Hartcourt ! Wann wandert Dr. Alan Phan endlich in den Knast ??? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Elitetrader]

Dieser adhocwütige Mafiosi gehört sofort hinter Gittern !!
Kein Firmenchef bringt so viele Adhocs wie der Doc. Diese
dubiosen Machenschaften sollte man sofort mit mehreren Jahren Knast bestrafen. So ein Schwachmat !!!
hahaha

[strongman]

bring erstmal fakten,bevor du hier so ein unsinn
schreibst!!!

hast du dich jemals befasst mit HRCT???

also,wenn du rumnörgelst dann sachlich

[MisterL09]

Welche Ad hoc meinst du ?? Ich kann keine aktuelle finden.

[AllesaufdenDoc]

Aber aber, meine Herren !!!

Wer wird sich den gleich ans Bein pissen.
Schnitzt lieber mal ein paar Pferdekopfbuchstützen, das beruhigt die Nerven ungemein.

Die Wahrheit liegt wie immer in einem Senfglas...

Und denkt immer drann:
"Gestern war heute noch morgen"

Der Doc

[LEMMINGJGER]

DIE LONGS WERDEN SICH NOCH WUNDERN!!!!!


HRCT=BETRÜGER!!!!!

[sisqu]

Dr.Phan------->




Ich finde Dr.Phan super
er saugt wie ein Vampir die Longs aus!!

[guru2002]

hab da was intressantes über den betrüger dr.alan phan gefunden!



http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/jazz-fr.htm



FOR YOUR INFORMATION............................JANUARY 5, 1993
The Federal Trade Commission`s proposed consent agreement
with Alan Phan, doing business as Harcourt Companies, appears
today in the Federal Register. It will be subject to public
comment for 60 days, until March 8.
The agreement would settle charges that Phan made false and
deceptive claims about the health risks of smoking Jazz ciga-
rettes, a non-tobacco product, and deceptive claims about the
cigarettes` ability to help people quit smoking.
The agreement would prohibit the specific, allegedly false
claims for Jazz or substantially similar products, and also would
prohibit Phan from making any future health claims about any
smoking product unless they are true and substantiated by
competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Comments on the proposed consent agreement should be
addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission of a law violation. After the
Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries
the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation
of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $10,000.
A news release announcing the proposed consent agreement and
summarizing its provisions was issued Dec. 10. Copies of that
news release and of the proposed consent agreement itself are
available from the above address; 202-326-2222; TTY 1-866-653-4261.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Don Elder, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Klurfeld or Kerry O`Brien
San Francisco Regional Office
901 Market Street, Suite 570
415-744-7920
(FTC File No. 922 3155) (JAZZ-FR)




da ja nicht jeder englisch versteht,hab ich mir erlaubt den orginaltext in eine sprachübersetzer ....



Die Bundesgeschäftsvorgeschlagene Zustimmungvereinbarung der kommission mit Alan Phan, Geschäft als Harcourt Firmen tuend, erscheint heute im Bundesregister. Sie ist abhängig von allgemeiner Anmerkung für 60 Tage, bis März 8. Die Vereinbarung würde Aufladungen vereinbaren, die Phan falsch bildete und trügerische Ansprüche über die Gesundheitsrisiken des Rauchens der Jazzzigaretten, des Nichttabak Produktes und der trügerischen Ansprüche über die Fähigkeit der Zigaretten zu helfen Völker beendigten zu rauchen. Die Vereinbarung würde das Besonderen, angeblich falsche Ansprüche für Jazz oder im wesentlichen ähnliche Produkte verbieten und auch würde Phan das Bilden aller zukünftigen Gesundheit Ansprüche über irgendein rauchendes Produkt untersagen, es sei denn sie zutreffend und durch kompetenten und zuverlässigen wissenschaftlichen Beweis bestätigt sind. Anmerkungen zur vorgeschlagenen Zustimmungvereinbarung sollten an den FTC, Büro der Sekretärin, 6. Straße und Pennsylvania Allee, N.W., Washington, DC adressiert werden. 20580, ANMERKUNG: Eine Zustimmungvereinbarung ist nur zu den Regelung Zwecken und setzt nicht eine Aufnahme einer Gesetzverletzung fest. Nachdem die Kommission einen Zustimmungbeschluß auf einer abschließenden Grundlage erläßt, trägt sie Gesetzeskraft in Bezug auf zukünftige Tätigkeiten. Jede Verletzung solch eines Auftrages kann eine Zivilstrafe von $10.000 ergeben. Eine Nachrichten Freigabe, welche die vorgeschlagene Zustimmungvereinbarung verkündet und seine Bestimmungen zusammenfaßt, wurde Dez. 10 herausgegeben. Kopien von der Nachrichten geben frei und von der vorgeschlagenen Zustimmungvereinbarung selbst seien Sie von der oben genannten Adresse vorhanden; 202-326-2222; Tty 1-866-653-4261. # # # MITTEL-KONTAKT: Ziehen Sie Ältestes, Büro öffentliche Angelegenheiten 202-326-2181 DES PERSONAL-KONTAKTES an: Jeffrey Klurfeld oder Kerry O`Brien San Francisco regionale Markt-Straße des Büro-901, Suite 570 415-744-7920 (FTC Akte Nr. 922 3155) (Jazz-Franc)


phan ist devintiv ein betrüger,dies ist nicht der 1 .fall!!!es sind schon mehrere

[guru2002]

weiter geht es mit dem betrüger phan!


http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/alexphan-2.htm
FOR RELEASE: DECEMBER 10, 1992

CALIFORNIA MARKETER OF NON-TOBACCO CIGARETTE
AGREES TO SETTLE FTC CHARGES
OF MAKING FALSE HEALTH CLAIMS FOR THE PRODUCT

Alan Phan, the marketer of "Jazz cigarettes," a non-tobacco
product, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges
that he made false and deceptive claims about the health risks of
smoking the product, and deceptive claims about its ability to
help people quit smoking. The proposed settlement would prohibit
the specific, allegedly false claims for Jazz or substantially
similar products, and also would prohibit Phan from making any
future health or safety claims about any smoking product unless
they are true and substantiated by competent and reliable
scientific evidence.
The FTC also responded today to a petition from a group of
associations acting as The Coalition on Smoking OR Health,
regarding this product. The Coalition had asked the FTC to
declare the ads deceptive, order them stopped, and to require
corrective advertising. By bringing the case, the FTC responded
to the first two requests. In denying the third, the FTC said
corrective advertising was not necessary in this case.
Phan is the owner of Harcourt Companies, a sole proprietor-
ship located in Los Alamitos, California and the distributor for
Jazz cigarettes. Jazz advertisements claim the product is made
from a tobacco-like leaf called Anarastino Papasico. Because
Jazz does not contain tobacco, it is not classified as a cigar-
ette under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
- more -
Jazz Cigarettes--12/10/92)

In its complaint detailing the charges, the FTC alleges that
in advertising and selling Jazz cigarettes to consumers, Phan
made numerous health-related claims, including:
-- NO REASON TO QUIT SMOKING. A Revolutionary Product:
Cigarettes Without Nicotine Means No Health Hazard. Now You
Can Enjoy the Luxury of Smoking Without Worrying.
-- If cigarettes are such [sic] popular WITH the health
Hazard, what would you think if you could somehow have a
cigarette WITHOUT the health hazard? If you could take the
DANGER out of smoking?...[O]ur company did it. By taking
the cancer-causing nicotine out of cigarettes, we have a
harmless product that will revolutionize the cigarette
market.
-- . . . There is no tar either. The end result means a
cigarette with NO nicotine, NO tar; therefore, we are NOT
required to print Health Warning Label like regular
cigarettes.
-- USING JAZZ TO QUIT SMOKING: Quite a few customers of
ours turn this strong smell to their advantage: they used
JAZZ as a means to STOP smoking. Whenever they have an urge
to smoke, they light up 1 Jazz and it would stop the craving
for at least a few hours. They smoke less and less, and
some could quit permanently by the end of the 2nd week.
The FTC charged in its complaint that through these and
other statements, Phan made several false, misleading or
unsubstantiated representations.
In fact, the FTC said, smoking Jazz does pose health risks
to users, and some of these risks are the same as those associ-
ated with smoking tobacco cigarettes. In addition, the FTC
alleged, Jazz cigarettes contain tar (the matter left over after
incomplete burning of any organic material). Further, the
complaint adds, the Surgeon General`s health warning is omitted
because Jazz does not meet the federal statute`s definition of a
cigarette, not because Jazz is free of the health and safety
risks associated with tobacco cigarettes. Finally, the FTC
charged, Phan did not have substantiation to support either these
representations or the representation that smoking Jazz is
effective as an aid to help people quit smoking tobacco products.
The proposed consent agreement to settle the charges would
prohibit the following specific claims about Jazz or products
containing substantially similar ingredients:
Jazz Cigarettes--12/10/92)
-- that smoking them poses no health risk;
-- that smoking them does not pose any of the health risks
associated with smoking cigarettes; and
-- that their smoke contains no tar.
Further, the settlement would prohibit Phan from making any
misrepresentation with regard to federally-required health
warnings on cigarette products. It also would prohibit represen-
tations -- unless substantiated by competent and reliable scien-
tific evidence -- that any product is effective in aiding people
to quit smoking tobacco products.
Finally, the consent order contains a provision that would
prohibit Phan from making any representations about the compara-
tive or absolute health or safety attributes, benefits or risks
of any cigarette or smoking product, unless he has competent and
reliable scientific evidence to substantiate them.
The proposed consent agreement will be published in the
Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment
for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to
make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office
of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the
Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries
the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation
of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $10,000.
Copies of the complaint, proposed consent agreement, and an
analysis of the consent to aid the public in commenting are
available from the FTC`s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, same
address as above; 202-326-2222; TTY 1-866-653-4261.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Don Elder, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Klurfeld or Kerry O`Brien
San Francisco Regional Office
901 Market Street, Suite 570
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-744-7920
(FTC File No. 922 3155)
(JAZZ)






KALIFORNIEN MARKETINGSPEZIALIST Der Nicht-Tabak ZIGARETTEIST Damit einverstanden, Ftc AUFLADUNGEN DES BILDENS DER FALSCHEN GESUNDHEIT ANSPRÜCHE FÜR DAS PRODUKT ZU VEREINBAREN

[ b ] Alan Phan, der Marketingspezialist "der Jazzzigaretten," ein Nichttabak Produkt, hat damit einverstandenIST, Bundesgeschäftskommission Aufladungen zu vereinbaren, die er falsche und trügerische Ansprüche über die Gesundheitsrisiken des Rauchens des Produktes bildete und trügerische Ansprüche über seine Fähigkeit zu helfen Völker beendigten zu rauchen. Die vorgeschlagene Regelung würde das Besonderen, angeblich falsche Ansprüche für Jazz oder im wesentlichen ähnliche Produkte verbieten und auch würde Phan das Bilden aller zukünftigen Gesundheit oder Sicherheit Ansprüche über irgendein rauchendes Produkt untersagen, es sei denn sie zutreffend und durch kompetenten und zuverlässigen wissenschaftlichen Beweis bestätigt sind. Der FTC reagierte auch heute auf eine Petition von einer Gruppe Verbindungen dienend als die Koalition auf dem Rauchen ODER der Gesundheit, betreffend dieses Produkt. Die Koalition hatte gebeten, daß der FTC, zum des trügerischen ADS zu erklären, sie stoppte, und der berichtigender Werbung zu erfordern bestellen. Indem es den Fall holte, reagierte der FTC auf die ersten zwei Anträge. Wenn man den Third verweigerte, war die FTC besagte berichtigende Werbung nicht in diesem Fall notwendig. Phan ist der Inhaber der Harcourt Firmen, des alleinigen Eigentumsrechts, der in Los Alamitos gelegen sind, des Kaliforniens und des Verteilers für Jazzzigaretten. Jazzreklameanzeigen behaupten das Produkt wird gebildet von a Tabak-wie Blatt angerufenem Anarastino Papasico. Weil Jazz nicht Tabak enthält, wird er nicht als Zigarette unter der Bundeszigarette eingestuft, die Tat beschriftet und annonciert. - mehr - Jazz-Zigaretten -- 12/10/92)

