Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I believe it was due to some slight dilution and uncertainty surrounding the CEO and Biometrics investors llc........I think that issue is being worked out and probably why you are seeing the buying pressure today as well as the increase in PPS now.....
SQUM UP +20% on NO NEWS? eom
Shelly and once you do give some Clear Guidance on the questions I just asked then I will adhere to what the rules are here on IHUB...
If you state that no discussion is allowed of certain Groups such as the Locust even though the Chairman of the board of directors is a LOCUST and that the LOCUSTS Moderate the board UMNG then I will adhere to your wishes although I will strongly disagree that discussion of that group is very on topic and very relevant considering the locusts moderate a board on IHUB where one of its members is the chairman of the board......
Please let me know what your answer is to this so we will be on the same page.
Just looking for some guidance here shelly because you asked me what group I was referring too.....I responded the lOCUSTS you then threw me in IHUB jail and moved the FNF board to premium status vs Free zone status with the other 744 boards in the Free Zone......
With that said here is my question to you.....do you feel it is against TOU to discuss the GROUP THE LOCUSTS and its members in Refrence to the stock UMNG?
And before you answer that please note that one of the LOCUST MEMBERS who has Posted that he is a MEMBER is now the CHAIRMAN of the BOARD of UMNG......
How can you say that is off topic?
How can you say that is against TOU?
Are you saying that if a CEO of a company or any company officer decides to become a IHUB member that Discussion of that IHUB MEMBER IS NOW AGAINST TOU and any group that CEO associates with on IHUB is also OFF TOPIC and AGAINST TOU?
And for a reference shelly please click on the following link
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=5634
where the LOCUSTS moderate the UMNG board and you tell me how many current posts are OFF TOPIC? How many are referencing other groups like the FNF crew? should we move the UMNG board to premium status now? and of the 744 other boards in the FREE ZONE USER GROUPS how many are being held to the standard you are holding the FnF board too..and more to the point do any of those boards have a Group like the LOCUSTS controlling them and have one of its members as the chairman of the board of a publicly traded stock?
Very confused here shelly but looking forward to your answer to the above.
MATT
Are you going to leave the FactnFiction board in the Premium Section of IHUB, Shelly moved it from the Free Zone Users Group and her explanation was because people were Discussing the LOCUSTS Activities and Members etc........
If this is the REASON the FNF board was Removed from the FREE ZONE USERS GROUP where there are 744 other boards which discuss a number of topics then this action makes Zero sense and here is why..
The LOCUSTS who have a Board on IHUB had one of its members Hired into the Position of Chairman of the Board for Umining Resources, Inc. that member who goes by the nickname Crazyjim and IHUB member jim16640, Here is one of his posts admitting he is a locust.........
Posted by: jim16640
In reply to: eye_ater who wrote msg# 4257
Date:2/27/2007 9:17:03 AM
Post #of 14670
morning all. i am leaving for a trip to toronto this friday for a week to attend the PDAC.. it is held every march. Its the world's larget group of investors, mining companies and its where glxi needs to be at next year for sure. investors come from all over the world. it costs about $3000 to attend the show, airfare; hotel room; food and registrations.
the next important show for glxi to attend is the vancover gold show at cabridge hotel every january.
please with investor quesitons/// urge the new team to attend these shows. and also buy some advertising on stockhouse.com
which is the popular mining investment website in canada.
but i figure the guys in montreal already know this. i am really imporess with owning this stock. some of mining stocks take three years to accomplish what glix is getting done in three months.... from dirt to first scoop to treatment plant to cash. wow.
sincerely crazyjim of the locusts
***So as you can see matt a Group here on IHUB where the LOCUST MEMBERS are the MODERATORS on the BOARD UMNG and where one of the LOCUST Members is now the Chairman of the board for UMNG then how can not all activities of that group and crazy Jim the NEW COB not bee on topic discussion for any board when discussing UMNG?
Makes no sense why Shelly would remove the FNF board from the FREE ZONE to the Premium Zone for that reason.......It is also very concerning that the LOCUSTS would be allowed to Moderate the UMNG board when one of its members is the Chairman of the Board for that company....is not that some sort of conflict of interest? I think it is since we just had one of the assistant moderators removed from the UMNG board for deleting on topic posts and I think a thorough review of all the Deleted posts on that board is in order considering that the locusts have one of its members working for Umining Resources inc.
I would hope that IHUB ADMIN takes a very close look at this situation and does the right thing here.......both the FNF board Removal from the FREE zone while 744 other boards remain? Are the other 744 FREE ZONE BOARDS being held to the same standard that the FNF board is?
And the Moderators Affiliation with company insiders on Umining Resources inc. is of great concern sir...Especially considering recent on topic Deleted posts........
As far as my IHUB jail time..........well these two Items are much more important than my posting privledges at this juncture.........I hope that IHUB does the Right thing here in both instances.........thank you and have a good day.
HOward
For the Record......I have never bought One share of UMNG or any other cortellazzi/Demontigny stock......now will I ever......and I do not know anyone personally who has bought,sold or currently holds any position in UMNG....next case
spice
My credentials have nothing to do or have no bearing on what UMNG is doing.......people are not investing in Iceman........they are investing in publicly traded stocks like UMNG....and that is what we are discussing.......the Company and people and GROUPS associated with that company........nothing else...
Good evening everyone! eom
I can see it NOW! those Supporting James Plant the CEO of CKYS will most likely be saying the following after he is found Guilty.........
We have an APPEAL PROCESS!! And james plant was not properly represented.......the REAL TRUTH WILL COME OUT! ITS ALL RUTHS FAULT! LOL!!!!!!!!! is the website still up and running for ckys? what do they have like 3 products for sale now? some generic thumb drives that are over priced?
no biggie chowie! its ariving in home depots now..pretty soon it will say where you can buy it at...probably have a store locator link etc........I am bummed about the PPS lately but its good thing we have positives such as this and this is just one of many.........I consoled myself by buying more shares so when it does head north again I and others who added down here will be sitting pretty good.........this is not a trade but an investment......will some folks flip when they can....you bet......will they leave money on the table when its all said and done.......most likely........if junezb's time frame is accurate then next week could be pretty interesting..and I concur with what he stated, we should have some details and a plan going fwd and I bet it is going to benefit the shareholders.......we will see..
No he is waiting for crazy 8s to buy.......good luck to him.......I found this comment interesting....
"Has anyone ascertained how much in royalties that SQUM is getting off these locks"
Guess you can wait and read the filings and do some math there knowlsy! hehe.........on my way to home depot to pick up some things.....I will check and see if the home depot near me has them on the shelves like some other people have reported and will update you guys later.........it was sad to see how the former reseller CKYS is not being able to see all this unfold and instead is dealing with HUGE LEGAL ISSUES.......ya gotta admit knowls.......it sure is nice to be talking about placement of Real products for sale in a HUGE RETAILERS like Home Depot and posting about the Royalties that will be coming VS Huge legal issues like what ole jim plant is going through.....we are discussing the amount of revenues that will be coming in and the shareholders in the former reseller for SQUM Products cyberkey are discussing what amount of jail time they think Jim Plant will get and how long before the stock is delisted! Kinda of just a breath of fresh air here isnt it knowles!
How much Royalties? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..........any Guesses?
$1.00
$3.00
$10.00
$17.00
$21.00
$25.00
$35.00
$50.00
It still says almost here chowie, but as we have seen a few people have already posted its in Home Depots, give it a week or two to get all the stores fully stocked, maybe a bit longer and then it wont surprise me to see kwikset and Home Depot do an ad campaign on the new lock........I look for the lock to appear in Home Depot Circulars etc..........I am still very impressed that the Smartscan lock is a TOP SELLER of all locks on the home depot website and that both locks have sold out at least once now.......the satin lock previously sold out is now available again on the home depot website.......very positive going fwd.......
Ahhhhhh so how long have you known the Smartscan was on the shelves there knowles? and kept that little secret to yourself?
Your too funny dude.....looks like the rollout is underway and even though it is at the one store you visited but of course we must associate many negatives with the shelving color, if the smartscan was placed a right angle and what height etc..and of course you now posting you dont like home depot? Thats classic....thats o.k. though, many other folks do like home depot and spend lots and lots of money there.....but lucky for you it appears the smartscan will be offered in many locations one of which may be LOWES! and hundreds of other places as well....so you see you have choices and can buy the smartscan from the store where the smartscan was placed at the right height for you to reach, where the Temperature of the store was pleasing to you so your buying experience will be completely satisfying!
Do ya think the locks are selling? Ooooops oh yes they are! TOP SELLER ON HOME DEPOT WEBSITE and just a few days ago the satin nickel lock has been out of stock......Looks like the orders came in and it is now available again! but the other lock is now out of stock! Looks like they are selling very well!
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keyword=smartscan&onlineStore=true&...
ROYALTIES ROLLING IN BOYS! SMARTSCAN IS ON THE SHELVES IN HOME DEPOTS!
QUOTE OF THE MORNING!
"Plant has only told his story once on March 7th at deposition in DC"
***So you honestly think that the SEC and FBI only got to speak to James Plant one time and that was on March 7th? You dont think that those agencies contacted Mr.Plant and communicated with him NUMEROUS times before hand and then finally charging him after his stories did not add up? If you want proof just take a look at count 2! That should clear things up for you....
Apparently you are not familiar with how law enforcement or Govt. Agencies work when doing an investigation.........they did not pull all of the following out of hat and then ask Mr.Plant to come explain it on March 7th.........the FACTS are his stories changed probably Numerous times..........and they are listed in DETAIL BELOW...........What will you say when He is found GUILTY? and trust me he will.....I know you are going to wait for the outcome of the trial etc......but only a blind man could not see that James Plant STOLE from His investors.......and attempted to cover that fact up..........time to take off those rose colored Glasses!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 07-375
v. : DATE FILED: ________________
JAMES PLANT : VIOLATIONS:
RUTH LANE
:
:
:
:
:
15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff, and 17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (securities fraud - 1
count)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (witness tampering
- 1 count)
18 U.S.C. § 1519 (obstruction of an
agency proceeding - 1 count)
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements - 2
counts)
18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting)
Notice of forfeiture
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
At all times relevant to this superseding indictment:
Introduction
The Defendant and His Company
1. CyberKey Solutions, Inc. (“CyberKey”), formerly known as CyberKey
Corporation, is a Nevada corporation headquartered in St. George, Utah. CyberKey is engaged
in the business of selling Universal Service Bus (“USB”) flash memory drives and other
electronic devices. Defendant JAMES PLANT is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of CyberKey.
2. CyberKey was formed by defendant JAMES PLANT sometime in 2001.
Sometime in 2003, defendant PLANT merged CyberKey with a publicly traded shell company
named Thin Express, Inc. Thereafter, CyberKey’s common stock was traded under the symbol
“CYKC,” and then later under the symbol “CKYS,” on the “Pink Sheets,” a quotation service for
over-the-counter stocks.
