SEC v. CHERYL L. ROBINSON, No. 2:14-cv-1036, District of Nevada (June 26, 2014) — Complaint

1

Stephen  W. Simpson
Timothy  N . England
Stephen  L. C ohen
U. S .    S e c uritie s    a nd    Exc ha nge    C o mmis s io n
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington,  DC 20549
Fax:  202.772.9228
simpsons@sec. go v
  /  Tel.  202.551.4513
englandt@ sec. go v   /  Tel.  202.551.4969
[email protected]      /  Tel.  202.551.4472
 Attorneys  fo r  the   P la int iff
UNITED  STATES   DISTRICT  COURT
FOR  THE  DISTRICT  OF  NEVADA

SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE
COM M ISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHERYL   L.  ROBINSON

Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COM PLAINT

Plaint iff   Securitie s   and   Exchange   C o mmis s io n   (“C o mmis s io n ” )   a lle ge s    a s    fo llo ws :
SUM M ARY
1. Between  2009 and 2011, Defendant  Cheryl  L. Robinson  participated  in  and aided
an  d   abetted an  advance-fe e  high-yield   investment   scam  perpetrated  by  S witze rla nd-based  Malom
Group  AG  (“Malom”)  – an  acronym   for  “Make A Lot Of  Money”  – and Las Vegas-based  M.Y.
C onsultants,  Inc.  Robinson  served as a promoter of the scheme, working   with   M a lo m  and M.Y.
C onsultant s to recruit investors.      She s o lic ite d    ma ny  investors, successfully  recruiting  at  least  s ix

2

investors who collectively  paid $1,225,000 to enter into   agreements with  M a lo m  a nd   lo s t  a ll   o f
their  invested   funds.
2. In her  role  as a promoter,  Robinson  various ly held herself  out as a representative
o f  M a lom  or as an intermediary  between  the  investors   and  Malom.   She e xp la ined    the  joint
venture  agreement  program  to prospective  investors,  a program  that purported  to allow  the
investors,   in  exchange   for  an  upfront   fee,  to  “use”   Malom’s  purportedly  vast  financial  resources
to  entice  third  parties  to  enter  into  investment   transactions,   typically   high-yield   overseas  trading
programs,  with  Malom  that  would  generate  astronomica lly-high   invest me nt   returns  for  Malom
and  the  investor.   In  doing  so, she made various  misrepresentatio ns  and  omissions  to them,
includ ing   misreprese nta t io ns   about   M a lo m’s  background,  its  financ ia l   resources,   and  history   of
success.    She  also  failed   to  inform   investors   that  none  of  her  clients   had  received  any  profits   from
a transaction with  M a lo m  a nd   tha t  a ll   ha d   lo s t  the ir   e ntire    inve s t me nt.      F ina lly,    s he   o mitte d    to   te ll
any  of  the  investors   that  she  would  be  paid  approximately 25% of the investors’  advance  fees
regardless  of  whether  a  transaction  produced  profits.
3. After  investors   entered  into  agreements  with  Malom  and  paid  Malom  an  advance
fe e,  Robinson  re gula r ly   c o mmun ic a ted    with  them  about  the status of their  agreements,  the ir
prospective  transactions,  and,  eventua lly,   the  possibility   of  getting   a   refund.
4. As a result  of the activitie s    d e s c rib e d   in  this   C o mp la in t,  Robinson  received
approximately  $204,417 in  transaction-based  compensation.
JURISDICTION  AND VENUE
5. The  C ommiss io n   brings   this  action,  and  this  C ourt  has  jurisdic t io n   over  this
action,  pursuant  to authority  conferred  by Section  20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities  Act [15

3

U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77v(a)]  and Sections  21(d), 21(e) and 27 of the Exchange  Act [15 U.S.C.
§§  78u(d),  78u(e)  and  78aa].
6. This  C ourt  has  personal  jurisdict io n   over  the  defendant   and  venue  is  proper  in  the
District  of Nevada pursuant  to Section  22(a) of the Securities  Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and
Section  27 of the  Exchange  Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]  because  defendant  engaged  in  transactions,
acts, practices,  and courses of business  constituting  the violations  alleged  in this  Complaint
within   this  district.
7.  The defendant,  directly  and indirectly,  have  made use of the means  and
ins tru me nt a lit ie s    of interstate  commerce,  and the means  and instruments  of transportation  and
communication  in  interstate  commerce,  in  connection  with  the  transactions,  acts,  practices,  and
c o urs e s   o f  b us ine s s    a lle ge d    in  this   C o mp la int.
8. W hile   carrying  out the actions  alleged  in  this    c o mp la in t,    d e fe nd a nt   re s id e d   in  this
jud ic ia l   d is tric t.
DEFENDANT  AND  RELATED  PARTIES
9. Cheryl L. Robinson,  age 49, is  a resident  of P e o ria,  Arizona.
10. Malom Group  AG is  a  company   formed  under  the  laws  of  Switzerland   in  1973.
Its principal  place of business  is Baar, Switzerland.   “Malom”  is an acronym  for “Make A Lot Of
Money.”  Malom  and its principals,  Martin  U. Schläpfer  and Hans-Jurg  Lips  are  named  as
defendants  in SEC v. Malom  Group AG, et al., 2:13cv2280 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2013).
11. M.Y. Consultants,  Inc. is  a  consulting   firm   formed  under  the  laws  of  Nevada  in
April  2007.  Its principal  place of business  was Las Vegas, Nevada.  Anthony  Brandel  served as
its   s o le   d irector.    It  had  few,  if  any,  regular   employees.     Through   Brandel,   M.Y.  C onsultants

