{"id":"court_ctb_579_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":579,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2022-07-20","title":"| | Case 22-50073
Case 2:21-cv-01079-SMB
Doc 579-1
Filed 07/20/22
Document 30 | Entered 07/20/22 17:2","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| 1 | WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER | |\n| 2 | FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
Benjamin Y. Kaufman (admitted pro hac vice) | |\n| 3 | kaufman@whafh.com
Malcolm T. Brown (admitted pro hac vice) | |\n| 4 | brown@whafh.com
270 Madison Avenue | |\n| 5 | New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 545-4600 | |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP | |\n| 8 | Bernard Daskal (admitted pro hac vice)
daskal@lde.law | |\n| 9 | Xun Chen (admitted pro hac vice)
chen@lde.law | |\n| 10 | 137 W. 25th St.
New York, NY 10001 | |\n| 11 | Tel.: (212) 302-2400 | |\n| 12 | Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang, and | |\n| 13 | Chong Shen Raphanella and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |\n| 16 | FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang, and Chong | No. CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB |\n| 19 | Shen Raphanella | |\n| 20 | Plaintiffs, | FIRST AMENDED |\n| 21 | v. | CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT |\n| 22 | Voice of Guo Media, Inc., GTV Media | |\n| 23 | Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group Inc., Rule
of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law | |\n| 24 | Society IV Inc., Sara Wei a/k/a/ Lihong Wei
Lafrenz, and Wengui Guo a/k/a
Miles Guo | |\n| 25 | a/k/a/ Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Miles Kwok | |\n| 26 | a/k/a Nan Wu a/k/a Haoyun Guo, | |\n| 27 | Defendants. | |\n| 28 | | |\n| | | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang, and Chong Shen Raphanella (\"Plaintiffs\"), individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by the undersigned attorneys, allege the following based upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters based upon, *inter alia*, the investigation conducted by and through their attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of the defendants' public documents, announcements made by defendants, wire and press releases, public filings on judicial dockets, the administrative proceeding before the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") entitled *In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., et al*., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20537 (the \"Administrative Proceeding\"), and information readily available on the Internet. Plaintiffs additionally believe that substantial evidentiary support will exist for these allegations after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.\n\n13\n\n### **I. NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n14 15 16 17 18 1. This class action involves a scheme to defraud investors in the Chinese diaspora (among others) of their hard-earned money by defendant Miles Guo (\"Guo\"), a wealthy Chinese businessman with a multi-media empire, defendant Sara Wei (\"Wei\"), one of the most visible leaders within Guo's empire of affiliated companies and related entities, and the defendant entities operated and controlled by Guo and/or Wei.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2. From approximately April 2020 through June 2020, defendants Guo, Wei, GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\"), Saraca Media Group Inc. (\"Saraca\"), Voice of Guo Media, Inc. (\"VOG\") publicly solicited thousands of individuals to invest in a purported private stock offering of GTV common stock. Guo promoted the GTV offering as an opportunity for investors to be on the ground floor of a new media platform designed to allow its members to exchange in the free flow of information about the People's Republic of China, outside of the Chinese government's control and influence and thereby provide an alternative means of communication for those within Chinese communities around the world. According to Guo, the platform would have a significant user-base because it\n\n1 2 would be outside the People's Republic of China's considerable oversight of its domestic media channels.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 3. Guo and Wei marketed the unregistered shares of GTV common stock to potential investors via multiple media channels – such as *www.gtv.org*, and *www.gnews.org* (Guo-controlled websites), and social media platforms Guo Media, YouTube, Twitter, and Discord, as being risk-free and highly lucrative. Investment materials on Guo's website *www.gnews.org* included broad statements such as, \"From a business perspective, there is no risk whatsoever, so long as you have trust.\"1\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 4. Guo solicited investment in GTV through two channels. *First*, Guo offered direct investment in GTV through a purportedly private stock offering to accredited investors at a minimum investment of \\$100,000. *Second*, Guo offered indirect investment in GTV to accredited and unaccredited investors unable to meet the \\$100,000 minimum threshold of the stock offering. Guo represented to the second group of investors that: (a) they could purchase shares of GTV common stock through Wei and VOG; (b) there was no minimum investment to purchase GTV securities through Wei and VOG; and (c) Wei would pool the investors' funds and purchase shares of GTV through VOG on their behalves.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 5. Guo, Saraca, and GTV furnished Wei and VOG with documents to provide potential investors seeking to purchase GTV securities through the second alternative. *As a condition precedent to investment*, however, Guo mandated that these potential investors make a demonstration of loyalty to him and his proclaimed cause of combatting the Chinese government by donating to Guo's not-for-profits Rule of Law Foundation III\n\n- 23 24\n- 25\n\n26 27 28 1 http *See* Brian Spegele & Sha Hua, *Fundraising Feud Spurs Anger Among a Chinese Exile, His Followers and His Detractors*, Wall St. J. (Oct. 4, 2020), *available at* http (same).\n\n1 2 Inc. (\"Rule of Law Foundation\") and Rule of Law Society IV Inc. (\"Rule of Law Society\"),2 or Guo himself.\n\n3 4 5 6 6. Guo used the mandate as a means to further entice potential investors by \"virtue signaling\" GTV's purported commitment to combating the Chinese government. As the founder and owner of the ROL Entities, Guo required the donations as a precondition to investment in order to enrich himself and the ROL Entities.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7. Plaintiffs and the Class (defined below) made donations to one of the ROL Entities or Guo and purchased GTV securities through Wei and VOG but were *never issued GTV common stock*. Investors who demanded their money back received nothing, which further indicated that the heavily marketed investment opportunity to get on the ground floor of GTV's new media platform was neither risk-free, lucrative, nor real. Guo and Wei never intended to use the money obtained by VOG to purchase GTV securities actually be used for that purpose. Unbeknownst to investors, Wei transferred more than half of the proceeds obtained from investors to bank accounts under the control of Guo, Saraca and GTV, and kept the rest in bank accounts under the control of herself and VOG. 8. Through a relentless campaign, Guo and Wei convinced Plaintiffs and the Class to invest their hard-earned money in a worthless venture. GTV securities were never registered (or subject to any exemption from registration) per state or federal regulations. GTV never prepared or disseminated annual or quarterly reports or financial statements regarding the company's performance, or the use of the proceeds from their investments. Nor were investors issued shares of GTV common stock. Frustrated by continually being strung along by Guo and Wei, many investors demanded refunds.\n\n- 23 24 25 9. On September 13, 2021, several months after the commencement of this class action, the SEC simultaneously instituted and settled the Administrative Proceeding\n- 26\n\n27 28 2 Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society are collectively referred to herein as the \"ROL Entities\".\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 against GTV, Saraca, and VOG. According to the \"Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and Desist Order\" entered on the same date (the \"Order\"), the SEC concluded that GTV, Saraca, and VOG violated the registration provisions of the federal securities laws (Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the \"Securities Act\")) by soliciting thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock (the \"Stock Offering\").\n\n- 8 9 10. The Order (attached hereto and incorporated herein as **Exhibit A**) makes the following findings relevant to the allegations herein:\n- 10 11 a. Saraca created GTV as a wholly-owned subsidiary in April 2020 to own and operate a social media platform;\n\n12 13 14 b. In connection with the Stock Offering, Saraca agreed to sell up to 10% of its ownership interest in GTV and would continue to exert significant control over GTV after the Stock Offering;\n\n15 16 17 18 19 c. From April 2020 through June 2020, Saraca and GTV, through their management team and agents, marketed the Stock Offering to investors through publicly available videos on GTV's websites and other social media platforms that described the investment terms (including the \\$100,000 minimum investment) and provided contact information for investors interested in participating in the Stock Offering;\n\n20 21 22 d. Simultaneously, Saraca and GTV, through their management team and agents, directed VOG to purchase GTV common stock on behalf of investors who wanted to participate in the Stock Offering at amounts less than \\$100,000;\n\n23 24 25 26 27 e. To facilitate VOG's role in the sale of GTV stock, Saraca and GTV provided VOG with a Limited Purpose Agency Agreement (attached hereto and incorporated herein as **Exhibit B**) (\"LPAA\") whereby prospective investors could designate a representative of VOG (specifically Wei) to serve as their agent to purchase shares of GTV on their respective behalves;\n\n| 1 | f.
Saraca and GTV sold approximately \\$339 million worth of GTV | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | common stock to more than 1,000 investors, some of whom were unaccredited; | |\n| 3 | g.
VOG sold approximately \\$114 million worth of GTV common stock | |\n| 4 | to more than 4,500 investors, many of whom were unaccredited, and none of whom were | |\n| 5 | issued GTV shares; | |\n| 6 | h.
In May 2020, VOG, at the direction of Saraca and GTV, transferred | |\n| 7 | in excess of \\$61 million to the bank accounts of Saraca and GTV; | |\n| 8 | i.
VOG continued to receive funds from investors for the purchase of | |\n| 9 | GTV shares through at least June 2020; | |\n| 10 | j.
During the Stock Offering, VOG provided Saraca and GTV with | |\n| 11 | updates on its fundraising efforts and amounts collected from investors; | |\n| 12 | k.
VOG engaged in steps necessary to the distribution of GTV shares | |\n| 13 | and therefore offered and sold GTV shares; | |\n| 14 | l.
In June 2020, Saraca transferred \\$100 million of the proceeds from | |\n| 15 | the Stock Offering to a hedge fund (not identified) for investment; | |\n| 16 | m.
By late July 2020, the hedge fund had invested \\$30 million of the | |\n| 17 | funds transferred and the investment lost approximately \\$29.2 million in value; and | |\n| 18 | n.
No registration statements were filed or in effect for the offers and | |\n| 19 | sales of GTV common stock by Saraca, GTV, and VOG, and the offers and sales did not | |\n| 20 | qualify for an exemption from registration under the Securities Act.3 | |\n| 21 | 11.
The Order directed, among other things, the following: | |\n| 22 | a.