Other Relevant Entity
3. The United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a federal
agency whose stated mission is to prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and
respond to the hazards to the nation.
The Scheme to Defraud
4. As set forth more fully below, from in or about July 2005 through in or
about March 2007, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant JAMES
PLANT engaged in a scheme to defraud the members of the investing public in connection with
the purchase and sale of CyberKey common stock.
5. As part of this scheme, between December 8, 2005 and March 15, 2007,
defendant JAMES PLANT caused CyberKey to issue numerous press releases containing
materially false and misleading public statements, which were designed artificially to inflate the
market price of CyberKey common stock. As a further part of the scheme, defendant PLANT
caused CyberKey to retain Big Apple Consulting to generate interest in CyberKey common
stock. As defendant PLANT knew, Big Apple Consulting promoted CyberKey stock by calling
stock brokers across the country on the telephone and provided them with news about CyberKey.
Defendant PLANT knew that by providing Big Apple Consulting with the materially false and
public statements, Big Apple Consulting would pass those misstatements along to the stock
-
2
brokers contacted by Big Apple Consulting.
6. As set forth more fully below, the false and misleading public statements
issued by defendant JAMES PLANT concerned (a) a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order that
CyberKey had supposedly received from DHS; (b) falsely inflated revenues and profits that
CyberKey had supposedly realized from the fictitious DHS purchase order; (c) false
representations that CyberKey’s financial statements were in the process of being audited and
would be released in the near future; and (d) false representations that the misstatements
regarding the DHS purchase order in CyberKey’s press releases were the result of improper
accounting methods and reporting procedures.
7. As further part of this scheme, between on or about December 9, 2005 and
on or about January 29, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused CyberKey to issue more than
880 million shares of CyberKey common stock directly to various entities and individuals,
resulting in CyberKey receiving more than $2.5 million from the sale of CyberKey common
stock. As further part of this scheme, and during the same time period, defendant PLANT sold
millions of shares of his own personal CyberKey common stock directly to various individuals,
resulting in defendant PLANT receiving more than $1 million from the sale of CyberKey
common stock.
Misrepresentations Concerning The United States
Department of Homeland Security Purchase Order
8. As part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue press releases containing the following materially false and misleading public
statements concerning a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order that CyberKey supposedly
received from DHS, when as defendant PLANT knew, that DHS purchase order did not exist:
-
3
a. On or about December 8, 2005, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Receives Multi-Million
Dollar Purchase Order from the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that CyberKey
has received a multi-million Dollar purchase order from the Department of Homeland Security.
The initial purchase order is in excess of 150,000 units.” In this press release, defendant PLANT
was quoted as stating the following: “We are extremely pleased with the opportunity that we
have been granted to provide the Department of Homeland Security with our solutions.
Government/military sales will develop into a very profitable segment of CyberKey Solutions
Inc.”
b. On or about December 29, 2005, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Closes 2005 with a
Multi-Million Dollar Purchase Order from the Federal Government,” which repeated that
CyberKey had “close[d] 2005 successfully with a multi-million Dollar purchase order from the
Department of Homeland Security “ In this press release, defendant PLANT was quoted as
stating the following: “We are very happy with the response that we have been receiving and the
momentum that CyberKey has created. We are proud to be providing the Department of
Homeland Security and their service men and women with our solutions. This is only the
beginning. We expect many more great developments in 2006.”
c. On or about January 31, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Delivers Initial Shipment
Valued Over $4.2 Million to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
CyberKey had “delivered 33,000 CyberKey units, worth more than $4.2 Million, to the
-
4
Department of Homeland Security. This is the initial delivery of the total 150,000 unit and
multi-million dollar order submitted by the federal government.” In this press release, Plant was
quoted as stating the following: “We are extremely pleased to be providing solutions to the
Department of Homeland Security. Having achieved the important milestone signifies a new
stage in growth of our company.”
d. On or about February 23, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Engages Second
Manufacturing Facility to Fulfill Increased Number of Orders,” which stated that CyberKey had
“engaged with a second manufacturing facility in Northern California. This is in addition to
their first production facility located in China.” The press release continued that “[t]he new
facility will also allow CyberKey Corporation to continue delivering upon their order of 150,000
units to the Department of Homeland Security. This facility aids CyberKey Corporation in
meeting the requirements of the United States government, due to the fact that any company
which sells products to the federal government needs to manufacture those products within the
U.S.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as stating the following: “We are very
excited to bring on this manufacturing facility in order to assist in fulfilling the overwhelming
number of orders that CyberKey has received from different military and government agencies.”
e. On or about March 22, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation is Set to Deliver Second
Shipment Valued Over $4 Million to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
CyberKey had “received another delivery release and is shipping another 30,000 CyberKey
units, worth more than $4 Million, to the Department of Homeland Security. This is the second
-
5
delivery of the total 150,000 unit purchase order submitted.” In this press release, defendant
PLANT is quoted as stating the following: “We are incredibly excited to have supplied our
second shipment of solutions to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result of this
multi-million dollar order, we anticipate record breaking revenues that will be positively
reflected in the price per share.”
f. On or about July 25, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc.’s Board Approves Insiders
Purchase of up to Five Million Shares,” which stated that CyberKey’s “Board of Directors has
authorized its officers and directors to buy up to five million shares of common stock directly
from the open market. The Board’s decision was based upon the various events that have
already unfolded and what the Company believes will be happening in the near future as they
continue the fulfillment of the Department of Homeland Security purchase order for
$25,000,000.” In the same press release, defendant PLANT was quoted as stating the following:
“Our Directors feel that our shares are extremely undervalued at this time due to the orders we
have already received. We entered 2006 with a large purchase order from the Department of
Homeland Security for $25,000,000 and have already delivered half of that shipment.” Plant
continued that: “We expect to complete the entire order by the end of the year.”
g. On or about August 1, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Receives Forty-Thousand
Unit Purchase Order from the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that CyberKey’s
“$25,000,000 purchase order from the Department of Homeland Security has been increased by
40,000 units.” The press release continued by stating that “[t]he new order from the Department
-
6
of Homeland Security is estimated to be worth more than $600,000. The initial purchase order
from the Department of Homeland Security was for 150,000 CyberKey units, of which 63,000
have already been shipped.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as stating the
following: “This addition of 40,000 CyberKey BIO units is an exciting development for our
Company and our shareholders. By expanding our relationships with current customers and
increasing orders and revenue, we are continuing to prove that we are an undervalued company
with a profitable future.”
9. All of these statements were false and misleading because, as defendant
JAMES PLANT knew, CyberKey did not receive any purchase order from DHS and CyberKey
did not deliver any of its USB flash memory drives to DHS.
10. Representatives from DHS investigated CyberKey’s claims in its press
releases that CyberKey had received a purchase order from DHS. DHS determined that it had no
record of doing business with CyberKey. In or about September 2006, counsel for DHS
contacted defendant JAMES PLANT several times to attempt either to have CyberKey
substantiate its claim that CyberKey has a business relationship with DHS, or to withdraw those
press releases referencing that relationship. Neither defendant PLANT nor anyone from
CyberKey ever provided DHS with proof of such a business relationship.
11. On September 25, 2006, DHS issued a cease and desist letter to defendant
JAMES PLANT. In relevant part, the letter stated the following:
It has come to our attention that CyberKey Solutions, Inc. (“CYKS”) is
advertising and claiming a business relationship with the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) in its website press releases. The CYKS website
cites business with [DHS] in press releases dated August 1, 2006 and August 4,
2006 respectively.
-
7
The DHS Chief Information Officer has no knowledge of a contract with CYKS,
and CYKS could not be located in a recent search of the DHS contract database.
Despite repeated requests, CYKS has been unable to substantiate or verify that
CYKS has received a purchase order from DHS. Accordingly, the press releases
on the CYKS website are inappropriate and misleading. Therefore, we request
that you immediately remove the referenced press releases from your website and
halt the reference to business with DHS in any further press releases or
communications. We understand your company’s intent to market its products;
however, your company’s reference to business with DHS is inappropriate.
12. Despite the issuance of the cease and desist letter, defendant JAMES
PLANT failed to withdraw the false press releases referencing a business relationship between
CyberKey and DHS. On October 11, 2006, DHS representatives contacted defendant PLANT
concerning his failure to comply with the cease and desist letter, stated the following in a letter:
“Although you removed the DHS name from the press release header, your website still refers to
DHS in press releases dated August 1, 2006 and August 4, 2006. If all references to DHS are not
immediately removed from CyberKey’s website, we will contact the Justice Department and
pursue the Government’s legal remedies.”
13. Subsequent to DHS’s October 11, 2006 letter, PLANT revised
CyberKey’s previously-released press releases by replacing “Department of Homeland Security”
with more general descriptions, such as “Federal Government Agency” or “the Federal
Government.” The revised press releases continued to maintain, however, that CyberKey had a
$24.5 million purchase order, although they now stated that the purchase order was with an
unnamed large federal agency.
-
8
Misrepresentations Concerning Revenues from the
Fictitious DHS Purchase Order
14. As a further part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue press releases containing materially false and misleading public
statements concerning the revenues and profits that CyberKey had supposedly realized from the
fictitious DHS purchase order, when as defendant PLANT knew, CyberKey did not receive, and
did not expect to receive, any revenues or profits from the fictitious DHS purchase order:
a. On or about April 4, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Receives $4.2 Million
Payment for Initial Shipment to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
“received a payment of $4.2 Million from the Department of Homeland Security for its initial
shipment of 33,000 CyberKey units. The total order submitted by the federal government is for
150,000 units and is expected to exceed $24 Million.” In the press release, defendant PLANT is
quoted as stating the following: “The relationship with the Department of Homeland Security
gives CyberKey a platform for generating a continuous revenue stream. We are very excited
about providing a suite of solutions to the Federal Government and the growth we are achieving
because of it.”
b. On or about July 28, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12 Million
in Earnings for First Two Quarters of 2006,” which stated that CyberKey had “reported total Net
Income of $12,152,060 for the first and second quarters of 2006. The press release further stated
that “CyberKey Solutions total income was $25,050,708.23 which includes the purchase order
from the Department of Homeland Security for 150,000 CyberKey units,” and that “CyberKey
-
9
Solutions posted a Gross Profit of 12,806,298.97 with total expenses of only $654,238.78 for the
first 6 months of 2006. As a result, CyberKey’s Net profit of more than $12 Million yielded an
earnings per share of more than $.027.” In the same press release, defendant PLANT was quoted
as stating the following: “These financial statements are an accurate reflection of the progress
that we made this year. We continue to exceed expectations and show the financial community
that we are grossly undervalued at this point in our corporate growth.”
c. Referenced in the July 28, 2006 press release, and available on
public Internet websites, were CyberKey’s unaudited financial statements for the first and
second quarters of 2006. The financial statements contained the same revenue and profit
numbers contained in the July 28, 2006 press release. Although the financial statements were
unaudited, defendant PLANT personally signed a certification of the financial statements as
follows:
“I, Jim Plant, CyberKey Solutions Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify that the financial statements filed herewith and any notes
thereto, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows for the periods presented, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, consistently
applied.”
d. On or about January 29, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12.5 Million
in Net Earnings and $33 Million in Revenues for 2006,” which stated that CyberKey had
reported “earnings of $12,884,030 for the fiscal year 2006.” The press release continued that
“CyberKey Solutions has generated over $33,000,000 in revenues, which includes the purchase
order from various federal government agencies for 150,000 CyberKey units. CyberKey has
also reported total assets exceeding $28,000,000, which is a 45% increase over the $19,500,000
-10
in assets reported for the first half of 2006.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as
stating the following: “This was truly an amazing year for the growth of our company and it is
reflected in our financial statements. We will continue to aggressively market our cutting edge
security solutions and product line to our ever expanding list of vertical markets.”
e. Referenced in the January 29, 2007 press release, and available on
public Internet websites, were CyberKey’s unaudited financial statements for all four quarters of
2006. The financial statements contained the same revenue and profit numbers contained in the
January 29, 2007 press release. Although the financial statements were unaudited, defendant
PLANT again personally signed a certification of the financial statements as follows:
“I, Jim Plant, CyberKey Solutions Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify that the financial statements filed herewith and any notes
thereto, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows for the periods presented, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, consistently
applied.”
15. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant JAMES
PLANT knew, the supposed purchase order from DHS did not exist. Thus, CyberKey did not
receive, and did not expect to receive, any revenue or profits from sales of USB flash memory
drives to DHS.
Misrepresentations Concerning the Auditing
of CyberKey’s Financial Statements
16. As a further part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue press releases containing materially false and misleading public
statements concerning Cyberkey’s false representations that its financial statements were in the
process of being audited and would be released in the near future, when as defendant PLANT
-11
knew, CyberKey did not expect to release audited financial statements in that time period:
a. On or about July 28, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12 Million
in Earnings for First Two Quarters of 2006,” which stated that CyberKey was “currently in the
process of auditing their financial statements and is expecting to file them in the near future.”
b. On or about December 20, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT
falsely announced in a paid-for video interview broadcast on a publicly available Internet
website that CyberKey’s audited financial statements would be publicly released in “two or three
weeks.”
17. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant
JAMES PLANT knew, at the time CyberKey issued those public statements, CyberKey did not
expect to release audited financial statements in the near future.
Misrepresentations Concerning The Events Surrounding the
Discovery of the Fictitious DHS Purchase Order
18. On or about March 15, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release designed to reassure members of the investing public. This
press release acknowledged that CyberKey did not have a purchase order directly with DHS, but
claimed that defendant PLANT was not involved in, and had no knowledge of, the non-existence
of the DHS purchase order. Specifically, the press release stated that CyberKey had never
received any revenues, or realized any profits, from the supposed DHS purchase order. The
press release claimed that the prior misstatements were issued because “a certain company
official has utilized improper accounting methods and reporting procedures while handling
critical company contracts.” The press release added that the DHS purchase order “was not
-12
directly with DHS but instead with a third party distributor that was representing it was having
the Cyberkey products delivered directly to DHS facilities in different locations.” The press
release continued that this unnamed third party never shipped any products to DHS as promised.
The press release explained that CyberKey did not receive any revenues because the unnamed
third party “circumvented [CyberKey’s] relationship with its manufacturer in China and secured
direct payment and delivery of the Cyberkey products without paying Cyberkey anything.”
Finally, the press release claimed that CyberKey’s controller “had improperly entered financial
data into the accounting system and had forged critical documents and other material
information.”
19. In the same press release, defendant JAMES PLANT was quoted as
stating the following: “I am deeply troubled by the findings related to the accounting practices of
our company. I apologize to our shareholders and the investment community for these problems,
which happened on my watch but without my knowledge. I am fully committed to resolving all
remaining issues as quickly as possible and to putting the proper remedial measures in place to
ensure that this never happens again. We will be releasing corrected financial statements as soon
as practicable. We will be updating the investors through our website as more information
becomes available.”
20. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant JAMES
PLANT knew, defendant PLANT, and not CyberKey’s controller, Ruth Lane, charged elsewhere
herein, was responsible for creating the fictitious DHS purchase order and carrying out the
scheme to defraud. These statements were also false and misleading because, as defendant
PLANT knew, the reason why CyberKey never realized any revenues from the DHS purchase
-13
order was not because a third-party had circumvented its relationship with CyberKey, but rather
because no DHS purchase order ever existed.
Statutory Violation
21. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES PLANT
did knowingly and willfully use and employ, and aided and abetted the use and employment of,
manipulative and deceptive devices and contrivances, directly and indirectly, in violation of Rule
10b-5 of the Rules and Regulations of the SEC (Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
240.10b-5), in that the defendant did knowingly and willfully, directly and indirectly (a) employ
devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; (b) make untrue statements of material fact and omit to
state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engage in acts, practices, and courses of business
which would and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the members of the investing public, in
connection with purchases and sales of CyberKey stock, by the use of the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails.
In violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78ff; Title 17,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
-14
COUNT TWO
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count One are incorporated here by reference.
2. In or about early November 2006, the SEC began an informal inquiry
concerning defendant JAMES PLANT’s and CyberKey’s claims that it had received a $24.5
million purchase order from DHS. During the same time, the SEC contacted defendant JAMES
PLANT and requested that defendant PLANT contact the SEC regarding those claims.
3. On or about November 30, 2006, in response to a written request from the
SEC, defendant JAMES PLANT, through CyberKey’s counsel, produced to the SEC a purchase
order for USB drives totaling approximately $25 million and purporting to be between a
company named Leading Points and DHS. Through CyberKey’s counsel, defendant PLANT
also produced to the SEC two invoices totaling approximately $9.3 million and purporting to be
from CyberKey to Leading Points. Through CyberKey’s counsel, defendant PLANT explained
that CyberKey’s DHS purchase order was actually through Leading Points as a third-party
intermediary. Defendant PLANT also explained through CyberKey’s counsel that both invoices
had been paid by Leading Points. DHS later determined that there was no business relationship
between DHS and any company called Leading Points.
4. On or about February 2, 2007, the SEC began a formal investigation of
CyberKey concerning defendant JAMES PLANT’s and CyberKey’s claims that it had received a
$24.5 million purchase order from DHS.
5. On or about February 9, 2007, via facsimile, in response to a subpoena
request from the SEC to CyberKey, defendant JAMES PLANT submitted to the SEC through
-15
CyberKey’s counsel a document purporting to show that CyberKey’s $24.5 million purchase
order with DHS was actually through a company called Kikomac as a third-party intermediary.
As part of that same submission, defendant PLANT, through CyberKey’s counsel, also
submitted to the SEC via facsimile four invoices purporting to be from CyberKey to Kikomac.
Defendant PLANT further provided the SEC with banking and wire transfer documents
purporting to show five wire transfer payments -- totaling approximately $26.5 million -- paid
from Kikomac’s bank account in Hong Kong to CyberKey’s bank account in St. George, Utah.
On or about February 12, 2007, the SEC received the same documents from defendant PLANT
and CyberKey via Federal Express.
6. As defendant JAMES PLANT knew, all of the documents described in
paragraph 5 were false and fraudulent because he instructed defendant RUTH LANE to create
those documents using false information supplied by defendant PLANT. As defendant PLANT
further knew, defendant LANE created each of the false documents using a personal computer at
CyberKey. Defendant PLANT later instructed defendant LANE to submit the false and
fraudulent documents both to the SEC and to CyberKey’s counsel.
7. On or about February 9, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia
and the District of Utah, defendants
JAMES PLANT and
RUTH LANE
knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, and falsified, and aided and abetted the alteration,
destruction, mutilation and falsification of, records, documents, and tangible objects, that is: (1)
bank records from CyberKey’s corporate bank account and wire transfer documents purporting
to show wire transfer payments from Kikomac to CyberKey; and (2) invoices from CyberKey to
-16
Kikomac purporting to show that CyberKey had billed Kikomac for products shipped to DHS,
with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a
matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which
is an agency of the United States.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1519 and 2.
-17
COUNT THREE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count One and paragraphs 2 through 6 of
Count Two are incorporated here by reference.
2. On or about March 7, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT provided sworn
testimony during a deposition to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) concerning a fictitious purchase order to the United States Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”). During the deposition, defendant PLANT stated, among other things, that the
DHS purchase order was not directly between DHS and CyberKey Solutions Inc. (“CyberKey”),
but rather was through a different company called Kikomac as the third-party intermediary.
Defendant PLANT further stated that CyberKey had received each of the above-described five
wire transfer payments from Kikomac. DHS later determined that there was no business
relationship between DHS and any company called Kikomac.
3. As defendant JAMES PLANT knew, those statements were false and
misleading because CyberKey did not have a purchase order with DHS, either directly or
indirectly through a third-party intermediary, and therefore CyberKey did not receive any wire
transfer payments in connection with the fictitious DHS purchase order.
4. On or about March 7, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia,
defendant
JAMES PLANT,
in a matter within the jurisdiction of the SEC, an agency of the executive branch of the
government of the United States, knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and
-18
fraudulent statements and representations, stating in sworn testimony before the SEC: (a) that
CyberKey had a $24.5 million purchase order with DHS through a third-party, when in fact
defendant PLANT knew that CyberKey had no such business relationship, either directly or
indirectly, with DHS, and (b) that CyberKey had received payments from a third party on the
$24.5 million DHS purchase order, when in fact defendant PLANT knew that CyberKey had not
received any such payments relating to the fulfillment of the fictitious DHS purchase order.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
-19
COUNT FOUR
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count Two, paragraphs 2 through 6 of Count
Two, and paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Three are incorporated here by reference.
2. On March 7,2007, after providing sworn testimony to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), defendant JAMES PLANT called Ruth Lane,
charged elsewhere herein, and told her that the SEC had found out that the banking and wire
transfer documents they had submitted to the SEC were fabricated. After defendant PLANT and
Lane agreed that Lane would take sole responsibility for creating and submitting the false
documents to the SEC, defendant PLANT instructed Lane to resign her position as the controller
of CyberKey Solutions Inc. (“CyberKey”). Defendant PLANT further instructed Lane to sign a
written statement falsely stating that she alone was responsible for creating the false documents
submitted to the SEC, and that defendant PLANT had no knowledge that she had done so.
3. Immediately after speaking with defendant JAMES PLANT, Ruth Lane, at
the instruction of defendant PLANT, resigned as the controller of CyberKey and signed a written
statement falsely admitting that she alone was responsible for creating the false documents
submitted to the SEC, and that defendant PLANT had no knowledge that she had done so.
