SEC v. Morbex Automation LLC; Danilo Monzon; Joshua Smith; Adrian Colon; Morbex Automation Logistics Corp.; Optimistic Services Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-21223, Southern District of Florida (Mar. 18, 2025) — Complaint

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORBEX AUTOMATION LLC,
DANILO MONZON,
JOSHUA SMITH,
and ADRIAN COLON,

Defendants, and

MORBEX AUTOMATION LOGISTICS CORP.,
OPTIMISTIC SERVICES INC.,
JS7 MANAGEMENT LLC,
ALPHA CONSULTING FIRM LLC,
SANDOR SARDINAS, and
SARDINAS PROPERTIES, LLC,

           Relief Defendants.

 /

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Commission brings this case against Morbex Automation LLC (“Morbex”), a
company purportedly in the trucking and logistics business in Miami, Florida, and its authorized
members,  Danilo  Monzon  (“Monzon”),  Joshua  Smith  (“Smith”),  and  Adrian  Colon  (“Colon”)
(collectively “Defendants”), who raised at least $5.4 million from at least fifty investors in several
states through a fraudulent offering of unregistered securities.

2

2. From  at  least  January  2023  through November  2023 (the  “Relevant  Period”),
Defendants offered securities in the form of investment contracts that Defendants claimed would
generate substantial  passive  income.    Through  posts  on  Facebook,  Yelp,  advertisements  and
various  sales  agents,  Defendants  claimed  that  an  investment  of  between  $75,000  to  $100,000
would generate monthly returns of between $4,000 and $8,000 for the investor.
3. Defendants  told  investors  that  they  would  use  investor  funds  to purchase  semi-
trailer trucks and then manage and operate those trucks throughout the United States.  Defendants
told investors that their investments would be safe because the semi-trucks would be purchased
and titled in the investor’s name.  Defendants also told investors that their investments would be
profitable  because  Morbex  had contracts  to  haul  freight  for prominent retail  companies  such  as
Walmart,  Inc.  (“Walmart”),  Publix Super  Markets,  Inc.  (“Publix”),  and  Costco  Wholesale
Corporation (“Costco”).
4. These  statements  were  false.    First,  Defendants  did  not  use  investor  funds  to
purchase  semi-trailer  trucks  on  behalf  of the  investors.    Instead,  Defendants  Smith and  Colon
directly misappropriated at least $930,000 of investor funds for themselves by directing investors
to transfer their investment funds into bank accounts of Relief Defendants Alpha Consulting Inc.
(“Alpha Consulting”) and JS7 Management Inc. (“JS7 Management”), companies controlled by
Smith and Colon, respectively.  Defendants also transferred at least $1.2 million from Morbex’s
bank  account  to  Relief  Defendants  Morbex  Automation  Logistics  Corp.  (“Morbex  Logistics”)
(controlled by Monzon and Colon), Optimistic Services Inc. (“Optimistic Services”) (controlled
by  Monzon)  –  and Sardinas  Properties,  LLC  (“Sardinas  Properties”)  (and  its  owner  Sandor
Sardinas (“Sardinas”)).  Additional investor funds were diverted to pay undisclosed commissions
to sales agents selling Morbex’s investments to investors.

3

5. Second, although Defendants used approximately $1.1 million of investor funds to
purchase trucks, Morbex purchased about fourteen trucks in its own name and only one known
investor received title to a semi-truck.  Morbex used an additional $530,000 of investor funds to
lease    trucks.  Moreover,  contrary  to  its  representations  to  investors,  Morbex  never  had  any
contracts with Walmart, Publix, or Costco.
6. Third, due to Defendants’ misuse and misappropriation of investor funds, Morbex
failed to generate sufficient revenue to pay the high returns promised to investors.  In fact, most
known investors did not receive any profits whatsoever from Morbex.  And the few investors who
received monthly profits only received a fraction of the profits they were promised.
7. Monzon, Smith, and Colon also acted as brokers because they supervised a sales
team  of  unregistered  brokers,  personally  solicited  investors  to  purchase  securities,  and  advised
investors as to the merits of the investment, all with a certain regularity of participation in securities
transactions over the course of almost a year.  Monzon, Smith, Colon, and the sales agents have
never  been  registered  with  the  Commission  as  broker-dealers  or  associated  with  a  registered
broker-dealer.
8. In  addition,  during  the  Relevant  Period,  Relief  Defendants  did  not  provide  any
legitimate services the investor funds they received.
9. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated Sections
5(a)  and  (c)  of  the  Securities  Act  of  1933  (the  “Securities  Act”)  [15  U.S.C.  §§  77e(a)  and  (c)],
Section  17(a)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §  77q(a)]  and  Section 10(b)  of  the  Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934  (“Exchange  Act”)  [15  U.S.C.  § 78j(b)]  and  Rule  10b-5  thereunder  [17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; and individual Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon also violated Section
15(a) of the Exchange Act.

4

10. Unless enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal
securities laws.

II.   DEFENDANTS AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS

 A.  Defendants

11. Monzon, age 37, resides in Hialeah, Florida.  Monzon was an authorized member
of  Defendant  Morbex,  manager  of  Relief  Defendant  Morbex  Logistics,  and  Vice  President  of
Relief  Defendant  Optimistic  Services.    Monzon  was  an  authorized  signatory  on  both  Morbex’s
and Morbex Logistics’ bank accounts
12. Smith,  age  43, resides  in  Miami,  Florida.    Smith  was  an  authorized  member  of
Defendant Morbex and Relief Defendant JS7 Management.  Smith was also a signatory on JS7
Management’s bank account.
13. Colon,  age  27,  resides  in  Doral,  Florida.    Colon  was  an  authorized  member  of
Defendant Morbex and Relief Defendant Alpha Consulting.  Colon was also a signatory on Alpha
Consulting’s bank account.
14. Morbex is  a  Florida  limited  liability  company  formed  in  2022 with  its  principal
place of business in Miami, Florida.  Morbex purportedly specialized in trucking and logistics and
offered investors the opportunity to invest through the company’s investment offering.  Morbex
misappropriated investor proceeds during the Relevant Period.
B.  Relief Defendants
15. Optimistic Services is a Florida Corporation formed in 2022 with its principal place
of business in Hialeah, Florida.  Monzon is a Vice President of Optimistic Services.  Optimistic
Services’ address is the same as Monzon’s former residence.   Optimistic Services received investor

