The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken significant legal actions against Mass Ave Global Inc. (MassAve) and its co-founder, CEO, and Chief Investment Officer, Winston Feng. The legal issues revolve around violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Here is a detailed breakdown of the legal implications:

Violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

MassAve and Feng made materially false and misleading statements about the holdings and exposures of their flagship fund and other related funds from February 2020 through August 2022. These violations involved the dissemination of inaccurate information in various investor communications, such as monthly tear sheets, summary portfolio snapshots, and reports on top ten contributors and detractors to fund performance.

According to the SEC, MassAve’s actions violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act, which prohibits any investment adviser from engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business that operate as a fraud or deceit upon clients or prospective clients. The SEC determined that MassAve’s and Feng’s actions were fraudulent, as they knowingly provided false information to investors. This can be established through negligence, not necessarily intent. Furthermore, Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 of the Investment Advisers Act make it unlawful for any investment adviser to a pooled investment vehicle to make any untrue statement of material fact or to omit necessary information, resulting in misleading statements to investors. MassAve and Feng’s modifications to the underlying portfolio data, which were not reviewed by compliance, led to significant misrepresentations.

From at least September 2022 through February 2023, MassAve failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest. This conflict arose from the operation of a separate hedge fund in China by MassAve’s other co-founder, which overlapped with MassAve’s investment activities. Investment advisers are required to disclose any material conflicts of interest to their clients. The failure to inform investors about the co-founder’s separate hedge fund, which diverted attention and potentially impacted MassAve’s operations, constituted a breach of this duty. By not disclosing this conflict, MassAve and Feng again violated the antifraud provisions, misleading investors about the integrity and focus of their investment management.

MassAve also failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures designed to prevent inaccurate information from being disseminated to investors. This failure was evident in the unreviewed modifications made by Feng, which were then shared with investors. Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act require registered investment advisers to establish and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Investment Advisers Act. MassAve’s inability to enforce these procedures allowed for the distribution of false information, violating this requirement.

Remedial Sanctions and Cease-and-Desist Orders

The SEC has imposed several sanctions on MassAve and Feng. MassAve is ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing any further violations of the Advisers Act and related rules. The firm must also pay a civil money penalty of $350,000 and has been formally censured. Winston Feng is similarly ordered to cease and desist from any future violations of the relevant provisions, must pay a civil money penalty of $250,000, and is suspended from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, and other financial entities for 12 months. This suspension prevents him from serving in various key roles within the financial industry.

Additionally, both MassAve and Feng cannot argue for offsetting their penalties in related private investor lawsuits, preserving the deterrent effect of these penalties. For purposes of bankruptcy proceedings, the findings in these orders are admitted by Feng, ensuring these penalties are not dischargeable.

Press Release

Location: Brooklyn, New York

We are pleased to announce that Ishimbayev Law Firm, P.C. has achieved a significant victory on behalf of our client, Elena Khotovitskaya, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In the case of Elena Khotovitskaya v. Albert Shimunov and David Shimunov (18-CV-7303), the Honorable Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis granted summary judgment in favor of our client, awarding a total of $4,885,982.86.

Case Overview

Our client brought a breach of contract action against the Defendants related to promissory notes and guaranties with a principal amount of $2,000,000. These notes, executed between December 2012 and September 2014, were due for repayment by December 2015 with an interest rate of 8% per annum. Despite the clear terms of the promissory notes, the Defendants failed to repay any portion of the principal or interest.

Court Findings

The court found in favor of our client, establishing that:

• The promissory notes were valid and enforceable.
• Our client was the rightful holder of these notes.
• The Defendants defaulted on their payment obligations.

The Defendants’ argument that the transactions were investments rather than loans, and their claim of being fraudulently induced to sign the notes, were thoroughly examined and found unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Award and Next Step

The court awarded our client $2,000,000 in principal, $2,883,034.86 in pre-judgment interest, and $2,948 in costs related to attending a second deposition. The total judgment amounts to $4,885,982.86. Additionally, the court granted leave for our client to file an application for legal fees and costs within thirty days of the entry of this judgment.

This judgment underscores the importance of holding parties accountable to their contractual obligations and reinforces the principle that financial agreements must be honored as written, correctly qualifying these transactions as loans rather than securities or investments. We are proud to have represented Ms. Khotovitskaya in this matter and to have secured a just outcome on her behalf.

Contact Information

For further information, please contact Mr. Kemal Lepschoque at kl@ishimbayev.com.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took action against Falcon Labs Ltd. for operating as an unregistered Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) and providing U.S. customers access to digital asset derivatives trading platforms without the required registration. This is the first instance of the CFTC targeting an intermediary for such violations.

