SEC v. Ian Mitchell, No. 1:24-cv-08741, Southern District of New York (Nov. 19, 2024) — Complaint

ANTONIA M. APPS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Sheldon L. Pollock
Gerald A. Gross
Travis Hill
Sheldon Mui
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004
212-336-9135 (Hill)
Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

                                             Plaintiff,

                        -against-

IAN MITCHELL,

                                             Defendant.

COMPLAINT

24 Civ. 8741

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against
Defendant Ian Mitchell (“Mitchell” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Mitchell made material misstatements to two investors by repeatedly lying to
them when soliciting funds for purported stock purchases, defrauding the investors out of
approximately $325,000.
2. From July 2021 through February 2022 (the “Relevant Period”), Mitchell
solicited funds from two investors by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting who he was, his
family background and wealth, his education, his ability to have access to valuable private

2
placement stocks, and what he intended to do with the investors’ funds. For example, Mitchell
identified himself to the two investors using the fictitious name “David Dangote” and falsely told
them that he planned to use their money to purchase stock in private placements from two
companies.
3.  In total, the two investors gave Mitchell approximately $325,000 to purchase
stock based on these representations.
4. Mitchell did not in fact use any of the investors’ funds to purchase the stock.
Instead, Mitchell used the funds to pay his personal expenses, such as rent, retail purchases, and
income tax payments.
VIOLATIONS
5. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant
Mitchell has violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
6. Unless Defendant is  restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions,
and courses of business of similar type and object.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Exchange Act
Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].
8. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant
from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges he has violated; (b) ordering

3
Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received as a result of the
violations alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest thereon, pursuant to Exchange Act
Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; (c) ordering Defendant to
pay civil money 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)]; (d) prohibiting Defendant from acting as
an officer or director of any company that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section
12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section
15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e)
[15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and (e)
ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section
22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
10. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities
of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and
courses of business alleged herein.
11. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)]
and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendant may be found in, is an inhabitant of,
or transacts business in the Southern District of New Yo r k, and certain of the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.
During the Relevant Period, Mitchell resided in Manhattan, New York, which is within the
Southern District of New York.

4
DEFENDANT
12. Mitchell, age 36, is a resident of Queens, New York.
FACTS
13. During the Relevant Period, Mitchell assumed the alias David Dangote and
claimed to be the nephew of Aliko Dangote, one of Africa’s richest persons.
14. In addition to lying to investors about his name and familial relationship, Mitchell
also falsely claimed that he was raised in London, graduated from Harvard Business School,
worked in the financial field, and had a net worth of $1 billion.
15. While claiming to be Aliko Dangote’s nephew, to have a net worth of $1 billion,
and to be a graduate of Harvard Business School, Mitchell solicited investments from two
individuals.
16. At the time he solicited these two investors, Mitchell knew, or recklessly
disregarded that, he was not Aliko Dangote’s nephew, he did not have a net worth anywhere
close to $1 billion, and did not graduate from (or even attend) Harvard Business School.
17.  Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told the prospective investors —
who knew Mitchell only as David Dangote — that he had agreements to purchase millions of
dollars’ worth of pre-IPO stock of two privately owned companies (the “Subject Companies”).
18. For example, according to one investor, Mitchell said that he had an agreement
with one of the Subject Companies to purchase 125,000 shares of its stock at $32 per share, for a
total value of $4 million.
19. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told both investors that after the
Subject Companies had their IPOs, he would sell their stock in the open market at a profit.