5

proceeds emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but most of
those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose.
16. Morbex Logistics is a Florida corporation formed in 2024 with its principal place
of business in Miami, Florida.  Monzon and Colon are managers of Morbex Logistics and along
with Sardinas are signatories on its bank account.  Morbex Logistics received investor proceeds
emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period.
17. JS7  Management  is  a Florida  limited  liability  company  formed  in  2020  with  its
principal  place  of  business  in  Doral,  Florida.    Smith  is  a  member  of  JS7  Management  and  a
signatory on its bank accounts.  JS7 Management received investor proceeds emanating from the
Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but most  of those funds were not used for
any apparent legitimate business purpose.
18.  Alpha Consulting is a Delaware limited liability company formed in 2023 with its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Colon is the manager of Alpha Consulting and a
signatory on its bank account.  Alpha Consulting received investor proceeds emanating from the
Defendants’  securities  fraud  during  the  Relevant Period  but  those  funds  were  not  used  for  any
apparent legitimate business purpose.
19. Sardinas,  age  46,  is  a  resident  of  Hialeah,  Florida.   Sardinas  is  an  authorized
member of Morbex, a signatory on both Morbex and Morbex Logistics’ bank accounts, and the
manager  of  Sardinas  Properties.   Sardinas  received  investor  proceeds  emanating  from  the
Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period,  through his company Sardinas Properties
but the majority of those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose.
20. Sardinas Properties is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2016 with its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Sardinas Properties received at least $708,000 of

6

investor proceeds emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but
those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose.
III.   JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and
22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)]; and Sections 21(d), 21(e),
and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].
22. This  Court  has  personal  jurisdiction  over  Defendants,  and  venue  is  proper  in  the
Southern District of Florida, because Defendants engaged in acts and transactions constituting the
violations alleged in this Complaint in this District.  Further, Morbex’s principal place of business
was in Miami, Florida and Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon reside in this District.
23. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly and
indirectly,  singly  or  in  concert  with  others,  have made  use  of  the  means  or  instrumentalities  of
interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate
commerce, and the mails.
IV.   DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
A.  Defendants’ Unregistered Offering
24. Defendants formed Morbex ostensibly to operate a trucking and logistics company
in South Florida.  During the Relevant Period, Morbex, through its principals Smith, Colon and
Monzon,  raised  over  $5.4  million  from  at  least  50  investors  through  Morbex’s  unregistered
offering of securities in the form of investment contracts.
25. Defendants solicited  investors  primarily  through  promotions  on  Facebook,  Yelp,
advertisements,  and  sales  agents,  touting  the  opportunity  to  earn  substantial  passive  income  by
investing in Morbex’s business and leveraging the trucking industry.  Specifically, Morbex offered

7

investors  the  opportunity  to  own  a  semi-truck  by  making  an  investment  of  between  $75,000  to
$100,000.  Under the terms of the investment contract, Morbex promised to handle all aspects of
operating  the  semi-truck  necessary  for  a  smooth  and  successful  business,  including  obtaining
necessary  licenses  and  registrations,  hiring  a  driver,  and  operating  expenses  such  as  gas  and
insurance.
26. For example, Morbex’s Facebook advertisement claimed that investors could earn
monthly  profits  of  between  $4,000  and  $8,000.    The  Facebook  advertisement  claimed  that
investors could derive significant profits from the hauling contracts Morbex had entered into with
several prominent retail companies.  The Facebook advertisement had a “contact us” feature that
allowed prospective investors to leave their personal contact information so that they could learn
more about the investment opportunity.
27. After  seeing  the  Facebook  or  other  online  advertisement,  investors  typically
contacted  Morbex  directly  (or  were  contacted  by  Morbex after  sending  contact  information
through the “contact us” feature) and typically spoke with one or more of Morbex’s sales agents.
These sales agents generally told interested investors that they would earn between $4,000 and
$8,000 a month by investing between $75,000 and $100,000 with Morbex (the cost of acquiring
one  semi-trailer truck  and  obtaining  insurance,  permits,  and  licenses  to  operate  on  U.S.
highways).
28. If the investor was interested, they would then usually speak to Monzon, Smith or
Colon, who repeated the same claims.  Smith even told at least one investor that he could make
monthly  profits  of  $10,000-$12,000  if  he  invested  $75,000  in  Morbex, and that  Morbex
“guarantees passive income within 40-60 days of starting your own trucking business.”