4. On or about March 7, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia,
and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES PLANT
corruptly persuaded, attempted to corruptly persuade, and engaged in misleading conduct
toward, Ruth Lane, charged elsewhere herein, by instructing her to provide a signed statement
-20
falsely taking sole responsibility for the creation of false documents associated with a fictitious
$24.5 million purchase order between CyberKey Solutions Inc. and the United States
Department of Homeland Security, and to absolve defendant PLANT of the same conduct, with
the intent to influence, delay, and prevent her testimony for use in a federal criminal
investigation subsequently instituted within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(b)(1).
-21
COUNT FIVE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count Two, paragraphs 2 through 6 of Count
Two, paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Three, and paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Four are
incorporated here by reference.
2. On or about March 13, 2007, in the District of Utah, defendant
RUTH LANE,
in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and United
States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), both agencies of the executive branch of the
government of the United States, knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statement and representation, in that defendant LANE told a Special Agent of the FBI
and a Postal Inspector of the USPIS that James Plant, charged elsewhere herein, was not
involved in a scheme to defraud concerning a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order between
CyberKey and the United States Department of Homeland Security, when in fact, as defendant
LANE knew, Plant devised and carried out that scheme to defraud.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
-22
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. As a result of the violations of Title 15, United States Code, Sections
78j(b), 78ff and Title 17 Code Federal Regulations § 240.10b-5 set forth in this superseding
indictment, defendant
JAMES PLANT
shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of such offenses, including, but not limited
to, the sum of $3.5 million.
2. If any of the property subject to forfeiture, 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
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
-23
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of the defendant up to the value of the property subject to forfeiture.
All pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) and Title 18, United
States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C).
A TRUE BILL:
FOREPERSON
PATRICK L. MEEHAN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
-24
And how did they find him? "Asked to submit a resume" were they reading his insightful posts on IHUB and said HEY THATS OUR GUY!
I think it is more likely that he threatened legal action against them and then they offered him the position and SHARES....to keep him from pursuing legal action.......I believe the rumor that he was SUCKED in by the group he associated with and did not realize he made a huge mistake till it was too late.......so he took action......and now is CRAZYJIM the CHAIRMAN of the Board for UMNG!
Pretty sad when a company is hiring people off of chat boards who call themselves CRAZYJIM or CHEAPJIM! Credibility sinks once again.......
I concur, even Knowles said he is looking for CRAZY 8's etc.....I dont think it is going lower then where it is at right now and is why I added two times in the last two weeks........I reference or compare this to the Former FRPC now FRPT........had many little bumps in the road.....but the solid Products and relationships held it together and the patient shareholders were rewarded BIG TIME.......unfortunately I was not one of them........I wont make that same mistake again.......I have looked at the products.....looked at the market for them for example the smartscan lock which is a TOP SELLER on the HOME DEPOT website and Sequiam will be getting NICE ROYALTIES off of every lock sold..
The Biovault 2.0 and the BIOBOX Endorsed by the NRA is HUGE AS WELL.....
and many other products in the works like with DEWALT etc.......
Am I happy about the current state of the company.......nope.....do I see light at the end of the short tunnel? I would not have added more shares if I did not think so.....and one key thing to note is that apparently many others must think so too........the CEO just filed a form 4 and bought shares himself and have you seen a massive sell off? or anything that remotely looked like a sell off? NOPE! Investors are holding and adding.........and probably for the reasons I just stated.......they see the relationships......they see the Revenue potential and they see value in their investment as I see value in mine........
Transparency has always been key in SQUM for me otherwise I would have bailed or not invested......they are front and center.......and fully reporting with NO GAGGED T/A.......etc..
Hard to find little things like that with a company these days but it goes a long way towards investor confidence and it sheds a light of credibility on the company........companies that do not do as SQUM is doing usually never succeed or do what they say they are going too...........
"had made more money than you or I ever will"
I do not recall ever disclosing my financial status to you and just because someone has Money does not make them SMART..nor does it lend any credibility to the company umining resources inc. it may merely mean Crazyjim is trying to recoup some losses on a very bad decision to invest above the .20 range, so in that sense you could say he is pretty smart........as far as your dinner date etc..........congratulations.....I hope you enjoyed yourself........but it has nothing to do with what the company has not done....and most likely will not do as the PPS continues in a downward spiral with nothing but fwd looking PRS,a ceo with two names, a chairman who calls himself CRAZYJIM or CHEAPJIM---HEY LOOK! WE HAVE TWO COMPANY OFFICERS NOW USING TWO NAMES EACH! LOL!!!!!!!!!!! CARRY ON SOLDIER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is everyone getting these stupid little popup advertisements now? its driving me nuts!
They most likely will not be giving him too much information......a need to know basis and I am sure the Colonel is familiar with that term..........
No disrespect towards the colonel or his service but I heard he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.......
But I do give him credit for getting what appears to be a payday or repayment for his losses.......dont look for him to cozy up to any former group members and share REAL information.......I am sure his main focus is his losses at this point and if and when he recoups them I look for him to vanish.....
When a company starts hiring Chat board message posters that is pretty weak and a clear sign they did it to stay out of legal trouble........or keep the spotlight off them and give themselves time to continue with the plan which has been clear from day 1........sell shares............sell shares.........sell shares......create a new business plan.......create a new company name.......create new ticker symbols........RINSE AND REPEAT.........it has been the cortellazzi/AKA way for many years now.......why anyone would think this company is different is beyond me but each to his own and I do not want to hear any crying later.......YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.............CAUTION EXTREMELY ADVISED on this stock...UMNG
I concur junezb, but it does look like to me that ole Crazyjim the chatboard message Chairman of the board for UMNG may be smarter than the rest of the group he is associated with, to my knowledge he is the largest shareholder of the Group, when he dumps it could affect the PPS big time.....or maybe he has already been slowly unloading his position?
Why would he do that you ask? because he may be getting as he posted Restricted shares and how many is he going to get? Who knows but the PR today stated they are giving away another 25 MILLION Shares so Mr.CRAZYJIM knows his current holdings are most likely not going to be worth near what they worth today going fwd........so I look for him to dump them and get what he can as it matters not to him if he gets a boat load of restricted shares to dump later as well........will he get set up and end up getting screwed like Joel Fournier the former president did? Very Possible but at least he has a shot at recouping some losses....my guess is he threatened legal action and this is the deal they gave him not to pursue it.......and the shareholders are most likely paying for his new position.....makes ya wonder if any other members in that group are being compensated as well?
$1.00? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can see you have not done your DD sir.......try again.........No Freebies this time......go find out.......
In reference to UMNG and the GIVING AWAY of 25 Million shares to this MYSTERY TSX VENTURE company in addition to giving them one of the Properties.........One has to wonder who are the Officers associated with this so called TSX Venture company? Any bets if it is a REAL company that they are familiar names and most likely have worked for or with either Demontigny or Cortellazzi? Any bets the money or shares is just making a big Loop back into the pockets of the boys at 1212 redpath?
Funny how they wont tell anyone the NAME of the company? Especially considering they have now PR'd the event more than once as being completed but cant seem to cough up the name?
WHY? If I was a shareholder I would be demanding they release that information.....it only damages investor confidence when the go out of their way to HIDE this information.......and if it is Completed as they have PR'd TWO TIMES now.......why the secrecy?
Will they ever announce who this company is? or will you see a PR in the not too distant future about how the TSX VENTURE ACQUISITION HAS BEEN CANCELED?
One only need look at Cortellazzi's History with COHG and RECENT ACQUISITIONS that were COMPLETED......and then one month later CANCELED!
When A company HIDES information such as this it is a HUGE RED FLAG FOLKS.......there is ZERO REASON not to DISCLOSE who this TSX VENTURE COMPANY is.......If there is an excuse I would love to hear it...........but it wont matter what excuses they offer up it wont be good enough.......they should release it and release it now and every single shareholder who saw UMNG PR that they were giving away 25 Million shares and One of the Properties should be on the phone and sending emails DEMANDING that they say who this company is........YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ESPECIALY Considering this MASSIVE DILUTION that will be taking place.......
THank you Jking! Nice Work.......looks like Mr.Plant is in some big DOO DOO! Looks like the conspiracy theories are evaporating quickly....anyone still believe that plant refused shipment from SEQUIAM for FAULTY PRODUCTS? Or do ya think he just may have lied about that little scenario as well?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 07-375
v. : DATE FILED: ________________
JAMES PLANT : VIOLATIONS:
RUTH LANE
:
:
:
:
:
15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff, and 17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (securities fraud - 1
count)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (witness tampering
- 1 count)
18 U.S.C. § 1519 (obstruction of an
agency proceeding - 1 count)
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements - 2
counts)
18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting)
Notice of forfeiture
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
At all times relevant to this superseding indictment:
Introduction
The Defendant and His Company
1. CyberKey Solutions, Inc. (“CyberKey”), formerly known as CyberKey
Corporation, is a Nevada corporation headquartered in St. George, Utah. CyberKey is engaged
in the business of selling Universal Service Bus (“USB”) flash memory drives and other
electronic devices. Defendant JAMES PLANT is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of CyberKey.
2. CyberKey was formed by defendant JAMES PLANT sometime in 2001.
Sometime in 2003, defendant PLANT merged CyberKey with a publicly traded shell company
named Thin Express, Inc. Thereafter, CyberKey’s common stock was traded under the symbol
“CYKC,” and then later under the symbol “CKYS,” on the “Pink Sheets,” a quotation service for
over-the-counter stocks.
Other Relevant Entity
3. The United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a federal
agency whose stated mission is to prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and
respond to the hazards to the nation.
The Scheme to Defraud
4. As set forth more fully below, from in or about July 2005 through in or
about March 2007, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant JAMES
PLANT engaged in a scheme to defraud the members of the investing public in connection with
the purchase and sale of CyberKey common stock.
5. As part of this scheme, between December 8, 2005 and March 15, 2007,
defendant JAMES PLANT caused CyberKey to issue numerous press releases containing
materially false and misleading public statements, which were designed artificially to inflate the
market price of CyberKey common stock. As a further part of the scheme, defendant PLANT
caused CyberKey to retain Big Apple Consulting to generate interest in CyberKey common
stock. As defendant PLANT knew, Big Apple Consulting promoted CyberKey stock by calling
stock brokers across the country on the telephone and provided them with news about CyberKey.
Defendant PLANT knew that by providing Big Apple Consulting with the materially false and
public statements, Big Apple Consulting would pass those misstatements along to the stock
-
2
brokers contacted by Big Apple Consulting.
6. As set forth more fully below, the false and misleading public statements
issued by defendant JAMES PLANT concerned (a) a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order that
CyberKey had supposedly received from DHS; (b) falsely inflated revenues and profits that
CyberKey had supposedly realized from the fictitious DHS purchase order; (c) false
representations that CyberKey’s financial statements were in the process of being audited and
would be released in the near future; and (d) false representations that the misstatements
regarding the DHS purchase order in CyberKey’s press releases were the result of improper
accounting methods and reporting procedures.