In seiner Beanstandung, welche die Aufladungen genau schildert, behauptet der FTC, daß, wenn Jazzzigaretten zu den Verbrauchern, die Phan gebildeten zahlreichen health-related Ansprüche annonciert werden und verkauft werden und umfassen: -- KEIN GRUND ZU RAUCHEN ZU BEENDIGEN. Ein Revolutionäres Produkt: Zigaretten Ohne Nikotin Bedeutet Kein Gesundheitsrisiko. Jetzt können Sie den Luxus des Rauchens genießen, ohne sich zu sorgen. -- wenn Zigaretten so [ sic ] populär MIT dem Gesundheitsrisiko sind, was würden Sie denken, wenn Sie eine Zigarette OHNE das Gesundheitsrisiko irgendwie haben konnten? Wenn Sie die GEFAHR aus smoking? heraus nehmen konnten..., tat [O]ur Firma es. Indem wir das Krebs-verursachende Nikotin aus Zigaretten heraus nehmen, haben wir ein harmloses Produkt, das den Zigarettemarkt revolutioniert. --. . . Es gibt keinen Teer auch nicht. Das Ende Resultat bedeutet eine Zigarette ohne Nikotin, KEINEN Teer; folglich werden wir NICHT angefordert, Gesundheit warnenden Aufkleber wie regelmäßige Zigaretten zu drucken. -- VERWENDEN VON VON JAZZ, UM ZU RAUCHEN ZU BEENDIGEN: Quite.a.few drehen Kunden von unseren diesen starken Geruch zu ihrem Vorteil: sie verwendeten JAZZ als Mittel zu rauchen ZU STOPPEN. Wann immer sie ein Drängen haben zu rauchen, beleuchten sie oben 1 Jazz und er würde craving mindestens einige Stunden lang stoppen. Sie rauchen weniger und weniger, und einige konnten Ende der 2. Woche dauerhaft beendigen. Der FTC lud in seiner Beanstandung auf, der durch diese und andere Aussagen, Phan, der einige falsche, irreführend gebildet wurde oder, Darstellungen unsubstantiated. Sagte der FTC, Jazz tatsächlich rauchen wirft Gesundheitsrisiken zu den Benutzern auf, und einige dieser Gefahren sind dieselben wie die, die mit rauchenden Tabakzigaretten dazugehörig sind. Zusätzlich enthalten der behauptete FTC, Jazzzigaretten Teer (die Angelegenheit nach links rüber nach dem unvollständigen Brennen irgendeines organischen Materials). Weiter fügt die Beanstandung hinzu, wird die des Chirurg-Warnung Gesundheit Generals ausgelassen, weil Jazz nicht die BundesDefinition des gesetzes einer Zigarette trifft, nicht weil Jazz von den Gesundheit und Sicherheit Gefahren frei ist, die mit Tabakzigaretten dazugehörig sind. Schließlich hatte der aufgeladene FTC, Phan nicht die Bekräftigung, zum entweder dieser Darstellungen oder der Darstellung zu stützen, daß rauchender Jazz wirkungsvoll ist, wie ein Hilfsmittel zum zu helfen Völker beendigte, Tabakprodukte zu rauchen. Die vorgeschlagene Zustimmungvereinbarung, die Aufladungen zu vereinbaren würde die folgenden spezifischen Ansprüche über den Jazz oder Produkte verbieten, die im wesentlichen ähnliche Bestandteile enthalten: Ja

[spooky0815]

GURUUUUUUU...

da haste ja wieder ne brandheisse Geschichte ausgegraben!!

RELEASE: DECEMBER 10, 1992

[2002buyer]

spooky

Vielleicht finden sie noch mehr über Doc Phan. Möglicherweise hat er im Kindergarten mal einen kleinen Jungen verhauen

[guru2002]

@spooky
Es brauch dich ja auch nicht stören!


Nur das ist nicht phans erste geschichte(von betrügerein)darum geht es!

[spooky0815]

guruuuuuu

poste lieber wieder Bildchen!

aber die Samstagsnachmittagsunterhaltung ist dir gelungen...

[LEMMINGJGER]

wennhartcourt an der nasdaq gelistet wäre
dann wäre phanschon längst im knast!

an der otc sind die Vorschriften sehr locker,da kann man die Anleger betrügen ohne Ende!


Hier mal eine weitere lüge von phan dem betrüger!



Dr. Alan Phan, Chairman & CEO of Hartcourt, said: "Since we met all
stated requirements in terms of market capitalization, share price, net
tangible assets , number of shareholders and market makers, we hope
that the approval process will be completed quickly. The Nasdaq listing
will allow the institutional investors to own Hartcourt shares,
creating a larger shareholders` base, in addition to our existing
retail base. The increased exposure will also allow opportunity for
coverage, analysis and research from major brokerage firms."

Hartcourt`s mission is to become the leading Internet company in China.
During the past 8 months, Hartcourt has acquired and merged 5 Chinese
Internet companies to create a major financial services and data
providers for Chinese investors. The merged entity, Sinobull.com, will
have more revenue and earning than any existing Chinese financial
portal





lügen über lügen!!!

[BobKeule]

warum schreibt keiner mehr was lustiges in diesem Bord?
Ich schaue fast täglich hier rein um mir meine tägliche dosis Humor abzuholen. Doch seit Tagen ist Hier GAR NIX.

Will wieder lachen!!!!

Gruß
Martin

[LEMMINGJGER]

hartcourt=betrüger!!!!






DR.ALAN V. PHAN - Not A PHD. Paid well known Diploma Mill which many criminals have used to further their scams. Phan is the front man for this bogus otcbb company.

REGIS POSSINO - disbarred lawyer with convictions for fraud and drug dealing. Possino also been involved with Hartcourt, as its corporate counsel (AFTER he was disbarred) and as an `investment advisor` and is also a behind the scenes figure at Uniforms for America. Apart from disbarment in 1984, Possino`s history includes being imprisoned for one year in 1978 for trying to sell $38,500 worth of marijuana to undercover Los Angeles cops, trying to place a monthly order for $680,000 worth of cocaine with the same officers, attempting to sell $5 million of stolen US treasury bills or bearer bonds to an undercover treasury agent, undergoing a $12 million personal bankruptcy and interfering with a witness at his trial on the marijuana offense, leading to her dismissal from the jury and his imprisonment for the rest of his trial.

PATTINSON HAYTON - Stock swindler recently charged by the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17046.htm
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17046 / June 21, 2001
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. TRADAMAX GROUP, INC., PATTINSON HAYTON, AND CONRAD DIAZ, Civ. No. 01-589-GLT (USDC CD Cal)

JOANNE DALY - Ray Donofio`s sister that did shame transaction with the Hartcourt Companies. Can be found in Hartcourts SEC filings. Ray Donofrio was Regis Possino`s partner at First Capital which is also mentioned in Hartcourts SEC filings. Ray Donofrio was convicted for Securities fraud. Recently passed away.

ROBERT HARPER - Ray Donofrio`s brother. WHO IS RIDING THAT HORSE?? Involved in shame transaction with Hartcourt and is found in SEC filings.

KEVIN JAMES QUINN - disbarred attorney in September 1997. penny stock swindler
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/txt-srch-sec?text=quinn&x=1&y=2

ERIC CHESS BRONK - Mezzanine Capital linked to manipulation of penny stocks. Bronk, who is a licensed California attorney, has a colorful past. In 1991, he paid $1.1 million to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to settle an investigation into his role in a failed savings and loan institution in which regulators suspected fraud and embezzlement.

ALAN WOLFSON - Involved with sham deal with the Hartcourt Companies for a ISP in China. The deal never went through even though Alan Phan had insisted at the time that the deal was binding. Wolfson is currently under indictent for securities fraud. Bribing brokers is his specialty.

EDWARD WILLIAMSON - "Securities Recidivist` Had a relationship with Go Call Inc. Edward is a convicted murderer, has bribed FBI Undercover agents in a sting operation. Recently all of his assets where froze and has been charged with securities fraud for bilking investors in non existent conpanies. Edward is the nephew of Alan Wolfson. Hartcourt`s relationship with Go Call Inc was recinded as well as the deal with the Alaskan Gold Mines which was another fraud that Hartcourt was involved in.

DENNIS HAAS - STOCKREPORTER.DE Wrote paid for strong buy report on Hartcourt Companies. The 30-year-old executive vice president and co-founder of World of Internet, says he and two friends came up with the idea for the business a few years ago when they were humanities students at a college near Hamburg. Although Mr. Haas often appears as the author of the analyst reports, he cheerfully admits to having scant business training.
Stockreporter relies on the companies to provide information for the reports.

"We don`t have the time or the capacity to do all of the reporting," he says.

"We`re not analysts.""

SHERMAN MURZUR - Convicted felon and good friend of Regis Possino. More on "Shermie" in the update
--------------------
CRIMINAL UPDATE

Police is investigating also in Vienna

FBI is acting against a gang of worldwide active financial artists who allegedly bilked gigantic 15 Billion ATS (1 Billion USD) from clients. Since last Autumn, the instigators of the gang own a banking corporation in Vienna. The police is investigating.

Behind the facades of the small "General Commerce Bank AG" which operated under federal administration since last year [the police] believes to find certain information about a large scale scam. Two weeks ago the US federal police has discovered the scandal after having conducted investigations for more than one year and through infiltration of undercover agents.

After the Australian exchange commission has been pressed by defrauded customers, 10 days ago a big sweep in Bangkok too place: Supported by the FBI, the local police arrested 81 suspects, mostly Europeans. The gang is accused of running a worldwide network of brokerage offices, so called "Boiler Rooms", first artificially raising the prices of worthless stocks and then selling them to thousands of clients. In the next days, sweeps are "scheduled" in further 9 cities on 3 continents.

The FBI dossier: Fraudsters bilked out one Billion Dollar

The format is exclusively in possession of the FBI report in which the shocking dimensions of the deals are described: It lists the names of 18 Boiler rooms, reaching from the Philippines over Thai to Singapore and Czechia, in which the gang has cashed in the amazing sum of 1 Billion Dollars, about 15 Billion Schillings.

For the Austrians it is very revealing what the FBI dossier says about the perpetrators of the affaire: In the organisation hierarchy ranked behind Manila and Los Angeles based Amador Pastrana, the "mastermind of the operations" according to the FBI are the US citizens Regis Possino and Sherman Mazur. 52-year old Possino appeared in Vienna last Summer for the first time where he resided in an "approbiate" luxury flat in Radisson SAS Palais (Rent: 62.500 ATS)

Kashoggi-Coup in Vienna

The Belgian Raoul Berthaumieu who grew up in Canada appeared as the new chairman of the banking corporation which is working with a restricted banking license as broker house: In turn, Berthaumieus particular contacts to glowing con artists resulted in a new shareholder for the bank: the legendary arabian arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Die Wirtschaftspolizei ermittelt auch in Wien
Das amerikanische FBI geht gegen eine Truppe weltweit agierender Finanzartisten vor, die von Kunden gigantische 15 Milliarden Schilling abgenommen haben soll. Die Drahtzieher besitzen seit vergangenem Herbst eine Bank in Wien. Die Wirtschaftspolizei ermittelt.
Hinter den Fassaden der seit dem Vorjahr unter Geschäftsaufsicht stehenden kleinen General Commerce Bank AG in der Wiener Schlickgasse 1Bank vermutet man aufschlußreiche Antworten zu einem gigantischen Betrugsfall. Die US-Bundespolizei hat den Finanz-Skandal nach mehr als einjährigen Ermittlungen und durch die Einschleusung von Undercoveragenten vor zwei Wochen hat aufgedeckt.

Nachdem die australische Börsenaufsicht von geleimten Kunden bombardiert worden war, kam es vor zehn Tagen in der thailändischen Hauptstadt Bangkok zur ersten Großrazzia: Unterstützt von FBI-Beamten, nahmen Polizisten 81Verdächtige, großteils Europäer, fest. Der Truppe wird vorgeworfen, in einem weltumspannenden Netz von Börsenmaklerbüros, sogenannten "Boiler rooms", zuerst die Kurse wertloser Aktien künstlich in die Höhe getrieben und sie dann an Tausende Kunden verklopft zu haben. Dieser Tage sind Razzien in weiteren neun Städten auf drei Kontinenten vorgesehen.

Das FBI-Dossier: Finanzbetrüger ergaunerten eine Milliarde Dollar
Das FORMAT exklusiv vorliegende FBI-Dossier beschreibt die atemberaubenden Dimensionen der Deals: In 18 namentlich angeführten Boiler rooms, von den Philippinen über Thailand bis Singapur und Tschechien, hat die Truppe die sagenhafte Summe von einer Milliarde Dollar eingestreift - umgerechnet mehr als 15 Milliarden Schilling.

Aus österreichischer Sicht besonders aufschlußreich in dem FBI-Dossier sind die Protagonisten der Affäre: Hinter dem in Manila und in Los Angeles residierenden Amador Pastrana, laut FBI "Mastermind der Operationen", bekleiden nämlich die beiden US-Amerikaner Regis Possino und Sherman Mazur die wichtigsten Ränge in der Hierarchie der Organisation. Der 52jährige Possino tauchte im Sommer des Vorjahres erstmals in Wien auf, wo er standesgemäß eine luxuriöse Wohnung im Radisson SAS Palais (Monatsmiete: 62.500 Schilling) bezog.

Kashoggi-Coup in Wien
Als neuer Aufsichtsratschef des mit eingeschränkter Banklizenz als Börsenmakler tätigen Instituts, das im Herbst dann in General Commerce Bank AG umbenannt wurde, betrat der in Belgien geborene und in Kanada aufgewachsene Raoul Berthaumieu die Bühne: Berthaumieus einschlägige Kontakte zu schillernden Finanzartisten bescherten der Wiener Bank dann im Oktober einen neuen Aktionär: den legendären saudischen Waffenhändler Adnan Kashoggi.