Case Background
Falcon Labs offered a product called “Edge,” providing institutional customers, including U.S. clients, with direct access to digital asset exchanges for trading derivatives. They created main accounts on exchanges and sub-accounts for customers, allowing trading without disclosing customer identities. This practice generated significant revenue from U.S. customers.

Findings and Violations
From October 2021 to March 27, 2023, Falcon Labs solicited and accepted orders for digital asset derivatives from U.S. customers. Acting as an intermediary, Falcon Labs provided direct access to digital asset exchanges but failed to register as an FCM, violating Section 4d(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). They also did not disclose customer identities to the exchanges, further breaching regulatory requirements.

According to the CEA, any entity that accepts orders for futures or swaps and accepts money to margin trades must register as an FCM. Falcon Labs’ activities fit this definition, making their unregistered status a clear violation. 

Enforcement and Compliance
The CFTC’s action against Falcon Labs sets a precedent for enforcing compliance among intermediaries. By cooperating with the investigation and enhancing their customer identification processes, Falcon Labs received a reduced penalty. This cooperation included improving their Know-Your-Customer (KYC) procedures and off-boarding non-compliant customers.

Penalties and Settlement
Falcon Labs agreed to cease its unregistered activities and pay $1,179,008 in disgorgement and a $589,504 civil monetary penalty. These penalties reflect the profits made during the violation period and the reduced amount due to Falcon Labs’ cooperation and remediation efforts. They also committed to fully cooperating with the CFTC in any related investigations or proceedings.

For businesses operating in the digital asset market, this case is another wake-up call. It shows just how crucial it is to be properly registered and to follow CFTC regulations. If your company is taking orders for digital asset derivatives from U.S. customers, you need to be registered as a Futures Commission Merchant (FCM). Not doing so can lead to hefty fines and legal actions.

Falcon Labs’ situation also teaches an important lesson: cooperating with regulators and improving compliance can help reduce penalties. It’s a good idea for businesses to take a hard look at their practices and strengthen their compliance programs. By doing so, you can avoid similar pitfalls and ensure you’re meeting all regulatory requirements.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) have jointly proposed new regulations requiring registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers (ERAs) to create and maintain detailed customer identification programs (CIPs). This initiative is part of a broader effort to enhance the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism within the U.S. financial system.

The proposed rules would oblige these advisers to establish procedures to effectively identify and verify the identities of their clients. The aim is to ensure that RIAs and ERAs can confirm the true identities of their customers, thereby making it harder for individuals using false identities to use financial advisers for illicit activities such as laundering money, financing terrorism, or other criminal acts.

This proposal complements another from February 2024, which suggested labeling RIAs and ERAs as “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act. This designation would subject them to additional anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations, such as the requirement to report suspicious activities.

What does this mean for the industry?

• Increased Compliance Costs. Investment advisers will likely face higher costs due to the need to implement and maintain these new identification systems and procedures.
• Enhanced Oversight. The proposals indicate a move towards stricter regulation and oversight of the investment adviser sector, which could lead to more rigorous examinations and audits.
• Market Entry Barriers. New and smaller advisories might find these new requirements more challenging, potentially raising barriers to entry in the sector.
• Improved Industry Reputation. By helping to ensure that the investment adviser sector is not a vehicle for financial crime, these measures could improve the overall reputation of the industry.
• Operational Changes. Firms will need to adjust their operational processes to comply with these rules, which may include upgrading technology systems or training staff to handle new compliance tasks.

If implemented, these regulations will significantly change the operational landscape for investment advisers by mandating thorough identity verification measures. The rules will require investment advisers to adapt by developing sophisticated systems to ensure they know the true identities of their clients, aligning them more closely with the stringent regulatory standards applied to other financial institutions.

On May 3, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it has charged BF Borgers CPA PC and its owner, Benjamin F. Borgers, with serious misconduct. They were found to have repeatedly failed to meet required auditing standards in their reviews and audits, which were part of over 1,500 filings to the SEC from January 2021 to June 2023.

The charges include:

• Misleading their clients by claiming that their audits met official standards when they did not
• Falsifying audit documents to appear as though they were compliant
• Incorrectly stating in reports that their audits were up to standard

As a result, BF Borgers has agreed to pay a $12 million fine, and Benjamin Borgers will pay $2 million. Both are also banned from working as accountants for any entities regulated by the SEC.

The SEC pointed out that this misconduct has jeopardized investor trust and the integrity of the financial markets because accurate and reliable financial statements are crucial for investment decisions. The SEC highlighted the failure of the firm to properly oversee the audit process, maintain accurate records, or perform necessary quality reviews.

Ultimately, these actions led to a large number of inaccurate public filings. The investigation into these activities was managed by the SEC’s Chicago office.