8

29. Morbex  also  sent  prospective  investors  marketing  materials  touting  Morbex’s
operations and business model.  One marketing brochure stated that investors could make yearly
profits  of  between  $240,000  and  $420,000  if  they  invested  in  five  trucks  through  Morbex and
projected that investors could earn passive income of $720,000 to $1,260,000 in as little as three
years:

30. Morbex also frequently emphasized that the investment in Morbex was purely a
passive one with investors’ returns generated solely from Defendants’ efforts.  For example, in
one marketing brochure provided to investors titled “Investment Proposal,” Morbex described its
investment proposal as follows: “At Morbex Automation, our goal is to assist investors who have
a desire to enter into the trucking management and logistics to generate revenue in our industry.
Morbex  works  with  investors  and  secures  for  investors  the  logistics  – trucks,  staff,  licenses,
registrations, permits, etc.  –   necessary for a smooth and successful business.  In addition, Morbex
tracks and processes bookkeeping and expenses for their investors, which includes gas, insurance,

9

driver’s salaries and more.”  Morbex brochures also represented that Morbex would purchase a
semi-trailer  truck  on  behalf  of  the  investor,  hire  a  qualified  driver  for  the  truck,  obtain  all  the
permits and insurance necessary to haul freight throughout the U.S., and maintain and repair the
truck as needed.
31. Another  marketing  document  also  titled  “Investment  Proposal  2023”  described
how investors could earn passive income by investing in Morbex:

32. In  marketing  materials  and  during  oral  communications  with  investors,  the
individual defendants and sales agents told investors that investing in Morbex would be profitable
because  Morbex  had  contracts  to  haul  freight  with  several  large  companies,  such  as  Walmart,
Publix, and Costco.  They also assured investors that their investment was safe because investors
would own the truck that Morbex was supposed to purchase on their behalf with their investment
funds.  In fact, Morbex in its marketing materials highlighted individual truck ownership as the
best part of its investment proposal.

10

33. If  investors  were  interested  in  investing  in  Morbex,  the  individual  Defendants
provided them with a Morbex contract which, among other things, explained how investor profits
would  be  calculated,  assured  the investors that  Morbex  would  purchase  a  semi-truck  in  the
investor’s name, and that Morbex would operate and manage the truck.  The investment contract
also  assured  investors  that  their  investment  funds  would  be  returned  in  the  event  the  trucks
purchased by Morbex for each investor were not fully operational within sixty days.  Monzon
also promised investors that they would receive a refund if their trucks were not operational in
sixty days.  Although most investors did not receive the truck they were promised, not one known
investor received a refund of his or her investment despite repeated demands.
34. Morbex  never  filed  a  registration  statement  with  the  Commission  to  register  its
offering of securities.  Additionally, Morbex did not request or receive any records verifying the
net worth or income of their investors.  In fact, many investors in Morbex were unaccredited at
the time of their investments.
35. Morbex’s investment proposals are investment contracts and, therefore securities,
within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange
Act.
B.  Defendants’ Materially False and Misleading Statements to Investors

36. In connection with Morbex’s unregistered offering of securities, Defendants made
numerous material misrepresentations to investors about, among other things, the use of investor
funds,  the safety and profitability of their investment, and the existence of lucrative contracts with
Walmart, Publix, and Costco.
37. The Defendants  told  investors  that  their  investment  funds  would  be  used  to
purchase and outfit a semi-trailer truck which would be titled in the name of the investor, or in the

11

name  of  a  company  owned  and  controlled  solely  by the  investor.    In  addition  to  oral
communications, one Morbex marketing brochure stressed the benefits of the investor’s individual
ownership of the truck.  The marketing brochure states: “The best part [of the investment] is that
the investor owns the truck, so they get all the tax write offs of owning a commercial vehicle.”
38. However, in all but one known occasion, investors never received titles to the trucks
they were promised.  Despite raising  at least $5.4 million from at least 50 investors, Defendants
purchased  approximately  fourteen  semi-trucks  titled  in  the  name  of  Morbex  and  used  at  least
$530,000 of  investor  funds  to  lease  semi-trucks.    Additionally,  as  described  below,  Defendants
diverted at  least  $2  million  to  themselves  or  entities  that  they  controlled  and paid  undisclosed
commissions to sales agents.
39. The Defendants  also  told  investors  that  that  they  would  earn monthly  profits  of
$4,000 to $8,000 from the operation of each semi-truck.  In   fact, one marketing brochure stated
that  on  average  investors  would  earn  monthly  profits  of  $5,000-$8,000.    However,  only  a  few
investors received any monthly profits, and even those were only a fraction of the profits they were
promised.    In  fact,  Morbex  never  generated  sufficient  profits  to  pay  the  promised  returns  to
investors.
40. Monzon also misrepresented the safety of investing in Morbex by telling investors
that  they  would  receive  a  refund of  their  investment  if  their  trucks  were  not  operational  within
sixty days after the contract with Morbex was signed.  Despite repeated demands by some investors
for a refund of their investment, Morbex failed to refund their investment funds.  The Defendants
nevertheless continued to sell investments in Morbex even after investors demanded a refund of
their investment funds.

12

41. Finally,  to  convince  investors  that  Morbex  was  a  safe  and  lucrative  investment,
Smith told investors that Morbex had contracts to haul freight with large prominent retailers such
as  Walmart,   Publix,  and  Costco.   Morbex  also  distributed  a  brochure  that  explained  the  loads
Morbex  booked  with  the  trucks  came  from  contracts  secured  with  these  retailers.    However,
Morbex   never   had   any   contracts   with   those   retailers.      Investors   heavily   relied   on   this
misrepresentation when they decided to invest in Morbex.
42. Defendants   knew   or   were   reckless   in   not   knowing   the   above   material
representations were false because they were misappropriating investor funds at the time they were
making the misrepresentations.  Moreover, Morbex’s revenue from operations was not significant
enough to pay for the profits promised to investors.
C.  Misappropriation of Investor Funds
43. At  Defendants’  direction,  investors  sent  their  respective  investment  funds  to
Morbex via wire transfer to a Morbex bank account.  Morbex and Monzon then transferred funds
to entities controlled by Morbex’s owners or members.  Specifically, Monzon transferred $963,000
to Morbex Logistics, a company controlled by Monzon, Smith, for no apparent legitimate business
purpose.  Morbex also transferred $708,000 of investor funds to Sardinas Properties, a company
controlled  by  Sardinas,   for  no  apparent  legitimate  business  purpose.    None  of  these  Relief
Defendants used the transferred funds to purchase trucks on behalf of investors.
44. Smith  and  Colon  also directly  misappropriated  at  least  $800,000  and  $130,000,
respectively, of investor funds by directing investors to send their investment funds to companies
they  controlled  (JS7  Management  and  Alpha  Consulting)  instead  of  Morbex’s  bank  account.
These  investors  would  not  have  sent  their  investment  funds  to  JS7  Management  and  Alpha