================================================
ANYONE GONNA CALL HOTSEARCH/TRUTHSEEKER69 A LIAR???

........WHOS BRYANT? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ECSX&rea…
By: truthseeker69
Reply To: 169 by Roestigraben $$$ Sunday, 28 Jan 2001 at 12:11 AM EST
Post # of 247

Hi, I bought 1,000 ECSX shares back in May 2000. Little did I know that ECSX was controlled by crooks. I was so pissed that last month I spent 3 days of my vacation, digging out everything I could find about these crooks, even trying to date one of the secretaries working at the Mafia headquarter in Santa Monica (unsuccessfully, I admit). However, from all the data and conversations I had with people at this office, I learn of the following:
a. ECSX and a bunch of other scam companies on the BB ( ITNW, UNIF, JUNM or EBID, ASAT, VNOW or DIGS) are controlled by Corporate Finance Enterprise and American Equities. These two companies are owned by Sherman Mazur. His two sidekicks (employees) are Regis Possino (CFC) and Reid Breitman (AE).
b. Mazur is the infamous real estate whiz kid who was jailed for 5 years on fraud conviction. Possino is an ex-convict, disbarred lawyer, drug dealer. Most employees of the firm are ex-convicts. Brian Volmer , Mazur ‘s right hand man was in the front page of Wall Street Journal when the SEC got him. There are plenty of details on the Net on these scam artists. If you need help to find out, I will try to post some link.
c. Jim Pruzin is just a puppet, Reid Breitman is the Chairman of ECSX. But the real power is Mazur.
d. Mazur and a guy named Bryant (don’t know last name) control United Capital Management, Dukes And Companies in Manila, Sherman Brothers in Bangkok, Global Capital Partners in Austria, Pacific Continental and IAR Advisory in Spain. They also control numerous offshore entities, whose sole purpose is to buy and sell (mostly sell) stocks of companies they control.
e. These scam artists claimed that they have protection from powerful politicians that the SEC could not touch them. In fact, Mazur, Possino and Bryant have been in the same kind of pump and dump operations for the last 5 years.
f. All of these scam artists are living in $5 Million homes, driving newest Mercedez and BMW’s, spending money like big tycoons, all fully paid for by our money.

I already filed my complaint with the SEC but I think ECS will close its doors in a few months and we won’t get a penny back from this operation. I agree with Roesti that the only way to get some money back is for CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS against these scam artists INDIVIDUALLY, because they have personal assets here and abroad we can seize. If anyone has any idea, please post. I cannot afford a good lawyer now, but if all of us can contribute a little, it will help a great deal. I have written to Mr. Fischer in Switzerland, but we need a US lawyer here.
================================================
Who`ll spill the beans? SPECIAL REPORT

SEC gears for high-tech
war with int`l syndicates
By Elena R. Torrijos
Inquirer News Service

READ PART 1 OF THIS REPORT

(Last of two parts)

THE SECURITIES and Exchange Commission (SEC) is working hard to form an ad hoc interagency task force in response to various complaints from foreigners against Philippine-registered companies that appear to be misrepresenting themselves as securities brokers or dealers.

This task force already has the support of the National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Transnational Crime Commission, Department of Foreign Affairs and Bureau of Immigration.

The task force, once formed, will trail and document suspicious activities of firms here with operations overseas and are engaged in businesses beyond what is allowable in their corporate franchise.

An SEC official familiar with talks to form this body stressed that coordination among various government agencies was vital to catch international crooks illegally peddling securities. He revealed that almost immediately after the commission had terminated the operations of a securities company being used as a front by a syndicate, another corporation with the same purpose would be set up.

"As has been raised by Philippine consular offices abroad, if these questionable business activities are not enjoined, this may cause a dent on the credence of any Philippine corporate franchise that may be issued by the commission before the international business community," the SEC said in a statement last month.

Who`ll spill the beans?

The SEC recently issued orders shutting down several companies suspected of defrauding investors here and abroad.

Last month, the commission uncovered an international syndicate using Philippine companies to defraud small investors millions of dollars.

A senior investigator said the syndicate. s modus operandi was to incorporate Philippine companies and use them as vehicles to defraud people seeking to invest in US stocks and bonds.

The SEC has found an informant who is willing to spill the beans on this racket, he said.

"I think this is global in nature. There is already a probable asset. He could spill the beans. He knows the operations of this group," the person familiar with the matter said.

Initial investigations showed that shell companies posing as investment firms were preying on people here and abroad who are looking for US stocks and bonds to place their money in.

These companies will either run away with their victims. money or place them in securities that they have no intention of turning over to their clients.

Documents from the SEC showed that investors had already lost some $100 million to this scam.

International syndicates

The SEC official said the syndicate was operating not only in the Philippines but also in Thailand, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong.

The gang is allegedly overseeing the operations of several companies that the SEC has found to be misrepresenting themselves as securities brokers or dealers.

The commission recently issued a cease-and-desist order against four companies closely linked together and identified with the group of Amador Pastrana, Rufino Abad, Noel Galang, Ronnie Arojado, Hilda Ronquillo, Greshiela Compedio and their foreign partners.

The SEC has shut down the operations of Saxon and Swift Inc., Knowle and Sachs Inc., Dukes & Co. Securities Corp., and Muller & Sons Securities Management Inc. Their officers, directors, agents, representatives and all persons claiming and acting under their authority were ordered to cease and desist from selling securities.

The commission said it has been receiving letters from foreigners assailing the business conduct and activities of these companies, which have not been issued secondary licenses to engage in the buying and selling of securities.

The securities business activities of the Pastrana group undertaken by the four companies. predecessors--defunct Griffin Securities Corp., First Federal Capital Inc. and Pryce Weston Inc.--have been the subject of cease-and-desist orders issued by the SEC. s brokers and exchanges department.

One of the SEC. s chief investigators said the government would have to step up its technology if it wanted to effectively deal with international syndicates specializing in financial fraud.

Ideal arrangement

The people behind these syndicates aren. t street thugs armed with guns and knives. Their preferred tools of the trade are computers and other high-technology equipment that will allow them to move stealthily and cover their tracks. To keep up with them, the SEC would have to be just as sophisticated.

SEC Chair Lilia Bautista said an ideal setup, like the one being implemented by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, would be to form a division devoted solely to securities fraud.

Bautista said US regulators have been very vigilant in monitoring and tracking down the illegal sale of securities through the Internet.

The SEC is trying its best to catch up. This month, the commission sent the acting head of its prosecution and enforcement department to the United States to learn from his counterparts.

November 16, 2000

[LEMMINGJGER]

Hartcourt`s Web-Trading Foray
In China Is Promoted Online
By AARON ELSTEIN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL INTERACTIVE EDITION

Hartcourt Cos. has seen its stock soar as paid online stock promoters talk up the company`s efforts to morph into an online-trading company in China.

Once a struggling maker of pens and magic markers in China -- and in a previous incarnation, an unsuccessful marketer of nontobacco cigarettes -- Hartcourt now has recast itself as an Internet-trading company in the world`s most populous country.

Hartcourt Chairman Alan V. Phan has gone so far as to compare the company`s online-trading venture in China, called UAC Stock Exchange On-Line Co., to that of E*Trade Group, the second-largest Internet broker in the U.S. In a press release, Mr. Phan said UAC "has positioned itself to become the first and major E-Trade in China."

But analysts say the Long Beach, Calif., company`s business model differs from that of conventional Internet brokers such as E*Trade in that investors aren`t able to trade directly over the Internet. Users are required to use proprietary software to dial-in to a brokerage firm`s computer to make trades.

And while the Chinese online-trading market is potentially huge, analysts say it`s developing very slowly and the government is resistant to opening up the market to firms outside the country.

Mr. Phan says his firm will more closely resemble E*Trade`s business model as soon as the government allows. "We don`t own a brokerage because the government won`t permit that, but as soon as we can, we will, and we will do brokering over the Internet."

As for difficulties companies have had entering the Chinese trading market, Mr. Phan says "that`s to our advantage" because his firm`s business is already up and running.

Jared Peterson, an analyst with International Data Corp., a technology research firm based in Framingham, Mass., called the online-trading industry in China "tiny," and added that in the past foreign firms have had difficulty getting all the necessary government approvals to set up shop. This has left the industry fragmented amid dozens of small Chinese brokerage firms.

Want to receive an e-mail alert when Heard on the Net columns are published? See the E-Mail Setup page for details on how to subscribe.

UAC`s online-trading system enables investors in China to connect their personal computers to a broker`s trading desk via a dedicated phone line. Investors can make trades from their computers only through a dial-up connection.

Part of the reason that online brokers such as E*Trade have become so successful in the U.S., said Dan Burke, an analyst at Gomez Advisors, an e-commerce research firm in Lincoln, Mass., is that investors can trade from any computer with no special equipment required. Mr. Burke said he wasn`t familiar enough with Hartcourt to comment on its plans.

Nevertheless, Hartcourt has roused investors hungry for a stock that combines two of the market`s hottest topics: China and the Internet.

Shares in the company, which are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, surged to a high of 19 1/2 last week after trading as low as 3/4 in late October, and the company is generating tremendous buzz on the Internet. More than 29,000 posts have been made about the company on a single message board devoted to the company on Raging Bull.

Its shares Wednesday afternoon were trading at 16 7/8, down 1 1/4.

The stock`s breathtaking ascent occurred amid relentless promotion by DDInvestor.com, one of two stock promoters that Hartcourt`s Mr. Phan hired "to get us better known among investors." Since September, DDInvestor.com, an eight-employee operation based in Hackensack, N.J., has posted scores of messages on stock-chat sites such as Silicon Investor and Raging Bull, talking up Hartcourt`s prospects. DDInvestor.com also has posted a report on its Web site about Hartcourt titled, "HRCT is poised to become The GIANT in China Internet."

In return, DDInvestor.com is paid $1,000 and 3,000 restricted shares per month, according to Mr. Phan and DDInvestor.com.

Hartcourt`s Mr. Phan also is paying a German representative who has hired a promoter called Stockreporter. Stockreporter issued a report on Sept. 11 -- when Hartcourt`s shares were trading at 1 1/4 -- in which it rated Hartcourt shares a "strong buy." The site claimed the stock was worth as much as $9, saying the shares were "drastically undervalued."

A few online investors have become suspicious about all the paid promotion, pointing out that Hartcourt`s past business endeavors in China have been unsuccessful. "It`s just a matter of time before all the day traders and newbies run for cover," posted one critic on Silicon Investor.

[LEMMINGJGER]

Well, here is an interesting article which mentions Regis Possino as well as Reid Breitman who was involved with Hartcourt

THE CONTRARIAN
Kiosks, Cocaine, and Khashoggi.
By Christopher Byron
December 6, 2001

In the world of troubled dot-coms, you aren`t likely to find a more baroquely tangled intrigue than the one enveloping GenesisIntermedia.com of Van Nuys, California--a company that claims to operate such oddly unrelated businesses as a car rental company, a consumer telemarketing company, a coupon business, and a network of shopping mall Web kiosks.


Behind this company--or linked to it in one way or another--is a cast of characters the likes of which are not often seen even in a penny-stock souk, let alone the Nasdaq National Market, where Genesis is (or at least, was) traded (Nasdaq: GENI). Within this yarn also lurks a cautionary tale for any investor seeking to make a quick killing on a volatile, low-priced stock like Genesis, which since spring has soared from $6.50 to $25 and then back again.

The lesson: do your due diligence. Then run like mad from any company that turns out to be owned--even in part--by investors who are trying to hide their identities behind a veil of anonymous-sounding investment companies. You just never know when the regulators might show up and halt trading in the shares. That`s exactly what happened to investors in Genesis at the end of September.

So who`s behind the veil? First, a fugitive Saudi arms merchant who is wanted on a warrant for bank fraud in Thailand, and at least two different drug dealers with felony rap sheets, one of whom is deceased and had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency. Two regional brokerage companies, one in Minnesota and the other in New Jersey, have also gotten swept up in the story, as has the New York financier Carl Icahn, who had the misfortune to extend a $100 million credit line to Genesis in June in exchange for some warrants in the company`s stock.

Nasdaq market regulators halted trading in Genesis to seek "additional information" from the company in apparent response to some confused--and confusing--public statements as to whether its stock had undergone a three-for-one split. A September 5 company press release disclosing the plan said the split would take place on September 24. One day later, the company issued a follow-up announcement in which the date of the split was more vague.

But on September 19, Genesis announced that it was postponing the split, citing market turmoil in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Genesis shares took quite a hit when the entire market plunged; they fell from $17 on September 10 to $13 by September 19. The stock continued to crumble, and by the morning of September 25 it had slumped to $8.30 per share--at which point the company issued a perplexing statement saying that the weakness in Genesis`s share price may have been the result of "certain news organizations not having updated their databases" to reflect the postponement of the split. This simply caused the stock to fall further, and by day`s end it was down to $5.90. That`s when regulators halted trading until the company could explain what was going on.

