People who buy shares will also have more meaning in life if they already like and promote my writing, because they can promote my writing and also be making money for themselves, which can be exchanged for "goods" in concrete reality; therefore existential despair due to "having to do what you normally wouldn't be doing if you had a lot of money" can be relieved to some extent... If you don't know what to do with your life, or even if you just want to relieve boredom for the 10-15 minutes it will take to send me a check or paypal me, or email me, I recommend that you buy shares of the royalties of my second novel. I recommend this because you will then know what to do for a while, and if you ever feel bored in the future, and own shares of my second novel, you know you can always promote me in order to make more money for yourself. You will never not know what to do with your life again if you own shares in my second novel, sort of.
I haven't yet read "Eeee Eee Eee", Lin's first novel, but "You Are a Little Bit Happier Than I Am" is one of my favorite books of poetry released in the past few years.
At $1,250 per share, investing in Tao Lin's artistic future is a little out of my price range at the moment, but those of you with recently-matured trustfunds or an excess of pocket change may want to take a moment to consider the possibilities.
LINK: Reader of Depressing Books.
9 comments:
...and already we've elevated the level of discourse here at Tragically Hipster to near-Vicious Circle levels of ribaldry and wit.
Wait - I'm confused. Which was the stupid part?
Tao Lin learned stock manipulation and fraud from his parents.
He’s also written numerous times about shoplifting at Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble, American Apparel, etc., and has encouraged other to steal from “greedy corporations.” But who’s the greedy one?
Check out the Orlando Business Journal for Wednesday, December 18, 2002
http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/12/16/daily53.html
for this about Tao’s parents:
“The founder and former chief executive of Orlando-based Surgilight Inc. has been convicted by a Brooklyn jury of fraud and money laundering.
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, J.T. Lin was convicted for manipulating Surgilight’s stock price by stating in press releases that it developed a way to cure presbyiopia, an age-related deterioration of eyesight.
Those statements were false, the SEC maintains.
Shares in Surgilight climbed from about $2.50 to $25 on that information. According to the SEC, which regulates publicly traded companies, Lin then sold off Surgilight shares he controlled for a profit of about $1.5 million. He then wired that money overseas.
Lin stepped down as CEO of Surgilight in August 2001.
Surgilight placed Lin, a former University of Central Florida professor, on leave when he was indicted on the fraud and money laundering charges in April 2002. He remained on the company payroll as a consultant until July 31.
In addition to the criminal case in Brooklyn, Lin and his wife, Suchin Lin, face civil charges for violating laws governing securities trading. The SEC is seeking to recover the $1.5 million in question plus interest and other penalties.
The Lins had previously settled a civil action filed against them involving another laser eye surgery company in September 1998.”
His parents’ fraudulent claims about their product caused investors over a million dollars in losses when they bought stock in good faith in this couple.
As I’ve said, Tao Lin is simply a crook like his parents. There is an SEC document about “Tao Lin Enterprises” which they apparently used to launder money, and SEC filings show that Tao Lin himself owned Surgilight stock. Check out Edgar and whatever else you can find out online about this young scam artist and his crooked family before you invest a penny!
Trusting investors lost a lot of money by believing in Tao Lin’s parents and buying Surgilight stock.
They fled the U.S. for their native Taiwan and are there now, having managed to launder the money. They live well while those of us they stole from are shit out of luck.
Again, Tao Lin has NEVER publicly addressed how he feels about aiding and abetting his parents in their fraud, about living a luxurious lifestyle in their grand Orlando home on the money stolen from others.
He seems to be a sociopath, unconcerned with people’s feelings any more than he is with the “greedy corporations” he shoplifts from.
Tao Lin is a bad person. I can’t imagine anyone with his lack of morals and ethics being a worthwhile writer. He is working on this scheme, as well as other scams, because his parents can’t send him the money that supported him all his life now that the federal government is monitoring closely. Remember, there are still civil actions pending and an SEC judgment against them.
Apparently, unlike the other thousands up-and-coming writers, musicians and artists in New York, he feels he’s too special to have to do anything as mundane as take a day job. Most novelists have to do some sort of work, but not Tao Lin. It’s beneath him, or maybe he’s just supremely lazy.
