CCTC vindicated - Present Clean Coal Technology (CCTC) and preset officers are vindicated in actual SEC civil case. The charges from the SEC civil case filing in SEC v. Douglas D. Hague and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 0:12-cv-61076-WJZ (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida)- the charges in actual document are:
1. From July through August 2009, Defendants Douglas D. Hague and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving the company's illicit kickbacks of Clean Coal stock to induce purchases and phony documents to mask those kickbacks.
2. As part of the scheme, Hague and a consultant for Clean Coal, Charles J. Douglas, agreed Douglas would pay illegal kickbacks to a purported trustee of a pension fund so the trustee would purchase 15,018 restricted shares of the company's stock from
Douglas. Hague, who was Clean Coal's president and CEO, directed the delivery of the stock certificates to the pension fund.
3. Unbeknownst to the Defendants, the corrupt pension fund trustee was a creation of the FBI. The pension fund trustee's purported friend who helped arrange the Case 0:12-cv-61076-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2012 Page 1 of 11
deals was an undercover FBI agent, and the middleman was a witness cooperating with the FBI.
4. To conceal the kickbacks, the Defendants, Douglas, and the cC?operating witness agreed Douglas would enter into a sham consulting agreement with a purported consulting company the FBI had created to receive the kickbacks.
5. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, the Defendants violated Section 17(a)(I) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(l), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a). Unless restrained and enjoined, they are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal securities laws.
6. The Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter: (a) a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining the Defendants from violating the federal securities laws; (b) an order directing the Defendants to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest; (c) an order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties; (d) an order barring Hague from participating in any offering of a penny stock; and (e) an order barring Hague from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15( d) of the Exchange Act.
___________________________
The above is from the actual court document filed, document is from Pacer, I did not post the whole thing because the above is what the goverment complaint is which is in the beginning of the document. The rest of the document goes on to explain how things happened, legal stuff, etc....
1. The case involves just what is posted above "From July through August 2009, Defendants Douglas D. Hague and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc." - The case covers the time frame July 2009 to August 2009 - there are no present company officers mentioned anywhere in the document and it deals with the company of 2009. The reason that CCTC is mentioned is because of use of the company stock by Hague and he was the company president. Stock is the company (a precentage of it).
2. The filing is 2012, and thats because it was filed in 2012, and does not mean the events happened in 2012. The actual events happened in 2009 and that it what the case is about. The complaint is limited to the 2009 time frame (which is restated later in the document as well). It took this long to complete the investigation and get everything ready for filing.
3. The present day company present officers are not named or implicated. The case is about what Hague, Douglas, and a cooperating witness did in 2009.
The present day company & present officers are vindicated by not appearing in the case. The CCTC received a summons for records and information, completly normal and expected in this case. The current management has been cooperating with the investigation for a long time before this was made public, theye wre not aware of it until autorities told them. There are no further charges in this matter.
This board will not let me attach the actual document, I would if I could, but anyone can get it from Pacer anyway.