This left two brokerage companies, NativeNations Securities and the Stockwalk Group, exposed to millions in losses through some complex stock transactions that federal regulators are now investigating. Yet who is actually to blame in the fracas is almost a sideshow, for behind the Nasdaq announcement--which stuck Genesis shareholders with $137.5 million`s worth of stock they could not sell--was a much larger story indeed.

Let`s start with the largest single shareholder in Genesis: an outfit called Ultimate Holdings. Ultimate Holdings turns out to be an investment vehicle for a Saudi arms merchant named Adnan Khashoggi, who played a key role in helping broker illegal weapons traffic from the United States to Iran during the Iran/Contra affair. (Incidentally, Mr. Khashoggi and Imelda Marcos, former first lady of the Philippines, were jointly tried and acquitted of federal fraud charges in New York, and he is currently a fugitive from a bank fraud warrant in Thailand.)

Genesis`s original underwriter was an outfit bearing the name Millennium Financial. The firm--now known as I-Bankers Securities--is run by a fellow named Michael Roy Fugler. Prior to becoming an investment banker and broker, Mr. Fugler worked as a criminal defense lawyer--in which capacity he handled narcotics-related cases for an Arkansas pilot named Barry Seal.

Seal kept a plane at a rural airport in Mena, Arkansas, which was eventually cited in news stories as a base of operations for alleged CIA drug trafficking in connection with covert U.S. support for the Contras. Seal is widely reported to have worked as a contract pilot for the CIA in that effort, smuggling arms to the Contras in Nicaragua and returning to Mena with cargoes of cocaine and other drugs. Seal was murdered in 1986 in Louisiana by Colombian cocaine cartel hit men. Mr. Fugler says he had absolutely no involvement with Seal except to represent him in two criminal cases involving narcotics in Florida, and a series of more routine civil actions elsewhere. He says he has never met and does not know Mr. Khashoggi.

Another company that Millennium took public is Netivation.com, which has a curious history with an Arkansas politician named Asa Hutchinson. In 1982, Mr. Hutchinson was appointed by then- President Ronald Reagan as the U.S. attorney for the district in which Mena is located. Mr. Hutchinson has publicly stated that he began researching "evidence of money laundering" in Mena when he was U.S. attorney, but that he resigned before the probe was complete. In 1999, Netivation signed a business contract with Mr. Hutchinson, by then a U.S. congressman, to undertake fund-raising for his reëlection. Mr. Hutchinson now serves in the Bush administration as the head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The co-underwriter of Netivation, along with Millennium, was an investment bank known as EBI Securities, which began in 1993 as the Czech Fund. One of the company`s founding board members was Robert McFarlane, who had served as Mr. Reagan`s National Security Advisor during the Iran/Contra scandal. In 1994, the Czech Fund changed its name to Czech Industries, and in 1995, it sold stock to the public courtesy of a Wall Street investment firm called Stratton Oakmont. By 1996, Mr. McFarlane had left Czech`s board. Stratton Oakmont was subsequently shut down by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission for fraud and stock-rigging activities.

In 1996, Czech Industries merged with a brokerage firm called Eastbrokers International. In the process, a young Viennese stockbroker named Wolfgang Kossner became the largest stockholder in the merged entity. He had been running a brokerage called WMP Bank, which was also merged into Eastbrokers in the deal. Thereafter, Eastbrokers changed its name to Global Capital Partners and sold WMP Bank back to Mr. Kossner, who relaunched it as General Commerce Bank. Mr. Kossner was arrested by Austrian police in August in connection with the collapse of General Commerce and the apparent loss of some $1 billion in capital.

A German press report last March identified Mr. Khashoggi as holding a financial interest in WMP Bank and listed an individual named Regis Possino as being active in the bank`s affairs in an unspecified way. Mr. Possino is a lawyer with a criminal record stretching back more than 15 years. He was disbarred in the mid-`80s after being convicted of selling 350 pounds of marijuana to undercover drug agents in California. In 1995, he pleaded guilty in federal court in Los Angeles to participating in a fraudulent scheme to use overvalued stock to pump up an insurance company`s balance sheet.

A June 2000 financial filing with the SEC lists a company under which Mr. Possino does business--Corporate Financial Enterprises--as having the same address as an investor named Reid Breitman. Mr. Breitman`s company, Corona, is listed in other SEC filings as being the largest single shareholder of Global Capital Partners.

So let`s see: a fugitive arms dealer, two convicted drug dealers (one reportedly murdered by a Colombian cocaine hit squad), the scent of the CIA, and even those golden oldie memories of the Iran/Contra scandal--should we even bother to look at the company`s financials? As of its latest filing, Genesis showed $54 million in assets, $63 million in liabilities, a negative net worth of $9 million, $8 million in quarterly losses, and $13 million in negative cash flow--assuming you even believe the numbers.

But don`t we really know enough already? With more than 5,000 public companies to choose from, why waste another minute on this sort of dreck? Alas for the public, too few did their homework. Instead, they simply went chasing after this barking dog as it howled and growled from $6 to $25, then collapsed right back down to $6 all over again--at which point the National Association of Securities Dealers halted trading in the stock entirely. It will be interesting indeed to see what "additional information" the regulators squeeze from this mutt before trading in Genesis`s shares resumes--if it ever does.

Write to Christopher Byron

[spooky0815]

Das Rotkäppchen

Es war einmal eine kleine süße Dirne, die hatte jedermann lieb, der sie nur ansah, am allerliebsten aber ihre Großmutter, die wußte gar nicht, was sie alles dem Kinde geben sollte. Einmal schenkte sie ihm ein Käppchen von rotem Sammet, und weil ihm das so wohl stand und es nichts anders mehr tragen wollte, hieß es nur das Rotkäppchen. Eines Tages sprach seine Mutter zu ihm: »Komm, Rotkäppchen, da hast du ein Stück Kuchen und eine Flasche Wein, bring das der Großmutter hinaus; sie ist krank und schwach und wird sich daran laben. Mach dich auf, bevor es heiß wird, und wenn du hinauskommst, so geh hübsch sittsam und lauf nicht vom Weg ab, sonst fällst du und zerbrichst das Glas, und die Großmutter hat nichts. Und wenn du in ihre Stube kommst, so vergiß nicht, guten Morgen zu sagen, und guck nicht erst in alle Ecken herum.«

»Ich will schon alles gut machen«, sagte Rotkäppchen zur Mutter und gab ihr die Hand darauf. Die Großmutter aber wohnte draußen im Wald, eine halbe Stunde vom Dorf. Wie nun Rotkäppchen in den Wald kam, begegnete ihm der Wolf. Rotkäppchen aber wußte nicht, was das für ein böses Tier war, und fürchtete sich nicht vor ihm. »Guten Tag, Rotkäppchen«, sprach er. »Schönen Dank, Wolf.« »Wo hinaus so früh, Rotkäppchen?« »Zur Großmutter.« »Was trägst du unter der Schürze?« »Kuchen und Wein: gestern haben wir gebacken, da soll sich die kranke und schwache Großmutter etwas zugut tun und sich damit stärken.« »Rotkäppchen, wo wohnt deine Großmutter?« »Noch eine gute Viertelstunde weiter im Wald, unter den drei großen Eichbäumen, da steht ihr Haus, unten sind die Nußhecken, das wirst du ja wissen«, sagte Rotkäppchen. Der Wolf dachte bei sich: »Das junge zarte Ding, das ist ein fetter Bissen, der wird noch besser schmecken als die Alte: du mußt es listig anfangen, damit du beide erschnappst.« Da ging er ein Weilchen neben Rotkäppchen her, dann sprach er: »Rotkäppchen, sieh einmal die schönen Blumen, die ringsumher stehen, warum guckst du dich nicht um? Ich glaube, du hörst gar nicht, wie die Vöglein so lieblich singen? Du gehst ja für dich hin, als wenn du zur Schule gingst, und ist so lustig haußen in dem Wald.«

Rotkäppchen schlug die Augen auf, und als es sah, wie die Sonnenstrahlen durch die Bäume hin und her tanzten und alles voll schöner Blumen stand, dachte es: »Wenn ich der Großmutter einen frischen Strauß mitbringe, der wird ihr auch Freude machen; es ist so früh am Tag, daß ich doch zu rechter Zeit ankomme«, lief vom Wege ab in den Wald hinein und suchte Blumen. Und wenn es eine gebrochen hatte, meinte es, weiter hinaus stände eine schönere, und lief darnach, und geriet immer tiefer in den Wald hinein. Der Wolf aber ging geradeswegs nach dem Haus der Großmutter und klopfte an die Türe. »Wer ist draußen?«, fragte die verschreckte Großmutter. »Rotkäppchen, das bringt Kuchen und Wein, mach auf.« piepste der Wolf mit verstellter Stimme. »Drück nur auf die Klinke«, rief daraufhin die Großmutter, »ich bin zu schwach und kann nicht aufstehen. « Der Wolf drückte auf die Klinke, die Türe sprang auf, und er ging, ohne ein Wort zu sprechen, gerade zum Bett der Großmutter und verschluckte sie. Dann tat er ihre Kleider an, setzte ihre Haube auf, legte sich in ihr Bett, zog die Vorhänge vor und harrte der Dinge die da kommen sollten.

Rotkäppchen aber war nach den Blumen herumgelaufen, und als es so viel zusammen hatte, daß es keine mehr tragen konnte, fiel ihm die Großmutter wieder ein, und es machte sich auf den Weg zu ihr. Es wunderte sich, daß die Türe aufstand, und wie es in die Stube trat, so kam es ihm so seltsam darin vor, daß es dachte: »Ei, du mein Gott, wie ängstlich wird mir`s heute zumut, und bin sonst so gerne bei der Großmutter!« Es rief »Guten Morgen«, bekam aber keine Antwort. Darauf ging es zum Bett und zog die Vorhänge zurück: da lag die Großmutter und hatte die Haube tief ins Gesicht gesetzt und sah so wunderlich aus. »Ei, Großmutter, was hast du für große Ohren!« »Daß ich dich besser hören kann.« »Ei, Großmutter, was hast du für große Augen!« »Daß ich dich besser sehen kann.« »Ei, Großmutter, was hast du für große Hände« »Daß ich dich besser packen kann.« »Aber, Großmutter, was hast du für ein entsetzlich großes Maul!« »Daß ich dich besser fressen kann.« Kaum hatte der Wolf das gesagt, so tat er einen Satz aus dem Bette und verschlang das arme Rotkäppchen.

Wie der Wolf sein Gelüsten gestillt hatte, legte er sich wieder ins Bett, schlief ein und fing an, überlaut zu schnarchen. Der Jäger ging eben an dem Haus vorbei und dachte: »Wie die alte Frau schnarcht, du mußt doch sehen, ob ihr etwas fehlt. « Da trat er in die Stube, und wie er vor das Bette kam, so sah er, daß der Wolf darin lag. »Finde ich dich hier, du alter Sünder«, sagte er, »ich habe dich lange gesucht. « Nun wollte er seine Büchse anlegen, da fiel ihm ein, der Wolf könnte die Großmutter gefressen haben und sie wäre noch zu retten: schoß nicht, sondern nahm, da er im Nebenberuf Chirurg war, eine Schere und fing an, dem schlafenden Wolf den Bauch aufzuschneiden. Wie er ein paar Schnitte getan hatte, da sah er das rote Käppchen leuchten, und noch ein paar Schnitte, da sprang das Mädchen samt Käppchen heraus und rief: »Ach, wie war ich erschrocken, wie war`s so dunkel in dem Wolf seinem Leib!« Und dann kam die alte Großmutter auch noch lebendig heraus und konnte kaum atmen. Rotkäppchen aber holte geschwind große Steine, damit füllten sie dem Wolf den Leib, und wie er aufwachte, wollte er fortspringen, aber die Steine waren so schwer, daß er gleich niedersank und sich totfiel.

Da waren alle drei vergnügt; der Jäger zog dem Wolf den Pelz ab und ging damit heim, die Großmutter aß den Kuchen und trank den Wein, den Rotkäppchen gebracht hatte, und erholte sich wieder, Rotkäppchen aber dachte: »Du willst dein Lebtag nicht wieder allein vom Wege ab in den Wald laufen, wenn dir`s die Mutter verboten hat.«

Es wird auch erzählt, daß einmal, als Rotkäppchen der alten Großmutter wieder Gebackenes brachte, ein anderer Wolf ihm zugesprochen und es vom Wege habe ableiten wollen. Rotkäppchen aber hütete sich und ging gerade fort seines Wegs und sagte der Großmutter, daß es dem Wolf begegnet wäre, der ihm guten Tag gewünscht, aber so bös aus den Augen geguckt hätte: »Wenn`s nicht auf offner Straße gewesen wäre, er hätte mich gefressen.« »Komm«, sagte die Großmutter, »wir wollen die Türe verschließen, daß er nicht herein kann.« Bald darnach klopfte der Wolf an und rief: »Mach auf, Großmutter, ich bin das Rotkäppchen, ich bring dir Gebackenes.« Sie schwiegen aber still und machten die Türe nicht auf: da schlich der Graukopf etlichemal um das Haus, sprang endlich aufs Dach und wollte warten, bis Rotkäppchen abends nach Haus ginge, dann wollte er ihm nachschleichen und wollt`s in der Dunkelheit fressen. Aber die Großmutter merkte, was er im Sinn hatte. Nun stand vor dem Haus ein großer Steintrog, da sprach sie zu dem Kind: »Nimm den Eimer, Rotkäppchen, gestern hab ich Würste gekocht, da trag das Wasser, worin sie gekocht sind, in den Trog.« Rotkäppchen trug so lange, bis der große, große Trog ganz voll war. Da stieg der Geruch von den Würsten dem Wolf in die Nase, er schnupperte und guckte hinab, endlich machte er den Hals so lang, daß er sich nicht mehr halten konnte und anfing zu rutschen: so ruschte er vom Dach herab, gerade in den großen Trog hinein, und mußte jämmerlich ertrinken. Rotkäppchen aber ging fröhlich singend nach Haus, und niemand tat ihm etwas zuleid.