13

Consulting  had  they  known  the  companies  were  controlled  by  Smith  and  Colon  and  that
Defendants would not be buying trucks in their names with their investment funds.
45. Morbex also misappropriated investor funds by failing to provide investors with the
trucks and profits they were promised and failing to return investment funds to investors after they
demanded a refund of their investments.
D.   Monzon, Smith, and Colon Acted as Unregistered Brokers in Connection with the
Offer and Sale of Morbex’s Securities

46. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants  Monzon,  Smith, and  Colon  offered  and
sold  securities  issued  by  Morbex  to  at  least  50  investors.    Monzon, Smith,  and  Colon  played  a
significant  role  in  Morbex’s  offering,  including  hiring  and  supervising a  team  of unregistered
brokers to offer and sell Morbex’s securities to investors throughout the United States.
47. In  fact,  the  individual  defendants  provided  the  sales  agents  with  marketing
materials and a script to pitch Morbex investment contracts to prospective investors who contacted
Morbex through advertisements posted on Facebook and Yelp.   For example, one Yelp add stated:

48. In   addition   to   actively   soliciting   investors   through   Facebook   and   Yelp
advertisements,  the  sales  agents  supervised  by Monzon, Smith  and  Colon routinely  provided
advice concerning the merits of investing in Morbex.  Some sales agents also were promised or
received transaction-based compensation in part based on investor funds raised.
49. In  addition  to  supervising  the  team  of  sales  agents,  Monzon,  Smith, and  Colon
directly engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions for the account of others.  More

14

specifically,  Monzon,  Smith, and  Colon  personally  solicited  investors  to  purchase  securities,
advised investors as to the merits of the investment, and misappropriated investor funds, all with
a certain regularity of participation in securities transactions over the course of almost a year.
50. At all relevant times, Morbex was not registered with the Commission as a broker-
dealer.    At  all  relevant  times,  Monzon,  Smith,  and  Colon  held  no  securities  licenses,  were  not
registered  with  the  Commission  as  a  broker  or  dealer  and  were  not  associated  with  an  entity
registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act
51. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
52. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means
or 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.
53. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].
COUNT II
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act
54. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
55. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue
statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts in order to make the statements made,

15

in the light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.
56. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)].
COUNT III
Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act
57. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
58. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in
acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, are now operating, and will operate
as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.
59. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)].

COUNT IV

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

60. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
61. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, in the offer or sale of securities by use of
any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use
of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices
to defraud.

16

62. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  the  Defendants  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 V
Violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

63. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
64. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants,  in  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities  by  any
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails,
directly or indirectly, negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of
material facts and omissions to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
65. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate,  Section  17(a)(2)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
77q(a)(2)].
COUNT VI
Violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act

66. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
67. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, 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,  negligently  engaged  in  transactions,  practices,  or  courses  of
business  which  have  operated,  are  now  operating or will operate  as  a  fraud  or  deceit  upon  the
purchasers.

17

68. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated  and,  unless  enjoined, are
reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate  Section  17(a)(3)  of  the  Securities  Act  [15  U.S.C.  §
77q(a)(3)].
COUNT VII
Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act
69. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
70. No  registration  statement  was  filed  or  in  effect Commission  pursuant  to  the
Securities Act with respect to the securities and transactions issued by Defendants described in
this Complaint and no exemption from registration existed with respect to these securities and
transactions.
71. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly:
a. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication
in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium
of a prospectus or otherwise.

b. carried or caused to be carried securities through the mails or in interstate
commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale
or delivery after sale; or

c. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication
in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use
of  medium  of  any  prospectus  or  otherwise  any  security,  without  a  registration
statement  having  been  filed  or  being  in  effect  with  the  Commission  as  to  such
securities.

72. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  violated,  and  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C.
§§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].

18

COUNT VIII
Violations of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act
(Against Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon Only)
73. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
74. During  the  Relevant  Period,  Defendants  Monzon,  Smith, and  Colon directly  or
indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce effected
transactions  in, or  induced  or  attempted  to  induce  the  purchase  or  sale  of  securities,  while  they
were not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or when they were not associated
with an entity registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
75. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  Monzon,  Smith and  Colon directly  or
indirectly,  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are  reasonably  likely  to  continue  to  violate  Section
15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1)].
COUNT IX
Unjust Enrichment
(Against Relief Defendants Only)
76. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
77. The Relief Defendants received investor funds from fraudulent and unregistered
sales of Morbex’s securities, to which they lack a legitimate claim.
78. The Relief Defendants obtained these funds as part of the securities law violations
alleged above, under circumstances in which it is not just or equitable for them to retain the funds.
79. By reason of the foregoing, the Relief Defendants have been unjustly enriched and
should  be  ordered  to  disgorge the  funds  they  received  as  a  result  of  the  individual  Defendants’
violations of securities laws charged in this complaint.