Saraca, GTV, and VOG shall cease and desist from committing or | |\n| 23 | causing any violations or future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act; | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| 26 | | |\n| 27 | 3
The SEC also found that during the same April 2020 through June 2020 period Saraca and GTV
solicited individuals to invest in their offering of a digital asset security and collected | |\n| 28 | approximately \\$34 million from investors. | |\n| | | |\n| | - 5 - | |\n\n1 2 3 b. Saraca and GTV shall pay disgorgement of \\$434,134,141 and prejudgment interest of \\$15,776,488 to the SEC; and Saraca and GTV shall each pay a civil penalty of \\$15 million to the SEC;\n\n- 4 5 c. VOG shall pay disgorgement of \\$52,610,922 and prejudgment interest of \\$1,911,877 to the SEC, and pay a civil penalty of \\$5 million to the SEC; and\n- 6 7 8 9 10 d. The amount to be paid as civil penalties shall be treated as penalties paid to the government for all purposes, and to preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty, Saraca, GTV, and VOG agree that in any Related Investor Action,4 they shall not argue entitlement to, or benefit by, offset or reduction of any award of compensatory damages by the amount of part of their payment of a civil penalty herein.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12. This class action is on behalf of all persons that made payments to VOG to purchase GTV securities and never received such securities or a refund of the money paid (the \"Class\"). Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and the Class for the harm caused by Defendants' violations of securities laws under Title 44, chapter 12 (Sale of Securities) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (\"ARS\"), as well as for common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.\n\n18\n\n# **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n19 20 21 13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Court has jurisdiction of the state law claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\n\n22 23 24 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants because each purposefully availed itself, herself, and himself by: (a) residing within this State; (b) conducting business activity; and/or (c) committing tortious acts within the State.\n\n25\n\n27 28 4 The Order defines a \"Related Investor Action\" as a private damages action (such as this action) brought against Saraca, GTV, or VOG by or on behalf of one or more investors based on substantially the same facts as set forth in the Order.\n\n1 2 3 Moreover, each defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this District to render this Court's exercise of jurisdiction permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\n\n4 5 6 7 15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because, among other things: (a) many of the false and misleading statements were made in or issued from this District; (b) VOG is an Arizona corporation and its offices are located within this District; and (c) Wei is a resident of and domiciled in Arizona.\n\n- 8 **III. PARTIES**\n- 9\n\n# **Plaintiffs**\n\n10 11 16. Plaintiff Rong Zhang is a resident of the State of California who was solicited by, donated \\$500 to, and invested \\$100,000 with defendants as described herein.\n\n12 13 17. Plaintiff Xiaodan Wang is a resident of Canada who was solicited by, donated \\$100 to, and invested \\$50,000 with defendants as described herein.\n\n14 15 16 18. Plaintiff Chong Shen Raphanella is a resident of the State of Maryland who was solicited by, donated \\$30 to, and invested \\$10,000 with defendants as described herein.\n\n17\n\n# **Defendants**\n\n18 19 20 21 19. Defendant Saraca Media Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with offices at 162 E. 64th Street, New York, New York 10065. Upon information and belief, defendant Guo founded Saraca. Saraca also owns trademarks that feature Guo's names and aliases, including \"Guo Wengui\" and \"Miles Guo.\"\n\n22 23 24 25 20. In April 2020, Saraca established defendant GTV as a wholly-owned subsidiary to operate a social media platform and contributed all of the assets of the platform to GTV. Upon information and belief, Saraca owns at least 90% of the equity of GTV.\n\n26 27 21. Saraca is not broker or dealer, or licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona.\n\n1 2 3 4 22. Defendant GTV Media Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with at 162 E. 64th Street, New York, New York 10065. GTV owns and operates a social media platform containing numerous publicly-available videos. As all times since its incorporation, Saraca has controlled GTV.\n\n5 6 7 23. GTV is not broker or dealer, or licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona. GTV did not register its securities with the State of Arizona.\n\n8 9 10 24. Defendant Voice of Guo Media Inc. is an Arizona corporation that is located at 14747 N. Northsight Boulevard, Suite 111 # 405, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260. At all relevant times, Guo has controlled and/or exercised significant authority over VOG.\n\n11 12 25. VOG is not broker or dealer, or licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona.\n\n13 14 15 16 26. Defendant Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. is a Delaware not-for-profit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization located at 800 5th Avenue, Suite 21F, New York, New York 10065. Rule of Law Foundation was founded by and is wholly owned and controlled by Guo.\n\n17 18 19 20 27. Defendant Rule of Law Society IV Inc. is a Delaware not-for-profit corporation and 501(c)(4) organization located at 800 5th Avenue, Suite 21F, New York, New York 10065. Rule of Law Society was founded by and is wholly owned and controlled by Guo.\n\n21 22 23 28. Defendant Sara Wei a/k/a Lihong Wei Lafrenz is VOG's President, Director, and Manager. Wei is a resident of Arizona and a registered agent for VOG. Wei also served as a director of Rule of Law Society between January 2019 and December 2020.\n\n24 25 29. Wei is not licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona.\n\n26 27 28 30. Defendant Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Nan Wu a/k/a Haoyun Guo, is a foreign national residing in the State of New York. Guo owns, directs, and/or otherwise controls Saraca, GTV, VOG, and the ROL\n\n1 2 3 4 Entities, exercises exclusive authority over any major decision made at Saraca, GTV, and the ROL Entities, and possesses the power to designate and terminate the officers and directors of Saraca, GTV, VOG, and the ROL Entities and expand or restrict the authority delegated to them.5\n\n5\n\n6 31. Guo is not licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona.\n\n7 8 32. GTV, Saraca, VOG, the ROL Entities, Wei, and Guo are collectively referred to herein as \"Defendants.\"\n\n- 9 10 11 12 13 14 33. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee, partner, or alter ego of the other Defendants, and the acts of each Defendant were in the scope of such relationship. By engaging in the acts as alleged herein, each of the Defendants were acting with the knowledge, permission, consent, and at the behest of the other Defendants. Each of the Defendants aided and abetted the acts of the other Defendants in the acts alleged herein.\n- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 34. At all relevant times, Guo exercised control and dominion over the other Defendants, the Stock Offering, and the use and distribution of the Stock Offering proceeds. Guo was the primary spokesperson for the other Defendants to investors and the public in connection with the Stock Offering, and the other Defendants deferred to his authority. Guo funded the Stock Offering, controlled how GTV securities were offered, who was entitled to invest, how the proceeds of the Stock Offering would be distributed and invested, and who would (and who would not) be issued GTV securities in connection with their investment.\n- 23\n\n- 24\n- 25 26 27 28 5 In December 2020, Guo removed Wei from her position as director at Rule of Law Foundation. *See* http (\"[We will] get back all of the documents related to the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society that are currently with VOG and the Phoenix Base. Sara, a director of the Rule of Law Foundation, tomorrow's board meeting will have her removed. All of the data you have on G-News and G- related things must be returned.\") (unofficial translation).\n\n# 1 2\n\n# **IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS**\n\n# **Background to the Stock Offering**\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 35. Guo is a self-described Chinese political dissident. After arriving in the United States in 2014, Guo built a large following online, particularly among the worldwide Chinese diaspora, by alleging high-level corruption within China's Communist Party (sometimes referred to herein as \"CCP\"). He has also reportedly applied for asylum in the United States \"because his public charges against Chinese officials … made him 'a political opponent of the Chinese regime.'\"6\n\n9 10 11 12 36. Guo is well known for his extravagant lifestyle. He owns a \\$65 million apartment in New York and a mega yacht,7 and often streams videos online from both. Guo's following is such that his die-hard supporters rally against any dissenting voices, often harassing and picketing outside their homes and businesses.\n\n13 14 15 16 37. Guo sought to monetize his online popularity through the establishment of a video-streaming social media platform for user generated political content. Over the course of 2019 and early 2020, Guo worked to develop the platform and, by March 2020, Guo and Saraca had an initial release version.\n\n17 18 19 20 38. GTV is the creation of Guo. On April 17, 2020, Guo caused Saraca to incorporate GTV as a wholly-owned subsidiary to own and operate the platform. Guo also caused Saraca to contribute all assets of the platform, including the *www.gtv.org* website, to GTV.\n\n- 21\n- 22\n\n- 23\n- 24 25 6 Michael Forsythe, *Billionaire Who Accused Top Chinese Officials of Corruption Asks U.S. for Asylum*, N.Y. Times (Sept. 7, 2017), *available at* http\n- 26 27 28 7 Ken Dilanian, Andrew Blankstein, Tom Winter & Katy Tur, *Who is Guo Wengui, the Chinese billionaire who owns the boat Steve Bannon was arrested on?*, NBC New (Aug. 20, 2020), *available at* http\n\n| 1 | 39.
On April 20, 2020, Guo caused Saraca and GTV to launch the Stock |\n|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Offering. Pursuant to the Stock Offering, Saraca and GTV proposed to sell between 20 |\n| 3 | million and 200 million unregistered shares of GTV common stock at a price of \\$1 per |\n| 4 | share. As stated in the Order: |\n| 5 | According
to
the
Stock
Offering's
information
memorandum
(\"Memorandum\"), [Saraca and GTV] recently launched a news |\n| 6 | focused social media platform, including the website www.gtv.org |\n| 7 | [(the \"GTV Platform\")]. The Memorandum claimed it would be \"the
first ever platform which will combine the power of citizen |\n| 8 | journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data,
artificial
intelligence,
block-chain
technology
and
real-time |\n| 9
10 | interactive communication\" and planned to be \"the only uncensored
and independent bridge between China and the Western world.\"
Order at 2. |\n| 11 | 40.
From April 2020 through June 2020, Guo, Saraca, and GTV solicited |\n| 12 | investors through a number of channels, including www.gtv.org, www.gnews.org (another |\n| 13 | website under Guo's control), and social media platforms Guo Media, YouTube, Twitter, |\n| 14 | and Discord. |\n| 15 | 41.
The solicitations represented to potential investors that GTV would be a |\n| 16 | platform
for
news,
social
media
and
e-commerce,
with
competitors
including |\n| 17 | Amazon.com Inc., Tencent Holdings Ltd.'s WeChat and ByteDance Ltd.'s TikTok. |\n| 18 | According to the Wall Street Journal, the Memorandum stated a pre-investment valuation |\n| 19 | of \\$1.8 billion for GTV.8 |\n| 20 | 42.