Grimms Märchen

[AndreasSchulz]

Hi !
Einer hat al eine Art Hartcourt Theorie entwickelt!Ich finde sie nicht mehr!Bitte schick sie mir doch an [e-mail]
Andreas

[avci]

Hartcourt Shareholder Meeting Presentation in German, 2002

..........
- Listings am BBX, Hong Kong GEM und weiteren Börsenplätzen werden den 24 Stundenhandel für Hartcourt und die Beteiligungen erleichtern.

.....



Wahnsinn!!!
Diese geleiere wird jedes Jahr von vorne gespielt!!!

[defcons]

Ohne Worte!

Dr.Phan(Hartcourt)=Betrüger!!!!!!

Hartcourt Will Vigorously Defend the SEC Civil Lawsuit
Wednesday May 28, 9:04 am ET


LOS ANGELES, May 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: HRCT, Frankfurt: 900009), www.hartcourt.com , today announced that it has received word that the Securities and Exchange Commission intends to file a civil complaint alleging that Hartcourt and its Chairman violated some regulations of the 1933 Securities Act. The alleged violations are alleged to have occurred during the UAC acquisition in 1999.
ADVERTISEMENT


The company strongly denies any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Its legal counsel believes that the lawsuit has no merit.

Dr. Alan Phan, Hartcourt`s Chairman, comments, "Unless settled, this lawsuit may last for a few years. It will be one of the major challenges facing Hartcourt. However, we have overcome many similar challenges in the past and we intend to fight this lawsuit with the same attitude. Meanwhile, our aggressive strategy for consolidating all independent PC companies in China will continue at its fast pace. There is no change in our plan to deliver substantial positive financial results in the coming years."

About Hartcourt

The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. is an investment holding and developing company specializing in the acquisition and development of private companies within high-growth industries in China. Hartcourt`s business strategy is to add substantial value in terms of financial restructuring and corporate governance to enable these subsidiaries goes public via IPO or reverse merger. Detailed information on Hartcourt can be obtained via the company`s Web site: www.hartcourt.com .

Forward-looking statements

The statements made in this press release, which are not historical facts, contain certain forward-looking statements concerning potential developments affecting the business, prospects, financial condition and other aspects of the company to which this release pertains. The actual results of the specific items described in this release, and the company`s operations generally, may differ materially from what is projected in such forward- looking statements. Although such statements are based upon the best judgments of management of the company as of the date of this release, significant deviations in magnitude, timing and other factors may result from business risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the company`s dependence on third parties, general market and economic conditions, technical factors, the availability of outside capital, receipt of revenues and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of the company. The company disclaims any obligation to update information contained in any forward- looking statement.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.






Reuters
U.S. sues Calif.-based China investment company
Wednesday May 28, 5:13 pm ET


SAN FRANCISCO, May 28 (Reuters) - Federal securities regulators on Wednesday sued The Hartcourt Companies Inc., (OTC BB:HRCT.OB - News) and its chairman for allegedly participating in a scheme that illegally raised more than $800,000 for the investing holding company.

The Securities and Exchange Commission complaint alleges Long Beach, California-based Hartcourt violated securities regulations that permit the issuance of shares to compensate consultants as a back-door means to raise capital for the company itself.

The SEC named Hartcourt, its chairman Alan Phan and Los Angeles resident Yongzhi Yang in its complaint seeking civil penalties and permanent injunctions.

The SEC also said Yang, whose lawyer could not be reached for comment, assisted in selling the shares.

The company, which specializes in the acquisition and development of private companies in China, denied the allegations and said it would vigorously fight the lawsuit.

"Unless settled, this lawsuit may last for a few years," Phan said in a statement. "It will be one of the major challenges facing Hartcourt."

According to the SEC, the company violated federal securities laws by issuing one million shares to Yang`s wife to raise money for the company rather than compensate her for services provided to Hartcourt. Yang`s wife did not provide any services for the company, the SEC said.

The complaint also alleges that Phan caused Hartcourt to issue a series of false and misleading press releases while Yang was selling stock into the market.

During the period in which Hartcourt issued the press releases, its stock price rose from $1.27 to $4.50, a 254 percent increase, the commission said. Hartcourt stock was off 25 percent on Wednesday to close at 49 cents.

[defcons]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.,
RICHARD GEIGER, JEFFREY A. RICHARDSON,
AARON TSAI, MICHAEL M. MARKOW,
GLOBAL GUARANTEE CORPORATION,
FRANCOIS GOELO, YONGZHI YANG,
K&J CONSULTING, LIMITED, KE LUO,
M&M MANAGEMENT, LIMITED,
JEROME B. ARMSTRONG,

Defendants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO.



COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff United States Securities & Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges as follows:

SUMMARY

1. The Commission brings this civil action against eight individuals and four entities for their conduct between April 1999 and July 2000 relating to the price manipulation, unregistered sales, unreported stock ownership and touting of securities issued by BluePoint Linux Software Corporation ("BluePoint"), a U.S. corporation formerly named MAS Acquisition XI Corporation ("MAS").

2. Aaron Tsai ("Tsai") formed MAS as a shell corporation in 1996. From then through August 1999, Tsai purported to transfer ownership of many of MAS`s outstanding shares of common stock to approximately thirty shareholders. These transfers were shams; the shareholders were nominees, and Tsai retained control of the stock during all relevant times. Tsai`s intent was to create the appearance that the nominee shares could later be sold without limitation and without a registration statement in effect with the Commission.

3. From late 1999 through early 2000, Tsai, Michael Markow and his company, Global Guarantee Corporation (collectively, "Markow"), Francois Goelo ("Goelo"), and Yongzhi Yang and his company, K&J Consulting, Ltd. (collectively, "Yang"), arranged for MAS to acquire a Chinese company that purportedly had developed a Chinese version of the Linux computer operating system. Upon the acquisition in February 2000, the Chinese Linux company became a subsidiary of MAS, which changed its name to BluePoint.

4. Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Ke Luo, and his company, M&M Management, Ltd. (collectively, "Luo"), placed 3.75 million shares they bought from Tsai in their names, the names of entities they controlled, and the names of their relatives.

5. Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc. ("Sierra"), its president, Jeffrey Richardson ("Richardson") and its trader, Richard Geiger ("Geiger") (collectively, the "Broker-dealer

Defendants") participated in the scheme to manipulate the price of BluePoint shares.

6. At all relevant times, Markow, Goelo, Yang and Luo (collectively, the "Promoter Defendants") acted as a group and controlled a vast majority of the free-trading shares, or float, of BluePoint in order to manipulate the price of BluePoint shares. When BluePoint stock began trading publicly on March 6, 2000, the Broker-dealer Defendants facilitated the scheme by creating artificial trading activity in BluePoint stock that enabled the Promoter Defendants to complete the scheme. The Promoter Defendants and Broker-dealer Defendants engaged in trading of BluePoint shares at artificially high prices that were hundreds of times more than what the Promoter Defendants had paid for less than three weeks earlier.

7. Tsai made false filings with the Commission when he failed to disclose his true ownership of the shares and the subsequent sale of those shares to the Promoter Defendants. Although the Promoter Defendants had collectively acquired nearly 20% of BluePoint`s 20 million outstanding shares and over 90% of the publicly traded shares, they never reported their ownership to the Commission in any filing as required under the federal securities laws.

8. On March 6, 2000 and after, Jerome Armstrong ("Armstrong") promoted BluePoint on the Raging Bull internet site, which carried hundreds of posts about BluePoint. Armstrong received undisclosed compensation from Markow and Goelo in return for his posts.

9. In the weeks and months after BluePoint started trading, BluePoint`s price and volume steadily declined from its all-time high of $21. Nonetheless, the Promoter Defendants continued to sell at a profit, having paid Tsai only pennies for their shares. The Promoter Defendants never reported any changes in ownership when they sold their BluePoint shares in any filings with the Commission.

10. Tsai, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. §§77e(a) and 77e(c)] and Sections 13(d)(1) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a) and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §240.16a-3] thereunder.

11. Markow, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder; or in the alternative, Markow has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute aiding and abetting the other promoter`s violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

12. Goelo, Yang, Luo, and the Broker-dealer Defendants, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

13. The Promoter Defendants, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], and Sections 13(d)(1), 13(d)(2), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78j(b), 78m(d)(1), 78m(d)(2) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a), 13d-2(a), and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§240.10b-5, 240.13d-1(a), 240.13d-2(a), and 240.16a-3] thereunder.

14. Sierra, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the broker-dealer anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)]. Geiger and Richardson, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute aiding and abetting violations of the broker-dealer anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

15. Armstrong, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the touting provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(b)].

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77v(a)], Sections 21(e) and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78u(e) and 78aa] and 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is proper in this Court 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].

17. The transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business constituting the violations alleged herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere.

18. Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint.

DEFENDANTS

19. Aaron Tsai, age 33, resides in Evansville, Indiana. Tsai formed MAS in October 1996. From October 1996 through at least February 2000, he was the chairman, president, and treasurer of MAS. During this same time period, Tsai formed nearly fifty "blank check" public shell corporations, including MAS. From 1998 through 2000, Tsai was also a registered representative for three securities firms.

Promoter Defendants

20. Michael Markow, age 56, resides in Westlake Village, California. At all relevant times, he controlled Global Guarantee Corporation as the president and chief executive officer of the company. He was employed as a registered representative for four different securities firms before 1993. In 1998, California issued "desist-and-refrain" orders against him for operating an unlicensed broker-dealer and for selling securities that had not been "qualified." Alabama issued a cease-and-desist order against him in 2000 for operating an unregistered broker-dealer.

21. Global Guarantee Corporation ("Global Guarantee") is a California corporation that Michael Markow formed in 1992 and controlled throughout the relevant times. Michael Markow used Global Guarantee to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Michael Markow.

22. Francois Goelo, age unknown, resides in the Cayman Islands. Goelo`s citizenship is unknown.

23. Yongzhi Yang, age 44, resides in Irvine, California. At all relevant times, he controlled K&J Consulting, Ltd. as the president of the company. He was born in China but is a U.S. citizen. From 1994 through 1999, he was a college professor in the U.S. Since then, he has been a self-employed business consultant. At all relevant times, he was a consultant for the Chinese Linux company, and then continued to be a consultant for MAS after it acquired the Chinese Linux company and changed its name to BluePoint.

24. K&J Consulting Ltd. ("K&J") is a British Virgin Islands entity organized and controlled by Yongzhi Yang. Yongzhi Yang formed K&J in January 2000. Yongzhi Yang used K&J to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Yongzhi Yang.

25. Ke Luo, age 44, resides in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. At all relevant times, he controlled M&M Management, Ltd. as the president of the company. He is a citizen of the People`s Republic of China. From 1992 through 1998, he was a student in the United States, and during 1998-99, he was employed as a research scientist at a university in Alabama.

26. M&M Management Ltd. ("M&M") is a British Virgin Islands entity organized and controlled by Ke Luo. Ke Luo formed M&M in February 1999. Ke Luo used M&M to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Ke Luo.

Broker-Dealer Defendants

27. Sierra is a broker-dealer located in Columbus, Ohio that has been registered with the Commission since 1994. Sierra is a small, one-office operation that conducted a general securities business in listed and over-the-counter securities and made a market in many bulletin board stocks. During all relevant times in the Complaint, Sierra was a market maker in BluePoint. On March 7, 2003, the NASD gave Sierra notice of its intention to expel the firm from membership for failure to pay a fine. Since November 2002, Sierra has not been operating for failure to meet net capital requirements under the federal securities laws. On October 8, 2002, the Commission instituted an unrelated administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Sierra`s Chairman, who was also CEO and part-owner, in a matter involving a fraudulent, unregistered offering of securities in an unregistered hedge fund. In 1998, 2000 and 2002, Sierra was censured and fined by the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") three times for various violations of NASD regulations, including, failure to timely report transactions, failure to correctly memorialize the time of execution of transactions, failure to memorialize the time of entry and time of execution of transactions, and failure to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding trading and market making activities.

