JPL:JD

F.# 2013R00900
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- against -
CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT,
also known as "Frank Speight,"
Defendant.
---------------------------X
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES:
INFORMATION
Cr. No. 14-379 (RRM)
(T. 18, U.S.C., 371, 981(a)(l)(C) and
3551 et seq.; T. 21, U.S.C., 853(p);
T. 28, U.S.C., 2461(c))
INTRODUCTION
At all times relevant to this Information, unless otherwise indicated:
I. Background
1. International Stock Transfer and Trust, Inc. ("IST") was a Florida
corporation incorporated in 2004, with an office in Palm Beach, Florida. From March 22, 2004
through June 2013, IST was registered with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") as a transfer agent. In general terms, a transfer agent is an entity that is
assigned by a corporation to maintain records of its investors, account balances and transactions,
to cancel and issue certificates and to process investor mailings. Typically, a transfer agent will
forward money received from investors to the issuer of the securities being sold.
2. The defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also known as "Frank
Speight," was a resident of Palm Beach, Florida. SPEIGHT was the sole owner, director and
officer ofIST from its incorporation in 2004 until its voluntary dissolution in June 2013.
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 6
3. Altmark Holdings, Ltd. ("Altmark") was an entity registered
and headquartered in Turks & Caicos. In or about 2007, Altmark issued a series
of high-yield bonds that were purportedly backed by mineral reserves and oil or
gas rights. The series was held, in electronic form, in various accounts of
participants in the Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), which is a registered
clearing agency with the SEC. The Altmark bonds were issued a number by the
Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures ("CUSIP") that was
registered to Altmark. A CUSIP number identifies most securities and is unique to each
one. The bonds traded for a time on the Berlin Exchange, and IST was the
registered transfer agent in 2007, responsible for paying interest to investors.
Since June 2007, Altmark has never made an interest payment on these bonds.
4. Adfitech, Inc. ("Adfitech") was a Delaware corporation whose
common stock was traded on the Over the Counter ("OTC") market and quoted
under the trading symbol "ADFT."
II. The Fraudulent Schemes
A. Overview
5. The defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also known as
"Frank Speight," used his position at IST to defraud investors of approximately
$3 .3 million through two separate, but similar, schemes. As further described
herein, SPEIGHT, together with others, used websites, internet advertising and
"cold callers" to identify potential victim investors for both schemes.
SPEIGHT, together with others, promised these victim investors outsized or
guaranteed returns on their investments. In reality, SPEIGHT sold these victim
investors counterfeit securities. Rather than forward the victim investors'
2
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 7
money to the purported issuers, SPEIGHT used the money to pay personal
expenses, including purchases at Mercedes Benz of Pompano Beach, Florida,
Netflix, Groupon and Nordstrom, among others. In addition, SPEIGHT
withdrew over $350,000 of investors' funds as cash for his own personal use.
6. In the first scheme, the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN
SPEIGHT, also known as "Frank Speight," together with others, promised victim
investors a 14 percent annual rate of return on Altmark bonds, which SPEIGHT
and others falsely claimed were traded on an internationally recognized
exchange. In the second scheme, SPEIGHT, together with others, falsely
purported to be a "market maker," authorized by Adfitech to privately sell its
shares at a discount below the actual market price. In reality, both the Altmark
bonds and the Adfitech shares offered by SPEIGHT and his co-conspirators were
counterfeit and worthless. Neither Altmark nor Adfitech had actually issued the
securities SPEIGHT offered for sale to the victim investors.
7. For both schemes, the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN
SPEIGHT, also known as "Frank Speight," together with others, directed victim
investors to wire their investment monies to one of two bank accounts described
to investors as "escrow" or "special attorney" accounts for IST. Once the victim
investors wired the funds into the attorney accounts, the funds were almost
immediately transferred to bank accounts controlled by SPEIGHT, less a 2-3%
fee to the attorneys who maintained the purported escrow accounts.
8. Once the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also
known as "Frank Speight," received the victims' money, SPEIGHT, together
with others, mailed fictitious stock or bond certificates to victim investors
3
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 8
return of $583.34 as purported interest payments on the $25,000 Victim #1 originally invested.