On April 21, 2020, Guo recorded and posted a video on YouTube entitled |\n| 21 | (in English) GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions
(the \"Launch Video\"), that |\n| 22 | described the terms of the Stock Offering and provided contact information for potential |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| 26 | 8
Brian Spegele, Sha Hua & Aruna Viswanatha, Fundraising at Company Tied to Steve Bannon |\n| 27 | and
Guo
Wengui
Faces
Probe,
Wall
St.
J.
(Aug.
19,
2020),
available
at
http |\n| 28 | faces-probe-11597857467. |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 investors interested in participating.9 Although Guo disclosed in the Launch Video that \"[it] is not for the public,\" access to view and share the Launch Video and related investment documents for the Stock Offering was not restricted. Thus, the Launch Video and investment documents were generally available to the public everywhere YouTube is available, including the State of Arizona.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 43. Guo disclosed in the Launch Video that the Stock Offering sought to sell between 20 and 200 million shares of GTV common stock at a price of \\$1 per share. He further disclosed that, while the Stock Offering required a minimum investment of \\$100,000 by investors, an alternative avenue is available for those that want to invest less than \\$100,000.\n\n- 11 12 13 14 44. Along with the Launch Video, Guo posted a link to download documents in connection with the Stock Offering, including the Memorandum, a subscription agreement, a non-disclosure agreement, a document titled \"Investment Procedure Guidelines,\" investment instructions, and other related documents.\n- 15 16 17 18 19 45. As described above, Guo, Saraca, and GTV did not restrict access to the Launch Video, the link to documents in connection with the Stock Offering, or the ability of the Launch Video and the related documents to be shared. In fact, Guo, Saraca, and GTV did nothing to prevent general public access to marketing videos already available online.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 46. Guo, Saraca, and GTV sent the Launch Video via text message to hundreds of potential investors, without respect to accreditation, that included a link to download documents relevant to the Stock Offering. Guo, Saraca, and GTV did not restrict the ability of recipients of the text messages to forward the linked Stock Offering documents to other potential investors.\n\n- 25\n- 26\n- 27\n\n28 9 *See* Launch Video, *available at* http\n\n- 12 -\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47. At Guo's direction, Wei and VOG also solicited investors in connection with the Stock Offering. As set forth in the findings in the Order, to \"facilitate VOG's role in offering and selling\" GTV securities, Saraca and GTV furnished Wei and VOG with the Stock Offering documents, including the LPAA \"to provide to prospective investors in the Stock Offering.\" Order at 4. Saraca and GTV also \"directed VOG to purchase GTV stock … on behalf of prospective investors who wanted to invest less than \\$100,000. VOG then solicited investors and collected funds for the purpose of purchasing shares of GTV stock on their behalf.\" *Id*.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 48. At all relevant times, VOG operated as an agent of Guo, Saraca, and GTV through which potential investors – with less than \\$100,000 to purchase GTV securities directly from Saraca and GTV – could still participate in the Stock Offering. By creating this \"backdoor,\" Guo significantly increased demand for GTV securities. In order to gain access to this backdoor and purchase GTV securities, however, Guo required that they first make a donation to one of the ROL Entities, or to Guo himself via Livestream (another Guo video-streaming platform).\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. In a video streamed on Guo's website *www.gtv.org*, Guo stated (in Chinese) that only his true supporters could invest in GTV and the donations was a way to prove support. *See* http (\"All we wanted to do was to share the GTV whistleblowing platform, its profits, its expected value, and its appreciation in value, with our friends-in-arms. This is why, we only gave it to donors of the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society, and the people who have contributed, who have shed blood, sweat, and tears, and who have taken risks in the Movement.\" (unofficial translation)); http (\"We don't sell to anyone else, we only sell to these friends-in-arms who have supported the Whistleblower Movement, the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society, the friends-in-arms who fought side by side with us, and the people who have invested in GTV, no one else.\" (unofficial translation)).\n\n|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1
2
3 | 50.
While the donations enabled investors to participate in the Stock Offering
and pay for GTV securities, investors did not obtain the shares of GTV common stock for
which they paid. |\n| 4 | 51.
Guo specifically directed investors with less than \\$100,000 to spend on the |\n| 5
6 | purchase of GTV securities to contact Wei and VOG. In another video streamed on Guo's
www.gtv.org
website, Guo confirmed that he \"said more than ten times in [his] livestream, |\n| 7
8 | that if you have less than \\$100,000, you go to Sara.\"10
52.
When Wei pooled approximately \\$70 million from investors, Guo praised |\n| 9 | Wei in a May 21, 2020 video for helping \"so many friends-in-arms who would not have |\n| 10
11
12
13 | had an opportunity to get involved\":
Sara just by herself, just by Sara herself, can you imagine, [pooled]
\\$70 million, almost \\$100 million, my god.
This time I am deeply moved by VOG. Sara, unintentionally, she has
been supporting the Whistleblower Movement since years ago, she
registered this company, and started receiving ad revenue, and doing |\n| 14
15
16
17 | business. Not only is there ongoing business, but it is also a
completely legitimate company. Audited, completely legal. And she
ended up helping so many friends-in-arms, many of the friends-in
arms would not have had an opportunity to get involved. Helped so
many people!11 |\n| 18
19
20
21
22 | 53.
In a May 22, 2020 video, Guo again praised Wei for helping the \"friends-in
arms with less means\" to get on board with the GTV private placement:
Sara is such a Boddhisatva. I cared most about our friends-in-arms
with less means; that we do not leave the friends-in-arms with little
money behind.
Sara helped us to achieve that.
I am really
appreciative of her efforts.12 |\n| 23
24
25
26
27
28 | 10 http (unofficial translation).
11
http>(emphasis
added)
(unofficial
translation).
12 http (unofficial translation). |\n| | - 14 - |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | 54.
Like GTV, Wei and VOG operate multiple social media channels such as |\n| 2 | YouTube and Discord.
Through these channels, Wei directly communicated with |\n| 3 | potential investors interested in purchasing GTV securities through VOG. |\n| 4 | 55.
In a May 12, 2020 video posted on www.gtv.org, Wei told investors (in |\n| 5 | Chinese): |\n| 6 | The first thing I need from you is your proof of donation to Rule of |\n| 7 | Law Foundation. Don't ask me if you are still eligible if you donated
after April 1, as long as you have a proof of donation it's fine. Your |\n| 8 | experience supporting Mr. Guo, I like to read that too, we can share
that later. Then you need to tell me if you have more or less than |\n| 9 | \\$100,000. You must let me know. If it's more than \\$100,000 I will
contact the headquarters; if it's less than \\$100,000, VOG will … do |\n| 10 | it for you.\"13 |\n| 11 | 56.
Upon information and belief, Wei's solicitation of donations to the ROL |\n| 12 | Entities in connection with the Stock Offering were made from the State of Arizona. In |\n| 13 | soliciting the donations, Wei was acting at the behest of Guo, GTV, Saraca, and the ROL |\n| 14 | Entities that Guo founded, owned, and controlled. Both the donations and investments in |\n| 15 | GTV through VOG served to line Guo's pockets. |\n| 16 | 57.
After confirmation of the donation, Wei, or one of her agents, would contact |\n| 17 | the investor via email or private chat, request completion of various forms, and provide |\n| 18 | identification.
Wei used the following email addresses as part of the process: |\n| 19 | sarawei@protonmail.com; vog202064@protonmail.com; and vog202064@gmail.com. |\n| 20 | 58.
Among the documentation sent for completion was the LPAA (Limited |\n| 21 | Purpose Agency Agreement) whereby investors agreed to the designation of Wei as their |\n| 22 | agent to purchase GTV securities on their respective behalves. The LPAA provides, in |\n| 23 | relevant part, as follows: |\n| 24 | KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT,
_____,
(hereinafter referred to as the \"Investor\"), hereby intending to be |\n| 25 | legally bound, and in consideration of One Dollar (\\$1.00), and other |\n| 26 | |\n| 27 | |\n| 28 | 13 http (emphasis added) (unofficial translation). |\n| | |\n\n- 15 -\n\n|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1
2 | good,
valuable and
sufficient considerations, the receipt and
adequacy whereof being hereby acknowledged by the Agent and for
the benefit of the Investor and his/her successors and assigns, does |\n| | hereby
assign,
direct,
and
designate
Lihong
Wei
Lafrenz
(hereinafter referred to as the \"Agent\"), her successors, assigns, and |\n| 3
4 | affiliates, to purchase on my behalf, with funds to be provided by |\n| 5 | me in the sum of \\$________, certain shares in GTV Media Group,
Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the \"Investment\") together with all |\n| 6 | rights of action accrued or which may accrue thereunder; and the
Investor does hereby constitute and appoint said Agent as the |\n| 7 | Investor's true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact, for the limited
purpose of completing the Investment on my behalf and to do and |\n| 8 | perform all acts, matters, and things touching upon the premises, in
like manner, and to all intents and purposes as the Investor could do |\n| 9 | if personally present. (emphasis added) |\n| 10 | 59.
After completion of the LPAA, Wei directed prospective investors to wire |\n| 11 | the purchase amount to bank accounts controlled by Wei and/or VOG. |\n| 12 | 60.
Guo announced in a June 2, 2020 video that the Stock Offering ended with |\n| 13 | hundreds of millions of dollars raised and a purported \\$2 billion valuation for GTV. |\n| 14 | Although the Stock Offering purportedly closed on June 2, 2020, Saraca, GTV, and VOG |\n| 15 | continued to solicit investments through July 2020. |\n| 16 | 61.
According to the findings in the Order, Saraca and GTV sold approximately |\n| 17 | \\$339 million worth of GTV common stock to more than 1,000 investors, some of whom |\n| 18 | were unaccredited. VOG sold approximately \\$114 million worth of GTV common stock |\n| 19 | to more than 4,500 investors, many of whom were unaccredited.