28. Geiger, age 48, resides in Morton, Illinois. During the relevant time period, Geiger was employed as a registered representative and trader at Sierra. In July 2002, the NASD fined Geiger $10,000 and suspended him from association with any NASD member for twenty days for conducting transactions at Sierra as an equity trader without being registered. In January 1997, the NASD censured Geiger, fined him $10,000, suspended him for ten days, and barred him from acting as a securities firm principal for one year. Geiger had acted as an unregistered principal of a member firm, allowed another individual to work at the firm without the required registration, and failed to properly report transactions and prepare trade confirmations. Based on the NASD action, the state of Ohio refused to grant Geiger a securities sales license, and Geiger worked for Sierra out of his home in Illinois during the times alleged in the Complaint.

29. Richardson, age 44, resides in Columbus Ohio. Richardson is the president of Sierra, its head trader, and a part-owner of the firm. He supervised Geiger and authorized all of Geiger`s trades in BluePoint during all relevant times. In July 2002, the NASD censured Richardson and fined him $10,000 (jointly and severally with Sierra) for allowing Geiger and another Sierra employee to function as equity traders without being registered to do so. In June 2000, Richardson was fined $5,000 by the NASD for various violations at Sierra, including, its failure to timely report transactions, failure to correctly memorialize the time of execution of transactions, failure to memorialize the time of entry and time of execution of transactions, and failure to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding trading and market making activities.

Touting Defendant

30. Armstrong, age 39, resides in Seaside, Oregon. Since early 2000, his only source of income has been from stock market investing.

OTHER RELEVANT NON-DEEFENDANT ENTITIES

31. MAS was formed by Tsai in 1996 as a blank check Indiana shell corporation. In April 1999, Tsai caused MAS to become a voluntary reporting company by registering its class of common stock under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act by filing a Form 10-SB with the Commission. In February 2000, MAS acquired BluePoint Linux Software Company, and changed its name to BluePoint upon the acquisition.

32. BluePoint Linux Software Company was a Chinese entity that marketed a Chinese version of the Linux computer operating system, an alternative to Microsoft`s Windows program. As a result of being acquired by MAS, it became BluePoint Linux Software Corporation or BluePoint. Aside from a December 2000 Form S-8 involving common stock to be awarded to certain employees as part of an employee benefit plan, BluePoint has never filed a registration statement under the Securities Act. BluePoint stock currently trades on the OTC Bulletin Board around $0.10.

THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME

The Start of the Scheme

33. When Tsai formed MAS in October 1996, he was its chairman, president, and treasurer, and he caused MAS to issue him 8.5 million shares of common stock. MAS was a shell with minimal assets, and its express purpose was to merge with a private entity looking to establish a public trading market for its shares.

34. In several Commission filings made in 1999, Tsai falsely represented that he and MAS had transferred thousands of MAS shares to dozens of individuals during 1997 and 1998 in order to conceal his true ownership and control of the shares and to make it appear that the shares could be later sold without a registration statement in effect. More specifically, Tsai falsely reported in these filings that in January 1997 he gifted 50,000 of his own shares to each of five former directors, for a total of 250,000 shares, and that MAS issued a total of 500 shares in January 1997 and a total of 750 shares in September 1998 to former directors as compensation for services in 1997 and 1998. Tsai subsequently fabricated documents which showed that the former directors transferred most of their 250,000 shares supposedly gifted by Tsai in January 1997 to roughly thirty other individuals in August 1999.

35. The two January 1997 transfers and the September 1998 transfer were shams since the purported directors rendered no services for MAS and never knew they supposedly were directors. Tsai never told the purported directors they received shares in MAS from him or the company, or that the 250,000 shares they supposedly collectively received from Tsai in January 1997 were later transferred to others.

36. In fact, at all relevant times, the "directors" and other "shareholders" were nominees, and Tsai controlled the stock they supposedly owned. Tsai duped the nominees into signing one or more blank stock powers, which Tsai kept and later used to further the scheme.

The Promoter Defendants` Initial Involvement in the Scheme

37. On February 17, 2000, after MAS acquired the Chinese Linux company and changed its name to BluePoint, the total outstanding shares of BluePoint stood at 20 million shares. Of the 20 million shares, approximately 16 million shares were restricted. The Chinese Linux company`s founders held 15.5 million restricted shares, and Tsai held 450,000 restricted shares. This left roughly 4 million shares in the float. On the same day, the Promoter Defendants obtained 3.75 million shares, or over 90% of the supposed unrestricted shares, from Tsai. Tsai sold the nominees` shares to the Promoter Defendants through the stock powers he obtained earlier in 1997 and 1998, and he never told the nominees about the stock sale.

38. Markow facilitated the transfer of the 3.75 million BluePoint shares from Tsai to the other Promoter Defendants. Through Markow, the Promoter Defendants paid Tsai $250,000 for the shares while Markow paid the nominees each $100 to make it look like he and the other Promoter Defendants were buying from shareholders rather than Tsai. The Promoter Defendants never reported their acquisition of 90% of the free-trading shares of BluePoint, and Tsai never reported the sale of the nominees` shares which he effectively controlled to the Promoter Defendants.

Distribution of BluePoint Shares to the Promoter Defendants and
Preparation to Trade

39. Markow and Goelo knew that they were required to report their control of BluePoint stock in a Commission filing and actively took steps in an unsuccessful attempt to evade the reporting requirement. Markow was careful to cause the 3.75 million shares to be assigned to fourteen separate holders, with no single holder assigned more than 2.5% of BluePoint`s outstanding stock.

40. Out of the 20 million total shares of BluePoint outstanding, the promoters had collectively acquired 18.75% (3.75 million shares). They held or directly controlled 15.45% (3,090,000 shares), and Yang at least partially controlled an additional 3.3% (660,000 shares) held by him, K&J, his spouse and in-laws.

41. Of the 3.75 million shares controlled by the Promoter Defendants, Markow caused a total of 2.6 million BluePoint shares to be issued in the names of the Promoter Defendants and entities they controlled. Markow also caused another 590,000 shares to be placed in the names of the spouses of Yang (220,000 shares) and Luo (220,000 shares), and Luo`s minor child (150,000 shares). The remaining shares (560,000) were placed in the names of Yang`s mother, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. The shares initially assigned to Yang`s mother (120,000) were soon transferred to Yang, and he had at least partial control of the shares held by his in-laws and spouse. The shares assigned to Luo`s child were soon transferred to Luo, and he controlled the shares held by his spouse.

42. The Promoter Defendants concealed from the investing public that they controlled the float of BluePoint, that they planned to manipulate the BluePoint market, and that they had paid only pennies for their shares. In addition, Markow never reported the "desist-and-refrain" orders issued against him by the state of California in 1998 in any BluePoint filing with the Commission.

43. Around the time of the acquisition, Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Luo worked together as a group to arrange for BluePoint to trade publicly by lining up market makers for BluePoint shares, communicating frequently amongst each other, and transferring a majority of the BluePoint shares held by the Promoter Defendants to Sierra.

44. During this same time, Markow also recruited Sierra and other brokerage firms to act as market makers for BluePoint.

45. Three days before trading began in early March, Markow wrote to Yang and Goelo as follows: "WE CAN TRADE ON MONDAY. EVERYTHING IS FINE. LET`S HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL SHORTLY."

The Manipulative Trading Activity on March 6, 2000
Domination and Control of the BluePoint Market

46. By March 6, 2000, the Promoter Defendants had placed 2.43 million BluePoint shares in Sierra accounts they controlled. That day, BluePoint began trading on the OTC Bulletin Board.

47. On March 6, 2000, the Promoter Defendants and Broker-Dealer Defendants maintained control of BluePoint`s float and exercised domination and control of the market in BluePoint shares. The initial BluePoint trades all involved Sierra, Goelo, Yang, and Luo. Specifically, in the first eleven minutes of trading, the following transactions occurred:


Acting for Sierra`s account, Geiger bought 100,000 shares from Yang at $6 per share. Sierra reported the purchase to the Nasdaq system as four separate blocks of 25,000 shares each.

Geiger (on behalf of Sierra) sold 40,000 of the Yang shares for $6.02 per share to Goelo, who already owned nearly a million shares.

Geiger (on behalf of Sierra) bought one block of 50,000 shares each from Yang and Luo at $6.50 per share.
48. These transactions were artificially structured by the Promoter Defendants acting in concert and were executed at literally hundreds of times the price that the Promoter Defendants had paid just weeks earlier.

49. Geiger resold another 40,000 of the first 100,000 Yang shares to Geiger`s wife, his mother, Richardson, and John McCamey ("McCamey") of Sierra. Each buyer got 10,000 shares at $6.1275 per share.

50. At 9:58 a.m., sixteen minutes after the first trade, Sierra sold 5,000 shares of BluePoint at $7.1875 per share to a Sierra customer, who was advised by Markow to buy BluePoint. Markow arranged this trade in advance with Geiger.

51. At 10:22 a.m., forty minutes after the first trade, Geiger bought another 20,000 shares for Sierra from Luo at $15 per share. Sierra`s bid was then 200 shares at $11 per share.

52. By 10:28 a.m., BluePoint had traded at its high for the day, $21 per share.

53. After the first eleven minutes, Sierra began reselling the shares it bought from Yang and Luo to other broker-dealers. In just over half an hour between 9:54 a.m. and 10:31 a.m., Sierra sold 59,700 shares at prices starting at $7.125 per share and ending at $20 per share. By 1:00 p.m., Sierra had sold 103,700 shares at prices as high as $21 per share.

54. BluePoint`s total trading volume on March 6 was 1.15 million shares. Sierra`s trading accounted for 44% of the volume, and the market maker with the next highest volume had just 8%.

Price Leadership by Sierra

55. Throughout the day, the Broker-dealer Defendants demonstrated price leadership

of the BluePoint shares. During this sell-off, Sierra dominated other market makers. For much of the morning, only Sierra consistently offered BluePoint for sale. From the first trade at 9:42 a.m. until 10:06 a.m., Sierra was the only market maker quoting an ask. During that time, Geiger raised Sierra`s ask from $7 to $10.

56. From 10:06 a.m. until 10:17 a.m., only one other market maker quoted an ask.

57. From 10:17 a.m. through 11:18 a.m., other market makers frequently quoted a bid but no ask, while Sierra always quoted both prices.

58. Geiger also ensured the Sierra led the bid, although it bought little from other broker-dealers. Between the market open and 10:47 a.m., Sierra`s bid (entered by Geiger) went from $3 to $19. Yet Sierra did not buy BluePoint from another broker-dealer until 10:51 a.m.

59. Sierra`s bid leadership occurred when over half the float was in Sierra accounts and over 90% of it was held by the promoters or their relatives. For the day, Sierra had the exclusive high bid 59% of the time, and shared the high bid with one or more other broker-dealers 16% of the time. Sierra also raised its bid ten times to match or exceed the high bid. Yet for the day, Sierra bought only 5,400 shares from other broker-dealers.

60. Sierra bid and bought aggressively (from Yang and Luo) in the absence of arms-length retail demand for BluePoint from Sierra customers. Every retail customer to whom Sierra sold BluePoint on March 6, with the exception of one person, was either one of the promoters, a Sierra employee, a relative of Geiger, someone whose account Geiger set up specifically to trade in BluePoint, or someone with ties to Markow. Because Sierra had purchased enough shares of BluePoint from Yang and Luo in the first eleven minutes to satisfy the total retail customer demand on March 6, Sierra had no legitimate reason to raise the bid throughout the day.

61. Likewise, Sierra had purchased enough shares to satisfy demand from other broker-dealers and had no legitimate reason to raise the bid throughout the day on March 6.

62. Geiger and Richardson knew they could immediately resell 80,000 shares to Sierra customers when Sierra bought the initial 100,000 shares from Yang. The customers, however, were Goelo, Geiger`s wife, Geiger`s mother, Richardson, and McCamey. There was no preexisting retail interest in the remaining 20,000 Yang shares, or for the other 100,000 shares Sierra bought from Yang and Luo in the first eleven minutes of trading on March 6, 2000.

63. As the day wore on, Sierra bought back over half of the 40,000 BluePoint shares Sierra had sold earlier to Geiger`s wife, Geiger`s mother, Richardson, and McCamey. Sierra paid as much as $19.875 per share for the stock, which it had sold to these customers for $6.1275 per share.

64. At all relevant times and to date, the Promoter Defendants never made any filings with the Commission as required to report their sales of BluePoint securities and the change in their ownership.

65. At all relevant times, Tsai, the Promoter Defendants, Sierra and Richardson sold or offered to sell shares of BluePoint without a registration statement in effect.

The Slide Down

66. BluePoint never regained the $21 per share high and million-plus volume seen on its first day of trading. On the first day, it closed at $17.75 per share. On the second day, BluePoint closed at $18.50 per share, and trading volume fell to slightly over 100,000 shares. By March 13, 2000, BluePoint closed at $17.875 per share on volume of 80,000 shares. By March 20, 2000, the closing price was $14.50 per share on a volume of 34,000, and by March 27, 2000, BluePoint closed at $13.75 per share with volume of 25,000. On April 6, 2000, one month after it began trading, BluePoint closed at $6.875 per share with volume of 6,700.

