COUNT V
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b)
43. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
44. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
directly  or  indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  and  instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the
mails,  in  connection  with  the  purchase  or  sale  of  securities,  knowingly  or  recklessly  made  untrue
statements  of  material  facts  or  omitted  to  state  material  facts  necessary  to  make  the  statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
45. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  directly  or  indirectly,
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  10(b)  of  the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)].
COUNT VI
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(c)
46. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
47. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
directly  or  indirectly,  by  use  of  the  means  and  instrumentalities  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the
mails, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts,
practices, and courses of business which operated as a fraud upon the purchasers of such securities.

13

48. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  directly  or  indirectly,
violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  10(b)  of  the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)].
COUNT VII
Violation of Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act
49. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
50. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
for compensation, engaged in the business of directly advising others as to the value of securities or
as  to  the  advisability  of  investing  in,  purchasing,  or  selling  securities.    Defendants  were  therefore
“investment  advisers”  within  the  meaning  of  Section  202(a)(11)  of  the  Advisers  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
80b-2(a)(11)].
51. Jacobus, Finser and Kronus, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality  of
interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed a device, scheme, or
artifice to defraud one or more clients or prospective clients.
52. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  violated  and,  unless
enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 80b-6(1)].

14

COUNT VIII
Violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act
53. The   Commission   realleges   and   incorporates   Paragraphs   1   through   30   of   this
Complaint.
54. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus,
by  use  of  the  mails  or  any  means  or  instrumentality  of  interstate  commerce,  directly  or  indirectly,
negligently  engaged  in  transactions,  practices,  or  courses  of  business  which  operated  as  a  fraud  or
deceit upon one or more clients or prospective clients.
55. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  each  violated,  and  unless
enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 80b-6(2)].
VI.       RELIEF       REQUESTED
 The  Commission  respectfully  requests  that  the  Court  find  that  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus
committed the violations alleged and:
A. Permanent Injunction
Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus and their
officers,  agents,  servants,  employees,  attorneys,  and  all  persons  in  active  concert  or  participation
with  them  and  each  of  them,  from  violating  Sections  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 Exchange Act 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) and (2)].

15

B. Conduct-Based Injunction Against Jacobus
Issue  a  Conduct-Based  Injunction  restraining  and  enjoining  Jacobus  from  (i)  directly  or
indirectly,  including,  but  not  limited  to,  through  any  entity  owned  or  controlled  by  Jacobus,
participating  in  the  issuance,  purchase,  offer,  or  sale  of  any  security  provided,  however,  that  such
injunction  shall  not  prevent  Jacobus  from  purchasing  or  selling  securities  for  his  own  personal
account, pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)] and (ii) directly
or indirectly acting as or being associated with any investment adviser provided, however, that such
injunction  shall  not  prevent  Jacobus  from  being  a  customer  or  client  of  an  investment  adviser,
pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)].
C. Disgorgement with Prejudgment Interest
  Issue  an  Order  directing  Jacobus,  Finser,  and  Kronus  to  disgorge  all  ill-gotten  gains  or
proceeds  received  within  the  applicable  statute  of  limitations,  with  prejudgment  interest  thereon,
resulting  from  the  acts  and/or  courses  of  conduct  alleged  in  this  Complaint  and  finding  (i)
Defendants Kronus and Jacobus and (ii) Defendants Finser and Jacobus, jointly and severally liable
for disgorgement ordered against each of them, respectively.
D. Civil Monetary Penalties
 Issue an Order directing Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus to pay a civil money penalty pursuant to
Section  20(d)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §  77t(d)],  Section  21(d)  of  the  Exchange  Act  [15
U.S.C. § 78u(d)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)].
E. Further Relief
 Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

16

F. Retention of Jurisdiction
  Further,  the  Commission  respectfully  requests  the  Court  retain  jurisdiction  over  this  action
and over Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that it
may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  The  Commission  hereby  demands  a  trial  by  jury  on  any  and  all  issues  in  this  action  so
triable.

                                                                        Respectfully            submitted,

May            28,            2025                                                            s/Christine Nestor
       Christine Nestor, Esq.
                                                                                    Senior            Trial            Counsel
                                                                                    Florida            Bar            #            597211
                                                                                    Telephone:            (305)            982-6367
                                                                                    E-mail:                        [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950
                                                                                    Miami,            Florida            33131
                                                                                    Telephone:            (305)            982-6300
                                                                                    Facsimile:            (305)            536-4154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 
CASE NO.: 

 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,     
     
 Plaintiff,     
    
v.    
    
KRONUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION,  
FINSER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,  
AND ANDREW H. JACOBUS,    
    
 Defendants.    
   / 
 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF  
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 
 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) alleges as follows: 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Between at least May 2015 and April 2024 (the “Relevant Period”), Defendants 

Andrew H. Jacobus (“Jacobus”), Finser International Corporation (“Finser”), and Kronus Financial 

Corporation (“Kronus”) misappropriated approximately $17.3 million from 40 advisory clients 

(“Clients”), most of whom are Venezuelan nationals and include Catholic dioceses and elderly 

individuals. 

2. During the Relevant Period, Jacobus advised Clients to invest in investment funds he 

purportedly managed, as well as other securities.  He abused his position of trust based on his 

fiduciary duty as an investment adviser to several Clients by duping them into depositing 

approximately $39.7 million into various bank and brokerage accounts he controlled, from which he 

misappropriated Client funds and made $7.8 million in Ponzi-like payments to certain Clients and 

other investors. 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 1 of 16



 

2 
 

3. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants violated Section 

17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)]; Section 10(b) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“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 Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

(“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1) and (2)].   

4. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to violate the federal securities laws.  The 

Commission seeks injunctive relief, as well as disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil 

penalties against Defendants.  The Commission also seeks an order imposing a permanent conduct-

based injunction against Jacobus. 

II. DEFENDANTS  

5. Kronus was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, 

Florida from February 2017 through its administrative dissolution on September 27, 2024.  Kronus 

served as a holding company for assets and offered consulting services.  Jacobus was the sole 

owner, president, and director of Kronus.  

6. Finser was a Florida corporation located in Coral Gables, Florida from April 2010 

through its administrative dissolution on September 27, 2024.  Jacobus was the director, president, 

and sole owner of Finser.  Finser was registered with the Commission as an investment adviser 

between June 2010 and January 2021, when it filed a Form ADV-W to withdraw its registration.  

Finser offered discretionary and non-discretionary management and portfolio recommendation 

services.  On September 24, 2020, Finser and Jacobus agreed to the entry of an administrative order 

without admitting or denying allegations that they, among other things, charged performance fees to 

an investment fund Finser managed, the Corfiser SIMI Fund, S.V. (“Corfiser SIMI Fund”), that 

were contrary to disclosures, and made misrepresentations regarding custody and safekeeping of 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 2 of 16



 

3 
 

client assets.  In the Matter of Finser International Corporation, Release No. 5593, Admin. Proc. 

File No. 3-20068 (Sept. 24, 2020) (the “Commission Order”).   

7. Jacobus, age 62, resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  He at all times has been Finser’s 

sole owner, president, and chief compliance officer and Kronus’s sole owner, president, and 

director.  Jacobus has been in the global asset management business for over 30 years and has held a 

Series 65 license.  In June 2024, Jacobus was charged in Broward County, Florida with one count of 

first-degree grand theft and has pleaded not guilty.  (Florida v. Jacobus, Case No. 24006502CF10A, 

17th Cir. Ct. Broward County, FL).   

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)]; Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 

27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa(a)]; and Sections 209(d), 

209(e)(1), and 214(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-9(e)(1), and 90b-14(a)].   

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

Southern District of Florida because many of the Defendants’ actions and transactions constituting 

violations of the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Advisers Act occurred in this district, Jacobus 

resides in this district, and Finser’s and Kronus’s principal place of business was in this district.  

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

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

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

and the mails.  

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 3 of 16



 

4 
 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. BACKGROUND 

11. In 2001, Jacobus established and became the sole owner of a currency exchange 

provider in Venezuela.  In June 2010, Jacobus established Finser, an SEC-registered investment 

adviser, and began offering advisory services to the currency exchange provider’s clientele.  From 

June 2010 through at least 2016, Finser charged its clients a one percent management fee.  From at 

least January 2014, Jacobus also paid himself a salary.  Through Finser and the currency exchange 

provider, Jacobus provided currency exchange services to over 1,000 individuals and entities until 

Jacobus largely exited the currency exchange business in 2017.  Although Finser had filed its SEC 

Form ADV-W and withdrawn its registration with the Commission in January 2021, Finser and 

Jacobus continued to accept advisory clients through October 2021.   

12. Throughout the Relevant Period, Jacobus primarily directed clients to deposit their 

money into one of several Jacobus-controlled U.S. bank and brokerage accounts, most of which 

were held in the name of Finser and later Kronus, promising to invest and manage their money.  