He’s never really worked a day in his life.
Really, the only thing that can save this young man from what happened to his parents — his father eventually served time in federal prison — is for him to get a slap in the face in the form of reality.
He’s published three books of poetry, and Amazon and Bookscan sales figures reveal that each succeeding book has sold fewer copies than the last, so his long-range literary future is bleak.
If he could make the kind of money he claims, the smart editors and publishers at Random House, Farrar Straus, and all the other New York book publishing houses would have signed him up.
But he publishes his books with Melville House, a small independent two-person firm who apparently can’t see any need to give him the kind of advance on royalties Mr. Lin thinks he deserves.
So if no mainstream book publishers think his next novel is worth anything, and his current independent publisher thinks it isn’t worth all that much, why should anyone invest in a product like his next novel?
The whole project may be fiction.
This whole scheme is “The Producers” - except Tao Lin doesn’t have Max Bialystock’s charm.
Whoa
And that's not all:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SURGILIGHT INC., JUI-TENG LIN,
YUCHIN LIN and AARON TSAI
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S
COMPLAINT FOR
PERMANENT INJUCTION
ND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission" or "SEC") alleges as follows:
Summary
1. The SEC brings this civil fraud action against two securities fraud recidivists, Dr. Jui-Teng Lin ("Dr. Lin") and his wife, Yuchin Lin ("Mrs. Lin") (collectively "the Lins"), as well as Surgilight, Inc. ("Surgilight") and Aaron Tsai ("Tsai"). The Lins and their accomplices defrauded innocent investors of million of dollars through an unlawful pump and dump manipulation scheme. Incredibly, the Lins launched this scam barely a year after being adjudged securities fraudsters and enjoined from such activity by another federal court.
2. From late 1999 through early 2000 the Lins' with assistance of codefendant Tsai fraudulently drove up the stock price of Surgilight, and unloaded
thousands of shares of that stock onto an unsuspecting investing public, reaping over $3,000,000 in ill-gotten gains from their efforts. Specifically, the Lins deceived investors into believing that Surgilight had completed the development of a revolutionary laser technology that was capable of curing "Presbyopia," a previously untreatable and incurable eye disorder that affects virtually 100% of the world's population over age 40. Consequently, Presbyopia reversal is generally considered the "holy grail" of vision correction surgery. In reality, Surgilight's claims were baseless. At the time Surgilight published this information, the company had built only one laser and had not yet tested it in any Presbyopia procedures. In plain language, the Lins and Surgilight's claim was a lie.
3. At the same time, the Lins, with the assistance of Tsai, used nominee brokerage accounts that they secretly controlled to execute manipulative securities transactions in Surgilight stock. Through the defendants' activities, the market price of Surgilight common stock surged from approximately $2.50 to a height of $25 per share (split adjusted basis). By April 8, 2002, Surgilight had collapsed to $.30 per share. As such, Investors lost millions of dollars buying Surgilight stock at inflated prices.
4. By engaging in such conduct each of the defendants violated various provisions of the federal securities laws as set forth below, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to violate such provisions.
Jurisdiction
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")[15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(e) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(e) and 78aa].
6.Defendants have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails in connection with the transactions described in this Complaint.
7. Dr. Lin violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b), 13(d), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78m(d), 78p(a)] and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3] thereunder.
8. Mrs. Lin and Surgilight violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder.
9. Tsai violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)] and violated Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78t(e)] by aiding and abetting Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder.
Defendants
10. Surgilight is a Florida corporation headquartered in Orlando. Surgilight's primary business activity is the acquisition and development of laser technologies for applications in ophthalmology and dermatology. On March 31, 1999, Surgilight went public through a reverse merger with MAS Acquisition III Corp. ("MAS III"), a publicly held shell company owned by Tsai. Surgilight's securities are registered with the Commission under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l(g)] and trade on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol "SRGL."
11. Dr. Jui-Teng Lin, age 54, was the chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Surgilight at all relevant times. He also controlled approximately 65.5% of Surgilight's common stock at all relevant times. Dr. Lin was born in Taiwan and is a U.S. citizen. He lives in Oviedo, Florida with his wife, Yuchin Lin.