67. On the last trading day in April, BluePoint closed at $6.375 per share with 3,700 in volume. By the end of May, it was down to slightly over $4.00 per share, and by the end of June, it fell to under $3.00 per share, with volume at 3,800.

68. After July 2000, BluePoint never closed above $5 again.

Touting Scheme

69. Markow and Goelo orchestrated a scheme to arrange for individuals, including Armstrong, to tout the BluePoint stock. Armstrong posted over eighty times on the BluePoint message board located on the Raging Bull website in the first three weeks. He praised BluePoint`s investment value and encouraged traders who were having trouble getting their orders filled to keep trying. Armstrong never stated in his posts on the Internet that he was being compensated for making the postings. However, Goelo and Markow compensated Armstrong by transferring stock in three separate companies to Armstrong at below market prices during the relevant time period.

Profits to the Defendants

70. All the defendants profited from selling BluePoint. After the first day of trading and continuing through July, the Promoter Defendants sold off many of their remaining shares. Although the price of BluePoint fell sharply during this period, the Promoter Defendants continued to profit because they had paid Tsai only pennies per share for their stock.

71. Tsai received $250,000 from the Promoter Defendants when they bought the nominee shares from him.

72. To date, the Promoter Defendants` approximate profits from selling BluePoint are as follows: Yang $1.27 million; Luo $1.24 million; Markow $1.23 million; and Goelo $300,000.

73. Sierra`s profits from BluePoint were about $570,000 on March 6, 2000 and about $40,000 thereafter. Sierra paid 60% of its March 6 BluePoint profits to Geiger, per his usual compensation program. Richardson has made about $90,000 in profits from trading BluePoint in his personal account, most of which he made on March 6.

74. Armstrong made at least $20,000 from selling the shares of the three securities he received from Markow and Goelo.

75. In making their profits, the Promoter Defendants did not give up their control of the float. By the end of the third week of trading (March 27, 2000), they still directly held about 2.97 million shares. On succeeding dates, they still held shares as follows: April 17, 2.96 million shares; April 30, 2.94 million shares; May 31, 2.63 million shares; June 30, 2.82 million shares; July 31, 2.78 million shares.

76. During this time, the Promoter Defendants never reported made any filings with the Commission as required to report their sales of BluePoint stock and the change in their ownership of the securities.

COUNT I

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

77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference.

78. From February 2000 through at least July 2000, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra and Richardson, and each of them, 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 when no registration statement has been filed or was in effect as to such securities and when no exemption from registration was available.

79. Tsai orchestrated a complex scheme to create the appearance that he had distributed MAS shares to dozens of shareholders who in fact were nominees. Tsai then sold this nominee stock to the Promoter Defendants. Yang and Luo resold 220,000 shares to Sierra, which immediately resold shares. Thereafter, all the promoters continued to sell shares they had acquired from Tsai, and Richardson sold the BluePoint shares he obtained from Sierra. Overall, Tsai, the promoters, Sierra and Richardson funneled BluePoint stock into the public trading market without a registration statement in effect.

80. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 77 through 79 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra and Richardson, and each of them, violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77e(a) and §77e(c)].

COUNT II

Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(1)]

81. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

82. At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in the offer and sale of securities, by the use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by the use of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, all as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

83. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, knew or were reckless in not knowing of the facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

84. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 81 through 83 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(1)].

85. Alternatively, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 81 through 83 above, Defendant Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(1)], and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(1)].

COUNT III

Violations of Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)]

86. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

87. At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in the offer and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by the use of the mails, directly and indirectly, obtained money and property by means of untrue statements of material facts and have omitted and are omitting 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 transactions, practices or courses of business which operated and operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and prospective purchasers as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

88. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 86 and 87 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(2) and §77q(a)(3)].

89. Alternatively, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 86 through 87 above, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(2) and §77q(a)(3)], and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(2) and §78q(a)(3)].

COUNT IV

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

90. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

91. At the times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee, in connection with the purchase and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made statements of material fact and 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 and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and sellers of such securities as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above; or in the alternative, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, Luo, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder, and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, Luo, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder.

92. At the times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in connection with the purchase and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made statements of material fact and 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 and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and sellers of such securities as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

93. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, knew or were reckless in not knowing of the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

94. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 90 through 93 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder.

COUNT V

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

95. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

96. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Sierra, as a registered broker-dealer, made use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and induced the purchase and sale of securities, otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which they were members, by means of manipulative, deceptive and fraudulent devices and contrivances, as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

97. Defendant Sierra knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

98. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 95 through 97 above, Defendant Sierra violated Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)] and Rule 15c1-2 [17 C.F.R. §240.15c1-2].

COUNT VI

Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)]

99. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

100. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Sierra, as a registered broker-dealer, made use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and induced the purchase and sale of securities, otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which they were members, by means of manipulative, deceptive and fraudulent devices and contrivances, as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

101. Defendants Geiger and Richardson knew, or were reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendant Sierra as described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above, violated Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)], and provided substantial assistance in Defendant Sierra`s violation.

102. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 99 through 101 above, Defendants Geiger and Richardson aided and abetted Defendant Sierra`s violation of Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

COUNT VII

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

103. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

104. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Armstrong, by engaging in the conduct described above with respect to BluePoint, used the means or instruments of interstate transportation, or communication in interstate commerce, or the mails, to publish or circulate communications which described securities for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly from the issuers, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof, as more fully described in paragraph 66 above.

105. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 103 through 104 above, Defendant Armstrong violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(b)].

COUNT VIII

Violations of Section 13(d) (1) and (2) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and (2)] and Rule 13d-1(a) and 13d-2(a)
thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a) and 240.13d-2(a)]

106. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

107. The common stock of BluePoint was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78l] and was listed and traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, as more fully described in paragraphs 31 and 32 above.

108. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Tsai, directly or indirectly through nominees, beneficially owned substantially more than 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of MAS. Defendant Tsai, however, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission which disclosed his beneficial ownership of MAS stock.

109. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M acted as a "group for the purpose of acquiring, holding, or disposing of securities" and thus, are deemed a "person" as defined by Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3)].

110. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M acting as a group, directly or indirectly, beneficially owned substantially more than 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of BluePoint. During all relevant times, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, and Luo, directly or through entities they controlled, sold, for their own benefit, no less than 611,400 of these shares. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, however, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing their beneficial ownership and changes in beneficial ownership of BluePoint stock.

111. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing their purpose for acquiring shares in BluePoint and any contracts, arrangements, or understandings they had amongst themselves with respect to BluePoint, including but not limited to, guaranties against loss or guaranties of profits. During this same time period, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing the source and amount of the funds or other consideration used or to be used in making the purchases in shares of BluePoint. Furthermore, Markow never reported the "desist-and-refrain" orders issued against him by the state of California as required by Schedule 13D.

112. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 106 through 111 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 13(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(1)] and Rule 13d-1(a) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a)].

113. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 106 through 111 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 13(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(2)] and Rule 13d-2(a) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-2(a)].

COUNT IX

Violations of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78p(a)]
and Rule 16a-3 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.16a-3]

114. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

115. The common stock of BluePoint was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78l] and was listed and traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, as more fully described in paragraphs 31 and 32 above.

116. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, are deemed a "person" as defined by Rule 16a-1(a)(1) of the Exchange Act [17 C.F.R. §240.16a-1(a)(1)].

117. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, acting as a group, and Tsai beneficially owned substantially more than 10% of the issued and outstanding shares of BluePoint. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, however, never filed any Forms 3 or 5 with the Commission disclosing their beneficial ownership of BluePoint stock.

118. Defendants Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Luo, directly or through entities they controlled, sold, for their own benefit, no less than 611,400 of their BluePoint shares. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Forms 4 notifying the Commission of changes in their BluePoint holdings.

119. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 114 through 118 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78p(a)] and Rule 16a-3 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.16a-3].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that the Court:

I.

Find that Defendants committed the violations alleged above.

II.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, and Richardson, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77e(a) and 77e(c)].

III.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

IV.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Sierra, Richardson and Geiger, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

V.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Armstrong, his agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(b)].

VI.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 13(d)(1) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a) and 16a-3 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a) and 240.16a-3].

VII.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 13(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(2)] and Rule 13d-2(a) promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-2(a)].

VIII.

Grant an Order requiring all Defendants to disgorge the ill-gotten gains that they received as a result of their wrongful conduct, including prejudgment interest.

IX.

Impose civil penalties against all Defendants in accordance with Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)].

X.

Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principals of equity and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

XI.

Grant Orders for such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Amy Stahl Cotter

___________________________
Tracy W. Lo

Attorneys for
Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Dated: April 11, 2003



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 04/14/2003

[sohu]

Ich erlaube mir mal den Text von Miura reinzustellen,und mal die richtigen fakten zu zeigen!

Dieser Dr.Phan gehört wirklich in den Knast!

1916 von miura 01.06.03 23:19:27 Beitrag Nr.: 9.621.251 9621251
Dieses Posting: versenden | melden | drucken | Antwort schreiben HARTCOURT COS DL-,001

So Brasil,

den Lügner lasse ich nicht auf mir sitzen, hier noch mal Presse-
berichte und FirmenPR´s der damaligen Zeit in zeitlicher Reihenfolge :


(COMTEX) B: Hartcourt to Merge With Third Largest Chinese Internet Pr
B: Hartcourt to Merge With Third Largest Chinese Internet Provider; First
Foreign Firm Allowed in the Field

LOS ANGELES (March 23) BUSINESS WIRE -March 23, 1999--The Hartcourt
Companies Inc. (OTC:HRCT) Tuesday announced that it has entered into an
agreement to acquire a 90% interest in China Infohighway Communications
Ltd., the exclusive commercial Internet provider in China.

China Infohighway (CIH) was formed two years ago as a joint venture
between the government of China and a private Chinese
telecommunications company to develop the backbone and Internet
services in the 21 largest cities in China.

The agreement allows the company to have an exclusive niche in the new
but rapidly expanding commercial Internet business in China and marks
the first time that a foreign firm will actually be allowed to
participate in state-owned assets and could be the foundation of the
first privately operated nationwide Internet business.

Many leading American and European Internet companies have tried
unsuccessfully to enter the Chinese market.

The closing of the transaction is subject to the two parties completing
certain conditions, including an independent valuation giving CIH a
valuation in excess of $80 million and Hartcourt arranging financing
for $30 million for expansion and repayment of certain CIH liabilities.

Hartcourt plans to have AsiaNet Inc., a recently formed wholly owned
subsidiary, take over the management of the present Internet
infrastructure and operation and be responsible for its further growth
and expansion.

Dr. Alan Phan, president of Hartcourt, said that he hoped to have the
$30 million committed for CIH to expand existing facilities and to
repay some government debts before June 30 of this year. According to
Phan, the company already has had discussions with one national
investment banking firm which has indicated a willingness to raise the
equity financing, given the substantial market value of the Chinese
operation.

Currently, CIH has about 100,000 subscribers and generated about $16
million in revenues in 1998. CIH also owns and operates two popular Web
sites in the Chinese language: One is a search engine called "China
Info Resources On Line" and one is a database of Chinese history and
culture called "China on the Net."

According to representatives of CIH, the injection of capital and the
addition of American technical resources by Hartcourt will enable the
joint venture to meet its objectives -- raising the subscriber base to
about 500,000 within three years and retaining its 30-year exclusive
license to provide Internet services to more than half of China`s 1.2
billion residents.

"Subject to our ability to commit the necessary resources and depending
on the group`s ability to market and attract a high percentage of
China`s current population of 1.2 billion potential customers, the
Chinese joint venture can buy out the government`s position and
effectively convert the venture into a privately owned company and
become Asia`s largest Internet provider," said Phan.

Hartcourt intends to finalize the financing and close the acquisition
on or before this coming June.

The Hartcourt Companies is a holding company with a primary focus on
"high tech"-related businesses operating through subsidiaries, with
special interest in developing markets in Asia

-----------------------------------

China Internet Provider Denies Takeover by Hartcourt of U.S.
Bloomberg News
Mar 24 1999 12:19AM ET

Shanghai, March 24 (Bloomberg) -- China Infohighway Communications Ltd.,
China`s third largest Internet provider, denied it agreed to sell a 90
percent stake in the company to Hartcourt Companies Inc. of the U.S. and
said there are no plans to bring foreign investors into the company.

``This is sheer nonsense,`` said Lu Qun, an official in Infohighway`s
publicity department.

Foreign participation in the Chinese Internet market is currently banned.

Hartcourt issued a statement in Los Angeles yesterday citing President
Alan Phan as saying it agreed to buy 90 percent of Infohighway subject
to conditions.

These include an independent valuation that would establish the worth of
the Chinese company at more than $80 million, and Hartcourt arranging $30
million in financing to fund Infohighway`s expansion and the repayment of
some of its debts.

