Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[loanranger]

I've addressed your belated concerns, but before I link you to the explanations I'd like to point out the introductory words of my post, which you chose to ignore:

"Of course it's fraud.

The company reflected an asset in their financial statements at a value of $10,000,000 which they acquired for shares having a value of $1,000,000 and which the company itself admitted in a public filing 6 months later was totally worthless.
The company used those financial statements as part of the documentation provided to participants in two funding efforts.....Private Investments in the Public Equities of the company.


That's fraud."

That's the real meat of this mess.....without those fraudulent acts the only topics of conversation for the last 20 months would have been JBI's operational inadequacies. You really shouldn't ignore them. I'm sure if there was an argument to suggest that those acts were somehow made out of a benign innocence you would have tried to make it.



Ok, now that we've skipped past the important stuff, let me catch you up on things that have been explained previously:

"Where in the proposed order is there a finding that fraud occurred?"
A couple of places.
In JB's case the Judge MUST find that a violation of the Misleading and Deceptive Practices (aka fraud) section of the code occurred in order to impose an officer and director ban...indeed it is cited in the settlement. See the last three paragraphs of this post, the final one of which says:
"15 USC § 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—
(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement [1] any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83844268

In the case of JBI itself, the proposed judgment says:
" VI.IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant is liable for a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000 civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77(t)(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)]."
I welcome your review of 15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3) and ask you to explain how the above civil penalty could possibly be assessed by the judge without a finding of fraud. Please be specific. Here's the link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u



The following statement from my post was literally incorrect but conceptually sound....there was no attempt to be deceptive on my part, nor was there any need to be. I did not used the mistake to peddle millions of dollars worth of stock nor do I suspect that the bogeyman sold shares short as a result of the mistake in the hope that it would send the share price tumbling. Viewed in the context of the statement I was responding to it is a distinction without a difference....Do you really believe that the commission drafted the settlement with the mindset that the defendants didn't act fraudulently after making the quoted statement in the Complaint?

I wrote: The commission has already passed judgment on a settlement that says "Defendants engaged in a scheme to commit securities and accounting fraud by stating materially false and inaccurate financial information on the financial statements of JBI, Inc. for two reporting periods during 2009."

That quote is indeed from the Complaint and not the proposed settlement. Yes, it was the Complaint that included the above wording and not the settlement. However, the defendants have already agreed:
"(i) not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis; and (ii) that upon the filing of this Consent, Defendant hereby withdraws any papers filed in this action to the extent that they deny any allegation in the complaint. If Defendant breaches this agreement, the Commission may petition the Court to vacate the Final Judgment and restore this action to its active docket."

Assuming that the proposed judgments are signed (the consents already have been), the defendants have agreed not to make or permit any public statement denying the allegations of the complaint and agreed to withdraw the denials included in their answers to the complaint.



(Note that my original post on this issue clearly indicated that "The complaint says:" in reference to the above:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85120862 )