12. Yuchin Lin, age 50, was Surgilight's bookkeeper at all relevant times. She was born in Taiwan and is a U.S. citizen. She is married to Dr. Jui-Teng Lin.
13. In September 1998, the Commission filed a civil action against Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin charging them with violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws. Dr. Lin served as the president and chief executive officer of LaserSight, Inc., a company engaged in developing lasers for medical applications. Mrs. Lin was LaserSight's bookkeeper. The Commission alleged that, while in those positions, the Lins engaged in a series of sham transactions to sell unregistered LaserSight securities. The Commission also alleged that the Lins employed a system of nominees to move funds and securities back and forth from the U.S. to Taiwan in furtherance of their scheme. On September 10, 1998, the Lins consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
14. Aaron Tsai, age 33, is the president and chief executive officer of MAS Capital, Inc., a firm that provides services to companies seeking to be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. Tsai lives in Henderson, Kentucky. Through MAS Capital and affiliate companies, Tsai has registered approximately fifty shell companies with the Commission and has sold more then twenty shell companies in reverse mergers. He was the owner of the publicly held shell company that merged with Surgilight.
The Reverse Merger and Groundwork for the Scheme
15. In winter 1999, Dr. Lin was introduced to Tsai as an individual that could assist Dr. Lin in bringing his private company, Surgilight, public through a transaction commonly known as a reverse merger. In a reverse merger, a private company merges with a publicly held shell company, which allows the stock of the formerly private company to be traded publicly.
16. On March 31, 1999, MAS III, a shell company owned by Tsai, executed agreements to merge with Surgilight. As part of the reverse merger, Tsai received approximately 8.7% of the common stock of Surgilight plus $100,000. Dr. Lin controlled approximately 65.5% of Surgilight common stock after the reverse merger. On that same day, the board of directors of Surgilight, including Tsai, resigned and a new board of directors, including Dr. Lin as the chairman, was appointed.
17. After the merger, Tsai prepared and filed the reports and filings required by the federal securities laws and rules of the Commission for the next several months. One such filing that Tsai assisted the company with was a Schedule 13D filed on April 12, 1999 on behalf of Dr. Lin. In the filing, Dr. Lin stated that he had not been enjoined by a court against future violations of the federal securities laws during the past five years. This representation was false because, as explained above, Dr. Lin was enjoined by a federal court against future violations of the federal securities laws in September 1998.
18. Tsai then took the steps necessary for Surgilight common stock to be sold to public investors by getting Surgilight common stock quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. As part of this process, Tsai enlisted the services of a market maker, Kensington Capital Corp., to help maintain an orderly market for Surgilight securities.
The Pump and Dump Scheme
19. After the reverse merger, the Lins set into motion their scheme to defraud the investing public. As set forth in greater detail below, Dr. Lin created and caused false and misleading press releases to be issued, touting Surgilight as, among other things, having completed development of laser technologies that could reverse the effects of Presbyopia. Dr. Lin also hired an individual to disseminate this information in Internet discussion foruMrs. While Dr. Lin was issuing these press releases, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, with Tsai's assistance, used nominee accounts to create the false appearance of an active market in Surgilight securities and sell Surgilight stock they controlled to the public. The Lins' fraudulent efforts generated them approximately $1,700,000 in illicit proceeds.
Surgilight's False and Misleading Press Releases
20. On or about December 13, 1999, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated, "Surgilight, Inc. (OTCBB:SRGL) announced that it has completed development of two new technologies for vision correction using infrared (IR) lasers . . . ." With regard to a device known as Model IR-3000, the press release stated: "It is the most compact solid-state IR laser capable of performing the new procedure for presbyopia correction." With regard to a device known as Model IR-3001, the release stated that it "will be used for vision correction, including . . . presbyopia correction." Each of these statements was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin well knew, Surgilight at that time had not completed development of any technology for vision correction using infrared lasers or tested any infrared lasers in Presbyopia correction procedures.
21. Dr. Lin also omitted significant material facts from the December 13, 1999 press release concerning U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulatory hurdles that Surgilight was required to clear before its lasers could be tested, marketed, or sold. These omissions are material because obtaining FDA clearance in the laser eye care industry is an enormous undertaking, which takes several years to complete, with no guarantee of success. Dr. Lin was well aware of these regulatory hurdles and yet failed to mention that Surgilight had not taken even the first step in the FDA regulatory process.