7. As further part of this scheme, between on or about December 9, 2005 and
on or about January 29, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused CyberKey to issue more than
880 million shares of CyberKey common stock directly to various entities and individuals,
resulting in CyberKey receiving more than $2.5 million from the sale of CyberKey common
stock. As further part of this scheme, and during the same time period, defendant PLANT sold
millions of shares of his own personal CyberKey common stock directly to various individuals,
resulting in defendant PLANT receiving more than $1 million from the sale of CyberKey
common stock.
Misrepresentations Concerning The United States
Department of Homeland Security Purchase Order
8. As part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue press releases containing the following materially false and misleading public
statements concerning a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order that CyberKey supposedly
received from DHS, when as defendant PLANT knew, that DHS purchase order did not exist:
-
3
a. On or about December 8, 2005, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Receives Multi-Million
Dollar Purchase Order from the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that CyberKey
has received a multi-million Dollar purchase order from the Department of Homeland Security.
The initial purchase order is in excess of 150,000 units.” In this press release, defendant PLANT
was quoted as stating the following: “We are extremely pleased with the opportunity that we
have been granted to provide the Department of Homeland Security with our solutions.
Government/military sales will develop into a very profitable segment of CyberKey Solutions
Inc.”
b. On or about December 29, 2005, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Closes 2005 with a
Multi-Million Dollar Purchase Order from the Federal Government,” which repeated that
CyberKey had “close[d] 2005 successfully with a multi-million Dollar purchase order from the
Department of Homeland Security “ In this press release, defendant PLANT was quoted as
stating the following: “We are very happy with the response that we have been receiving and the
momentum that CyberKey has created. We are proud to be providing the Department of
Homeland Security and their service men and women with our solutions. This is only the
beginning. We expect many more great developments in 2006.”
c. On or about January 31, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Delivers Initial Shipment
Valued Over $4.2 Million to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
CyberKey had “delivered 33,000 CyberKey units, worth more than $4.2 Million, to the
-
4
Department of Homeland Security. This is the initial delivery of the total 150,000 unit and
multi-million dollar order submitted by the federal government.” In this press release, Plant was
quoted as stating the following: “We are extremely pleased to be providing solutions to the
Department of Homeland Security. Having achieved the important milestone signifies a new
stage in growth of our company.”
d. On or about February 23, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Engages Second
Manufacturing Facility to Fulfill Increased Number of Orders,” which stated that CyberKey had
“engaged with a second manufacturing facility in Northern California. This is in addition to
their first production facility located in China.” The press release continued that “[t]he new
facility will also allow CyberKey Corporation to continue delivering upon their order of 150,000
units to the Department of Homeland Security. This facility aids CyberKey Corporation in
meeting the requirements of the United States government, due to the fact that any company
which sells products to the federal government needs to manufacture those products within the
U.S.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as stating the following: “We are very
excited to bring on this manufacturing facility in order to assist in fulfilling the overwhelming
number of orders that CyberKey has received from different military and government agencies.”
e. On or about March 22, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation is Set to Deliver Second
Shipment Valued Over $4 Million to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
CyberKey had “received another delivery release and is shipping another 30,000 CyberKey
units, worth more than $4 Million, to the Department of Homeland Security. This is the second
-
5
delivery of the total 150,000 unit purchase order submitted.” In this press release, defendant
PLANT is quoted as stating the following: “We are incredibly excited to have supplied our
second shipment of solutions to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result of this
multi-million dollar order, we anticipate record breaking revenues that will be positively
reflected in the price per share.”
f. On or about July 25, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc.’s Board Approves Insiders
Purchase of up to Five Million Shares,” which stated that CyberKey’s “Board of Directors has
authorized its officers and directors to buy up to five million shares of common stock directly
from the open market. The Board’s decision was based upon the various events that have
already unfolded and what the Company believes will be happening in the near future as they
continue the fulfillment of the Department of Homeland Security purchase order for
$25,000,000.” In the same press release, defendant PLANT was quoted as stating the following:
“Our Directors feel that our shares are extremely undervalued at this time due to the orders we
have already received. We entered 2006 with a large purchase order from the Department of
Homeland Security for $25,000,000 and have already delivered half of that shipment.” Plant
continued that: “We expect to complete the entire order by the end of the year.”
g. On or about August 1, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Receives Forty-Thousand
Unit Purchase Order from the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that CyberKey’s
“$25,000,000 purchase order from the Department of Homeland Security has been increased by
40,000 units.” The press release continued by stating that “[t]he new order from the Department
-
6
of Homeland Security is estimated to be worth more than $600,000. The initial purchase order
from the Department of Homeland Security was for 150,000 CyberKey units, of which 63,000
have already been shipped.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as stating the
following: “This addition of 40,000 CyberKey BIO units is an exciting development for our
Company and our shareholders. By expanding our relationships with current customers and
increasing orders and revenue, we are continuing to prove that we are an undervalued company
with a profitable future.”
9. All of these statements were false and misleading because, as defendant
JAMES PLANT knew, CyberKey did not receive any purchase order from DHS and CyberKey
did not deliver any of its USB flash memory drives to DHS.
10. Representatives from DHS investigated CyberKey’s claims in its press
releases that CyberKey had received a purchase order from DHS. DHS determined that it had no
record of doing business with CyberKey. In or about September 2006, counsel for DHS
contacted defendant JAMES PLANT several times to attempt either to have CyberKey
substantiate its claim that CyberKey has a business relationship with DHS, or to withdraw those
press releases referencing that relationship. Neither defendant PLANT nor anyone from
CyberKey ever provided DHS with proof of such a business relationship.
11. On September 25, 2006, DHS issued a cease and desist letter to defendant
JAMES PLANT. In relevant part, the letter stated the following:
It has come to our attention that CyberKey Solutions, Inc. (“CYKS”) is
advertising and claiming a business relationship with the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) in its website press releases. The CYKS website
cites business with [DHS] in press releases dated August 1, 2006 and August 4,
2006 respectively.
-
7
The DHS Chief Information Officer has no knowledge of a contract with CYKS,
and CYKS could not be located in a recent search of the DHS contract database.
Despite repeated requests, CYKS has been unable to substantiate or verify that
CYKS has received a purchase order from DHS. Accordingly, the press releases
on the CYKS website are inappropriate and misleading. Therefore, we request
that you immediately remove the referenced press releases from your website and
halt the reference to business with DHS in any further press releases or
communications. We understand your company’s intent to market its products;
however, your company’s reference to business with DHS is inappropriate.
12. Despite the issuance of the cease and desist letter, defendant JAMES
PLANT failed to withdraw the false press releases referencing a business relationship between
CyberKey and DHS. On October 11, 2006, DHS representatives contacted defendant PLANT
concerning his failure to comply with the cease and desist letter, stated the following in a letter:
“Although you removed the DHS name from the press release header, your website still refers to
DHS in press releases dated August 1, 2006 and August 4, 2006. If all references to DHS are not
immediately removed from CyberKey’s website, we will contact the Justice Department and
pursue the Government’s legal remedies.”
13. Subsequent to DHS’s October 11, 2006 letter, PLANT revised
CyberKey’s previously-released press releases by replacing “Department of Homeland Security”
with more general descriptions, such as “Federal Government Agency” or “the Federal
Government.” The revised press releases continued to maintain, however, that CyberKey had a
$24.5 million purchase order, although they now stated that the purchase order was with an
unnamed large federal agency.
-
8
Misrepresentations Concerning Revenues from the
Fictitious DHS Purchase Order
14. As a further part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue press releases containing materially false and misleading public
statements concerning the revenues and profits that CyberKey had supposedly realized from the
fictitious DHS purchase order, when as defendant PLANT knew, CyberKey did not receive, and
did not expect to receive, any revenues or profits from the fictitious DHS purchase order:
a. On or about April 4, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Corporation Receives $4.2 Million
Payment for Initial Shipment to the Department of Homeland Security,” which stated that
“received a payment of $4.2 Million from the Department of Homeland Security for its initial
shipment of 33,000 CyberKey units. The total order submitted by the federal government is for
150,000 units and is expected to exceed $24 Million.” In the press release, defendant PLANT is
quoted as stating the following: “The relationship with the Department of Homeland Security
gives CyberKey a platform for generating a continuous revenue stream. We are very excited
about providing a suite of solutions to the Federal Government and the growth we are achieving
because of it.”
b. On or about July 28, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12 Million
in Earnings for First Two Quarters of 2006,” which stated that CyberKey had “reported total Net
Income of $12,152,060 for the first and second quarters of 2006. The press release further stated
that “CyberKey Solutions total income was $25,050,708.23 which includes the purchase order
from the Department of Homeland Security for 150,000 CyberKey units,” and that “CyberKey
-
9
Solutions posted a Gross Profit of 12,806,298.97 with total expenses of only $654,238.78 for the
first 6 months of 2006. As a result, CyberKey’s Net profit of more than $12 Million yielded an
earnings per share of more than $.027.” In the same press release, defendant PLANT was quoted
as stating the following: “These financial statements are an accurate reflection of the progress
that we made this year. We continue to exceed expectations and show the financial community
that we are grossly undervalued at this point in our corporate growth.”
c. Referenced in the July 28, 2006 press release, and available on
public Internet websites, were CyberKey’s unaudited financial statements for the first and
second quarters of 2006. The financial statements contained the same revenue and profit
numbers contained in the July 28, 2006 press release. Although the financial statements were
unaudited, defendant PLANT personally signed a certification of the financial statements as
follows:
“I, Jim Plant, CyberKey Solutions Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify that the financial statements filed herewith and any notes
thereto, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows for the periods presented, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, consistently
applied.”
d. On or about January 29, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12.5 Million
in Net Earnings and $33 Million in Revenues for 2006,” which stated that CyberKey had
reported “earnings of $12,884,030 for the fiscal year 2006.” The press release continued that
“CyberKey Solutions has generated over $33,000,000 in revenues, which includes the purchase
order from various federal government agencies for 150,000 CyberKey units. CyberKey has
also reported total assets exceeding $28,000,000, which is a 45% increase over the $19,500,000
-10
in assets reported for the first half of 2006.” In this press release, defendant PLANT is quoted as
stating the following: “This was truly an amazing year for the growth of our company and it is
reflected in our financial statements. We will continue to aggressively market our cutting edge
security solutions and product line to our ever expanding list of vertical markets.”
e. Referenced in the January 29, 2007 press release, and available on
public Internet websites, were CyberKey’s unaudited financial statements for all four quarters of
2006. The financial statements contained the same revenue and profit numbers contained in the
January 29, 2007 press release. Although the financial statements were unaudited, defendant
PLANT again personally signed a certification of the financial statements as follows:
“I, Jim Plant, CyberKey Solutions Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify that the financial statements filed herewith and any notes
thereto, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows for the periods presented, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, consistently
applied.”
15. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant JAMES
PLANT knew, the supposed purchase order from DHS did not exist. Thus, CyberKey did not
receive, and did not expect to receive, any revenue or profits from sales of USB flash memory
drives to DHS.