4

arranged  transactions  with  Malom,  handled  investor  funds,  negotiated  transaction  documents,
and communicated  with  investors.     M.Y. Consultants  and its  director,  Brandel,  are named  as
defendants  in  SEC v. Malom  Group AG, et al., 2:13cv2280 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2013).
FACTS
I. The Scheme to Defraud
12. From  approximately  August  2009  to  fall  2011,  with  lulling  activities  continui ng   at
least  until  October 2013, Malom  and its principals,  agents,  and promoters used the mail  and
wires  to  defraud  at  least  31 investors  out of approximately $10.8 millio n  through   two  schemes
involving  the offer  and sale of securities.
13. Of relevance  to this    c o mp la in t   is   the   firs t   o f  the  two schemes  employed  by
M a lo m:  the  joint  venture  offering.   The  joint  venture  o ffe rin g  targeted  investors  with   the   p ro mis e
that,  for  an  advance  fee,  they  could  enter  into  trading  programs  and  other  transactions   that  could
yie ld   extraordinary  returns (e.g., 100% in  a single  day) through   risk-free  transactions  utilizing
Malom’s  substantial  assets.  This  offering   lasted  from  approximately   August  2009  to
approximately  August  2011.
14. Under  the  joint  venture  agreements,   investors   were required  to pay an up fro nt  fee
of between  $150,000 and $1 million and  identify  transactions  to be funded  by Malom  and to be
entered  into  between  Malom   and  third  parties.      In turn,  Malom  was to provide  the  investors  with
evidence   of  its  supposedly   substantial   assets,  such   as  a bank statement   or  “proof  of funds”  bank
letter,  showing   that  M a lo m,  or  an  entity   whose  funds  M a lo m  purportedly had access to, had tens
to   hund re d s    o f  millio ns    o f  d o lla rs    a va ila b le  in  overseas  banks.    M a lo m  was then responsible  for

5

exploring   the   investors’ proposed transactions   with  third  parties,   called “contract  counter-
parties.”
15. If,   in  its   s o le   d is c re tio n,   M a lo m  deemed  a transaction  acceptable,  it   was to enter
into  the transaction  directly with  the  contract  counter-party  and  give  a lion’s  share of  the profit
back  to  the  investor.    Malom  deemed  acceptable only  those  transactions   that  posed  “no
perceptible  risk of loss”  to its  funds.
16. Although   termed  “Joint   Venture   Agreements, ”   the  agreements   did  not  purport  to
create  separate  legal  entities,  contained  no  management  provisions,  and expressly  did not create
general  partnerships  between  the investors  and Malom.
17. None of the transactions  in securities  offered  or sold by or for M a lo m  was
re gis te re d   with  the   C o mmis s io n,   o r  is   e lig ib le    fo r   a n   e xe mp tio n   fro m   re gis tra tio n.
II. D e fe ndant’s   Involve me nt  in  the   Sche me
18. Robinson  began  working  as  a  promoter  for  Malom  and  M.Y.  Consultants   in
approximately  fall  2009  and  continued  in  this  role  through  2011.
19. During   this   time ,   Robinson  had little  knowledge  or past experience  in  subjects
such   as   domestic   and   foreign   securities   and   financ ia l   markets,   banking   and   bank   instrume nt s,   the
SWIFT system,  or securities  trading;  had no licenses  in  these  industr ies ;  and had received  no
training   in  such  subjects.
20. Furthermore, Robinson  was not re gis te re d    with  the   C o mmis s io n   a s   a broker-
dealer,  as  is  required  for  offering   securities   to  investors   in  the  circumstances   described  in  this
co mp la int.