Lu said Infohighway, part owned by the Chinese government, plans to reshuffle
its shareholdings in the near future but foreign parties definitely won`t be
considered.

Infohighway has no port of its own, instead using facilities supplied by China
Telecom, the state telecommunications group with a virtual monopoly on the
domestic market.

Last year Infohighway was embroiled in controversy when senior managers
couldn`t agree on development strategies. Its general manager, Zhang Shuxing,
resigned as a result.

Infohighway started in May 1995 as a private company but expanded with the entry
of three government-backed firms as shareholders. It has registered capital of
80 million yuan ($9.6 million).

China now has about 2.1 million Internet users, including Infohighway`s 70,000
customers. Computer Economics Inc., a U.S.-based research firm forecasts that
China`s user numbers will reach 37.3 million by 2005, putting
it in second place behind the U.S., which by then will have 126.6 million users.
(Infohighway`s web site: www.ihw.com.cn)

------------------------------------

Wednesday March 24, 2:56 pm Eastern Time

Company Press Release

The Hartcourt Cos. Inc. Issues Statement

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 24, 1999--The Hartcourt Cos. Inc.
(OTC:HRCT - news) reported that in reference to the rebuttal of the Chinese party
in the Internet transaction, Hartcourt stated that it stands by its statement in
the news release of Tuesday, March 23.
According to the legal opinion of its counsel, Hartcourt has a valid assignment
from CyberAmerica Corp., the original signer of the purchase agreement with the
Chinese party. The company intends to proceed with the purchase and will provide the
financing as its only condition precedent to closing.

Hartcourt`s counsel is contacting the Chinese representatives for further clarification
of their position. Certain statements in this news release only constitute
``forward-looking`` statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors
that may cause the actual results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.

Contact:

The Hartcourt Cos. Inc., Los Angeles
Frederic Cohn, 310/788-2634

----------------------------------------

Posted by Dr. Alan Phan, Chairman CEO on March 24, 1999 at 15:49:31:

As you all know, we learned of the statement made by an official of the publicity department
of CIH that we did not have an agreement with CIH. We have issued a press release maintaining
our legal rights on the dispute. The problem was that the person who signed the Joint Venture
Agreement, Mr. Zhang Shuxing, has since resigned from the company .However, we believe that it
is still a legal binding contract. Our legal counsel is working with their legal counsel right
now to resolve the dispute, and hope to come to a conclusion soon.
At this delicate juncture of the negotiation, we do not want to make any more statement which
might be misconstrued by the other party. We shall update you as soon as the situation is clarified.
We would also like to point out strongly that the fluctuation of the share price has nothing to
do with any management strategy or design to profit. For the last 12 months and maybe for the
next 6 months, nobody in the management has sold or bought any share in the market.
Please understand that you must evaluate and trade at your own risk.
Thanks for the understanding,
Alan Phan

-----------------------------------------

Hartcourt Makes a Troubled Bid for China Infohighway
By Douglas C. McGill
News Editor, ChinaOnline

(5/12/99) The Hartcourt Companies Inc., a Los Angeles-based holding company that says it has agreed
to buy 90% of a Chinese internet service provider worth US$80 million, is a shell company formed
last year to "reap a short-term windfall" in "the stock market of a New World Order," the company?s
chairman told his investors in a letter last week.

"We must cast aside a lot of textbook principles and age-old experience in management to keep up with
increasing demand from shareholders who are now used to the average gain of 300 percent on Internet
stocks," the chairman, Dr. Alan V. Phan, wrote in the letter.

On March 23, Hartcourt said it would buy a majority stake in China Infohighway, which was formed in
Beijing in 1995 as one of China?s first private internet service providers. In Hartcourt?s written
announcement of the deal, it said China Infohighway was "the exclusive commercial internet provider
in China."

That story, originally published on the PR Newswire, was picked up and reported in newspapers in China,
Hong Kong and some business web sites, including ChinaOnline.

On April 8, China Infohighway released a statement saying Hartcourt?s announcement was "just a rumor,"
and that "China Infohighway has never contacted Hartcourt about business opportunities and cooperation."

In a telephone interview yesterday, Phan said Hartcourt and China Infohighway had signed a share purchase
agreement last September that was still in effect. A recent change of management at China Infohighway,
however, was not keen on the deal and so denied knowledge of it in their own statement, Phan said.

Management Reshuffle

In June 1998, three months before Phan said Hartcourt signed its deal with China Infohighway, Zhang Shuxin,
the Chinese company?s president, resigned after quarrelling with others about the company?s focus and mission.
In November, she was followed by 15 other top executives including sales managers and regional office heads,
who shared her vision and differed with the direction taken by new management.

Since that time, there has been no report of change in the company?s top management.

Hartcourt also said in its original announcement of the purchase that China Infohighway was worth US$80 million,
based on an "independent evaluation," and that the company had 100,000 subscribers who generated US$16 million
in revenues in 1998.

Last September, when the company underwent a reorganization, it had registered capital of RMB 80 million
(US$10 million), according to its website. As of August, 1998, China Infohighway claimed to have more than
60,000 subscribers to its website nationwide, with 50,000 using its e-mail services. It has never published
its revenue figures, but the Diannao Bao (China Popular Computer Weekly), a Chinese computer newsmagazine,
has said the company`s expense-to-revenues ratio fell from 9.2:1 in 1997 to 3.5:1 in 1998, and that the drop
was due to falling expenses, not increasing revenues.

Phan said yesterday the $16 million in revenues his company?s announcement cited for China Infohighway in 1988
came in part from other sources than the company?s internet operations, but he did not specify.

"What?s Yahoo Worth?"

As for Hartcourt?s claim that China Infohighway was "the exclusive commercial internet provider in China," Phan
said yesterday he agreed the phrase was misleading.

"It?s a goof and I admit my mistake in terms of not reading it carefully and deleting it out," he said. "It should
have said the exclusive commercial internet provider in the 21 cities where it operates."

Later in the telephone interview, however, Phan said that China Infohighway only has a license to operate in 21
cities, while actually operating in "15 or 16." In addition, he agreed that it might be possible that more than
one internet service provider can provide commercial internet services in any given city. Indeed, in most of China?s
big cities, many internet service providers compete with each other to provide internet connections to businesses.

The company?s US$80 million valuation, Phan said, was determined by a Beijing accounting company named China Y.X.
Properties Valuation Company. A fax copy of their assessment provided by Phan gave two values for the company. Its
"assets value on the account," representing the company?s tangible assets such as building and equipment, accounts
receivable and inventory, totalled RMB 163,630,000 (US$19,785,973).

Its "assets evaluation value" was listed as RMB824,710,000 (US$99,723,095) and reflected intangible assets such as
licenses held, goodwill, and an internet premium.

"Look at Yahoo," Phan said. "What?s Yahoo worth?"

The share purchase contemplated in the agreement Phan says was signed last September called for the issuance of
US$80 million in new shares of The Hartcourt Companies Inc., which would be used to buy an 85% share of China
Infohighway.

At the same time, US$40 million in cash provided by a second investor would be used to pay off debt, improve facilities,
and to buy 30 percent of the company, Phan said. At the end of the deal, then, the company would be 55% owned by China
Infohighway, 30% by the second investor, and 15% by Hartcourt.

Phan would not name the potential second investor, except to say it is "a very big and reputable investment banking
firm" which runs a fund that specializes in direct investments in China. The fund, he said, is run out of a Chicago
office and has US$1.6 billion in assets, of which US$700 million is already invested in China.

Mission Accomplished

In his April 30 letter to investors, Phan explained that Hartcourt had been reorganized last fall to create two companies.
One of them, Hartcourt, is "now just a shell with approximately $10 million in marketable securities and an investment
in a Chinese pen factory." The pen factory, Xin Hui, is in Guangdong province and is worth $11 million, Phan said.

The second company resulting from the reorganization is Enova, which manufactures environmental clean-up equipment
including vapor extraction pumps and landfill conveyors.

"We remain faithful to our passion and mission of environmental clean-up," Phan wrote.

As for the plan to buy China Infohighway, he added: "We created an internet company to satisfy short-term shareholder
demand. Upon completion of such merger, present board members will resign, shareholders will reap a short-term windfall,
and

-------------------------------------
Und das wurde dann wirklich gekauft :
-------------------------------------

Tuesday June 29, 1:32 pm Eastern Time

Company Press Release

SOURCE: The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.

Hartcourt Acquires 35% of China`s First Online Trading
Co.

LOS ANGELES, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: HRCT - news) today
announced that it has agreed to acquire 35 percent of UAC Stock Exchange On-Line Co Ltd. UAC operates the first and the
only nationwide online trading network in China. UAC 162 Network is a private, virtual, secure communication and
computer network system connecting investors to brokerage firms around the country. UAC162 Network runs on
CHINAPAC, an intranet of packet switched data network owned by China Telecom.

UAC system has been operating at one office of Hua Xia Securities in Beijing and the results are excellent, in terms of
technology as well as financial. Hua Xia Securities, the second-largest brokerage firm in China, has signed an agreement to
install the UAC system in all of its 98 offices nationwide. As the first and only CHINAPAC operating agent designated by
China Telecom, UAC is in a unique position to market UAC 162 Network to all brokerage firms in China. At present, there
are 4,000 brokerage offices in China serving 40 Million investors. UAC`s mission is to quickly capture as much market
share as possible. Total revenue, excluding the TV set-top box users segment, is projected to exceed $40 Million by 2004,
producing an annual net earning of $18 Million.

Dr. Alan Phan, Chairman and CEO of Hartcourt, confirmed that Hartcourt has signed agreements to joint venture with 3
Internet companies in China, including a national Internet Service Provider. Besides this announcement, Hartcourt will issue
releases on the other two, once the Chinese parties approve the text. He said, ``We set our goal last year to become a major
Internet company in China. With the completion of these three acquisitions, our goal is fast becoming a reality. With its
technology and infrastructure, UAC has positioned itself to become the first and major E-trade in China. Its potential is
mind-boggling, considering China stock market is already bigger than the Hong Kong stock market. In my personal opinion,
UAC is ready to become another world-class online stock trading company, comparable to those household names in
America.``

Mr. Shi Zhang, Chairman and President of UAC, agreed: ``China`s stock market is growing very fast. To quickly capture the
market share and better serve the investment community, we decided to team up with a foreign partner to access the latest
technology and world capital markets. Hartcourt is our choice because they have been working on many China projects since
1979, giving them a good understanding of our system, culture and potential. Together, we should meet the projection of our
business plan quite easily.``

The transaction is scheduled to close within the next 60 days. Hartcourt has the option to increase its 35% holding, should
the Chinese government change its policy regarding foreign ownership in telecommunication companies, once China is
admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Hartcourt and Enova would also like to inform their shareholders and customers that their offices have been relocated to
1198 E. Willow St. Long Beach, CA. 90806. Tel: [phone].

Certain statements in this news release may constitute ``forward looking`` statements within the meaning of Section 21E of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors, which
may cause the actual results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to differ
materially from the forward-looking statements.

SOURCE: The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.


---------------------------------------------

Zu genau dieser Zeit war Allen Wolfson, der Ende März verurteilt wurde, Consultant und major shareholder von Cyberamerica.

Siehe CYAA filings 23/4/1999
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/invalidInput.asp?FileName=00007…

Er ist übrigens auch der Onkel des damaligen CEO´s.

Wenn ich mir das so betrachte, ist eher Phan der Lügner und nicht ich !

Aber darauf wollte ich eigentlich garnicht hinaus, sondern auf die zeitliche ABfolge und die Zusammenhänge.

Wolfson wird verurteilt, eineinhalb Monate später rollt die SEC eine alte Geschichte über die damalige UAC
Finanzzierung wieder auf. AM 22.05 schreibt Phan seinen Brief an das BOD und dieser Brief steht im I-Hub am
28.05, massiv verkauft wird aber schon seit dem 16.05. Frage : "Wann mag Phan das Schreiben seitens der SEC
bekommen haben und wer wusste davon ?"

Um was geht es noch bei der Klage ? Vielleicht hat Wolfson ja Dinge ausgeplaudert die von Phan noch garnicht
bekannt gegeben wurden, bzw. von denen er noch keine Kenntniss hat.

Übrigens Brasil, die Stockreporter Leute haben auch immer von $9 gelabert, bist du mit denen verwandt ?


@ll

Was sagt Ihr eigentlich zur wundersamen Vermehrung des authorized stocks ?

Aus dem 10K 4/25/2003

Common stock, $0.001 par value, 100,000,000
shares authorized, 88,518,023 and 73,885,656
shares issued and outstanding, respectively
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/invalidInput.asp?FileName=00010…

Aus dem 10Q 5/15/2003

Common stock, $0.001 par value, 250,000,000
shares authorized; 113,252,503 shares and
88,518,023 shares issued and outstanding
at March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/invalidInput.asp?FileName=00010…
Achja und nochwas, für die filing-Spezis die hier mitlesen, schaut euch mal die Position "Treasury Stock"
in den 10K´s an, Ihr werdet eure Freude haben.

Gruß
miura







Thanx Miura