Misrepresentations Concerning the Auditing
of CyberKey’s Financial Statements
16. As a further part of the scheme to defraud, defendant JAMES PLANT
caused CyberKey to issue press releases containing materially false and misleading public
statements concerning Cyberkey’s false representations that its financial statements were in the
process of being audited and would be released in the near future, when as defendant PLANT
-11
knew, CyberKey did not expect to release audited financial statements in that time period:
a. On or about July 28, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release entitled “CyberKey Solutions, Inc. Reports Over $12 Million
in Earnings for First Two Quarters of 2006,” which stated that CyberKey was “currently in the
process of auditing their financial statements and is expecting to file them in the near future.”
b. On or about December 20, 2006, defendant JAMES PLANT
falsely announced in a paid-for video interview broadcast on a publicly available Internet
website that CyberKey’s audited financial statements would be publicly released in “two or three
weeks.”
17. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant
JAMES PLANT knew, at the time CyberKey issued those public statements, CyberKey did not
expect to release audited financial statements in the near future.
Misrepresentations Concerning The Events Surrounding the
Discovery of the Fictitious DHS Purchase Order
18. On or about March 15, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT caused
CyberKey to issue a press release designed to reassure members of the investing public. This
press release acknowledged that CyberKey did not have a purchase order directly with DHS, but
claimed that defendant PLANT was not involved in, and had no knowledge of, the non-existence
of the DHS purchase order. Specifically, the press release stated that CyberKey had never
received any revenues, or realized any profits, from the supposed DHS purchase order. The
press release claimed that the prior misstatements were issued because “a certain company
official has utilized improper accounting methods and reporting procedures while handling
critical company contracts.” The press release added that the DHS purchase order “was not
-12
directly with DHS but instead with a third party distributor that was representing it was having
the Cyberkey products delivered directly to DHS facilities in different locations.” The press
release continued that this unnamed third party never shipped any products to DHS as promised.
The press release explained that CyberKey did not receive any revenues because the unnamed
third party “circumvented [CyberKey’s] relationship with its manufacturer in China and secured
direct payment and delivery of the Cyberkey products without paying Cyberkey anything.”
Finally, the press release claimed that CyberKey’s controller “had improperly entered financial
data into the accounting system and had forged critical documents and other material
information.”
19. In the same press release, defendant JAMES PLANT was quoted as
stating the following: “I am deeply troubled by the findings related to the accounting practices of
our company. I apologize to our shareholders and the investment community for these problems,
which happened on my watch but without my knowledge. I am fully committed to resolving all
remaining issues as quickly as possible and to putting the proper remedial measures in place to
ensure that this never happens again. We will be releasing corrected financial statements as soon
as practicable. We will be updating the investors through our website as more information
becomes available.”
20. These statements were false and misleading because, as defendant JAMES
PLANT knew, defendant PLANT, and not CyberKey’s controller, Ruth Lane, charged elsewhere
herein, was responsible for creating the fictitious DHS purchase order and carrying out the
scheme to defraud. These statements were also false and misleading because, as defendant
PLANT knew, the reason why CyberKey never realized any revenues from the DHS purchase
-13
order was not because a third-party had circumvented its relationship with CyberKey, but rather
because no DHS purchase order ever existed.
Statutory Violation
21. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES PLANT
did knowingly and willfully use and employ, and aided and abetted the use and employment of,
manipulative and deceptive devices and contrivances, directly and indirectly, in violation of Rule
10b-5 of the Rules and Regulations of the SEC (Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
240.10b-5), in that the defendant did knowingly and willfully, directly and indirectly (a) employ
devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; (b) make untrue statements of material fact and omit to
state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engage in acts, practices, and courses of business
which would and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the members of the investing public, in
connection with purchases and sales of CyberKey stock, by the use of the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails.
In violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78ff; Title 17,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
-14
COUNT TWO
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count One are incorporated here by reference.
2. In or about early November 2006, the SEC began an informal inquiry
concerning defendant JAMES PLANT’s and CyberKey’s claims that it had received a $24.5
million purchase order from DHS. During the same time, the SEC contacted defendant JAMES
PLANT and requested that defendant PLANT contact the SEC regarding those claims.
3. On or about November 30, 2006, in response to a written request from the
SEC, defendant JAMES PLANT, through CyberKey’s counsel, produced to the SEC a purchase
order for USB drives totaling approximately $25 million and purporting to be between a
company named Leading Points and DHS. Through CyberKey’s counsel, defendant PLANT
also produced to the SEC two invoices totaling approximately $9.3 million and purporting to be
from CyberKey to Leading Points. Through CyberKey’s counsel, defendant PLANT explained
that CyberKey’s DHS purchase order was actually through Leading Points as a third-party
intermediary. Defendant PLANT also explained through CyberKey’s counsel that both invoices
had been paid by Leading Points. DHS later determined that there was no business relationship
between DHS and any company called Leading Points.
4. On or about February 2, 2007, the SEC began a formal investigation of
CyberKey concerning defendant JAMES PLANT’s and CyberKey’s claims that it had received a
$24.5 million purchase order from DHS.
5. On or about February 9, 2007, via facsimile, in response to a subpoena
request from the SEC to CyberKey, defendant JAMES PLANT submitted to the SEC through
-15
CyberKey’s counsel a document purporting to show that CyberKey’s $24.5 million purchase
order with DHS was actually through a company called Kikomac as a third-party intermediary.
As part of that same submission, defendant PLANT, through CyberKey’s counsel, also
submitted to the SEC via facsimile four invoices purporting to be from CyberKey to Kikomac.
Defendant PLANT further provided the SEC with banking and wire transfer documents
purporting to show five wire transfer payments -- totaling approximately $26.5 million -- paid
from Kikomac’s bank account in Hong Kong to CyberKey’s bank account in St. George, Utah.
On or about February 12, 2007, the SEC received the same documents from defendant PLANT
and CyberKey via Federal Express.
6. As defendant JAMES PLANT knew, all of the documents described in
paragraph 5 were false and fraudulent because he instructed defendant RUTH LANE to create
those documents using false information supplied by defendant PLANT. As defendant PLANT
further knew, defendant LANE created each of the false documents using a personal computer at
CyberKey. Defendant PLANT later instructed defendant LANE to submit the false and
fraudulent documents both to the SEC and to CyberKey’s counsel.
7. On or about February 9, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia
and the District of Utah, defendants
JAMES PLANT and
RUTH LANE
knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, and falsified, and aided and abetted the alteration,
destruction, mutilation and falsification of, records, documents, and tangible objects, that is: (1)
bank records from CyberKey’s corporate bank account and wire transfer documents purporting
to show wire transfer payments from Kikomac to CyberKey; and (2) invoices from CyberKey to
-16
Kikomac purporting to show that CyberKey had billed Kikomac for products shipped to DHS,
with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a
matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which
is an agency of the United States.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1519 and 2.
-17
COUNT THREE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count One and paragraphs 2 through 6 of
Count Two are incorporated here by reference.
2. On or about March 7, 2007, defendant JAMES PLANT provided sworn
testimony during a deposition to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) concerning a fictitious purchase order to the United States Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”). During the deposition, defendant PLANT stated, among other things, that the
DHS purchase order was not directly between DHS and CyberKey Solutions Inc. (“CyberKey”),
but rather was through a different company called Kikomac as the third-party intermediary.
Defendant PLANT further stated that CyberKey had received each of the above-described five
wire transfer payments from Kikomac. DHS later determined that there was no business
relationship between DHS and any company called Kikomac.
3. As defendant JAMES PLANT knew, those statements were false and
misleading because CyberKey did not have a purchase order with DHS, either directly or
indirectly through a third-party intermediary, and therefore CyberKey did not receive any wire
transfer payments in connection with the fictitious DHS purchase order.
4. On or about March 7, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia,
defendant
JAMES PLANT,
in a matter within the jurisdiction of the SEC, an agency of the executive branch of the
government of the United States, knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and
-18
fraudulent statements and representations, stating in sworn testimony before the SEC: (a) that
CyberKey had a $24.5 million purchase order with DHS through a third-party, when in fact
defendant PLANT knew that CyberKey had no such business relationship, either directly or
indirectly, with DHS, and (b) that CyberKey had received payments from a third party on the
$24.5 million DHS purchase order, when in fact defendant PLANT knew that CyberKey had not
received any such payments relating to the fulfillment of the fictitious DHS purchase order.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
-19
COUNT FOUR
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count Two, paragraphs 2 through 6 of Count
Two, and paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Three are incorporated here by reference.
2. On March 7,2007, after providing sworn testimony to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), defendant JAMES PLANT called Ruth Lane,
charged elsewhere herein, and told her that the SEC had found out that the banking and wire
transfer documents they had submitted to the SEC were fabricated. After defendant PLANT and
Lane agreed that Lane would take sole responsibility for creating and submitting the false
documents to the SEC, defendant PLANT instructed Lane to resign her position as the controller
of CyberKey Solutions Inc. (“CyberKey”). Defendant PLANT further instructed Lane to sign a
written statement falsely stating that she alone was responsible for creating the false documents
submitted to the SEC, and that defendant PLANT had no knowledge that she had done so.
3. Immediately after speaking with defendant JAMES PLANT, Ruth Lane, at
the instruction of defendant PLANT, resigned as the controller of CyberKey and signed a written
statement falsely admitting that she alone was responsible for creating the false documents
submitted to the SEC, and that defendant PLANT had no knowledge that she had done so.
4. On or about March 7, 2007, in the District for the District of Columbia,
and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES PLANT
corruptly persuaded, attempted to corruptly persuade, and engaged in misleading conduct
toward, Ruth Lane, charged elsewhere herein, by instructing her to provide a signed statement
-20
falsely taking sole responsibility for the creation of false documents associated with a fictitious
$24.5 million purchase order between CyberKey Solutions Inc. and the United States
Department of Homeland Security, and to absolve defendant PLANT of the same conduct, with
the intent to influence, delay, and prevent her testimony for use in a federal criminal
investigation subsequently instituted within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(b)(1).
-21
COUNT FIVE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count Two, paragraphs 2 through 6 of Count
Two, paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Three, and paragraphs 2 through 3 of Count Four are
incorporated here by reference.
2. On or about March 13, 2007, in the District of Utah, defendant
RUTH LANE,
in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and United
States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), both agencies of the executive branch of the
government of the United States, knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statement and representation, in that defendant LANE told a Special Agent of the FBI
and a Postal Inspector of the USPIS that James Plant, charged elsewhere herein, was not
involved in a scheme to defraud concerning a fictitious $24.5 million purchase order between
CyberKey and the United States Department of Homeland Security, when in fact, as defendant
LANE knew, Plant devised and carried out that scheme to defraud.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
-22
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. As a result of the violations of Title 15, United States Code, Sections
78j(b), 78ff and Title 17 Code Federal Regulations § 240.10b-5 set forth in this superseding
indictment, defendant
JAMES PLANT
shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of such offenses, including, but not limited
to, the sum of $3.5 million.