6

21. As a promoter, Robinson  recruited  investors  for  the  joint  venture  program  by
solicit i ng  investors  through  telephone,  email,  and internet communications.   In these
communications,  she  directly  offered  investors  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  the  joint  venture
program.
22. Robinson  also  offered  the  joint  venture  program  through  internet  advertiseme nts
o n  we b s ite s   lik e   C ra igs lis t. c o m  and on internet  message  boards.
23. Robinson he ld   herself out  as  a representative   of  Malom  or  as an inte rme d ia ry
between  the  investors   and  Malom.   She e xp la ined    the  joint  venture   agreement   program,  handled
invest me nt   contracts,  and  regular ly   communic ated    with   investors   regarding   the  status   of  their
agreements.
24.  In recruit ing  investors  and  explaining   the  joint  venture   program  to  them,
Robinson  led  investors  to believe  that  Malom’s  funds  could  somehow  be  used  as  collateral,
leveraged,  or  “monetized”  by contract  counter-parties  by supplying   only   a “proof  of funds,”
having   banks  “block”   or  “reserve”   funds   in  an  account,  or  by  issuing   bank-to-bank  “S WIF T”
communications.
1
    Robinson  needed to invoke  these s e e ming l y  sophisticated,   but  ultimate ly
ille g it i ma te  o r  mis us e d  processes because M a lo m  did  not  have  the funds  reflected  in  the proof of
funds  documents,  which  were  all  fraudule nt  and/or  forged.     In fact, Robinson  provided  investors
and  potential  investors  with  copies  of  joint  venture  agreements  and attachments that  used  these
and  other  catchphrases   that  government   agencies   have  warned  are  indicative   of  fraudulent   high-

1
 “SWIFT”  is an acronym  for  the Society  for World  Interbank Financial  Telecommunication,  an organization  owned
by more  than 2,500  member  banks that provides a system of standardized interbank  telecommunications.
References  to SWIFT  messages are  commonly  used in  prime  bank  schemes as  they provide  an  illusion  of
sophistication.

7

yield  or  “prime   bank”  schemes,  in  addition  to  describing   terms   or   transactions   in   confusing   and
highly   complex   (but   meaningle ss)   ways,   another   indicat io n   of   their   fraudule nt   nature.
25. Although the  joint  venture  agreements   charged  investors  with  identifying  and
proposing  trading  programs  or  transactions  fo r  M a lo m   to   e nte r   into,  in  certain   instances
Robinson  provided  investors  specific  programs  to propose to Malom,  including   one  called  the
“C hase  O ne-Day  Program.”   Beginni ng   in  March  2010,  Robinson  beginning  promoting  a trading
program  whereby  investors   could  supposedly  secure  a 100%, guaranteed  return  in  a single  day
by  trading  U.S. Treasury  STRIPS
2
 through   the   “Fed window”  at  JP  Morgan  C hase  Bank  in
Manhattan.
26. According  to program  documents Robinson  touted,  these  securities   could  be
bought   from   the  bank  and a lmo s t  immediately  sold  back to it  for  a 100% profit.   The  process
could  be done in two hours  and could  be repeated for as long  as the bank had instruments
available.
27. To enter the program,  investors  needed $5.5 million,  which,  according  to
Robinson  and as set out in  Malom’s  joint  venture  agreement,  investors  could  secure from  Malom
in  exchange   for  an  advance  fee  ranging  from  $150,000 to $200,000.
28. Robinson  mislead   investors   into  believing   such  programs  existed,  despite
knowing  or being  reckless  in  not  knowing   that  programs   promising   such  astronomical,
guaranteed  returns  were  fraudulent.
29. As  a   re sult  o f  this  e ffo rt,   Robinson  successfully  recruited  s ix    investors  into  joint
venture  agreements  to  secure  “proof  of  funds”  for  $5.5  million  each  in  return  for  transaction  fees

2
 “STRIPS”  is an acronym  for Separate  Trading of  Registered Interest and Principal  of  Securities.