5
20. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, provided one investor with a
Stock Purchase and Investment Agreement (“SPIA”) to purchase $100,000 worth of one of the
Subject Companies’ stocks.
21. The SPIA stated: “On the IPO Date, Purchaser [Mitchell] shall fully convey the
Shares to Investor, at which point the Investor shall be free to hold, sell, or otherwise dispose of
the Shares.”
22. Collectively, the two investors gave Mitchell a total of approximately $325,000 to
invest in the Subject Companies’ stocks on their behalf.
23. In reality, Mitchell never had any agreements to purchase any of the Subject
Companies’ stocks.
24. At the time he solicited these investors concerning investments related to the
Subject Companies, Mitchel knew, or recklessly disregarded, that he had no agreements to
purchase any of the Subject Companies’ stock.
25. Mitchell never actually purchased any of the Subject Companies’ stocks.
26. Instead, Mitchell spent investor funds on his personal expenses, taking
approximately $221,000 in cash withdrawals and paying his personal living expenses, such as
rent, gasoline, and phone expenses.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)

27. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 26.
28. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of
the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the
mails, (i) knowingly or recklessly has employed one or more devices, schemes or artifices to

6
defraud, (ii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has obtained money or property by means of
one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business
which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
29. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and,
unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
30. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 26.
31. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of
securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or
the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly has (i) employed one or
more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, (ii) made one or more untrue statements of a
material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading,
and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or
would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and,
unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule
10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final
Judgment:
I.
Permanently enjoining Mitchell and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all
persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly,
Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], and Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];
II.
Ordering Mitchell to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received
directly or indirectly, with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations,
pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and
78u(d)(7)];
III.
Ordering Mitchell to pay civil monetary penalties under 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)];
IV.
Permanently prohibiting Mitchell from serving as an officer or director of any company
that has a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l]
or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)]    and Exchange Act
Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and

8
V.
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands that this
case be tried to a jury.

Dated:  New York, New York
November 18, 2024
/s/ Antonia Apps
ANTONIA M. APPS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Sheldon Pollock
Gerald A. Gross
Travis Hill
Sheldon Mui
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004
212-336-9135 (Hill)
Email: [email protected]

ANTONIA M. APPS 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR 
Sheldon L. Pollock 
Gerald A. Gross 
Travis Hill 
Sheldon Mui 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
New York Regional Office 
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
New York, New York 10004 
212-336-9135 (Hill) 
Email: [email protected] 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 
                                             Plaintiff, 
 
                        -against- 
 
IAN MITCHELL,    
  
                                             Defendant. 
 
 

 
 
COMPLAINT 

   
24 Civ. 8741 

 
   

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
  

           
          

 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against 

Defendant Ian Mitchell (“Mitchell” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. Mitchell made material misstatements to two investors by repeatedly lying to 

them when soliciting funds for purported stock purchases, defrauding the investors out of 

approximately $325,000.  

2. From July 2021 through February 2022 (the “Relevant Period”), Mitchell 

solicited funds from two investors by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting who he was, his 

family background and wealth, his education, his ability to have access to valuable private 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 1 of 8



 2 

placement stocks, and what he intended to do with the investors’ funds. For example, Mitchell 

identified himself to the two investors using the fictitious name “David Dangote” and falsely told 

them that he planned to use their money to purchase stock in private placements from two 

companies. 

3.  In total, the two investors gave Mitchell approximately $325,000 to purchase 

stock based on these representations.  

4. Mitchell did not in fact use any of the investors’ funds to purchase the stock. 

Instead, Mitchell used the funds to pay his personal expenses, such as rent, retail purchases, and 

income tax payments. 

VIOLATIONS 

5. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant 

Mitchell has violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. 

§ 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. 

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

6. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, 

and courses of business of similar type and object.   

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Exchange Act 

Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].  

8. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant 

from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges he has violated; (b) ordering 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 2 of 8



 3 

Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received as a result of the 

violations alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest thereon, pursuant to Exchange Act 

Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; (c) ordering Defendant to 

pay civil money 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)]; (d) prohibiting Defendant from acting as 

an officer or director of any company that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 

12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 

15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) 

[15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and (e) 

ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 

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

10. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged herein. 

11. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] 

and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendant may be found in, is an inhabitant of, 

or transacts business in the Southern District of New York, and certain of the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.  