Jacobus directed other clients to open individual brokerage accounts at a U.S.-based broker-dealer, 

with Finser and/or Jacobus listed as the investment adviser on the accounts or Jacobus as having 

trading authorization.   

13. Jacobus initially established Kronus in 2017 to serve as a holding company for 

certain assets, including ownership stakes in a U.S.-based coffee company and a real estate project 

in Chile.  In August 2018, Jacobus sought to rebrand the Finser advisory business and introduced 

Kronus to his current clients via email.  All advisory services formerly provided by the various 

entities Jacobus managed and operated, including the Corfiser SIMI Fund, would now be managed 

under the Kronus name.    

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 4 of 16



 

5 
 

B. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES LAWS  
 

14. Throughout the Relevant Period, Jacobus, through Finser and Kronus, raised 

approximately $39.7 million from Clients who believed they were investing in securities including 

the Corfiser SIMI Fund and Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) stocks.  Through emails and in 

conversations, Jacobus made various misrepresentations to Clients, many with whom he had 

longstanding relationships.   

i. Defendants’ Fraud Regarding Corfiser SIMI Fund, Kronus Fund, and 
Other Investments 

 
15. Primarily, from as early as 2013 and at least through May 2018, Jacobus, through 

Finser and Kronus, offered and sold limited partnership interests in the Corfiser SIMI Fund to many 

Clients.  He informed them that some or all of their funds would be invested in the Corfiser SIMI 

Fund, which purportedly invested in IPOs.  During the Relevant Period, Jacobus provided at least 

one Client with the private placement memorandum (“PPM”) for the Corfiser SIMI Fund, and 

several others with subscription agreements for the fund.  Per the PPM, Finser charged the Corfiser 

SIMI Fund a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee.  Jacobus misrepresented to at least 

two Clients that the Corfiser SIMI Fund would yield annual returns of 12%.   

16. Periodic newsletters sent to Clients by Jacobus on behalf of Finser during this time, 

including the Relevant Period, falsely reflected monthly returns ranging from 0.84% to over 4.13%.  

Representations made by Finser and Jacobus about the Corfiser SIMI Fund almost always reflected 

a purported positive return.  Throughout the Relevant Period, Clients received monthly statements 

from Finser, which were fabricated by Jacobus, reflecting the Clients’ purported investment 

balances in the Corfiser SIMI Fund.  They could also log onto the Web-based Finser platform and 

see the same fictitious balances.   

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 5 of 16



 

6 
 

17. In September 2018, Jacobus announced to Clients via email that the Corfiser SIMI 

Fund would begin operating under the name “Kronus High Yield Fund” a/k/a Kronus Financial 

Fund (“Kronus Fund”).  Jacobus informed Clients that redemption requests from the Kronus Fund 

would have a one-year waiting period from the date of investment.  In June 2019, Jacobus also sent 

an email to Clients with restrictions and instructions on redemptions from the Kronus Fund.  Until 

at least January 2022, Clients continued to receive email newsletters from Jacobus and Kronus 

reflecting the purported activity of the Kronus Fund, including IPO holdings, transactions, and 

market information.  As with the Corfiser SIMI Fund, the newsletters continually reflected fictitious 

positive returns for the Kronus Fund.  Certain Clients made additional investments with Finser, 

Kronus, and Jacobus after receiving a newsletter during the Relevant Period that contained material 

misrepresentations about the Corfiser SIMI Fund’s performance.   

18. In addition to the purported Corfiser SIMI Fund and Kronus Fund investments, 

Jacobus also lied to several Clients about the legitimacy of and returns on their investments, as well 

as their access to their money.  Specifically, he misrepresented to some Clients that their assets 

would be invested in fixed interest portfolios or variable interest portfolios.  Jacobus falsely told 

others that they would have access to their money at all times.  Finally, Jacobus falsely told at least 

one Client that the Client’s investment would yield a 6.5% annual gain minus a one percent fee for 

Jacobus’s services.   

19. In reality, Jacobus did not invest any of these Clients’ funds in the Corfiser SIMI 

Fund, Kronus Fund, in any fixed or variable portfolio, or in any investment that yielded the 

promised returns.  Instead, Jacobus directed Clients to deposit their money in one of several bank 

and brokerage accounts he or his related entities controlled, then used the funds, among other 

things, to invest in securities for Finser’s and Kronus’s benefit, to repay a loan in Finser’s name, 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 6 of 16



 

7 
 

and to fund Jacobus’s personal bank accounts.  During the Relevant Period, Clients deposited 

approximately $39.7 million in Jacobus-controlled bank and brokerage accounts.  Clients did not 

receive the promised returns and did not have access to their money. 