No investor who |\n| 20 | purchased GTV common stock through VOG ever received GTV shares. |\n| 21 | Defendants'
Materially
False
and
Misleading
Statements
and |\n| 22 | Omissions in Connection with the Stock Offering |\n| 23 | 62.
In connection with the promotion of the Stock Offering to investors, Guo, |\n| 24 | Wei, and their affiliates made materially false and misleading statements to investors |\n| 25 | and/or omitted facts to make their statements not misleading. Guo and Wei made false |\n| 26 | statements and omissions with the intention and for the purpose of inducing potential |\n| 27 | investors to purchase GTV securities and increase demand – by offering to sell |\n| 28 | |\n| | |\n| | - 16 - |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 unregistered shares to unaccredited investors – in an attempt to raise as much money as possible in the Stock Offering. 63. For example, in a video uploaded to YouTube on April 6, 2020, Guo boasted that \"[in a year,] the market value [of the GTV Platform] is absolutely going to be multi-hundred billion, absolutely multi-hundred billion.\" (unofficial translation).14 64. In an April 7, 2020 broadcast, Guo stated that there were so many people who wanted to invest in GTV that \"one or two or three billion dollars could be raised in one minute\" and that GTV stock would rise by as much as \"10 times.\" 65. On May 9, 2020, Guo asserted in another video uploaded to *www.gtv.org*\n\n10 11 that the opportunity to purchase GTV securities through the Stock Offering was \"riskfree\", and \"will generate 100 times or 1000 times the return.\"15\n\n12 13 14 66. In a June 2, 2020 post on *www.gnews.org*, Guo claimed that money raised in the Stock Offering \"has elevated [GTV's] estimated market value from 2 billion dollars to 10 billion dollars.16\n\n15 16 17 67. After the purported close of the Stock Offering, Guo stated in an August 2, 2020 post on *www.gnews.org* entitled, \"*Miles Guo: The potential of GNews and GTV is infinite*,\" as follows:\n\n> Our Gnews viewer and registration numbers grow by multiples every week. Up to last week, its business valuation is already \\$2 billion U.S. dollars. How much then will our GTV product be worth? Soon all the CCP apps will be banned and removed in the U.S. By that time, our Gnews and GTV will be the only platform and app to use for tens of millions of overseas Chinese and those within the CCP Internet firewall, to find out the truth about the CCP and the world. The chance for our products to grow rapidly and make an enormous profit is boundless! We haven[ ' ] t even made our secret next big move yet. Don't forget that we will have mergers and acquisitions down\n\n- 26 14 http\n- 27 15 http (unofficial translation).\n- 28 16 http\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n58\n\nthe road. We will dramatically change the business world, that used to be manipulated by CCP.17\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n68. Guo knowingly made the foregoing wildly misleading claims to promote GTV and drive demand for GTV securities, both before and during the Stock Offering. In the attempt to \"make good\" on these claims, Guo knowingly or recklessly violated Arizona law by causing Saraca, GTV, and VOG to offer unregistered shares of GTV common stock for sale to unaccredited investors and with no minimum purchase amount.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 69. As detailed above, on April 21, 2020, Guo recorded and posted the Launch Video on YouTube wherein he told prospective investors \"[it] is not for the public,\" but knowingly or recklessly failed to restrict potential investors' ability to view the video or share the same with others. Guo posted a link with the Launch Video for potential investors to download Stock Offering documents. Guo knowingly or recklessly failed to restrict potential investors' ability to inspect and share the documents.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 70. Wei played a key role in Guo's scheme to defraud by collecting and pooling investor funds for a purported investment in GTV, and soliciting donations for the ROL Entities and Guo personally. Wei also knowingly or recklessly violated Arizona law by causing VOG to offer unregistered shares of GTV common stock for sale to unaccredited investors and with no minimum purchase amount. Indeed, as long as investors could prove their donations to the ROL Entities or Guo, they qualified to participate in the Stock Offering and purchase GTV securities through VOG.\n\n71. The ROL Entities also participated in the scheme to defraud by lending their name and reputation for challenging the Chinese government to provide further creditability to investment in GTV, and had their promoters, Guo and Wei, solicit donations for the ROL Entities or Guo personally as a prerequisite for investing with GTV directly or through VOG.\n\n25\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n26 27\n\n28 17 http 1 2 3 4 5 72. As described below, once Wei confirmed investors' donations, she emailed them a public link that contained the Stock Offering documents (or directed investors where to locate the documents online), including the LPAA, and instructions where to send the completed documentation and wire transfer confirmations in connection with their purchases.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 73. At all relevant times, Guo and Wei knew that GTV securities were not registered in Arizona. At all relevant times, Guo and Wei knew that they were not licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona. At all relevant times, Guo and Wei knew that Saraca, GTV, and VOG were not brokers or dealers, and not licensed to solicit customers or effect transactions for the offer or sale of securities in the State of Arizona. The knowledge of Guo and Wei is imputable to Saraca, GTV, VOG, and ROL Entities.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 74. Nonetheless, Guo, Wei, and the affiliated companies acting under their control, knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the Stock Offering to potential investors as \"completely legitimate\" and \"completely legal,\" and omitted to disclose their failure to comply with Arizona law, in order to induce potential investors to purchase GTV securities.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75. At all relevant times, Guo and Wei knew that the Stock Offering was anything but legitimate or legal. Guo had no intention to use the proceeds from the Stock Offering to develop the GTV Platform or GTV's business. As set forth in the Order, Saraca exercised control over GTV both before and after the Stock Offering. Guo exercised dominion and control over Saraca. Guo (through Saraca) transferred \\$100 million of the Stock Offering proceeds to a hedge fund for investment in the fund. According to *Bloomberg*, the hedge fund is managed by non-party Hayman Capital\n\n- 26\n- 27\n- 28\n\n1 2 3 Management L.P.18 Non-party Kyle Bass is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of Hayman Capital Management, L.P. Notably, Bass was identified by Guo in the Memorandum as one of the directors of GTV.19\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 76. Further, Guo, Wei, and the companies under their control, knowingly deceived Plaintiffs and Class member about their purchases of GTV securities. Pursuant to the LPAAs, Wei served as investors' agent for the purchase shares of GTV common stock through VOG. When Wei delivered \\$61,274,318 in Stock Offering proceeds to Saraca and GTV on May 15, 2020, as investors' fiduciary she should have contemporaneously received \\$61,274,318 worth of GTV securities on their behalves.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 77. At all relevant times, Guo and Wei knew and intended that no GTV securities would be issued to investors who purchased through VOG. After Wei delivered \\$61,274,318 to Saraca and GTV on May 15, she sent no further Stock Offering proceeds to Saraca and GTV despite continuing to receive funds from investors through at least June 2020. Nor was there any demand made by Guo, Saraca, or GTV that Wei or VOG remit the balance of any Stock Offering proceedings – despite raising more than \\$114 million. No shares of common stock were ever issued to investors that purchased through VOG, and no purchase confirmations were ever provided. Investors' concerns about the legitimacy of their participation in the Stock Offering were heightened when, on June 2, 2020, when Guo stated that those who purchased GTV securities through VOG \"will be joined as institutional investors later.\"\n\n- 21\n- 22\n- 23\n\n25 26 18Tom Schoenberg, Matt Robinson, & Joshua Green, *Kyle Bass's Disastrous Hong Kong Short Got Bannon-Linked Cash* (Oct. 13, 2021) Bloomberg, *available at* http\n\n27 28 19 Bass stated on July 14, 2020 in his Twitter feed that, as of July 9, he was no longer a director of GTV.\n\n| 1 | | Defendants'
Materially
False
and
Misleading
Statements
and |\n|----------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | | Omissions in Connection with the Status of Investor Funds |\n| 3 | 78. | After the close of the Stock Offering, Guo and Wei made materially false |\n| 4 | | and misleading statements to investors and omitted facts to make their statements not |\n| 5 | | materially misleading. Guo and Wei made materially false statements and omissions with |\n| 6 | | the intention of concealing from investors the illegitimacy and illegality of the Stock |\n| 7 | Offering. | |\n| 8 | 79. | On June 2, 2020, Guo announced the purported successful close of the Stock |\n| 9 | | Offering. Guo stated, in relevant part, as follows: |\n| 10 | | We've accomplished the privately offered project of GTV, bearing
the hopes of our friends-in-arms and likeminded people. We've |\n| 11 | | made a history that during this pandemic, this shut-down of economy |\n| 12 | | and downturn of finance, we managed to raise 3500 [sic] million
dollars from individuals, in addition to 1170 [sic] million dollars |\n| 13 | | raised from VOG, which will be joined as institutional investors
later. Every investor is the donor to the Rule of Law Foundation or |\n| 14 | | the Rule of Law Society, and each of the fund marks their faith in
freedom, democracy and their anti-CCP struggles. The total funds |\n| 15
16 | | raised has elevated our estimated market value from 2 billion
dollars to 10 billion dollars. (emphasis added) |\n| 17 | 80. | Guo's statement was false and misleading when made because, as explained |\n| 18 | | above, the Stock Offering was not private. |\n| 19 | 81. | Soon after the close of the Stock Offering, questions began to arise among |\n| 20 | | investors, in chatrooms and other media, regarding their investments in GTV. Investors |\n| 21 | | who purchased GTV securities through VOG were particularly alarmed. Guo's June 2 |\n| 22 | | statement that the \\$117 [sic] million raised from VOG \"would be joined as institutional |\n| 23 | | investors later\" provided no comfort. |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| 26 | | |\n| 27 | | |\n| 28 | | |\n| | | |\n\n1 2 3 82. In a June 17, 2020 address uploaded to *www.gwins.org* and YouTube, Guo told investors that, \"about [money that] went to VOG, VOG's money can't be moved, it's frozen in the bank, and, that money you need to wait for VOG to have a result.\"20\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 83. In June and July 2020, Wei knowingly misrepresented to investors that Wells Fargo and Chase were to blame for the delay in the delivery of shares of GTV common stock.21 Wei also falsely stated that as soon as the banks released the funds, she and her associates would countersign the LPAAs. Guo and Wei also attempted to deceive investors by encouraging them to join a lawsuit that VOG was allegedly about to commence against Wells Fargo in order release investor funds.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 84. As set forth in the Order, VOG transferred \\$61,274,318 of investor money from the Stock Offering to Saraca and GTV *on May 15, 2020*. Thus, the banks had nothing to do with the purported delay in the delivery of GTV securities and countersigned LPAAs. Wei's misdirection was intended solely to delay disclosure that no shares would ever be issued to investors who made purchases through VOG.\n\n15 16 17 85. In August 2020, the *Wall Street Journal* reported that the FBI, the SEC, and the New York Attorney General's Office were all investigating the purported investments in GTV. The article sets forth, in relevant part, as follows:\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nThe federal probe is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, people familiar with the investigation said. *The investigators have been examining whether GTV Media or associates of Mr. Guo violated securities laws through the private share placement*. The New York state attorney general's office has also been examining the matter, these people said. Soon after the fundraising, some investors began pushing for refunds\n\n- after they said they never received official documentation verifying\n- 26 20 http http (unofficial translation).\n- 27 28 21 *See e.g.*, transcript of Sara Wei's June 25, 2020 livestream published on the GNews platform, http\n\n|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1
2 | their investments in GTV Media, among other issues that led them to
distrust Mr. Guo.