22. On or about January 11, 2000, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole, or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated: "Surgilight, Inc. (OTCBB:SRGL) announced today that it had submitted a clinical trial Protocol to Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City for a new procedure called Laser Presbyopia Reversal (LPR)." This statement contained a misleading omission of material fact in that, as Dr. Lin well knew, the press release did not divulge that the protocol submitted to Mt. Sinai Hospital was wholly insufficient so as to render approval of the protocol impossible.
23. On or about January 26, 2000, Surgilight issued two press releases, which were prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, both press releases stated that "The company's IR-3000 . . . is the world's first system with reported clinical results for the presbyopia correction." This statement was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin well knew, at that time no reported clinical results existed for a Presbyopia correction procedure that were obtained with the IR-3000 or any other infrared laser.
24. On or about February 17, 2000, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated that Surgilight was at that time focusing on its "new infrared lasers and the related ongoing clinical trials in Canada, Europe and Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City." This statement was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin knew at that time, no such clinical trials were ongoing in Canada or Europe and no clinical trials relating to infrared lasers were ongoing at Mt. Sinai hospital.
25. On or about December 1, 1999, Dr. Lin hired an "investor relations consultant" to further disseminate false and misleading information to the public regarding Surgilight. In December 1999, this individual contacted Raging Bull and America Online's securities bulletin boards and requested that these Internet sites create Surgilight discussion fora.
26. After the fora were established, the "investor relations consultant" posted information directing the board's participants to Surgilight's false and misleading press releases. This individual also posted information touting Surgilight's technology and the economic effect such technology was to have on the price of Surgilight's common stock. In total, during the three-month period from December 1999 to February 2000, the "investor relations consultant" posted approximately 100 messages regarding Surgilight and its technology on Internet discussion fora.
27. The false and misleading statements set forth above were intended to influence and did influence the price of Surgilight common stock, as set forth below:
Date of Press Release Price of Surgilight stock day before press release Price of Surgilight stock on day after press release % Change
12/13/99 $2.63 $6.25 + 137%
1/11/00 $5.50 $6.63 + 21%
1/26/00 $16.50 $23.50 + 42%
2/17/00 $13.50 $13.75 +0.02%
The Lins' Unise Nominee Accounts and Manipulative Trading Program
28. Approximately two days before the reverse merger, on or about March 29, 1999, Mrs. Lin caused a brokerage account to be opened at the Unise Investment Corp. of Flushing, New York ("Unise") in the name of Huei Lee, 6th Floor, No. 6, Nong 32, Lane 1, Chang-long Street, Taipei, Taiwan (the "Lee Unise Account"). In an effort to conceal their control over the Lee Unise Account, the Lins directed Jianhua Zou, a Surgilight employee, to sign a form purporting to authorize that employee to order trades in the Lee Unise Account on behalf of Huei Lee. Jianhua Zou never ordered a transaction in the Lee Unise Account and had no further contact with the Lee Unise Account or Unise.
29. On or about April 20, 1999, Mrs. Lin caused a brokerage account to be opened at Unise in the name of Hsueh-Yueh Chang, 17 F-3, No. 311, 12th Street, Ta-Tun, Taichung, Taiwan (the "Chang Unise Account"). In an effort to conceal their control of the Chang Unise Account, the Lins directed Hang Liu, a Surgilight employee, to sign a form purporting to authorize Hang Liu to order trades in the Chang Unise Account on behalf of Hsueh-Yueh Chang. Hang Liu never ordered a transaction in the Chang Unise account and had no further contact with the Chang Unise Account or Unise.
30. From August through November 1999, the Lins and Tsai caused approximately 99,750 shares of Surgilight common stock to be deposited into the Lee Unise Account and approximately 181,600 shares of Surgilight common stock to be deposited into the Chang Unise account. The original source of the stock deposited into the Unise nominee accounts was the block of shares Tsai received as part of the reverse merger.