20. Defendants attempted to conceal their misrepresentations, misuse, and 

misappropriation of Clients’ funds by providing certain Clients with documents from Finser and 

Kronus that reflected fictitious account balances and holdings.   

ii. Brokerage Account Fraud 
 

21. Jacobus also misrepresented to Clients the nature and balance of their investments 

held in brokerage accounts that he, through Finser and Kronus, managed and controlled.  During the 

Relevant Period, through independent financial advisory arrangements, Jacobus opened or assisted 

some Clients in opening brokerage accounts at various U.S.-based broker-dealers.  Through this 

arrangement, Jacobus managed the brokerage accounts for these Clients.  While some of the funds 

deposited in these accounts were invested in securities, unbeknownst to the Clients, approximately 

$10.8 million from these brokerage accounts were diverted to Finser and Kronus-controlled bank 

and brokerage accounts between 2019 and 2023.   

22. Jacobus again attempted to conceal from these Clients the true securities holdings 

and balances they had in their brokerage accounts by sending periodic account statements that 

contained fictitious holdings and balances.  For example, in September 2021, Jacobus provided a 

Client with a brokerage statement corresponding to that Client’s brokerage account for the month of 

August 2021, which reflected an ending balance of over $3.8 million, comprised of cash and 

securities positions.  The true account statement for that period reflects that the account had a zero 

balance, no trading activity, and no securities positions for or during the month of August 2021. 

23. During the Relevant Period, Jacobus also recommended that 18 Clients open 

brokerage accounts at a certain U.S.-based broker-dealer.  With Jacobus’s assistance, each opened 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 7 of 16



 

8 
 

an account at that broker-dealer and listed Finser and/or Jacobus as the investment adviser for the 

account, for which service Jacobus received a monthly management fee.  During the account-

opening process, Jacobus was able to create usernames and passwords for, or otherwise manipulate 

access to, accounts belonging to several of these Clients.  When certain Clients inquired about their 

brokerage account holdings and balances, Jacobus sent them doctored statements that appeared to 

be from the broker-dealer, via email or message applications.  During the Relevant Period, Clients 

received over 50 altered statements that contained inflated balances totaling approximately $2.9 

million over the true collective amount.   

24. Between 2022 and 2023, Jacobus misappropriated approximately $3.5 million out of 

the brokerage accounts of these unsuspecting Clients.   

iii. Fraud Regarding Client Redemptions 
 
25. Sometime no later than 2021, Jacobus stopped paying certain Clients their promised 

returns on investment or honoring their requests for return of their principal.  Several Clients 

attempted to contact Jacobus about missing returns or unanswered redemption requests during 2022 

and each received unsubstantiated excuses for the delay including, among others, liquidity issues 

and regulatory restrictions.  Jacobus made partial payments to some Clients in order to continue to 

conceal his misappropriation of their funds.   

26. Between January 2022 and April 2022, several Clients received emails purporting to 

be from an entity which Jacobus testified was Kronus’s offshore law firm.  The emails (which 

contained evident typos) explained that requests for account closures would not be honored for a 

12-month period.  In fact, the law firm had not sent the email and it had never used the particular 

email address from which the emails were sent.  The domain name used in the purported offshore 

law firm’s emails was registered to Jacobus.   

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 8 of 16



 

9 
 

27. Eventually, by mid-2023, return of any Client funds ceased and Jacobus stopped 

communicating with Clients.  

iv. Misappropriation of Client Funds 
 

28. Instead of investing Clients’ funds as promised, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus 

collectively misappropriated at least $17.3 from Clients during the Relevant Period.  This includes 

misappropriating approximately $3.2 million from Catholic Church clergy in Venezuela and various 

Venezuelan Catholic dioceses and approximately $3.5 million from certain Clients’ brokerage 

accounts.  Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus did so by directing Client deposits into 11 U.S.-based bank 

and brokerage accounts and two U.K.-based bank accounts over which they had sole control and by 

accessing certain Client brokerage accounts to which, unbeknownst to the Clients, Jacobus had 

login access.  

29. From the misappropriated amounts, Jacobus directed, often through Finser and 

Kronus, payments of approximately $11.7 million to various U.S.-based and foreign individuals and 

entities largely unrelated to the advisory business.  Of the remaining $5.6 million, Jacobus 

misappropriated Client funds to pay for, among other things, his mortgage, property taxes, 

educational institutions, real estate purchases, designer and high-end shopping, jewelry, travel, and 

luxury vehicles.   

