bucks,
I'd rather not express an opinion that might be interpreted as advice, but I have a few thoughts based on a little experience and a fair amount of research:
Thinking of an SEC investigation as a criminal investigation probably isn't apples-to-apples. So, what a prosecutor might do in terms of filing charges based on evidence gathered may not be the same thing that the SEC might do in a similar situation. The SEC process usually starts with an informal investigation (about which we have not heard) and proceeds to a formal investigation of undetermined duration......I don't think they sense any time pressure at all that would cause them to stop before ALL potential fraudulent activities were thoroughly investigated in order to "bring forth their case" as it related to completed components.
If memory serves, the formal investigation notification was delivered on 9/18. The Commission felt that it was in the interest of current and potential shareholders to suspend trading 2 weeks later, for reasons stated, which would suggest TO ME that they definitely didn't begin the investigation "a bit prematurely". Finally, at the suggestion of another poster, I looked into the recovery rates of companies that have undergone suspensions...my research indicated that they were poor. You might want to do the same to see if you concur....I found everything I needed searching sec.gov.
Then again, your guess is as good as mine.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