8

collectively  totaling  $1,225,000.  None of  the investors  received  a return on  their   invest me nt  or a
refund  o f  the ir   up fro nt   fe e s.
30. After accepting  the  upfront   fees  fo r  the  joint  venture  agreements,   Malom
proceeded to reject  every  transaction  proposed by the investors  Robinson  recruited,  and in some
cases multiple  transactions  proposed by the same investor.    These  rejections   occurred  repeatedly,
even  though  Malom  and Robinson  touted the same programs the  investors   proposed  and thus
knew at least  basic details  about the transactions before  investors   entered  into  joint  venture
agreements  and paid fees to Malom.
31. If a transaction  was not rejected  outright,  M a lo m’s  representatives  gave  investors
various   excuses  why  the  transaction   had  not  occurred.    They  would purport  to  encounter  delay
after  delay  resulting   from  feigned illnesses  and  hospitalizations,  banking  holidays,  weather
crises,  and  vacations   until   the  window   for  the  proposed  transaction   closed  or  the  investors   or
contract  counter-parties  abandoned the transaction.
32. M a lo m  allocated  approximately  25% of the fees paid by each investor   to
compensate the promoter  who recruited  them.      M.Y. C onsultant s  was responsible  for collecting
funds  from  investors  and  distribut ing  those  funds  among  Malom’s  various  representatives,
includ ing   the  promoters.
33. At Robinson’s  direction,  M.Y.  Consultants  distributed  the  25% allocated  to her to
bank accounts  in  her own and her mother’s  name,  as well  as to other promoters  who  assisted her
in     recruiting  ind iv id ua l  investors.
34. For her e ffo rts,  Robinson  received  approximately of $204,417 in  transaction-
based compensation.

9

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

35.
The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
34 above.
36. Defendant,  directly  and indirectly,  with  scienter,  by use of the means or
instrumentalities  of interstate  commerce,  or of the mails,  employed  devices,  schemes  or artifices
to defraud; made  untrue   statements   of  material   fact  or  omitted   to  state  material   facts  necessary   in
order to make the statements  made, in light  of the circumstances  under  which  they were made,
not misleading;  and engaged  in acts, practices  or courses of business  which  have been and are
operating   as  a  fraud  or  deceit  upon  the  purchasers  or  sellers  of  securities.
37. As a part of and in  furtherance  of their  scheme, defendant,   directly  and indirectly,
prepared, disseminated,  or used contracts,  written  offering  documents,  promo tio na l   ma te ria ls ,
bank documents, investor  and other correspondence,  and oral presentations,  which  contained
untrue  statements  of  material  facts  and  misrepresentations  of  material  facts,  and  which  omitted  to
state material  facts necessary  in  order to make the statements  made, in  light  of the circumstances
under  which   they  were  made,  not  mislead i ng,   includ ing,   but  not  limited   to,  those  set  forth   in
Paragraphs  1 through 36 above.
38.
By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  defendant has  violated   and,  unless  restrained  and
enjoined,   will   continue   to  violate  Exchange  Act  Section  10(b)  [15  U.S.C.  §  78j(b)]   and  Rule  10b-5
[17  C.F.R.  §  240.10b-5].

COUNT  TWO
Aiding  and  Abe tting  Violations  of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

10

39. The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
38 above.
40. P ursuant  to Exchange  Act Section  20(e)  [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)], defendant  at least
recklessly  aided and abetted Malom  by providing  it with  substantial  assistance  in  furtherance  of
its   viola t io ns
  of Exchange  Act Section  10(b)  [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]  and Rule  10b-5   [17  C.F.R.
§ 240.10b-5].
41. Furthermore, defendant at least recklessly  aided and abetted M.Y. Consultants  by
p ro vid in g   it  with   s ub s ta ntia l   a s s is ta nc e    in  furthe ra nc e    o f  its   vio la t io ns
  of Exchange  Act Section
10(b)  [15  U.S.C.  §  78j(b)]   and  Rule  10b-5   [17  C.F.R.  §  240.10b-5].
COUNT  THREE
Violation  of Se curitie s  Act Se ction  17(  a)

42. The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
41 above.
43.
Defendant,   directly   or  indirectly,   in  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities,   by  the  use  of  the
means  or  instruments   of  transportation   or  communicat ion   in  interstate  commerce  or  by  the  use of the
mails:  (a) has employed,  is employing,  or is about  to employ  devices,  schemes or artifices  to defraud;
(b)  has  obtained,   is  obtaining   or  is  about  to  obtain   money  or  property   by  means  of  untrue  statements
of material  fact and omissions  to state material  facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in  light   of  the  circumstances   under  which   they  were  made,  not  misleading;   and  (c)  has  engaged,  is
engaged,   or  is  about  to  engage  in  transactions,   acts,  practices  and  courses  of  business   that  operated  or
would  operate  as  a  fraud  upon  purchasers  of  securities.
COUNT  FOUR
Aiding  and  Abe tting  Violations  of Se curitie s  Act Se ction  17(  a)

11

44. The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
43 above.
45. P ursuant  to  Securities  Act Section  15(b)  [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)],  defendant  knowingly
or at least recklessly  aided  and abetted Malom and M.Y. Consultants by  providing  them  w ith
substantial   assistance  in  furtherance  of  the ir  viola tio ns  of Securities  Act Section   17(a)  [15  U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)].
COUNT  FIVE
Violation   of  Se curitie s   Act  Se ction  5