30. In addition to the misappropriated amounts, Jacobus, through Finser and Kronus, 

made approximately $7.8 million in Ponzi-like payments to at least 25 Clients and other investors 

during the Relevant Period.  Jacobus made these payments from Client funds that had been 

deposited in accounts he, Finser, and Kronus controlled.  Several Clients received one Ponzi-like 

payment, but many received several such payments during the Relevant Period.  Finally, during the 

Relevant Period, Jacobus paid himself a salary of approximately $4.1 million, which he did not 

disclose to Clients. 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 9 of 16



 

10 
 

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act 

31. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint. 

32. From at least May 2015 through approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and 

Kronus, in the offer or sale of securities by use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

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

recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud. 

33. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(1) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)].  

COUNT II  

Violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act 

34. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

35. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

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

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

obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts or omissions to state 

material facts necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which 

they were made, not misleading. 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 10 of 16



 

11 
 

36. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77(q)(a)(2)]. 

COUNT III  

Violation of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 

37. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

38. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

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

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

negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud or 

deceit upon the purchasers. 

39. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, directly and indirectly, have 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(3) of the 

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

COUNT IV 

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

40. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

41. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

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

mails, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with 

the purchase or sale of securities.   

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 11 of 16



 

12 
 

42. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus directly or indirectly, 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rules 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].  

COUNT V 

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

43. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

44. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

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

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

statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements 

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

45. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus directly or indirectly, 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the 

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

COUNT VI 

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

46. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

47. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

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

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

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

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 12 of 16



 

13 
 

48. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus directly or indirectly, 

violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the 

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

COUNT VII 

Violation of Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act 

49. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

50. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

for compensation, engaged in the business of directly advising others as to the value of securities or 

as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities.  Defendants were therefore 

“investment advisers” within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 

80b-2(a)(11)].  

51. Jacobus, Finser and Kronus, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed a device, scheme, or 

artifice to defraud one or more clients or prospective clients. 

52. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus violated and, unless 

enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 80b-6(1)].  

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 13 of 16



 

14 
 

COUNT VIII 

Violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act 

53. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint. 

54. From at least May 2015 until approximately April 2024, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus, 

by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, 

negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud or 

deceit upon one or more clients or prospective clients. 

55. By reason of the foregoing, Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus each violated, and unless 

enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 80b-6(2)].  

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

 The Commission respectfully requests that the Court find that Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus 

committed the violations alleged and: 

A. Permanent Injunction 

Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus and their 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation 

with them and each of them, from violating Sections 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 Exchange Act 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) and (2)]. 

 

 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 14 of 16



 

15 
 

B. Conduct-Based Injunction Against Jacobus 

Issue a Conduct-Based Injunction restraining and enjoining Jacobus from (i) directly or 

indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by Jacobus, 

participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security provided, however, that such 

injunction shall not prevent Jacobus from purchasing or selling securities for his own personal 

account, pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)] and (ii) directly 

or indirectly acting as or being associated with any investment adviser provided, however, that such 

injunction shall not prevent Jacobus from being a customer or client of an investment adviser, 

pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)]. 

C. Disgorgement with Prejudgment Interest 

 Issue an Order directing Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or 

proceeds received within the applicable statute of limitations, with prejudgment interest thereon, 

resulting from the acts and/or courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint and finding (i) 

Defendants Kronus and Jacobus and (ii) Defendants Finser and Jacobus, jointly and severally liable 

for disgorgement ordered against each of them, respectively. 

D. Civil Monetary Penalties 

 Issue an Order directing Jacobus, Finser, and Kronus to pay a civil money penalty pursuant to 

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

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

E. Further Relief 

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

 

 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 15 of 16



 

16 
 

F. Retention of Jurisdiction 

 Further, the Commission respectfully requests the Court retain jurisdiction over this action 

and over Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that it 

may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief 

within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 The Commission hereby demands a trial by jury on any and all issues in this action so 

triable. 

 

      Respectfully submitted, 

 
May 28, 2025     s/Christine Nestor   
       Christine Nestor, Esq. 
       Senior Trial Counsel 
       Florida Bar # 597211 
       Telephone: (305) 982-6367 
       E-mail:  [email protected] 

 
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 

       Miami, Florida 33131 
       Telephone: (305) 982-6300 
       Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

Case 1:25-cv-22411-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2025   Page 16 of 16