19

VI.   RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE,  the  Commission respectfully  requests  that  the  Court  find  Defendants
committed the violations alleged in this Complaint and:
A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief
Issue permanent injunctions,  enjoining Defendants,  their officers,  agents,  servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating
Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)], Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and enjoining Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon from violating
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].
B.  Disgorgement
Issue an order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the
applicable  statute  of  limitations,  including  prejudgment  interest,  resulting  from  the  acts  and/or
courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint.
C.  Joint and Several Liability
Issue an order providing that the following Relief Defendants and their controlling persons
are jointly and severally liable for all ordered disgorgement against them: Alpha Consulting with
Colon;  Morbex  Logistics with  Monzon  and Colon;  Optimistic  Services  with  Monzon;  Sardinas
Properties with Sardinas; and JS7 Management and Smith.
D.  Penalty
Issue an order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section
20(d) of the Securities Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)]  and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78u(d)].

20

E.  Further Relief
Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
F.  Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission  requests  that  the  Court  retain  jurisdiction  over  this  action  to
implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that are entered, and to entertain any
suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of
the Court.
VII.  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 The Commission hereby demands a jury trial in this case on all issues so triable.

Dated:   March 14, 2025          Respectfully submitted,

By: Alise Johnson
Alise Johnson
Senior Trial Counsel
Fla. Bar No.  0003270
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6385
Email:  [email protected]
Lead Attorney
Attorney To Be Noticed

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

1  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
MORBEX AUTOMATION LLC,  
DANILO MONZON,  
JOSHUA SMITH, 
and ADRIAN COLON, 

 
Defendants, and 
 

MORBEX AUTOMATION LOGISTICS CORP., 
OPTIMISTIC SERVICES INC.,  
JS7 MANAGEMENT LLC,  
ALPHA CONSULTING FIRM LLC,  
SANDOR SARDINAS, and 
SARDINAS PROPERTIES, LLC,  
 
           Relief Defendants. 
 
 / 
 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF 
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

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

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. The Commission brings this case against Morbex Automation LLC (“Morbex”), a 

company purportedly in the trucking and logistics business in Miami, Florida, and its authorized 

members, Danilo Monzon (“Monzon”), Joshua Smith (“Smith”), and Adrian Colon (“Colon”) 

(collectively “Defendants”), who raised at least $5.4 million from at least fifty investors in several 

states through a fraudulent offering of unregistered securities. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 1 of 20



2  

2. From at least January 2023 through November 2023 (the “Relevant Period”), 

Defendants offered securities in the form of investment contracts that Defendants claimed would 

generate substantial passive income.  Through posts on Facebook, Yelp, advertisements and 

various sales agents, Defendants claimed that an investment of between $75,000 to $100,000 

would generate monthly returns of between $4,000 and $8,000 for the investor. 

3. Defendants told investors that they would use investor funds to purchase semi-

trailer trucks and then manage and operate those trucks throughout the United States.  Defendants 

told investors that their investments would be safe because the semi-trucks would be purchased 

and titled in the investor’s name.  Defendants also told investors that their investments would be 

profitable because Morbex had contracts to haul freight for prominent retail companies such as 

Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), Publix Super Markets, Inc. (“Publix”), and Costco Wholesale 

Corporation (“Costco”). 

4. These statements were false.  First, Defendants did not use investor funds to 

purchase semi-trailer trucks on behalf of the investors.  Instead, Defendants Smith and Colon 

directly misappropriated at least $930,000 of investor funds for themselves by directing investors 

to transfer their investment funds into bank accounts of Relief Defendants Alpha Consulting Inc. 

(“Alpha Consulting”) and JS7 Management Inc. (“JS7 Management”), companies controlled by 

Smith and Colon, respectively.  Defendants also transferred at least $1.2 million from Morbex’s 

bank account to Relief Defendants Morbex Automation Logistics Corp. (“Morbex Logistics”) 

(controlled by Monzon and Colon), Optimistic Services Inc. (“Optimistic Services”) (controlled 

by Monzon) – and Sardinas Properties, LLC (“Sardinas Properties”) (and its owner Sandor 

Sardinas (“Sardinas”)).  Additional investor funds were diverted to pay undisclosed commissions 

to sales agents selling Morbex’s investments to investors. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 2 of 20



3  

5. Second, although Defendants used approximately $1.1 million of investor funds to 

purchase trucks, Morbex purchased about fourteen trucks in its own name and only one known 

investor received title to a semi-truck.  Morbex used an additional $530,000 of investor funds to 

lease  trucks. Moreover, contrary to its representations to investors, Morbex never had any 

contracts with Walmart, Publix, or Costco. 

6. Third, due to Defendants’ misuse and misappropriation of investor funds, Morbex 

failed to generate sufficient revenue to pay the high returns promised to investors.  In fact, most 

known investors did not receive any profits whatsoever from Morbex.  And the few investors who 

received monthly profits only received a fraction of the profits they were promised. 

7. Monzon, Smith, and Colon also acted as brokers because they supervised a sales 

team of unregistered brokers, personally solicited investors to purchase securities, and advised 

investors as to the merits of the investment, all with a certain regularity of participation in securities 

transactions over the course of almost a year.  Monzon, Smith, Colon, and the sales agents have 

never been registered with the Commission as broker-dealers or associated with a registered 

broker-dealer.   

8. In addition, during the Relevant Period, Relief Defendants did not provide any 

legitimate services the investor funds they received. 

9. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated Sections 

5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c)],  

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

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

C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; and individual Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon also violated Section 

15(a) of the Exchange Act. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 3 of 20



4  

10. Unless enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal 

securities laws. 

 
II.   DEFENDANTS AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS 

 
 A.  Defendants 
 

11. Monzon, age 37, resides in Hialeah, Florida.  Monzon was an authorized member 

of Defendant Morbex, manager of Relief Defendant Morbex Logistics, and Vice President of 

Relief Defendant Optimistic Services.  Monzon was an authorized signatory on both Morbex’s 

and Morbex Logistics’ bank accounts 

12. Smith, age 43, resides in Miami, Florida.  Smith was an authorized member of 

Defendant Morbex and Relief Defendant JS7 Management.  Smith was also a signatory on JS7 

Management’s bank account.  