46. The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
45 above.
47.
Defendant, directly  or  indirectly,  made  use  of  the  means  or  instruments  of
transportation  or  communication  in  interstate  commerce  or  of  the  mails  to  offer  a nd   s e ll
securities
  through   the  use  or  medium   of  a  prospectus  or  otherwise,   and  carried  or  caused  to  be
carried  through   the  mails   or  in  interstate  commerce,   such  securities  for  the  purpose  of  sale  or  for
delivery  after sale, when no registration  statement had been filed  or was in effect as to such securities
and  no  legally   recognized   exemption   from  registration   applied.
48. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  d
efendant  violated  and  unless  restrained  and  enjoined,
will  continue  to  violate  Securities  Act  Sections  5(a)  and (c) [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c)].
COUNT  SIX
Violation  of Exchange Act Section 15(a)

49. The  Commission   realleges  and  incorporates   herein  by  reference  paragraphs  1  through
48 above.

12

50. Defendant,  while  acting  as  a broker  or  dealer,  made  use  of  the  mails   or  any  means  or
instrumenta lit y   of  interstate  commerce  to  effect  transactions  in,  or  to  induce  or  attempt  to  induce  the
purchase  or  sale  of,  securities   without   being  registered  with  the Commiss ion  as a broker  or dealer or
an  associated  person  of  a  registered  broker-dealer.
51. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  defendant  violated   and,  unless   restrained  and  enjoined,
will   continue   to  violate   Exchange  Act  Section   15(a)  [15  U.S.C.  §  78o(a)].
PRAYER  FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,   the  Commission   respectfully   requests  that  the  Court:
I.
Enter  judgment   in  favor  of  the  Commission   finding   that  the  defendant  violated   the  federal
securities   laws  and  Commission   rules  alleged   against  them  in  this  Complaint;
II.
P ermanently  enjoin   the  defendant  from  further  violations   of  the  federal  securities  laws  and
Commissio n r ule s   a lle ge d  in  this   C ompla in t;
III.
P ermanently  enjoin  the defendant  from directly  or  indirect ly  participating  in  the  issuance,
offer,  or  sale  of  any  security,   including   but  not  limite d   to  joint   venture  agreements,   proofs  of  funds,
bank  guarantees,  medium   term  notes,  standby  letters  of  credit,  structured  notes,  and  similar
instruments,  with  the  exception   of  the  purchase  or  sale of  securities  listed  on  a  national  securities
exchange;
IV.

13

Order  defendant  to  disgorge,   as  the  Court  may  direct,   all  ill-gotten   gains  received  or  benefits
in  any  form  derived  from  the  illega l   conduct  alleged  in  this  Complaint ,   together  with  pre-judgment
interest  thereon;
V.
Order  defendant  to  pay  civil   monetary   penalties   pursuant   to  Securities   Act  Section  20(d)  [15
U.S.C. § 77t(d)]  and Exchange  Act Section  21(d)(3)   [15  U.S.C.  §  78u(d)(3)];   and
VI.
 Grant  such  other  equitable   and  legal   relief  as  may  be  appropriate  or necessary for the benefit
of  investors  pursuant  to  Exchange  Act  Section  21(d)(5)  [15  U.S.C.  §  78u(d)(5)].
 Date:    June  26,  2014 By:
/s/ Stephen W. Simpson
Stephen  W. Simpson
Timothy  N . England
Stephen  L. C ohen

C ounsel  fo r  P la int iff
U. S .   S e c uritie s   and  Exchange   C ommiss io n
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington,  DC 20549
Fax:  202.772.9228
simpsons@sec. go v
  /  Tel.  202.551.4513
englandt@ sec. go v   /  Tel.  202.551.4969
[email protected]  /  Tel.  202.551.4472

1 
 

Stephen W. Simpson 
Timothy N. England 
Stephen L. Cohen 
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street, N.E. 
Washington, DC 20549 
Fax: 202.772.9228 
[email protected] /  Tel. 202.551.4513 
[email protected]  /  Tel. 202.551.4969 
[email protected]  /  Tel. 202.551.4472 

 Attorneys for the Plaintiff  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 

 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 

CHERYL L. ROBINSON 
 

Defendant.  

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

 

 
COMPLAINT  

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

SUMMARY 

1. Between 2009 and 2011, Defendant Cheryl L. Robinson participated in and aided 

and abetted an advance-fee high-yield investment scam perpetrated by Switzerland-based Malom 

Group AG (“Malom”) – an acronym for “Make A Lot Of Money” – and Las Vegas-based M.Y. 

Consultants, Inc.  Robinson served as a promoter of the scheme, working with Malom and M.Y. 

Consultants to recruit investors.  She solicited many investors, successfully recruiting at least six 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 1 of 13



2 
 

investors who collectively paid $1,225,000 to enter into agreements with Malom and lost all of 

their invested funds.   