During the Relevant Period, Mitchell resided in Manhattan, New York, which is within the 

Southern District of New York. 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 3 of 8



 4 

DEFENDANT 

12. Mitchell, age 36, is a resident of Queens, New York.     

FACTS 

13. During the Relevant Period, Mitchell assumed the alias David Dangote and 

claimed to be the nephew of Aliko Dangote, one of Africa’s richest persons. 

14. In addition to lying to investors about his name and familial relationship, Mitchell 

also falsely claimed that he was raised in London, graduated from Harvard Business School, 

worked in the financial field, and had a net worth of $1 billion. 

15. While claiming to be Aliko Dangote’s nephew, to have a net worth of $1 billion, 

and to be a graduate of Harvard Business School, Mitchell solicited investments from two 

individuals. 

16. At the time he solicited these two investors, Mitchell knew, or recklessly 

disregarded that, he was not Aliko Dangote’s nephew, he did not have a net worth anywhere 

close to $1 billion, and did not graduate from (or even attend) Harvard Business School.  

17.  Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told the prospective investors — 

who knew Mitchell only as David Dangote — that he had agreements to purchase millions of 

dollars’ worth of pre-IPO stock of two privately owned companies (the “Subject Companies”).  

18. For example, according to one investor, Mitchell said that he had an agreement 

with one of the Subject Companies to purchase 125,000 shares of its stock at $32 per share, for a 

total value of $4 million. 

19. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told both investors that after the 

Subject Companies had their IPOs, he would sell their stock in the open market at a profit. 

 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 4 of 8



 5 

20. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, provided one investor with a 

Stock Purchase and Investment Agreement (“SPIA”) to purchase $100,000 worth of one of the 

Subject Companies’ stocks.   

21. The SPIA stated: “On the IPO Date, Purchaser [Mitchell] shall fully convey the 

Shares to Investor, at which point the Investor shall be free to hold, sell, or otherwise dispose of 

the Shares.” 

22. Collectively, the two investors gave Mitchell a total of approximately $325,000 to 

invest in the Subject Companies’ stocks on their behalf. 

23. In reality, Mitchell never had any agreements to purchase any of the Subject 

Companies’ stocks. 

24. At the time he solicited these investors concerning investments related to the 

Subject Companies, Mitchel knew, or recklessly disregarded, that he had no agreements to 

purchase any of the Subject Companies’ stock. 

25. Mitchell never actually purchased any of the Subject Companies’ stocks. 

26. Instead, Mitchell spent investor funds on his personal expenses, taking 

approximately $221,000 in cash withdrawals and paying his personal living expenses, such as 

rent, gasoline, and phone expenses. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

 
27. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 26. 

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

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

mails, (i) knowingly or recklessly has employed one or more devices, schemes or artifices to 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 5 of 8



 6 

defraud, (ii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently has obtained money or property by means of 

one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in 

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

not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business 

which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

29. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and, 

unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder 

30. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 26. 

31. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of 

securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or 

the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly has (i) employed one or 

more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, (ii) made one or more untrue statements of a 

material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts necessary in order to make the 

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

and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or 

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and, 

unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 

10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 6 of 8



 7 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final 

Judgment: 

I. 

Permanently enjoining Mitchell and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all 

persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly, 

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

§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; 

II. 

Ordering Mitchell to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received 

directly or indirectly, with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations, 

pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 

78u(d)(7)]; 

III. 

Ordering Mitchell to pay civil monetary penalties under 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)]; 

IV. 

Permanently prohibiting Mitchell from serving as an officer or director of any company 

that has a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] 

or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act 

Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and 

 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 7 of 8



 8 

V. 

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands that this 

case be tried to a jury. 