13. Colon, age 27, resides in Doral, Florida.  Colon was an authorized member of 

Defendant Morbex and Relief Defendant Alpha Consulting.  Colon was also a signatory on Alpha 

Consulting’s bank account. 

14. Morbex is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2022 with its principal 

place of business in Miami, Florida.  Morbex purportedly specialized in trucking and logistics and 

offered investors the opportunity to invest through the company’s investment offering.  Morbex 

misappropriated investor proceeds during the Relevant Period.   

B.  Relief Defendants 

15. Optimistic Services is a Florida Corporation formed in 2022 with its principal place 

of business in Hialeah, Florida.  Monzon is a Vice President of Optimistic Services.  Optimistic 

Services’ address is the same as Monzon’s former residence.  Optimistic Services received investor 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 4 of 20



5  

proceeds emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but most of 

those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose. 

16. Morbex Logistics is a Florida corporation formed in 2024 with its principal place 

of business in Miami, Florida.  Monzon and Colon are managers of Morbex Logistics and along 

with Sardinas are signatories on its bank account.  Morbex Logistics received investor proceeds 

emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period. 

17. JS7 Management is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2020 with its 

principal place of business in Doral, Florida.  Smith is a member of JS7 Management and a 

signatory on its bank accounts.  JS7 Management received investor proceeds emanating from the 

Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but most  of those funds were not used for 

any apparent legitimate business purpose. 

18.  Alpha Consulting is a Delaware limited liability company formed in 2023 with its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Colon is the manager of Alpha Consulting and a 

signatory on its bank account.  Alpha Consulting received investor proceeds emanating from the 

Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but those funds were not used for any 

apparent legitimate business purpose. 

19. Sardinas, age 46, is a resident of Hialeah, Florida.  Sardinas is an authorized 

member of Morbex, a signatory on both Morbex and Morbex Logistics’ bank accounts, and the 

manager of Sardinas Properties.  Sardinas received investor proceeds emanating from the 

Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period, through his company Sardinas Properties 

but the majority of those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose. 

20. Sardinas Properties is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2016 with its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Sardinas Properties received at least $708,000 of 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 5 of 20



6  

investor proceeds emanating from the Defendants’ securities fraud during the Relevant Period but 

those funds were not used for any apparent legitimate business purpose. 

III.   JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

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

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

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

Southern District of Florida, because Defendants engaged in acts and transactions constituting the 

violations alleged in this Complaint in this District.  Further, Morbex’s principal place of business 

was in Miami, Florida and Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon reside in this District. 

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

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

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

commerce, and the mails. 

IV.   DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT CONDUCT 

A.  Defendants’ Unregistered Offering 

24. Defendants formed Morbex ostensibly to operate a trucking and logistics company 

in South Florida.  During the Relevant Period, Morbex, through its principals Smith, Colon and 

Monzon, raised over $5.4 million from at least 50 investors through Morbex’s unregistered 

offering of securities in the form of investment contracts.  

25. Defendants solicited investors primarily through promotions on Facebook, Yelp, 

advertisements, and sales agents, touting the opportunity to earn substantial passive income by 

investing in Morbex’s business and leveraging the trucking industry.  Specifically, Morbex offered 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 6 of 20



7  

investors the opportunity to own a semi-truck by making an investment of between $75,000 to 

$100,000.  Under the terms of the investment contract, Morbex promised to handle all aspects of 

operating the semi-truck necessary for a smooth and successful business, including obtaining 

necessary licenses and registrations, hiring a driver, and operating expenses such as gas and 

insurance.   

26. For example, Morbex’s Facebook advertisement claimed that investors could earn 

monthly profits of between $4,000 and $8,000.  The Facebook advertisement claimed that 

investors could derive significant profits from the hauling contracts Morbex had entered into with 

several prominent retail companies.  The Facebook advertisement had a “contact us” feature that 

allowed prospective investors to leave their personal contact information so that they could learn 

more about the investment opportunity. 

27. After seeing the Facebook or other online advertisement, investors typically 

contacted Morbex directly (or were contacted by Morbex after sending contact information 

through the “contact us” feature) and typically spoke with one or more of Morbex’s sales agents.  

These sales agents generally told interested investors that they would earn between $4,000 and 

$8,000 a month by investing between $75,000 and $100,000 with Morbex (the cost of acquiring 

one semi-trailer truck and obtaining insurance, permits, and licenses to operate on U.S. 

highways).   

28. If the investor was interested, they would then usually speak to Monzon, Smith or 

Colon, who repeated the same claims.  Smith even told at least one investor that he could make 

monthly profits of $10,000-$12,000 if he invested $75,000 in Morbex, and that Morbex 

“guarantees passive income within 40-60 days of starting your own trucking business.”   

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 7 of 20



8  

29. Morbex also sent prospective investors marketing materials touting Morbex’s 

operations and business model.  One marketing brochure stated that investors could make yearly 

profits of between $240,000 and $420,000 if they invested in five trucks through Morbex and 

projected that investors could earn passive income of $720,000 to $1,260,000 in as little as three 

years:   

 

 

30. Morbex also frequently emphasized that the investment in Morbex was purely a 

passive one with investors’ returns generated solely from Defendants’ efforts.  For example, in 

one marketing brochure provided to investors titled “Investment Proposal,” Morbex described its 

investment proposal as follows: “At Morbex Automation, our goal is to assist investors who have 

a desire to enter into the trucking management and logistics to generate revenue in our industry.  