2. In her role as a promoter, Robinson variously held herself out as a representative 

of Malom or as an intermediary between the investors and Malom.  She explained the joint 

venture agreement program to prospective investors, a program that purported to allow the 

investors, in exchange for an upfront fee, to “use” Malom’s purportedly vast financial resources 

to entice third parties to enter into investment transactions, typically high-yield overseas trading 

programs, with Malom that would generate astronomically-high investment returns for Malom 

and the investor.  In doing so, she made various misrepresentations and omissions to them, 

including misrepresentations about Malom’s background, its financial resources, and history of 

success.  She also failed to inform investors that none of her clients had received any profits from 

a transaction with Malom and that all had lost their entire investment.  Finally, she omitted to tell 

any of the investors that she would be paid approximately 25% of the investors’ advance fees 

regardless of whether a transaction produced profits. 

3. After investors entered into agreements with Malom and paid Malom an advance 

fee, Robinson regularly communicated with them about the status of their agreements, their 

prospective transactions, and, eventually, the possibility of getting a refund.   

4. As a result of the activities described in this Complaint, Robinson received 

approximately $204,417 in transaction-based compensation. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. The Commission brings this action, and this Court has jurisdiction over this 

action, pursuant to authority conferred by Section 20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 2 of 13



3 
 

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

§§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa]. 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and venue is proper in the 

District of Nevada pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and 

Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa] because defendant engaged in transactions, 

acts, practices, and courses of business constituting the violations alleged in this Complaint 

within this district. 

7.  The defendant, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means and 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and the means and instruments of transportation and 

communication in interstate commerce, in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged in this Complaint. 

8. While carrying out the actions alleged in this complaint, defendant resided in this 

judicial district. 

DEFENDANT AND RELATED PARTIES 

9. Cheryl L. Robinson, age 49, is a resident of Peoria, Arizona. 

10. Malom Group AG is a company formed under the laws of Switzerland in 1973.  

Its principal place of business is Baar, Switzerland.  “Malom” is an acronym for “Make A Lot Of 

Money.”  Malom and its principals, Martin U. Schläpfer and Hans-Jurg Lips are named as 

defendants in SEC v. Malom Group AG, et al., 2:13cv2280 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2013). 

11. M.Y. Consultants, Inc. is a consulting firm formed under the laws of Nevada in 

April 2007.  Its principal place of business was Las Vegas, Nevada.  Anthony Brandel served as 

its sole director.  It had few, if any, regular employees.  Through Brandel, M.Y. Consultants 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 3 of 13



4 
 

arranged transactions with Malom, handled investor funds, negotiated transaction documents, 

and communicated with investors.  M.Y. Consultants and its director, Brandel, are named as 

defendants in SEC v. Malom Group AG, et al., 2:13cv2280 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2013). 

FACTS 

I. The Scheme to Defraud 

12. From approximately August 2009 to fall 2011, with lulling activities continuing at 

least until October 2013, Malom and its principals, agents, and promoters used the mail and 

wires to defraud at least 31 investors out of approximately $10.8 million through two schemes 

involving the offer and sale of securities.   

13. Of relevance to this complaint is the first of the two schemes employed by 

Malom: the joint venture offering.  The joint venture offering targeted investors with the promise 

that, for an advance fee, they could enter into trading programs and other transactions that could 

yield extraordinary returns (e.g., 100% in a single day) through risk-free transactions utilizing 

Malom’s substantial assets.  This offering lasted from approximately August 2009 to 

approximately August 2011. 

14. Under the joint venture agreements, investors were required to pay an upfront fee 

of between $150,000 and $1 million and identify transactions to be funded by Malom and to be 

entered into between Malom and third parties.  In turn, Malom was to provide the investors with 

evidence of its supposedly substantial assets, such as a bank statement or “proof of funds” bank 

letter, showing that Malom, or an entity whose funds Malom purportedly had access to, had tens 

to hundreds of millions of dollars available in overseas banks.  Malom was then responsible for 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 4 of 13



5 
 

exploring the investors’ proposed transactions with third parties, called “contract counter-

parties.”   

15. If, in its sole discretion, Malom deemed a transaction acceptable, it was to enter 

into the transaction directly with the contract counter-party and give a lion’s share of the profit 

back to the investor.  Malom deemed acceptable only those transactions that posed “no 

perceptible risk of loss” to its funds.   

16. Although termed “Joint Venture Agreements,” the agreements did not purport to 

create separate legal entities, contained no management provisions, and expressly did not create 

general partnerships between the investors and Malom. 

17. None of the transactions in securities offered or sold by or for Malom was 

registered with the Commission, or is eligible for an exemption from registration. 