31. On at least one occasion, Tsai transferred Surgilight stock directly to the Unise nominee accounts and in other instances, Tsai employed more deceptive measures. In one such instance, to conceal his direct involvement, Tsai caused a total of 100,000 shares to be transferred nominally into the names of friends without their knowledge. Tsai then knowingly or recklessly caused portions of these shares to be transferred into the Unise nominee accounts. Tsai did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transfers and these transfers did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
32. In another series of transactions, Tsai knowingly or recklessly facilitated a series of transactions that resulted in the deposit of thousands of shares into the Unise nominee accounts. Acting in concert with the Lins, Tsai caused approximately 536,450 shares of Surgilight stock to be transferred to approximately twenty individuals that purportedly reside in Taiwan. Approximately one month later, the Lins and Tsai caused large portions of shares to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts. Neither Tsai nor the Lins filed a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transfers, and these transfers did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
33. Beginning in November 1999 and going through at least March 2000, the Lins caused hundreds of manipulative transactions in Surgilight common stock to be made in the Unise nominee accounts. On a daily basis during this time period, the Lins placed telephone calls to Unise and ordered their broker to execute both purchases and sales in the Unise nominee accounts, as many as thirty per day.
34. During the three-month period of December 1999 to February 2000, the Lins caused a total of 296 sales and 244 purchases of Surgilight securities to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts. These transactions accounted for approximately one-third of the total trading volume for Surgilight common stock during that time period. The Lins did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transactions and these transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
35. The Lins' trading program served two illicit purposes. First, in the days between the publications of each press release, the Lins executed nearly equal amounts of purchases and sales of Surgilight securities. The Lins' buying and selling efforts stabilized the price of Surgilight common stock while it created the false appearance of an active and liquid market for the securities. Second, to capitalize on the surge in price of Surgilight common stock after the publication of each press release, the Lins dumped their Surgilight securities on publication day and the days immediately following the publication of the false press releases. The net effect of this manipulative pattern of trading was the accumulation of approximately $1,700,000 in the Unise nominee accounts by the beginning of March 2000.
36. Tsai also sold his Surgilight common stock into the inflated market that he helped create. Acting with knowledge, Tsai waited until the time period of January 18, 2000 to January 31, 2000, the days when Surgilight was trading at its absolute height, to begin selling his Surgilight stock. At that time, he sold 63,200 shares of Surgilight common stock and earned at least $1,000,000 from these sales. Tsai did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these sales and these sales did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
37. On or about March 1, 2000, the Lins caused two written wire transfer instructions to be sent to Unise. One instructed that $710,000 be transferred from the Chang Unise Account to an account maintained in the name of Hsueh-Yueh Chang at a branch of Hua Nan Commercial Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Chang Bank Account"). The other instructed that $766,000 be transferred from the Lee Unise Account to an account maintained in the name of Huei Lee at a branch of Overseas Chinese Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Lee Bank Account").
38. In accordance with the wire transfer instructions described in the preceding paragraph, on or about March 1, 2000, $766,000 was wire transferred from the Lee Unise Account to the Lee Bank Account, and $710,000 was wire transferred from the Chang Unise Account to the Chang Bank Account.
39. On or about March 6, 2000, the Lins caused approximately $524,055 to be wire transferred from the Lee Bank Account to the Chang Bank Account.
40. On or about March 8, 2000, the Lins caused approximately $1,232,000 to be transferred from the Chang Bank Account to an account maintained in the name of Su Jung Lee at a branch of Hua Nan Commercial Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Su Jung Lee Bank Account").
41. On or about March 8, 2000, the Lins caused $1,232,000 to be wire transferred from the Su Jung Lee Bank Account to an account maintained in the name of Surgilight at First Union National Bank in Orlando, Florida, which they controlled.
First Claim
(Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by Defendants Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin and Surgilight)
42. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein.
43. Defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin, with the intent to induce others to purchase Surgilight securities, did knowingly or recklessly misstate material facts and omit material facts when Dr. Lin created in whole or in part the press releases described in the previous paragraphs and when defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin caused the press releases described in the previous paragraphs to be issued to the investing public.
44. Defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin engaged in transactions and practices or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of Surgilight securities when they caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight stock to be executed in the Unuse nominee accounts.