Morbex works with investors and secures for investors the logistics – trucks, staff, licenses, 

registrations, permits, etc. – necessary for a smooth and successful business.  In addition, Morbex 

tracks and processes bookkeeping and expenses for their investors, which includes gas, insurance, 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 8 of 20



9  

driver’s salaries and more.”  Morbex brochures also represented that Morbex would purchase a 

semi-trailer truck on behalf of the investor, hire a qualified driver for the truck, obtain all the 

permits and insurance necessary to haul freight throughout the U.S., and maintain and repair the 

truck as needed. 

31. Another marketing document also titled “Investment Proposal 2023” described 

how investors could earn passive income by investing in Morbex:  

 

32. In marketing materials and during oral communications with investors, the 

individual defendants and sales agents told investors that investing in Morbex would be profitable 

because Morbex had contracts to haul freight with several large companies, such as Walmart, 

Publix, and Costco.  They also assured investors that their investment was safe because investors 

would own the truck that Morbex was supposed to purchase on their behalf with their investment 

funds.  In fact, Morbex in its marketing materials highlighted individual truck ownership as the 

best part of its investment proposal.  

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 9 of 20



10  

33. If investors were interested in investing in Morbex, the individual Defendants 

provided them with a Morbex contract which, among other things, explained how investor profits 

would be calculated, assured the investors that Morbex would purchase a semi-truck in the 

investor’s name, and that Morbex would operate and manage the truck.  The investment contract 

also assured investors that their investment funds would be returned in the event the trucks 

purchased by Morbex for each investor were not fully operational within sixty days.  Monzon 

also promised investors that they would receive a refund if their trucks were not operational in 

sixty days.  Although most investors did not receive the truck they were promised, not one known 

investor received a refund of his or her investment despite repeated demands.  

34. Morbex never filed a registration statement with the Commission to register its 

offering of securities.  Additionally, Morbex did not request or receive any records verifying the 

net worth or income of their investors.  In fact, many investors in Morbex were unaccredited at 

the time of their investments. 

35. Morbex’s investment proposals are investment contracts and, therefore securities, 

within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange 

Act.  

B.  Defendants’ Materially False and Misleading Statements to Investors 
 

36. In connection with Morbex’s unregistered offering of securities, Defendants made 

numerous material misrepresentations to investors about, among other things, the use of investor 

funds, the safety and profitability of their investment, and the existence of lucrative contracts with 

Walmart, Publix, and Costco. 

37. The Defendants told investors that their investment funds would be used to 

purchase and outfit a semi-trailer truck which would be titled in the name of the investor, or in the 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 10 of 20



11  

name of a company owned and controlled solely by the investor.  In addition to oral 

communications, one Morbex marketing brochure stressed the benefits of the investor’s individual 

ownership of the truck.  The marketing brochure states: “The best part [of the investment] is that 

the investor owns the truck, so they get all the tax write offs of owning a commercial vehicle.”   

38. However, in all but one known occasion, investors never received titles to the trucks 

they were promised.  Despite raising  at least $5.4 million from at least 50 investors, Defendants 

purchased approximately fourteen semi-trucks titled in the name of Morbex and used at least 

$530,000 of investor funds to lease semi-trucks.  Additionally, as described below, Defendants 

diverted at least $2 million to themselves or entities that they controlled and paid undisclosed 

commissions to sales agents.    

39. The Defendants also told investors that that they would earn monthly profits of 

$4,000 to $8,000 from the operation of each semi-truck.  In fact, one marketing brochure stated 

that on average investors would earn monthly profits of $5,000-$8,000.  However, only a few 

investors received any monthly profits, and even those were only a fraction of the profits they were 

promised.  In fact, Morbex never generated sufficient profits to pay the promised returns to 

investors.  

40. Monzon also misrepresented the safety of investing in Morbex by telling investors 

that they would receive a refund of their investment if their trucks were not operational within 

sixty days after the contract with Morbex was signed.  Despite repeated demands by some investors 

for a refund of their investment, Morbex failed to refund their investment funds.  The Defendants 

nevertheless continued to sell investments in Morbex even after investors demanded a refund of 

their investment funds. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 11 of 20



12  

41. Finally, to convince investors that Morbex was a safe and lucrative investment, 

Smith told investors that Morbex had contracts to haul freight with large prominent retailers such 

as Walmart, Publix, and Costco. Morbex also distributed a brochure that explained the loads 

Morbex booked with the trucks came from contracts secured with these retailers.  However, 

Morbex never had any contracts with those retailers.  Investors heavily relied on this 

misrepresentation when they decided to invest in Morbex. 

42. Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing the above material 

representations were false because they were misappropriating investor funds at the time they were 

making the misrepresentations.  Moreover, Morbex’s revenue from operations was not significant 

enough to pay for the profits promised to investors. 

C.  Misappropriation of Investor Funds 

43. At Defendants’ direction, investors sent their respective investment funds to 

Morbex via wire transfer to a Morbex bank account.  Morbex and Monzon then transferred funds 

to entities controlled by Morbex’s owners or members.  Specifically, Monzon transferred $963,000 

to Morbex Logistics, a company controlled by Monzon, Smith, for no apparent legitimate business 

purpose.  Morbex also transferred $708,000 of investor funds to Sardinas Properties, a company 

controlled by Sardinas, for no apparent legitimate business purpose.  None of these Relief 

Defendants used the transferred funds to purchase trucks on behalf of investors.  

44. Smith and Colon also directly misappropriated at least $800,000 and $130,000, 

respectively, of investor funds by directing investors to send their investment funds to companies 

they controlled (JS7 Management and Alpha Consulting) instead of Morbex’s bank account.  

These investors would not have sent their investment funds to JS7 Management and Alpha 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 12 of 20



13  

Consulting had they known the companies were controlled by Smith and Colon and that 

Defendants would not be buying trucks in their names with their investment funds. 

45. Morbex also misappropriated investor funds by failing to provide investors with the 

trucks and profits they were promised and failing to return investment funds to investors after they 

demanded a refund of their investments. 