… |\n| 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 | The fundraising documents reviewed by the Journal say GTV Media
aimed to sell a 10% stake in the company for as much as \\$200
million, with the rest held by another company affiliated with Mr.
Guo.
Mr. Guo said in an online video in June that GTV Media had raised
more than
\\$300
million, with
demand for shares exceeding
expectations. |\n| | GTV Media didn't register the deal with the SEC. To avoid
registration, companies generally must sell shares only to wealthy
\"accredited investors\" who meet requirements such as having more
than \\$1 million in assets, excluding the value of a primary residence,
or earning more than \\$200,000 a year. GTV Media said it sought to
sell shares to such accredited investors. (emphasis added)22 |\n| 11 | 86.
In December 2020, VOG and Wei began issuing serial numbers to certain |\n| 12
13 | VOG investors so that they could purportedly track the status of their refund requests |\n| 14 | through a website established by VOG. |\n| 15 | 87.
On information and belief, around the end of 2020, Guo and Wei reportedly |\n| 16 | had a fallout, which led to a halt in the supposed refund process. With Guo and Wei each |\n| 17 | holding a portion of the more than \\$114 million in Stock Offering proceeds invested |\n| 18 | through VOG, they began blaming each other for defrauding investors. In 2021, Guo and |\n| 19 | Wei began telling investors that they could no longer refund investments because of the |\n| 20 | ongoing SEC investigation. |\n| 21 | 88.
The truth about
Defendants'
misconduct
was partially
revealed on |\n| 22 | September 13, 2021, when the SEC and settled the Administrative Proceeding against |\n| 23 | Saraca, GTV, and VOG and issued the Order. As set forth in the Order, Saraca, GTV, and |\n| 24 | VOG submitted offers of settlement in anticipation of the commencement of the |\n| 25 | Administrative Proceeding which the SEC determined to accept. |\n| 26 | |\n| 27 | |\n| 28 | 22 B. Spegele, S. Hua & A. Viswanatha, Fundraising at Company Tied to Steve Bannon and Guo
Wengui Faces Probe, Wall St. J., supra. |\n\n1 2\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n# **Individual Plaintiffs' Experiences**\n\n# **1. Plaintiff Rong Zhang**\n\n3 4 89. Plaintiff Zhang made payment to VOG for the purpose of purchasing GTV securities.\n\n5 6 90. Plaintiff Zhang and her family have followed Guo on YouTube since approximately 2017 or 2018.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 91. In April 2020, Plaintiff Zhang and her family viewed Guo's livestream videos on YouTube in which Guo promoted the launching of GTV Media. Guo stated that GTV had seen exceptional viewer and visitor numbers23 and that the company would see even greater success in the future. Guo informed his viewers that GTV would start raising money through a private placement (the Stock Offering) and that it would generate remarkable returns for early investors. Based on these representations, Plaintiff Zhang and her family wanted to invest in GTV.\n\n14 15 16 17 92. Plaintiff Zhang and her family learned through Guo's videos that donation to the Rule of Law Foundation was a prerequisite to participating in the private placement. 93. Accordingly, on April 12, 2020, Plaintiff Zhang sent \\$500 to the Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. via PayPal.\n\n18 19 94. On April 16, 2020, a member of Plaintiff Zhang's family emailed proof of the donation to Guo (gtvstock@gmail.com).\n\n24 25 26 27 28 23 *See e.g.*, http (Guo claiming in an April 10, 2020 livestream that more than 10 million people are watching); http (Guo claiming in an April 14, 2020 livestream on the GTV platform that approximately 10 to 20 million people are watching); http (Guo claiming that the actual number of visits of the GTV platform is around 500 million, despite the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to skew the numbers). Zhang later discovered that the these numbers given by Guo had been grossly exaggerated.\n\n1 2 3 95. On April 17, 2020, Guo responded by stating, \"[c]urrently the minimum amount is \\$100,000. For amount less than \\$100,000, VOG will aggregate and invest. Will register you if you want to join. Thanks.\" (unofficial translation).\n\n4 5 6 96. On May 3, 2020, a member of Plaintiff Zhang's family emailed Wei (sarawei@protonmail.com) inquiring whether they were approved to invest. Wei requested proof of their donation to the Rule of Law Foundation.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 97. After confirming the donation to the Rule of Law Foundation, Wei emailed Plaintiff Zhang's family member stating \"the minimum investment is 100 thousand dollars. For investment under 100 thousand: based on trust, you can join our VOG partnership team. Please reply if confirmed to invest, I will register you[.] Please attach a proof of donation of your donation in the Rule of Law Foundation[.] must be with date[.] thank you very much!\" (unofficial translation).\n\n- 13 14 98. Plaintiff Zhang's family member replied to Wei that they would like to be registered to make an investment of \\$100,000.\n- 15\n\n16 17 18 19 99. On May 5, 2020, Wei emailed Plaintiff Zhang's family member a series of steps, directing them to (1) follow a link to a Google Drive which contained wire transfer instructions and the blank LPAA; (2) fill out the LPAA, attach a photocopy of their ID, attach a copy of their wire transfer confirmation, (3) email the documentation to vog202064@protonmail.com; and (4) wait for VOG to countersign the agreement.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 26 100. On May 11, 2020, despite meeting the supposed \\$100,000 minimum threshold for direct investment in GTV, following Wei's instruction, Plaintiff Zhang invested in GTV through VOG in order to obtain GTV shares, and sent \\$100,000 to VOG via wire transfer to VOG's Wells Fargo Bank, NA. account (Account No. ending in 536). On that same day, she emailed the executed LPAA, the wire transfer confirmation, a photocopy of her passport, and a proof of donation to the Rule of Law Foundation to vog202064@protonmail.com.\n\n27 28 101. Following the investment, Plaintiff Zhang made multiple inquiries regarding the purchase of GTV securities through VOG. After failing to receive a satisfactory 1 2 response to her inquiries, Plaintiff Zhang has requested a refund. No refund was provided. In addition, Plaintiff Zhang was not issued shares of GTV common stock.\n\n3\n\n### **2. Plaintiff Chong Shen Raphanella**\n\n4 5 102. Plaintiff Raphanella made payment to VOG for the purpose of purchasing GTV securities.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 103. In April and May 2020, Plaintiff Raphanella viewed Guo's livestream videos announcing and promoting the private placement for GTV in which he touted that original issue shares would generate 100-fold return. Plaintiff Raphanella also viewed various livestream videos of Mr. Guo in which he stated that investors with more than \\$100,000 should contact him directly, while investors with less than \\$100,000 should contact Wei for a collective investment through VOG. Plaintiff Raphanella learned through Guo's livestream videos that making a donation was a prerequisite for investing in GTV.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 104. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff Raphanella saw Wei's livestream video, wherein she stated that VOG would pool investors' money to invest in shares of GTV, and that even a small investment as low as \\$100 is acceptable. In addition, Wei stated that investors were required to provide her with a proof of donation to the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as informing her of the amount investors intended to spend to purchase GTV securities.\n\n20 21 105. On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff Raphanella sent \\$30 to Guo via Livestream in order to qualify to purchase GTV securities through VOG.\n\n22 23 24 106. On or about May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Raphanella spoke with Wei in a Discord chatroom, who confirmed the donation to Guo and directed her to a Google Drive that contained wire transfer instructions and a blank LPAA.\n\n25 26 107. On May 27 and 28, 2020, Plaintiff Raphanella effected two wire transfers of \\$5,000 each to VOG's bank account at Bank of America (Account No. ending in 226).\n\n27 28 108. On May 28, 2020, she emailed Wei (sarawei@protonmail.com) the two wire transfer confirmations, the executed LPAA, and a photocopy of her driver's license.\n\n1 2 3 109. Plaintiff Raphanella has made multiple inquiries regarding her investment and has requested a refund. No refund was provided. Plaintiff Raphanella was not issued shares of GTV common stock.\n\n4\n\n# **3. Plaintiff Xiaodan Wang**\n\n5 6 110. Plaintiff Wang made payment to VOG for the purpose of purchasing GTV securities.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 111. In or about April and May 2020, Plaintiff Wang viewed Guo's livestream videos on YouTube regarding the launch of GTV and promoting the private placement for GTV in which he touted that original issue shares would generate 100-fold return. Guo also stated that people interested in making an investment of more than \\$100,000 should contact him directly, while people interested in making an investment of less than \\$100,000 should contact Wei.\n\n13 14 15 112. In May 2020, Plaintiff Wang joined Wei's Discord channel, where she learned that donating to the Rule of Law Foundation or the Rule of Law Society was a prerequisite for investing in GTV.\n\n16 17 113. On May 13, 2020, she sent \\$100 via PayPal to Rule of Law Society to qualify to purchase GTV securities through VOG.