Pharm Control Ltd. (fka PMCL)

[PhillyPA65]

SEC v DeFreitas (August 10, 2010)

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 62677/August 10, 2010

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-13923

In the Matter of STANTON B.J. DEFREITAS

ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING SANCTION BY DEFAULT

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued its Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) on June 4, 2010, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Commission delivered the OIP to an agent for Respondent Stanton B.J. DeFreitas (DeFreitas) on June 15, 2010. The time for filing an Answer expired and no Answer was received.

I required DeFreitas to show cause why he should not be held in default and why he should not be barred from association with any broker or dealer. The time for replying to the Order to Show Cause has expired, and no reply has been received. Accordingly, DeFreitas is in default. See Rules 155(a) and 220(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. As authorized by Rule of Practice 155(a), the following allegations of the OIP are deemed to be true.

DeFreitas, age thirty-four, is a dual citizen of Canada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines and resides in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. For a portion of the time in which he engaged in the conduct underlying the complaint described below, DeFreitas was also an associated person of a broker-dealer registered with the Commission.

On March 26, 2010, a default judgment was entered against DeFreitas, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), future violations Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and participating directly or indirectly in the offering of penny stock pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act. SEC v. Boock, No. 09-CV-8261 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Commission's complaint alleged that for a period of years through mid-2007, DeFreitas, along with other named defendants, hijacked defunct publicly-traded corporations or their identities, for use by private corporations passing themselves off as the defunct publicly-traded corporations, and offered and sold securities of the hijacked or hijacking entities in violation of the antifraud and registration requirements of the federal securities laws.

In light of the foregoing, it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors to bar DeFreitas from association with any broker or dealer.

IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Stanton B.J. DeFreitas is barred from association with any broker or dealer.

James T. Kelly
Administrative Law Judge

Source: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2010/34-62677.pdf