2. If any of the property subject to forfeiture, 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
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
-23
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of the defendant up to the value of the property subject to forfeiture.
All pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) and Title 18, United
States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C).
A TRUE BILL:
FOREPERSON
PATRICK L. MEEHAN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
-24
A little update on the Former Reseller CKYS which still owes SQUM money.....I doubt they are going to get any of it.....
Posted by: jking1999
In reply to: rollwthechanges who wrote msg# 79255
Date:7/12/2007 3:16:05 PM
Post #of 79260
ALERT!!!! A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT has been filed, and shows up in the criminal court docket as of today.
JAMES PLANT (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, RUTH LANE (2) count(s) 2, 5. (jh, ) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
Plant has been indicted on 4 courts, and Ruth on 2. Count 2, which they have been jointly indicted on, has to do with them both destroying company records regarding the non-existent DHS contract.
Just gets more interesting each day
rheddie
The RED FLAG is IMO.......and since you just stated the TA is GAGGED here........ANY COMPANY that has a GAGGED T/A in my book is a HUGE RED FLAG.....one of the biggest.......let me know if they remove that GAG.........Today the PPS is dropping yet lower again today.......not good for those who hold.......the combination of associating with UMNG and a GAGGED T/A is not a good sign here........I know nothing other than those two items about this company but that is enough at this juncture to keep my money safely tucked away........like i said.......let me know if things change here and your comments are always welcome and I appreciate your input.........take care and good luck to you...
IF I WAS INVESTED IN UMNG............
This is what I would be doing at this juncture.......
I would contact every single shareholder I could and make a list of names and the amount of shares owned........I would then appoint a spokesman for our group and then contact the CEO.....we will use CEO as we do not know what name he is using this week.......
Before contacting the CEO I would ask which shareholders are ready to SELL and which shareholders are ready to pursue legal action for an investigation into the PR's and information the company has put out.........
Then I would contact the CEO and let him know there is about to be a huge sell off driving the PPS into the DIRT and following legal action up to and including a request to the SEC to look into the activities of UMNG..........unless the following is done ASAP.
Disclose Andrea Cortellazzi's Position in the Company.
UN-GAG the Transfer AGENT ASAP......All Information to anyone who calls.........No Questions ASKED.......
Disclose the NAME of the GEOLOGIST ASAP.......
Update the N.Y.STATE DIVISION of CORPORATIONS with the REQUIRED BIENIAL STATEMENT.......ASAP
Publicly DISLCLOSE the CURRENT FULL SHARE STRUCTURE......ASAP to include any restricted shares etc........ALL OF IT! ASAP......
Publicley DISCLOSE ALL EMPLOYEES NAMES..........ASAP
FILE THE FORM 10 ASAP...............
PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE TSX VENTURE COMPANY......ASAP
PROVIDE HOW MANY SHARES HAVE BEEN BOUGHT BACK TO DATE and HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BE BOUGHT BACK...........ASAP
I would Give the CEO 10 Business DAYS to ACCOMPLISH the Above which is not unreasonable........it could be done in probably half the time IMO.........if he REFUSES I would SELL with the other members of the group........and pursue legal action in a BIG WAY..............the above is not unreasonable requests......the company put the information out there but has failed to follow through or provide certain information as investors see the value of their investment drop day after day while the company keeps putting out FWD looking PR's with no substance...........will someone at some point step up and put the pressure on Cortellazzi and crew to do what is right for the shareholders who have been supporting thier company?
Looks like CRAZYJIM the new Chairman got results and made his own best deal in what looks like some restricted shares for him......unless you think he is doing it for FREE? LOL! Good luck everyone..........
Quote of the DAY! REF..UMNG
"The company and its shareholders will get real value for the isuing of the 25million reg 144 shares. These shares can not be sold for 2 years. Share holder equity is not diluted when they receive value. It becomes a status quo. Actually the share holders benefit by receiving the value of the acquisition before the shares can be sold."
***With that said, How has it affected shareholder value? what has it done to the PPS? its gone down........and down...........and down..............anyone thinking DILUTION has not been ongoing for months is DELUSIONAL.....and to think it wont continue is just ludicrous........A little DD and History on Cortellazzi and DeMontigny would have clued you in long ago what was on the agenda for this company.....its called printing and selling shares........its what they have allways done and will do until they get caught for putting out false and misleading PR's to the public in attempt to sell shares......How is that Share BUY BACK COMING ALONG? And why is the NAME of the TSX VENTURE still a MYSTERY? on JUNE 7th the company stated it would release the DETAILS of the Acquisition the next week? Its well over a month later and they release a Duplicate PR on this ACQUISITION and the only thing you know now that you did not know then is that they are going to give away 25 MILLION SHARES! is that the DETAILS they were referring too? Pretty Pathetic if you ask me.......
Unreal! These guys Put out PR after PR about things being COMPLETED but then in the same PR have nothing but FWD looking statements about completing the COMPLETED ITEM! LOL!!!!!!!! How many times can they acquire a control position WITHOUT ever NAMING THE COMPANY? Good GRIEF!!!!!!! And I find it Hilarious they keep talking about Financing with NO DILUTION...while in the same paragraph talk about giving away MILLIONS OF SHARES! They can call it what they want to but the results have been the same.......a sinking PPS and thats what matters to shareholders...its another DILUTION/CASH COW/ Personal ATM MACHINE for Cortellazzi and the boys up north....they will be CREATING THE MANANGEMENT TEAM for MONTHS on END.......they will be CREATING the BUSINESS PLAN and CHANGING the BUSINESS PLAN over and over again........while never producing revenues and increasing the share structure behind the scenes as the PPS goes Lower and lower.........its what they do!
U Mining Resources Inc. Announces Closing of TSX Venture Corporation Acquisition
Management Provides Update on Corporate Development and Operational Plan
U Mining Resources Inc.
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - July 12, 2007) - U Mining Resources Inc. (PINKSHEETS: UMNG) today announced that it has completed the acquisition of the TSX Venture Corporation.
After completing the due diligence analysis of the TSX Venture Corporation, management has deemed that it is in the best interests of U Mining to consummate the transaction as follows. The total consideration of the transaction represents an aggregate amount of $ 350,000 payable via the issuance of 25 million restricted shares of U Mining at a market value of $ 0.07. The shares are currently held in escrow until the transaction is officially approved by the TSX shareholders and regulating authorities, and are issued to the benefit of U Mining's control position; thereby consolidating the strength of the Company.
Secondly, the agreement stipulates that following the approval of the transaction U Mining will roll in one of its properties in return for additional shares, which would increase U Mining's control position. This allows U Mining's subsidiary to complete a first round of financing through a private placement of $ 1.5 million.
Management will prepare all the documentation and filings for a flow-through share prospectus for a second round of financing for a total of $ 2.5 million, and fulfill all the reporting requirements of the TSX Venture Exchange. Canadian investors will be able to purchase U Mining's subsidiary stock and claim a major tax deduction on their investment (see links below for further information). U Mining will also be able to consolidate the TSX Venture Corporation's financial statements with its own statements. This transaction will bring the total issued and outstanding shares of U Mining to 75 million.
***HEY KLON What happened to the NOT GOING OVER 50 Million? LOL! Ooops scratch that PLAN!!!!!!Its just the tip of the iceberg Klon..I bet the O/S already sits at 75 Million, Its going to get much larger! just watch and see.....
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/mines/fiscal/Accreditives-2004.pdf
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/mines/fiscal/fiscal-support-flow.jsp
CEO Jean-Michel de Montigny indicated the following: "This is the best financing tool we could have chosen. We have to be realistic. After only 7 months of an intensive and efficient acquisition program of key high-grade Uranium properties, and development costs reattached to operations, we had to find an effective way of financing the prospecting activities without causing further stock dilution. The activities include: production of several NI-43-101 technical reports, drilling sessions and subsequently production. Secondly, I believe the Company is privileged due to the fact that all of the ongoing acquisition and development expenses including the cost of the TSX have been financed by the control interest group. The information on all past and current investments will be made available shortly to all shareholders in our financial statements.
"Finally, I would like to inform our shareholders that we are attentively monitoring the value of our stock while we accumulate resources and complete our management team. However, our main goal remains intact that involves focusing our efforts on building a profitable Company. The stock price, which we believe to be currently undervalued, should soon more accurately reflect the Company's true value based on the successful results of our hard work and patience."
For more information on U Mining Resources Inc., please visit the Company's corporate website at www.umining.com, and/or speak with one of the Investor Communications Representatives at U Mining's Investor Relations firm Equiti-trend Advisors. Reps are available on market days from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT by calling (800) 953-3350.
Forward-Looking Statements:
Please be advised that statements made herein, other than historical data, constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated or implied by such forward-looking statements. The potential risks and uncertainties include, among others, potential volatility in the company's stock price, increased competition, customer acceptance of new products and services offered by the company, and uncertainty of future revenue and profitability and fluctuations in its quarterly operating results. Please also be advised that the company's stock is not currently registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contact:
Investor Relations:
Equiti-trend Advisors
(800) 953-3350
http://www.umining.com
Take Note of the date of this next PR......they stated the DETAILS of the Transaction would be released in a WEEK.....its over a MONTH later and you have the ABOVE PR which is basically the same crap as below with the exception of everyone just found out that they are going to give away 25 MILLION SHARES!! In Every PR they say the DEAL iS COMPLETED? But NO NAME of the COMPANY.......No Name or quote from anyone anywhere..Hey Michel/AKA how is the SHARE BUY BACK COMING ALONG?
U Mining Resources Inc. Acquires Control Position of TSX Venture Corporation
Thursday June 7, 8:30 am ET
Acquisition Facilitates Financing of Exploration via Flow-Through Share Program
NEW YORK, June 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - U Mining Resources Inc. (Pink Sheets: UMNG - News), today announced that it has acquired the control position of a TSX Venture Corporation.
Management explained that pursuant to receiving the results of the NI-43-101 Reports, there is a very high probability that geologists will recommend a major drilling program to tripod and circumvent the key areas and to quantify the concentrations and values of the deposits.
The total cost of a major drilling program is estimated up to $2 to $3 million. U Mining's acquisition of the control position of the TSX Venture Corporation will allow it to raise exploration capital through the Canadian Corporation without stock dilution. Furthermore, this acquisition will increase investor and market awareness of U Mining by effectively capturing the attention and interest of a large group of potential shareholders who primarily invest in TSX Venture listed companies.
***That last sentence is what Cortellazzi and AKA are all about folks..CAPTURING the ATTENTION and Money of investors..its a chess game to them.......its about carefully worded PR's to gain interest so they can print and sell shares....and that is most likely all that will ever take place with this company...just like all other Cortellazzi/De-montigny companies..its what they do!
Management intends to prepare all the documentation and filings for a flow-through share prospectus, and fulfill all the reporting requirements of the TSX Venture Exchange. Canadian investors will be able to claim a tax deduction equal to 140% of their investment in the flow-through shares. There is no minimum investment requirement in order to take advantage of this tax benefit. U Mining will also be able to consolidate the TSX Venture Corporation's financial statements with its own statements. The Company will disclose the details of this transaction next week.