II. Defendant’s Involvement in the Scheme 

18. Robinson began working as a promoter for Malom and M.Y. Consultants in 

approximately fall 2009 and continued in this role through 2011.  

19. During this time, Robinson had little knowledge or past experience in subjects 

such as domestic and foreign securities and financial markets, banking and bank instruments, the 

SWIFT system, or securities trading; had no licenses in these industries; and had received no 

training in such subjects.   

20. Furthermore, Robinson was not registered with the Commission as a broker-

dealer, as is required for offering securities to investors in the circumstances described in this 

complaint.  

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 5 of 13



6 
 

21. As a promoter, Robinson recruited investors for the joint venture program by 

soliciting investors through telephone, email, and internet communications.  In these 

communications, she directly offered investors the opportunity to participate in the joint venture 

program. 

22. Robinson also offered the joint venture program through internet advertisements 

on websites like Craigslist.com and on internet message boards.   

23. Robinson held herself out as a representative of Malom or as an intermediary 

between the investors and Malom.  She explained the joint venture agreement program, handled 

investment contracts, and regularly communicated with investors regarding the status of their 

agreements. 

24.  In recruiting investors and explaining the joint venture program to them, 

Robinson led investors to believe that Malom’s funds could somehow be used as collateral, 

leveraged, or “monetized” by contract counter-parties by supplying only a “proof of funds,” 

having banks “block” or “reserve” funds in an account, or by issuing bank-to-bank “SWIFT” 

communications.1  Robinson needed to invoke these seemingly sophisticated, but ultimately 

illegitimate or misused processes because Malom did not have the funds reflected in the proof of 

funds documents, which were all fraudulent and/or forged.  In fact, Robinson provided investors 

and potential investors with copies of joint venture agreements and attachments that used these 

and other catchphrases that government agencies have warned are indicative of fraudulent high-

                                                 
1 “SWIFT” is an acronym for the Society for World Interbank Financial Telecommunication, an organization owned 
by more than 2,500 member banks that provides a system of standardized interbank telecommunications.  
References to SWIFT messages are commonly used in prime bank schemes as they provide an illusion of 
sophistication. 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 6 of 13



7 
 

yield or “prime bank” schemes, in addition to describing terms or transactions in confusing and 

highly complex (but meaningless) ways, another indication of their fraudulent nature.  

25. Although the joint venture agreements charged investors with identifying and 

proposing trading programs or transactions for Malom to enter into, in certain instances 

Robinson provided investors specific programs to propose to Malom, including one called the 

“Chase One-Day Program.”  Beginning in March 2010, Robinson beginning promoting a trading 

program whereby investors could supposedly secure a 100%, guaranteed return in a single day 

by trading U.S. Treasury STRIPS2 through the “Fed window” at JP Morgan Chase Bank in 

Manhattan.     

26. According to program documents Robinson touted, these securities could be 

bought from the bank and almost immediately sold back to it for a 100% profit.  The process 

could be done in two hours and could be repeated for as long as the bank had instruments 

available.  

27. To enter the program, investors needed $5.5 million, which, according to 

Robinson and as set out in Malom’s joint venture agreement, investors could secure from Malom 

in exchange for an advance fee ranging from $150,000 to $200,000. 

28. Robinson mislead investors into believing such programs existed, despite 

knowing or being reckless in not knowing that programs promising such astronomical, 

guaranteed returns were fraudulent. 

29. As a result of this effort, Robinson successfully recruited six investors into joint 

venture agreements to secure “proof of funds” for $5.5 million each in return for transaction fees 
                                                 
2 “STRIPS” is an acronym for Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities. 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 7 of 13



8 
 

collectively totaling $1,225,000.  None of the investors received a return on their investment or a 

refund of their upfront fees.   

30. After accepting the upfront fees for the joint venture agreements, Malom 

proceeded to reject every transaction proposed by the investors Robinson recruited, and in some 

cases multiple transactions proposed by the same investor.  These rejections occurred repeatedly, 

even though Malom and Robinson touted the same programs the investors proposed and thus 

knew at least basic details about the transactions before investors entered into joint venture 

agreements and paid fees to Malom.   

31. If a transaction was not rejected outright, Malom’s representatives gave investors 

various excuses why the transaction had not occurred.  They would purport to encounter delay 

after delay resulting from feigned illnesses and hospitalizations, banking holidays, weather 

crises, and vacations until the window for the proposed transaction closed or the investors or 

contract counter-parties abandoned the transaction.   

32. Malom allocated approximately 25% of the fees paid by each investor to 

compensate the promoter who recruited them.  M.Y. Consultants was responsible for collecting 

funds from investors and distributing those funds among Malom’s various representatives, 

including the promoters. 