 
Dated: New York, New York 

November 18, 2024 
/s/ Antonia Apps     
ANTONIA M. APPS 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR  
Sheldon Pollock 
Gerald A. Gross 
Travis Hill 
Sheldon Mui 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
New York Regional Office 
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
New York, New York 10004 
212-336-9135 (Hill) 
Email: [email protected] 

Case 1:24-cv-08741     Document 1     Filed 11/18/24     Page 8 of 8


	ANTONIA M. APPS
	Regional Director
	Sheldon L. Pollock
	Gerald A. Gross
	Travis Hill
	Sheldon Mui
	Attorneys for Plaintiff
	SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
	New York Regional Office
	100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
	New York, New York 10004
	212-336-9135 (Hill)
	Email: [email protected]
	Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against Defendant Ian Mitchell (“Mitchell” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows:
	SUMMARY
	1. Mitchell made material misstatements to two investors by repeatedly lying to them when soliciting funds for purported stock purchases, defrauding the investors out of approximately $325,000.
	2. From July 2021 through February 2022 (the “Relevant Period”), Mitchell solicited funds from two investors by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting who he was, his family background and wealth, his education, his ability to have access to valuable...
	3.  In total, the two investors gave Mitchell approximately $325,000 to purchase stock based on these representations.
	4. Mitchell did not in fact use any of the investors’ funds to purchase the stock. Instead, Mitchell used the funds to pay his personal expenses, such as rent, retail purchases, and income tax payments.
	VIOLATIONS
	5. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant Mitchell has violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange A...
	6. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object.
	NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
	7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].
	8. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges he has violated; (b) ordering Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received ...
	JURISDICTION AND VENUE
	9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
	10. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein.
	11. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendant may be found in, is an inhabitant of, or transacts business in the Southern District of New York, and cer...
	DEFENDANT
	12. Mitchell, age 36, is a resident of Queens, New York.
	FACTS
	13. During the Relevant Period, Mitchell assumed the alias David Dangote and claimed to be the nephew of Aliko Dangote, one of Africa’s richest persons.
	14. In addition to lying to investors about his name and familial relationship, Mitchell also falsely claimed that he was raised in London, graduated from Harvard Business School, worked in the financial field, and had a net worth of $1 billion.
	15. While claiming to be Aliko Dangote’s nephew, to have a net worth of $1 billion, and to be a graduate of Harvard Business School, Mitchell solicited investments from two individuals.
	16. At the time he solicited these two investors, Mitchell knew, or recklessly disregarded that, he was not Aliko Dangote’s nephew, he did not have a net worth anywhere close to $1 billion, and did not graduate from (or even attend) Harvard Business S...
	17.  Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told the prospective investors — who knew Mitchell only as David Dangote — that he had agreements to purchase millions of dollars’ worth of pre-IPO stock of two privately owned companies (the “Subje...
	18. For example, according to one investor, Mitchell said that he had an agreement with one of the Subject Companies to purchase 125,000 shares of its stock at $32 per share, for a total value of $4 million.
	19. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, told both investors that after the Subject Companies had their IPOs, he would sell their stock in the open market at a profit.
	20. Mitchell knowingly, or with reckless disregard, provided one investor with a Stock Purchase and Investment Agreement (“SPIA”) to purchase $100,000 worth of one of the Subject Companies’ stocks.
	21. The SPIA stated: “On the IPO Date, Purchaser [Mitchell] shall fully convey the Shares to Investor, at which point the Investor shall be free to hold, sell, or otherwise dispose of the Shares.”
	22. Collectively, the two investors gave Mitchell a total of approximately $325,000 to invest in the Subject Companies’ stocks on their behalf.
	23. In reality, Mitchell never had any agreements to purchase any of the Subject Companies’ stocks.
	24. At the time he solicited these investors concerning investments related to the Subject Companies, Mitchel knew, or recklessly disregarded, that he had no agreements to purchase any of the Subject Companies’ stock.
	25. Mitchell never actually purchased any of the Subject Companies’ stocks.
	26. Instead, Mitchell spent investor funds on his personal expenses, taking approximately $221,000 in cash withdrawals and paying his personal living expenses, such as rent, gasoline, and phone expenses.
	Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
	27. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26.
	28. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (i) knowingly or recklessly has employed one or more devices, ...
	29. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
	Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
	30. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26.
	31. Defendant, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessl...
	32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
	PRAYER FOR RELIEF
	Dated: New York, New York