Victim #1 has not recovered his or her original $25,000 investment.
12. Victim #2, a resident of Westchester, New York, was contacted in May
2013 by a cold caller working on behalf of the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT also
'
known as "Frank Speight," and IST. The cold caller offered to sell Adfitech stock to Victim #2
for $3.00 per share. At the time, Adfitech stock was trading at over $4.00 per share. On or about
May 2, 2013, Victim #2 wired $3,000 to one of the attorney accounts, as directed by the cold
caller, in order to purchase Adfitech stock. Subsequently, those funds were transferred to a bank
account controlled by SPEIGHT.
13. On or about May 7, 2013, Victim #2 received a package sent by mail to
his home in Westchester, New York, which included, among other documents, a purported
Adfitech stock certificate signed by the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also known as
"Frank Speight." The certificate falsely stated, among other things, that IST was Adfitech's
authorized transfer agent. In reality, Adfitech did not issue these shares, which were worthless.
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Securities Fraud)
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through thirteen are re-
alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth in this paragraph.
15. In or about and between January 2012 and May 2013, both dates
being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the
defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also known as "Frank Speight," together with
others, did knowingly and willfully conspire:
a. to use and employ manipulative and deceptive devices and
contrivances, contrary to Rule IOb-5 of the Rules and Regulations of the United States Securities
5
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 9
and Exchange Commission, Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 Ob-5, by: (a)
employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; (b) making untrue statements of material
fact and 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 ( c) engaging in acts,
practices and courses of business which would and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon
investors and potential investors, in connection with the purchase and sale of investments,
directly and indirectly, by use of means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the
mails, contrary to Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78ff; and
b. to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money
and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and
promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to cause to be delivered
matter and things by the United States Postal Service and other private and commercial
interstate carriers according to the direction thereon, contrary to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1341.
16. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects, within the
Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also
known as "Frank Speight,'' together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among
others, the following:
OVERT ACTS
a. On or about March 8, 2012, SPEIGHT opened a JPM
Chase bank account as the sole authorized signatory.
b. On or about September 19, 2012, SPEIGHT opened an IST bank
account at Wells Fargo Bank as the sole authorized signatory.
c. On or about October 16, 2012, SPEIGHT opened a JPM
Chase bank account as one of two authorized signatories.
6
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 10
d. Beginning on or about May 4, 2012, SPEIGHT, together with
others, created the website www.altmarkpayments.com.
e. On or about June 11, 2012, SPEIGHT, together with others, caused
a package to be mailed via Federal Express to Victim #1 at his home in Nassau County, New
York.
f. On or about July 11, 2012, SPEIGHT, together with others, caused
a Chase Bank cashier's check to be mailed to Victim #1 at his home in Nassau County, New
York.
g. On or about October 11, 2012, SPEIGHT, together with others,
caused a Chase Bank cashier's check to be mailed to Victim #1 at his home in Nassau County,
New York.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371and3551 et seq.)
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
17. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant CECIL
FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, also known as "Frank Speight," that upon his conviction of the offense
charged, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code,
Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense.
18. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
7
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 11
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as
incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture
allegation.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C); Title 21, United States
Code, Section 853(p);Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c))
8
LORETTA E. LYNCH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ACTING UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO 28 C.F.R. 0.136
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 12
F. #2013R00900
FORM DBD-34
JUN. 85
No. 14-379
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN District ofNEW YORK
CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
CECIL FRANKLIN SPEIGHT, aka "Frank Speight,"
Defendant.
INFORMATION
(T. 15, U.S.C., 78j(b) and 78ff; T. 18, U.S.C., 371, 981(a)(l)(C); 982(b); 1349
and 3 5 5 e t ~ _ _T.21, U.S.C., 853(p); T. 28, U.S.C., 2461(c) )
Foreperson
Filed in open court this _________________ day,
of ____________ A.D. 20 ____ _
Clerk
Bail,$ __________ _
Jack Dennehy, Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6133
Case 1:14-cr-00379-RRM-RLM Document 5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 13