D.   Monzon, Smith, and Colon Acted as Unregistered Brokers in Connection with the 
Offer and Sale of Morbex’s Securities   

 
46. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon offered and 

sold securities issued by Morbex to at least 50 investors.  Monzon, Smith, and Colon played a 

significant role in Morbex’s offering, including hiring and supervising a team of unregistered 

brokers to offer and sell Morbex’s securities to investors throughout the United States.   

47. In fact, the individual defendants provided the sales agents with marketing 

materials and a script to pitch Morbex investment contracts to prospective investors who contacted 

Morbex through advertisements posted on Facebook and Yelp.  For example, one Yelp add stated: 

 

 
 

48. In addition to actively soliciting investors through Facebook and Yelp 

advertisements, the sales agents supervised by Monzon, Smith and Colon routinely provided 

advice concerning the merits of investing in Morbex.  Some sales agents also were promised or 

received transaction-based compensation in part based on investor funds raised.  

49. In addition to supervising the team of sales agents, Monzon, Smith, and Colon 

directly engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions for the account of others.  More 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 13 of 20



14  

specifically, Monzon, Smith, and Colon personally solicited investors to purchase securities, 

advised investors as to the merits of the investment, and misappropriated investor funds, all with 

a certain regularity of participation in securities transactions over the course of almost a year. 

50. At all relevant times, Morbex was not registered with the Commission as a broker-

dealer.  At all relevant times, Monzon, Smith, and Colon held no securities licenses, were not 

registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer and were not associated with an entity 

registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.  

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

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

51. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

52. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means 

or 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. 

53. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants 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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)]. 

COUNT II 

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

54. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

55. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means 

or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue 

statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts in order to make the statements made, 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 14 of 20



15  

in the light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities. 

56. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants 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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)]. 

COUNT III 

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

57. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

58. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by use of the means 

or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in 

acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, are now operating, and will operate 

as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. 

59. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants 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 Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)]. 

 
COUNT IV 

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

 
60. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

61. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, in the offer or sale of securities by use of 

any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use 

of the mails, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices 

to defraud. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 15 of 20



16  

62. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants 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 V 

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

63. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

64. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, in the offer or sale of securities by any 

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

directly or indirectly, negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of 

material facts and omissions to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, 

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

65. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(2)]. 

COUNT VI 

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

66. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

67. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, 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, negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of 

business which have operated, are now operating or will operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchasers. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 16 of 20



17  

68. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(3)]. 

COUNT VII 

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act 

69. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

70. No registration statement was filed or in effect Commission pursuant to the 

Securities Act with respect to the securities and transactions issued by Defendants described in 

this Complaint and no exemption from registration existed with respect to these securities and 

transactions.  

71. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, directly or indirectly: 

a. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication 
in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium 
of a prospectus or otherwise.   

 
b. carried or caused to be carried securities through the mails or in interstate 
commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale 
or delivery after sale; or 

 
c. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication 
in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use 
of medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, without a registration 
statement having been filed or being in effect with the Commission as to such 
securities.  

 
72. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated, and unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 

§§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)]. 

 

 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 17 of 20



18  

COUNT VIII 

Violations of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act 

(Against Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon Only) 

73. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

74. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon directly or 

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

transactions in, or induced or attempted to induce the purchase or sale of securities, while they 

were not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or when they were not associated 

with an entity registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer. 

75. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Monzon, Smith and Colon directly or 

indirectly, violated and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 

15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1)]. 

COUNT IX 

Unjust Enrichment 

(Against Relief Defendants Only) 

76. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint. 

77. The Relief Defendants received investor funds from fraudulent and unregistered 

sales of Morbex’s securities, to which they lack a legitimate claim.  

78. The Relief Defendants obtained these funds as part of the securities law violations 

alleged above, under circumstances in which it is not just or equitable for them to retain the funds. 

79. By reason of the foregoing, the Relief Defendants have been unjustly enriched and 

should be ordered to disgorge the funds they received as a result of the individual Defendants’ 

violations of securities laws charged in this complaint.  

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 18 of 20



19  

VI.   RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find Defendants 

committed the violations alleged in this Complaint and: 

A.  Permanent Injunctive Relief 

Issue permanent injunctions, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating 

Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)], Section 17(a) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] 

and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and enjoining Defendants Monzon, Smith, and Colon from violating 

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

B.  Disgorgement 

Issue an order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the 

applicable statute of limitations, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts and/or 

courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint. 

C.  Joint and Several Liability 

Issue an order providing that the following Relief Defendants and their controlling persons 

are jointly and severally liable for all ordered disgorgement against them: Alpha Consulting with 

Colon; Morbex Logistics with Monzon and Colon; Optimistic Services with Monzon; Sardinas 

Properties with Sardinas; and JS7 Management and Smith.  

D.  Penalty 

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

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

§ 78u(d)]. 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 19 of 20



20  

E.  Further Relief 

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

F.  Retention of Jurisdiction 

Further, the Commission requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action to 

implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that are entered, and to entertain any 

suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of 

the Court.  

VII.  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 The Commission hereby demands a jury trial in this case on all issues so triable. 
 

Dated:  March 14, 2025          Respectfully submitted, 

 

By: Alise Johnson    
Alise Johnson 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Fla. Bar No.  0003270 
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6385 
Email:  [email protected] 
Lead Attorney 
Attorney To Be Noticed 

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

 

Case 1:25-cv-21223-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2025   Page 20 of 20


	UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
	SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
	CASE NO.
	SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
	I. INTRODUCTION
	II.   DEFENDANTS AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS
	COUNT I
	COUNT VI
	COUNT VII
	Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act