\n\n18 19 20 114. During a May 16, 2020 communication with Wei in a Discord chatroom, Wei confirmed receipt of the donation and directed Plaintiff Wang to the Google Drive that contained wire transfer instructions and the blank LPAA.\n\n21 22 115. On May 19, 2020, she made a wire transfer for \\$50,000 through the Bank of Montreal to VOG's account at Wells Fargo.\n\n23\n\n24 25 116. On May 21, 2020, she made a second wire transfer in the amount of \\$20,000 through Bank of Montreal to VOG's account at JP Morgan Chase Bank. This transfer was later rejected, and the \\$20,000 was returned.\n\n26 27 28 117. On May 25, 2020, Plaintiff Wang emailed Ms. Wei (vog202064@protonmail.com) the following: (1) three executed LPAAs, one for an investment amount of \\$50,000, one for an investment amount of \\$20,000, and one for an\n\n1 2 3 4 5 aggregated investment amount of \\$70,00024; (2) two wire transfer confirmations, in the amount of \\$50,000 and \\$20,000 respectively; (3) a photocopy of Plaintiff Wang's passport; (4) proof of a donation of \\$100 made by a credit card to the Rule of Law Society via PayPal; and (5) a photo of a credit card with Plaintiff Wang's name, in order to prove that the donation was made by her.\n\n6\n\n7 8 118. Plaintiff Wang has made multiple inquiries as to the investment and has requested a refund. No refund was provided. Plaintiff Wang was not issued shares of GTV common stock.\n\n9\n\n# **V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS**\n\n10 11 12 13 119. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and b(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who made payments to VOG to purchase GTV securities and never received such securities or a refund of the money paid, and were damaged thereby.\n\n14 15 16 17 120. Excluded from the Class are Guo, Wei, and their families, heirs, and assigns, Saraca, GTV, VOG, and their directors, officers, legal representatives, employees, agents, successors, subsidiaries, assigns and affiliates. Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Class definition based on information obtained through discovery.\n\n- 18 19 20 21 121. Certification of Plaintiffs' claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.\n- 22\n- 23\n- 24\n\n- 25\n- 26 27 28 24 Plaintiff Wang explained in her email that because she made two separate wire transfers, she was unsure whether the amount indicated in the limited purpose agency agreement should be aggregated. For Wei's convenience, Plaintiff Wang executed three agreements and asked Wei to countersign the agreement(s) as appropriate. However, Plaintiff Wang never received a countersigned agreement from Wei.\n\n1 2 122. This action is brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the Class proposed herein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 123. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that there are more than 4500 members of the Class, many of whom reside in the United States. Class member may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.\n\n9 10 11 12 124. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class, which predominate over questions that may affect individual Class members, include, *inter alia*:\n\n13 14 a. Whether Defendants offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes;\n\n15 16 17 18 b. Whether Defendants, by their involvement and participation in a scheme to offer and sell unregistered securities, employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs and Class members, or engaged in transactions, practice, or course of business which operated as fraud;\n\n19 20 c. Whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class as alleged herein;\n\n21 22 23 d. Whether Defendants, by their involvement and participation in a scheme to offer and sell unregistered securities, conspired to defraud, breach fiduciary duties, and/or aid and abet breaches of fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class;\n\n24\n\ne. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their conduct;\n\n25 26 27 28 f. Whether Defendants failed to exercise reason care or competence in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered securities and negligently misrepresented facts regarding the Stock Offering to Plaintiffs and members of the Class; and\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 g. Whether the members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of the actions of Defendants. 125. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiffs and the Class sustained damages from Defendants' wrongful conduct in a substantially identical manner. 126. Plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict with those of the other members of the Class. 127. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. **VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I Violation of ARS § 44-1991 - Fraud in the Purchase or Sale of Securities (Against Defendants Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG)**\n\n15 16 128. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein.\n\n17 18 129. ARS § 44-1801 defines the term \"security\" as including any \"stock\" or \"evidence of indebtedness\" or \"investment contract.\"\n\n19 20 130. The interests in GTV marketed by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG in connection with the Stock Offering are securities within the meaning of ARS § 44-1801.\n\n21 22 23 131. The GTV securities offered and sold to Plaintiffs and the Class through VOG do not consist of covered securities as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f), and therefore are not preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (\"SLUSA\").\n\n24 25 26 27 132. The GTV securities offered and sold to Plaintiffs and the Class were not registered with the Arizona Corporate Commission prior to their offer and sale. Moreover, the GTV securities offered and sold were not subject to any exemption from registration under Arizona's law, statutes, or regulations.\n\n28\n\n133. ARS § 44-1841 provides:\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 139. By reasons of the conduct herein alleged, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each offered and sold and/or controlled a person who offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of ARS § 44-1991 and Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged thereby. 140. Plaintiffs seek all remedies available pursuant to ARS §§ 44-1998, 44-1999, 44-2001, and 44-2002, including punitive damages. **COUNT II Violation of ARS § 44-1998 – Offers and sales; Liability (Against Defendants Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG)** 141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein. 142. ARS § 44-1801 defines the term \"security\" as including any \"stock\" or \"evidence of indebtedness\" or \"investment contract.\" 143. The interests in GTV marketed by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG in connection with the Stock Offering are securities within the meaning of ARS § 44-1801. 144. The GTV securities offered and sold to Plaintiffs and the Class through VOG do not consist of covered securities as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f), and therefore are not preempted by SLUSA. 145. The GTV securities offered and sold to Plaintiffs and the Class were not registered with the Arizona Corporate Commission prior to their offer and sale. Moreover, the GTV securities offered and sold were not subject to any exemption from registration under Arizona's law, statutes, or regulations. 146. ARS § 44-1841 provides: It is unlawful to sell or offer for sale within or from this state any securities unless the securities have been registered pursuant to article 6 or 7 of this chapter or are federal covered securities if the securities comply with section 44-1843.02 or chapter 13, article 12 of this title. 147. ARS § 44-1998 provides:\n\n|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1
2 | In any case relating to securities offered or sold within or from this
state, any person who offers or sells a security by means of a
prospectus or oral communication that includes an untrue statement
of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order |\n| 3 | to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading is liable to the purchaser of the |\n| 4 | security from that person, as long as the purchaser did not know of
the untruth or omission, as provided by this section. The purchaser |\n| 5 | may bring an action in any court or administrative forum of
competent jurisdiction to recover the consideration paid for the |\n| 6 | security with interest, minus the amount of any income received from
the security, on the tender of the security, or for damages if the |\n| 7
8 | purchaser no longer owns the security. |\n| 9 | 148.
Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG were issuers, controlling person, dealers, |\n| 10 | and/or other persons by or on behalf whom the offer and sale of unregistered securities |\n| 11 | was made to Plaintiffs and the Class, or were brokers or salespersons who participated in |\n| 12 | making the offer and sale, or were the controlling persons of Saraca, GTV, and VOG who |\n| 13 | participated in the offer and sale of unregistered GTV securities. |\n| 14 | 149.
Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each promoted, offered, and sold GTV |\n| 15 | securities through the Stock Offering. |\n| 16 | 150.
By their acts, transactions, and courses of conduct as alleged in paragraphs |\n| 17 | 2-10, 39-52, 54-70, 72-80, 82-84, 91-92, 99, 103-04, 106, 111-12, and 114 above, Guo, |\n| 18 | Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the Class, and |\n| 19 | made materially false and misleading statements omissions to Plaintiffs and the Class in |\n| 20 | connection with the offer and sale of unregistered securities. |\n| 21 | 151.
Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG knowingly engaged in conduct that |\n| 22 | sought to circumvent regulation of unregistered securities by pooling the investments of |\n| 23 | unaccredited investors through VOG. The failure to disclose the illegality of the offer and |\n| 24 | sale of unregistered securities to unaccredited investors, as well as the failure to issue |\n| 25 | shares of GTV common stock or deliver any proof of ownership following purchase by |\n| 26 | Plaintiffs and Class members of the Class rendered Defendants' representations in |\n| 27 | connection with the Stock Offering materially misleading. |\n| 28 | |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 152. By reasons of the conduct herein alleged, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each offered and sold and/or controlled a person who offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of ARS § 44-1998 and Plaintiffs and Class members were damaged thereby. 153. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial. **COUNT III Common Law Fraud (Against Defendants Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG)** 154. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein. 155. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each and together made materially false and misleading statements and omissions to Plaintiffs and Class members through the solicitation their investment in GTV securities. 156. As alleged in paragraphs 3-5, 8, 10, 52, 63-67, 69, 74-77, 79-80, 82-84, 91, 95, 97, 103-04, and 111 above, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each knowingly or recklessly made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts regarding the Stock Offering and opportunity to purchase GTV securities through VOG with the intent to induce the reliance of Plaintiffs and Class members on them and secure the proceeds from the purchases by Plaintiff and the Class. 157. The false and misleading statements and omissions by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG were made with knowledge of their falsity or misleading character and with an intent to deceive, manipulate, and defraud. 158. Plaintiffs and Class members could not and did not know that the representations of Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG were false at the time they agreed to purchase GTV securities and provided funds in exchange for such securities.\n\n1 2 3 159. Plaintiffs and Class members did in fact rely on the false and misleading statements and omission by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG in deciding to purchase shares of GTV common stock through VOG.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 160. The reliance by Plaintiffs and Class members on the false and misleading statements and omissions by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG was reasonable. In light of their sense of kinship with Guo and Wei, Plaintiffs and Class members had no reason to disbelieve the statements from Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG when they were made.\n\n\n\n11 12 13 14 162. Had Plaintiffs and Class members known the truth, they would have not purchased GTV securities. As a direct and proximate cause of the malfeasance and deceptive scheme by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered significant damages.\n\n15 16 163. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.\n\n## **COUNT IV**\n\n# **Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Against Defendants Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG)**\n\n20 21 164. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein.\n\n22 23 165. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each solicited Plaintiffs and Class members in connection with the Stock Offering to purchase unregistered shares of GTV.\n\n24 25 26 27 166. As directors, officers, issuers, controlling persons of issuers, controlling shareholders of issuers, promoters of GTV, and agents of Plaintiffs and Class members, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each owed Plaintiffs and the Class fiduciary obligations of loyalty, good faith, due care, and disclosure.\n\n28\n\n17\n\n18\n\n1 2 3 167. At all relevant times, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG exercised complete control of the Stock Offering proceeds that Plaintiffs and Class members paid to purchase GTV securities.\n\n4 5 6 7 168. By their acts, transactions, and courses of as alleged in paragraphs 2-10, 39- 52, 54-70, 72-80, 82-84, 91-92, 99, 103-04, 106, 111-12, and 114 above, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG, individually and acting as part of a common plan, advanced their interests at the expense and detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class.\n\n8 9 169. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG each violated their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and the Class by, among other things:\n\n10 11 a. Engaging in a scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the Class through the Stock Offering by unlawfully soliciting the offer or sale of unregistered securities;\n\n12 13 b. Misleading Plaintiffs and the Class about the opportunity for investors to purchase GTV securities through VOG;\n\n14 15 c. Accepting investor funds for GTV securities with the knowledge that no securities would ever be issued to Plaintiffs and Class members;\n\n16 17 d. Failing to preserve investor assets in connection with the agency relationship established under the LPAA; and\n\n18 19 e. Misleading Plaintiffs and Class members about the status of refunds for the failure to deliver securities in exchange for their investments in GTV.\n\n20 21 22 170. By reason of the foregoing acts, practices, and courses of conduct, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in discharging their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and the Class.\n\n23 24 25 26 171. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG engaged in fraud and violations of law, did not act in good faith towards Plaintiffs and the Class, and failed to disclose material facts about the Stock Offering and the opportunity to purchase GTV securities through VOG, in breach of their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and Class members.\n\n27 28 172. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of fiduciary duty by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered significant damages.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 173. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial. **COUNT V Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Against Defendants the ROL Entities)** 174. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein. 175. The Rule of Law Entities aided and abetted and rendered substantial assistance in the wrongful conduct complained of in paragraphs 5-7, 48-50, 55-57, 61, 68- 75, 92-93, 104-06, 112-14 above. In taking actions to provide substantial assistance in the commission of wrongdoing complained of, the ROL Entities acted with knowledge of the primary wrongdoing, and were aware of their overall contribution to and furtherance of the wrongdoing. 176. The ROL Entities provided material support to Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG in connection with the Stock Offering. 177. The ROL Entities knew that Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG actions in connection with the Stock Offering were in breach of their fiduciary duties to investors seeking to purchase GTV securities through VOG. 178. The ROL Entities knew that the Stock Offering was unlawful to the extent it involved the offer and sale of unregistered GTV securities. 179. The ROL Entities provided substantial assistance to Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG by nonetheless accepting donations from investors in order to qualify them to participate in the Stock Offering and purchase GTV securities through VOG. 180. As a direct and proximate result of the ROL Entities aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG, Plaintiffs and Class member suffered significant damages. 181. The ROL Entities are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | |\n| 1 | COUNT VI | |\n| 2 | Civil Conspiracy | |\n| 3 | (Against All Defendants) | |\n| 4 | 182.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in | |\n| 5 | paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein. | |\n| 6 | 183.
As alleged in paragraphs 2-10, 33-34, 38-40, 45-48, 51-52, 55-61, 68-77, | |\n| 7 | and 79-84 above, Defendants, and each of them, conspired with one another and covertly | |\n| 8 | agreed to, among other things: | |\n| 9 | a.
Defraud Plaintiffs and the Class through the Stock Offering that | |\n| 10 | involved the unlawful offer and sale of unregistered GTV securities; | |\n| 11 | b.
Defraud Plaintiffs and the Class by
making
materially false | |\n| 12 | statements and omissions in connection with solicitation of investments in GTV and | |\n| 13 | donations to the ROL Entities and Guo; | |\n| 14 | c.
Violate their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and Class members by | |\n| 15 | (i) failing to disclose material facts Stock Offering and the offer and sale of GTV securities | |\n| 16 | through VOG, (ii) accepting investor funds with the knowledge that no shares of GTV | |\n| 17 | common stock would be issued to Plaintiffs and Class members, (iii) failing to preserve | |\n| 18 | investors asset in the scope of the agency accepted pursuant to the LPAA, and (iv) failing | |\n| 19 | to disclose material facts regarding the status of refunds of investor money for securities | |\n| 20 | not delivered. | |\n| 21 | 184.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, the following actions were undertaken by | |\n| 22 | Defendants: | |\n| 23 | a.
Guo caused Saraca to incorporate GTV and contribute all relevant | |\n| 24 | assets; | |\n| 25 | b.
Guo, Saraca, and GTV prepared and disseminated the Stock Offering | |\n| 26 | documents for the offer and sale of unregistered shares of GTV common stock; | |\n| 27 | | |\n| 28 | | |\n| | | |\n| | - 38 - | |\n\n1 2 3 c. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG used the Stock Offering documents for the purpose of solicited investment in GTV and donations to the ROL Entities and Guo;\n\n4 5 6 d. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG promoted and marketed the offer and sale of unregistered GTV securities by making public statements via social media and in the press;\n\n7 8 9 e. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG represented that donations to the ROL Entities or Guo were a prerequisite for investing with GTV, and did so with the intent of enriching further Guo in connection with the Stock Offering;\n\n10 11 12 13 f. The ROL Entities lent their name and reputation for challenging the Chinese government to provide further creditability to investment in GTV, and had their promoters, Guo and Wei, solicit donations for the ROL Entities as a prerequisite for investing with GTV directly or through VOG;\n\n14 15 g. Guo and the ROL Entities accepted donations made by investors as a condition precedent to being allowed to purchase GTV securities through VOG;\n\n16 17 h. Wei agreed to act as the agent of investors seeking to purchase GTV securities through VOG and, in that capacity, accepted investor funds;\n\n18 19 20 i. Wei collected more than \\$114 million of investor funds to purchase GTV securities through VOG and delivered \\$61,274,318 of such investor funds to Guo, Saraca, and GTV;\n\n21 22 j. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG retained the \\$114 million in investor funds without issuing securities to Plaintiffs and Class member.\n\n23 24 25 185. Each Defendant acted with a common purpose and intent to harm Plaintiffs and Class members. Each Defendant understood that all other Defendants shared the same common intent and purpose.\n\n26 27 186. As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious conduct described above, Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 187. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial. **COUNT VII Negligent Misrepresentation (Against Defendants Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG)** 188. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein. 189. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG hold themselves out as the issuer or agents and representatives of the issuer. As such, each owes a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members in the offering and sale of GTV securities. 190. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG made repeated material misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiffs, which they knew, or were negligent in not knowing, were false. Specifically, Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG made statements or omissions to Plaintiffs and the Class that misrepresented: (a) the true value of GTV; (b) the true nature of the GTV investment; (c) the relative risk of the GTV securities; (d) how the securities would be obtained through VOG; (e) how investor funds would be used; and (f) the relationship between or among each Defendant. 191. These statements and omissions were false and/or misleading at the time they were made, and were material to the decision of Plaintiffs and Class member to invest in GTV securities. Plaintiffs and Class members would not have sought to participate in the Stock Offering had they known, among other things, that: (a) the GTV Platform was not worth nearly as much as Defendants claimed; (b) the Stock Offering and the solicitation to invest in unregistered GTV securities were in violation of relevant securities laws; (d) GTV securities were anything but \"risk-free.\" 192. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in communicating this false and/or misleading information to Plaintiffs.\n\n1 2 3 193. Plaintiffs and Class members justifiably relied on the statements by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG in making their decision to participate in the Stock Offering and invest in GTV securities through VOG.\n\n- 4 5 6 7 194. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG understood, or should have reasonably understood, that Plaintiffs and Class members relied upon their public statements and' representations in making the decision to participate in the Stock Offering and invest in GTV securities through VOG.\n- 8 9 195. As a direct and proximate cause of the misfeasance by Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered significant damages.\n- 10 11 196. Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.\n\n# **COUNT VIII**\n\n# **Unjust Enrichment**\n\n# **(Against All Defendants)**\n\n15 16 197. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-127 above as though fully set forth herein.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 198. Plaintiffs and Class members each conferred a benefit on Guo, Wei, Saraca, GTV, and VOG when they paid over \\$114 million in Stock Offering proceeds to VOG and designated Wei as their agents to use those funds and purchase GTV securities. According the findings in the Order, \\$61,274,318 of those funds were transferred to Saraca and GTV.\n\n22 23 24 25 199. Plaintiffs and Class members each conferred a benefit on Guo and the ROL Entities when, as a condition precedent to being allowed to purchase GTV securities through VOG, they were required to make a \"donation\" to either the ROL Entities or Guo. 200. Despite making donations to Guo and the ROL Entities, making payments\n\n26 27 to VOG to purchase GTV securities, and Defendants' acceptance of such monies, Plaintiffs and Class members were never issued shares of GTV securities.\n\n28\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n201. Defendants' retention of such funds is inequitable.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202. It is against equity and good conscience to permit Defendants to retain such funds at the expenses and detriment of Plaintiffs and Class members. **VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF** WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment as follows: (A) Declaring that the claims herein are properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and designating Plaintiffs as class representatives and Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; (B) Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class against all of the Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; (C) Awarding punitive damages and all applicable statutory penalties in favor of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class against all of the Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and (D) Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees; and (E) Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. **JURY DEMAND** Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. Dated: November 5, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, **WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER**\n\n> */s/ Benjamin Y. Kaufman* Benjamin Y. Kaufman (admitted *pro hac vice*) kaufman@whafh.com\n\n **FREEMAN & HERZ LLP**\n\n26\n\n27\n\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Malcolm T. Brown (admitted pro hac vice)
brown@whafh.com |\n| 2
3 | 270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016 |\n| 4 | Tel.: (212) 545-4600
Fax: (212) 686-0114 |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP
Bernard Daskal (admitted pro hac vice) |\n| 7 | daskal@lde.law |\n| 8 | Xun Chen (admitted pro hac vice)
chen@lde.law |\n| 9 | 137 W. 25th St.