45. In the manner described above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use of means or instruments of interstate commerce or by the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
Second Claim
(Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by all defendants)
46. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin, with the intent to induce others to purchase Surgilight securities, did knowingly or recklessly misstate material facts and omit material facts when Dr. Lin created in whole or in part the press releases described in the previous paragraphs and when defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin caused the press releases described in the previous paragraphs to be issued to the investing public.
48. Defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin engaged in transactions and practices or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of Surgilight securities when they caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight stock to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts.
49. In the manner described above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon persons, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder.
Third Claim
(Aiding and Abetting by Tsai)
50. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
51. Defendant Tsai knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by among other things, providing them a publicly held shell company; directly and indirectly causing Surgilight stock to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts under circumstance which indicate that he knew or should have known that the Lins controlled; facilitating Surgilight's trading on the OTC Bulletin Board; and preparing and filing with the Commission documents required by the federal securities laws and rules of the Commission, which at least one of was patently false.
52. In the manner described above, defendant Tsai aided and abetted defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by knowingly providing substantial assistance to such defendants in violation of Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78t(e)].
Fourth Claim
(Violations of the Registration Provisions by all Defendants)
53. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 52 as if fully set forth herein.
54. Defendants Surgilight and the Lins caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight securities to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts when a valid registration statement was not in effect as to such transactions and the transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
55. Defendant Tsai caused approximately 536,450 shares of Surgilight common stock to be transferred to approximately twenty individuals that purportedly reside in Taiwan and caused 100,000 shares of Surgilight common stock to be transferred to two of his friends, and subsequently caused portions of such shares to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts. At the time of all transfers of Surgilight securities described in this paragraph, a valid registration statement was not in effect as to such transactions and the transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
56. In the manner set forth above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai directly or indirectly (a) without a registration statement in effect as to the securities, (i) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication or the mails to sell such securities through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise, or (ii) carried or caused to be carried through the mails, or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, such securities for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, and (b) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to sell through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise securities for which a registration statement had not been filed as to such securities, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
Fifth Claim
(Violations of the Ownership Provisions by Dr. Lin)
57. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein.
58. Defendant Dr. Lin caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight common stock to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts. Defendant Dr. Lin was the beneficial owner of the securities transacted in the Unise nominee accounts.
59. Defendant Dr. Lin failed to timely report his beneficial ownership of the securities in the Unise nominee accounts and changes thereto with the Commission as required by various provisions of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder.
60. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Dr. Lin violated Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(d) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240. 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3].
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment:
(i) permanently enjoining defendant Dr. Lin, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with him, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b), 13(d), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78m(d) and 78p(a)] and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3];
(ii) permanently enjoining defendants Surgilight and Mrs. Lin, and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78o(a)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder;
(iii) permanently enjoining defendant Tsai, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with him, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];
(iv) ordering defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai to provide an accounting and disgorge all ill-gotten gains from the conduct alleged herein, with prejudgment interest;
(v) ordering defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];
(vi) permanently barring defendant Dr. Lin from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(e)] and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)]; and
(vii) granting such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
Dated: April 11, 2002
United States Securities
and Exchange Commission
By_____________________________
Thomas C. Newkirk
Eric N. Miller (Trial Attorney)
Cheryl J. Scarboro
Reid A. Muoio
Sean Patrick Casey
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0911
(tel) 202/942-7275 (Miller)
(fax) 202/942-9569
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17469.htm
Whoa
"the blogfather" - that's the coolest handle yet yo.
i'm jealous i aint thought that up first.
i'm gonna settle for the asian snoop dogg.
it's better than the siamese souljaboy
Tao Lin is nice. He is vegan and lets me sleep on his couch when I am in New York. He is funny and kind. He is trustworthy and friendly. He is also a good writer. I will never understand how people talk shit like this, and I don't care what his parents are like because they live far away and because if people cared about my parents, they would find out bad things, too. This comment thread is profoundly offensive and disgusting. I would like to threaten violence to people like the one posting these comments. I would like to pluck out their eyeballs and spit in the holes in their face.
I am not as nice as Tao Lin. If he asked me to, I would find out who you are and change your mind for you. Your opinion would change quickly if I could see you. I am very convincing in person.
This sins of the father shit is infuriating. And the anonymity is cowardly. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Whoa
Post a Comment