33. At Robinson’s direction, M.Y. Consultants distributed the 25% allocated to her to 

bank accounts in her own and her mother’s name, as well as to other promoters who assisted her 

in recruiting individual investors. 

34. For her efforts, Robinson received approximately of $204,417 in transaction-

based compensation. 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 8 of 13



9 
 

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

 
35. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

34 above. 

36. Defendant, directly and indirectly, with scienter, by use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, employed devices, schemes or artifices 

to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in 

order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, 

not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices or courses of business which have been and are 

operating as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers or sellers of securities.  

37. As a part of and in furtherance of their scheme, defendant, directly and indirectly, 

prepared, disseminated, or used contracts, written offering documents, promotional materials, 

bank documents, investor and other correspondence, and oral presentations, which contained 

untrue statements of material facts and misrepresentations of material facts, and which omitted to 

state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

under which they were made, not misleading, including, but not limited to, those set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.  

38. By reason of the foregoing, defendant has violated and, unless restrained and 

enjoined, will continue to violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 

[17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].  

COUNT TWO 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5  

 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 9 of 13



10 
 

39. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

38 above. 

40. Pursuant to Exchange Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)], defendant at least 

recklessly aided and abetted Malom by providing it with substantial assistance in furtherance of 

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

§ 240.10b-5].   

41. Furthermore, defendant at least recklessly aided and abetted M.Y. Consultants by 

providing it with substantial assistance in furtherance of its violations of Exchange Act Section 

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

COUNT THREE 
Violation of Securities Act Section 17(a)  

 
42. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

41 above. 

43. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use of the 

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

mails: (a) has employed, is employing, or is about to employ devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; 

(b) has obtained, is obtaining or is about to obtain money or property by means of untrue statements 

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

in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) has engaged, is 

engaged, or is about to engage in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business that operated or 

would operate as a fraud upon purchasers of securities.  

COUNT FOUR 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 10 of 13



11 
 

 
44. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

43 above. 

45. Pursuant to Securities Act Section 15(b) [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)], defendant knowingly 

or at least recklessly aided and abetted Malom and M.Y. Consultants by providing them with 

substantial assistance in furtherance of their violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. 

§ 77q(a)].   

COUNT FIVE 
Violation of Securities Act Section 5 

 
46. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

45 above. 

47. Defendant, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer and sell 

securities through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise, and carried or caused to be 

carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, such securities for the purpose of sale or for 

delivery after sale, when no registration statement had been filed or was in effect as to such securities 

and no legally recognized exemption from registration applied. 

48. By reason of the foregoing, defendant violated and unless restrained and enjoined, 

will continue to violate Securities Act Sections 5(a) and (c) [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c)]. 

COUNT SIX 
Violation of Exchange Act Section 15(a) 

 
49. The Commission realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 

48 above. 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 11 of 13



12 
 

50. Defendant, while acting as a broker or dealer, made use of the mails or any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the 

purchase or sale of, securities without being registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or 

an associated person of a registered broker-dealer.  

51. By reason of the foregoing, defendant violated and, unless restrained and enjoined, 

will continue to violate Exchange Act Section 15(a) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court: 

I. 

Enter judgment in favor of the Commission finding that the defendant violated the federal 

securities laws and Commission rules alleged against them in this Complaint; 

II. 

Permanently enjoin the defendant from further violations of the federal securities laws and 

Commission rules alleged in this Complaint; 

III. 

Permanently enjoin the defendant from directly or indirectly participating in the issuance, 

offer, or sale of any security, including but not limited to joint venture agreements, proofs of funds, 

bank guarantees, medium term notes, standby letters of credit, structured notes, and similar 

instruments, with the exception of the purchase or sale of securities listed on a national securities 

exchange;   

IV. 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 12 of 13



13 
 

Order defendant to disgorge, as the Court may direct, all ill-gotten gains received or benefits 

in any form derived from the illegal conduct alleged in this Complaint, together with pre-judgment 

interest thereon; 

V. 

Order defendant to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 

U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and 

VI. 

 Grant such other equitable and legal relief as may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit 

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

 Date:  June 26, 2014 By: 

/s/ Stephen W. Simpson   
Stephen W. Simpson 
Timothy N. England 
Stephen L. Cohen 
 
Counsel for Plaintiff 
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street, N.E. 
Washington, DC 20549 
Fax: 202.772.9228 
[email protected] /  Tel. 202.551.4513 
[email protected]  /  Tel. 202.551.4969 
[email protected]  /  Tel. 202.551.4472 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01036-GMN-CWH   Document 1   Filed 06/26/14   Page 13 of 13