Management stated: "We firmly believes that this key strategic decision will be very beneficial to our corporation and shareholders."
Management also reiterated that all the results of the NI-43-101 reports will be published as soon as the geologists complete their analysis.
Forward-Looking Statements:
Please be advised that statements made herein, other than historical data, constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated or implied by such forward-looking statements. The potential risks and uncertainties include, among others, potential volatility in the company's stock price, increased competition, customer acceptance of new products and services offered by the company, and uncertainty of future revenue and profitability and fluctuations in its quarterly operating results. Please also be advised that the company's stock is not currently registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And Just for Fun here is the link to the share buy back PR.....gee one minute ya think the share structure is going to shrink and the PPS is going to rise......the next minute the PPS is still falling and the company is announcing giving away 25 Million shares and still wont tell you who they are giving it too......still wont tell you who the geologist is.......still have ZERO N.I.'s..............STILL HAVE NOT FILED a FORM 10! on and on and on..............
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070622/0269835.html
And No Sellers.....why? eom
ANTICIPATION...this is like Heinz Catsup! EOM
rheddie
The Reason I painted ABVG with a RED FLAG now is because of their association with UMNG.......Birds of Feather basically........
Has the management and shareholders here been duped by Cortellazzi and company? only time will tell........until then I treat any company that gets in bed with De Montigny and cortellazzi as SUSPECT thus warranting a very cautious approach.......
eye
Not know what is going on?
Did I and others not know what was going on with ckys? Many posted as you just have suggesting we had no clue etc........then Reality and the SEC set in big time......
As far as No vested interest? You are correct.....I have not invested one Penny in any cortellazzi/AKA company..nor will I ever......and the following is a repeat of what one of the IHUB admins recently stated......
"I don't play baseball but have opinions the sport. I'm not a politician but have opinions about politics. I'm not a comedian but have a sense of humor. What did you see in the rules of the site that makes ownership of a stock or stocks in general a condition for participation? I must have missed it."
***So basically the Verifiable DD presented and or Opinions expressed here or on other boards is allowed by IHUB and it matters not whether one is invested or not, just ask a few CKYS holders whether it mattered if I or others were invested when giving them valuable information.....I would be more concerned about the information being presented from someone who has invested lots of money in the stock vs someone who has no vested interest......I have nothing to lose or gain......they do......THINK ABOUT IT!
As far as your comments about SQUM.....you are welcome to post your opinions here....Positive or negative......right or wrong......we allow that here on the FNF board....and with that said.....SQUM is a fully reporting company........verifiable Partnerships........verifiable company officers........verifiable revenues........verifiable share structure.....real products.......real sales.....
Has the PPS suffered as of late and has there been some slight Dilution in the stock? You bet.......am I happy about it? Nope........Am I still invested and did I add shares this week and last week? YUP..............why? THINK ABOUT IT!
SQUM has Verifiable Front and Center Information.......
UMNG has FWD looking PR's........and PR's that have not come to fruition......over and over.........if you choose to invest or stay invested....I do not believe anyone here has told you too buy, sell or hold that stock.......you can disagree with the information presented here if you wish......but bring the Facts if you wish to debate....you are going up against the A TEAM and post that state we "have no clue" hold little merit here when the authors of those posts have supported and moderated on failed stock after failed stock.....FCCN,TYHR,UMNG,HRRN,MRES etc..etc....Big LEAGUES? LOL!
league?
Why that is not very hard to figure out analog....one only need look at the DD offered up by those supporting the company which has been consistently off the mark over and over....
And is UMNG in the Same League as FCCN,TYHR,PDSF?
What league do you think the following is in?
We HAVE FINANCING WITH TRIMAX,BEAR STERNS ETC>.!!!!
***POOF...GONE....LIKE IT NEVER EXISTED.....
We are going to have N.I.'s and Uplist!
***June HAS PAST...still NOTHING!
***STILL NOT ONE NAME OF ANY GEOLOGIST.......
***CEO USING TWO DIFFERENT NAMES? BIG LEAGUES YOU SAY? Is he playing for two different TEAMS? is that the reason for multiple names?
***Hiring a Guy who cant spell as the chairman who is a locust and begged to be one and posts on chat boards? LOL! you call that big league?
***And last but not least.....why dont you go ask all the previous BAG HOLDERS in Cortellazzi and AKA companies and ask them HOW BIG LEAGUE they think little ole name changing,ticker symbol changing, increasing share structure and TANKING PPS UMNG is!
That tells the story Analog........if it was big league the company officers would have BEEN KNOWN.....they would have been PROUD to put their name in PR's and on official company documents like a Bienial Statement with the state of N.Y. Division Of corporations..etc.........but instead you have people hiding in the shadows with very shady histories.....
Big Leagues is REVENUES..........BIG LEAGUES is VERIFIABLE DATA...A GEOLOGISTS NAME.......CURRENT N.I.'S.........a FORM 10 WHICH WAS PROMISED LONG AGO........etc........
Instead this is what you have since January.......
A PPS that was in the HIGH .30 Range that now sits in the .04 Range!..........
Transfer Agent who will only give you limited information and only if you cough up all your personal information......
Increasing Share structure.....Float was reported at 3.5 million....then it was 8 Million......now its god knows what..seems to just keep growing...and growing.......
A Name Change...........
A Ticker Symbol Change....
A CEO who is using TWO Names...
A NEW Chairman who posts on IHUB who cant spell and calls himself crazyjim or CheapJim who wants restricted shares in payment........
Please Let me know if I missed any Significant Material Events that have occurred with UMNG other than the above that are verifiable and supported in something other than a fwd looking PR with no names on them.......
BIG LEAGUES?..........Next Case.....
Just got back in and see my excitement was premature....boy when I saw the volume spike quicky I was thinking something was up.......but just another day at the office for SQUM.....
as for UMNG and the NEW Message board poster turned Chairman and still posting I have to laugh.........crazyJim who now wants to be called Cheap Jim is already expecting to get paid in Restricted shares etc.......
Pretty sad when the company is seeking out members of a tout group on message boards as its executives.......looks to me to be nothing more than a future fall guy who will probably end up sending emails out similar to joel fourniers in a few months.......
Here is a hint crazyjim.......mr.fournier stated he NEVER GOT PAID......do you think you will?
And a message to the investors....if the company has ZERO revenues then guess who is paying ole crazyjim? You will be if cortellazzi does not screw over jim like they did joel........
one thing is consistent with cortellazzi and AKA.......the investors always seem to take a beating......
How is that bienial statement coming along there AKA? Pretty elusive piece of paper to file dont ya think? Afraid to put one of your names on it?
Volume SPIKED! someone just bought a bunch..GET READY!
Whats up with the SUDDEN VOLUME ON SQUM? Here we Go BOYS!
RED ALERTS..........TOO RISKY........TOO MANY RED FLAGS.....
UMNG
TYHR
PDSF
MRES
HRRN
FCCN
RSDS
ABVG
COHG
DEAD
CKYS
Its Tanking......eom
CRAZY JIM.........your new UMNG Chairman of the board?
Posted by: jim16640
In reply to: jim16640 who wrote msg# 9617
Date:3/27/2007 12:00:16 PM
Post #of 14458
i still own all my stock, so does klong.
we will thrive and get very rich on this stock.crazy jim of maryland
To the Editor:
Senator Roy Dyson is doing some great things for Maryland Veterans and their widows.
Yesterday, at Cheltenham Veterans Cemetery, I joined Senator Roy Dyson at meeting he had Secretary George Owings of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs, and veterans from Maryland so that he could hear our views about our five Maryland State Veterans Cemeteries.
At the meeting, Senator Roy Dyson expressed his strong interest in our opinions and openly shared with us his knowledge beginning in 1978 of what the Maryland Legislature has been doing to help our veterans as they get older and face death.
Senator Dyson also talked to us about what he is doing to make sure our State Cemeteries have the resources and equipment they need to do their jobs.
Senator Dyson has solidly and soundly supported the men and women fighting overseas by supporting efforts to provide financial relief to help make this tremendous sacrifice a little easier for the members and their families, and ensuring that our veterans receive the benefits they were promised when they agreed to defend freedom.
Because of Senator Dyson - our Maryland veterans are awarded the lasting honor of a dignified burial AT NO COST.
Being in the military 32 years, it was a wonderful surprise to me to find out from Secretary George Owings that Maryland State provides free burial for all our veterans, and for a very small fee, around $350 the veterans pounce and dependent children can be buried at the same gave site.
FREE BURIALS for veterans is a wonderful surprise to me. As I face my older age, i was looking at how I was trying to save money to somehow cover the expense of a $15,000 or more for a burial in a local cemetery.
Now I find out I do not have to worry about that. It gives me a great feeling and really makes me feel good to be retired and living in Maryland.
I think Maryland Department of Veteran Affairs is perfuming and providing a wonderful program for our veterans.
Inadditition to Secretary George Owings attending Senator Dyson's meeting were war hero Clancy Lyall of Band of Brothers fame (Chairman of the Veterans Advisory Committee for the four Counties of Southern Maryland) and Superintendent Martin Fahey, of Cheltenham Veterans Cemetery.
Secretary Owings briefed the veterans, explaining the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs has largest program to support Veterans than any other state in the United States.
Maryland citizens wanting to find out more information about the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs programs, can find all they need to know via internet at mdva.state.md.us.
There is alot of information about veteran retirement homes, our five Maryland state operated veterans cemeteries - and how to apply online for burial interment via internet.
At yesterday's meeting, Senator Roy Dyson was decisive in providing the key support for the Department of Veterans Affairs as outlined by Secretary George Owings.
Secretary Owings announced the establishment of a new volunteer program for high school students to earn community support work hours; and our famous war hero, Clancy Lyall took on the mission of contacting veterans organizations to visit high schools to bring this new program to the attention of school administrators - so that their students needing to earn community project work hours - can participate. Of particular interest from Secretary Owings view point was the need for citizens to go to the cemeteries and report back to his staff the areas that need maintenance or improvement. High school students needing to achieve their 90 hour community service work, would be ideal for this effort.
Since 1978 - Roy Dyson has risen as the key supporter of Veterans programs in the State of Maryland.
Without Senator Roy Dyson there would be no state veterans cemeteries in operation today in Maryland, why, because in early 1970's he was the guy that got the ground.....for the newest cemetery.....and now we have free funerals for those veterans that risked their lives in protecting our freedom; and now is the man that finds the money.
We veterans in Southern Maryland need to stand strong and protect our vital interests, and along that path, I think we need to show our strong appreciation for the patriotic public service of our State Senator, the Honorable Roy Dyson.
Thanks for taking the time to read my letter.
Colonel James H. Krilich, USAR Retired
Dameron
Life Member DAV, MOAA, ROA, NGAUS, VFW, DAV, American Legion