New York, NY 10001 |\n| 10
11 | Tel.: (212) 302-2400 |\n| 12 | Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rong Zhang, |\n| 13 | Xiaodan Wang, and Chong Shen Raphanella
and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class |\n| 14 | /811836 |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19
20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| 26 | |\n| 27 | |\n| 28 | |\n| | - 43 - |\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | |\n| 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 | 58
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 5, 2021, I electronically filed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system for
filing and thereby causing electronic notice of the same to be provided to all CM/ECF
registrants who have appeared in this case.
Further, on November 5, 2021, as authorized by Order dated August 5, 2021 (ECF
No. 24), I caused to be served true and correct pdf copies of the aforementioned documents
upon Defendant Sara Wei a/k/a Lihong Wei Lafrenz by emailing the documents to the
following
email
addresses:
\"duizhang@vog.media,\"
\"sarawei808@gmail.com\",
\"help@vog.media\",
\"sarawei@protonmail.com\",
\"vog202064@protonmail.com\",
\"vog202064@gmail.com.\"
/s/ Benjamin Y. Kaufman
Benjamin Y. Kaufman (admitted pro hac vice) | |\n| 19
20
21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| 26
27 | | |\n| 28 | /811891 | |\n| | | |\n\n# EXHIBIT A\n\n#### **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**\n\n#### **SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Release No. 10979 / September 13, 2021**\n\n#### **ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-20537**\n\n**In the Matter of**\n\n**GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC., and VOICE OF GUO MEDIA, INC.,**\n\n**Respondents.**\n\n#### **ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER**\n\n**I.**\n\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission (\"Commission\") deems it appropriate that ceaseand-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (\"Securities Act\") against GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\"), Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca,\" and together with GTV, the \"G Entities\"), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. (\"VOG\") (collectively, \"Respondents\").\n\n#### **II.**\n\nIn anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted Offers of Settlement (\"Offers\") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant To Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-And-Desist Order (\"Order\"), as set forth below.\n\n#### **III.**\n\nOn the basis of this Order and Respondents' Offers, the Commission finds[1](#page-47-0) that:\n\n#### **Summary**\n\n1. This proceeding involves violations of the Securities Act registration provisions by Respondents. From approximately April 2020 through June 2020, Respondents generally solicited thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock (the \"Stock Offering\"). During the same period, the G Entities solicited individuals to invest in their offering of a digital asset security that was referred to as either G-Coins or G-Dollars (the \"Coin Offering\"). As a result of these two unregistered securities offerings, whose proceeds were commingled, Respondents collectively raised approximately \\$487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States, through approximately July 2020.\n\n2. According to the Stock Offering's information memorandum (\"Memorandum\"), the G Entities recently launched a news-focused social media platform, including the website *[www.gtv.org.](htt)* The Memorandum claimed it would be \"the first ever platform which will combine the power of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial intelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication\" and planned to be \"the only uncensored and independent bridge between China and the Western world.\"\n\n3. Respondents disseminated information about the two offerings to the general public through publicly-available videos on the G Entities' websites, *[www.gtv.org](htt)* and *[www.gnews.org](htt)* as well as on social media platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. With respect to the Stock Offering, Respondents provided prospective investors with access to Google Drives that contained investment agreements and wire instructions for investors to send funds to purchase securities, while the G Entities solicited investments in the Coin Offering on the G Entities' public websites, social media platforms, and mobile applications.\n\n4. The G Entities touted the Coin Offering as an investment opportunity with a likelihood of significant returns based on the G Entities' ability to develop an online platform through which investors would be able to transact using either G-Coins or G-Dollars. To date, the G Entities have not developed their social media platform's ability to accept payment using digital assets or otherwise exchange any digital assets, including those offered in the Coin Offering.\n\n5. Through both the Stock Offering and the Coin Offering, the G Entities violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling securities without having a registration statement filed or in effect with the Commission or qualifying for an exemption from registration.\n\n 1 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondents' Offers of Settlement and are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.\n\n#### **Respondents**\n\n6. GTV, a Delaware corporation based in New York, New York, owns and operates a social media platform, containing numerous publicly-available videos. Saraca wholly owned GTV prior to the Stock Offering and has controlled GTV at all times since its incorporation in April 2020. Neither GTV nor its securities have ever been registered with the Commission in any capacity.\n\n7. Saraca, a Delaware corporation based in New York, New York, is the parent company of GTV. Saraca sold a minority stake of its ownership interest in GTV through the Stock Offering. Neither Saraca nor its securities have ever been registered with the Commission in any capacity.\n\n8. VOG, an Arizona corporation based in Phoenix, Arizona, provided various support services, including translation services, to the G Entities. VOG is not registered with the Commission in any capacity.\n\n#### **Facts**\n\n9. On April 17, 2020, Saraca established GTV as a wholly-owned subsidiary to own and operate a news-focused social media platform that was still in development. Saraca contributed all assets of the platform to GTV. Saraca's president and sole director at the time was named as one of GTV's executive directors and the two companies shared the same headquarters in New York, New York. Almost immediately after the creation of GTV, the G Entities initiated two unregistered securities offerings: the Stock Offering and the Coin Offering.\n\n#### **The Stock Offering**\n\n10. On April 20, 2020, the G Entities launched the Stock Offering to sell between 20 million and 200 million shares of GTV common stock at a price of \\$1 per share. The Stock Offering offered to sell up to 10% of Saraca's 100% ownership interest in GTV. The Memorandum informed prospective investors that Saraca would continue to exert significant control over GTV after the Stock Offering.\n\n#### *The G Entities Solicited the General Public to Invest in the Stock Offering*\n\n11. From approximately April 20, 2020 through June 2, 2020, the G Entities, through their management team and agents, marketed the Stock Offering to the general public through a series of publicly-available videos on GTV's websites, *[www.gtv.org](htt)* and *[www.gnews.org](htt)*, as well as YouTube, Twitter, and other social media platforms that constitute general solicitation. The first video, posted on YouTube on April 21, 2020, was entitled, as translated into English, \"GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions\" (the \"Launch Video\"). The Launch Video described the investment terms for the Stock Offering and provided a mobile phone number for potential investors to use for inquiries about the offering. The Launch Video has had over 4,000 views. None of the G Entities' offering videos, including the Launch Video, were password protected or\n\nplaced any restriction on who could view them or any limitations on their ability to be shared. As a result, the general public, including prospective U.S. investors, accessed the online marketing videos about the Stock Offering through, for example, independent online research, social media, or referrals from other investors. While the Launch Video stated that the Stock Offering had a minimum investment of \\$100,000, many investors invested less than \\$100,000, as discussed below.\n\n12. Further, the G Entities sent the Launch Video via text messages to hundreds of prospective individual investors with a link to a Google Drive folder that contained additional offering materials for the Stock Offering, such as the information memorandum, subscription agreement, and investment instructions. The G Entities, which owned and controlled the Google Drive folder, did not put any restrictions on the recipients' ability to forward the Google Drive folder or its contents, which were not password-protected, to other prospective investors.\n\n13. In total, the G Entities sold approximately \\$339 million worth of GTV common stock to more than 1,000 investors, including U.S. investors. Some of these investors were unaccredited. Pursuant to the Stock Offering's investment instructions, the vast majority, if not all, of the offering proceeds were deposited directly to U.S. bank accounts in the name of Saraca.\n\n14. On or around June 5, 2020, Saraca transferred \\$100 million of the Stock Offering proceeds to Hedge Fund A for purposes of investing in the fund. Hedge Fund A's investment strategy involves taking positions in various Asian currencies, particularly the Hong Kong dollar, versus certain developed market currencies through foreign currency forward and option contracts. By late July 2020, Hedge Fund A had invested \\$30 million of Saraca's \\$100 million transfer and, to date, that \\$30 million investment in Hedge Fund A has lost approximately \\$29.2 million in value.\n\n#### *VOG Offered and Sold GTV Stock*\n\n15. VOG engaged in steps necessary to the distribution of the Stock Offering. Specifically, the G Entities, through their management team and agents, directed VOG to purchase GTV stock from the G Entities on behalf of prospective investors who wanted to invest less than \\$100,000. VOG then solicited investors and collected investor funds for the purpose of purchasing shares of GTV stock on their behalf. There was no minimum investment amount to invest in the Stock Offering through VOG and investment amounts were generally in the amount of \\$100 or more.\n\n16. To help facilitate VOG's role in offering and selling of GTV stock, the G Entities gave VOG a one-page Limited Purpose Agency Agreement (\"LPAA\") to provide to prospective investors in the Stock Offering. The LPAA specified that, in return for minimal consideration, a representative of VOG would serve as a so-called \"agent\" for an investor and purchase GTV shares on behalf of the investor in exchange for funds provided by the investor.\n\n17. In response to inquiries received from prospective investors about the Stock Offering, VOG sent prospective investors a text message with a link to a folder on its Google Drive that contained the LPAA as well as wire instructions to a VOG bank account, but not any other\n\noffering documents or financial information about the G Entities. VOG did not put any restrictions on prospective investors' ability to forward the Google Drive folder or its contents, which were not password-protected, to other prospective investors.\n\n18. As part of the Stock Offering, VOG sold approximately \\$114 million in GTV stock to more than 4,500 investors, including U.S. investors. None of these investors ultimately was issued GTV shares. Many of these investors were unaccredited.\n\n19. At the direction of the G Entities, VOG transferred a total of \\$61,274,318 in funds received from investors through the Stock Offering to bank accounts of the G Entities. Specifically, on May 15, 2020, VOG provided separate \\$15 million checks each to GTV and Saraca. VOG also provided Saraca with a check for \\$31,274,318 that Saraca deposited on or about July 22, 2020. VOG continued to receive funds from investors for the purchase of GTV stock through at least June 2020.\n\n20. During the Stock Offering, VOG provided the G Entities with updates on its fundraising efforts and amounts collected from investors.\n\n21. Based on the above, VOG engaged in steps necessary for the distribution of GTV stock and therefore offered and sold GTV stock.\n\n#### *Respondents' Conduct Violated the Offering Registration Provisions of the Securities Act*\n\n22. No registration statements were filed or in effect for the Respondents' offers and sales of GTV common stock, and the offers and sales did not qualify for an exemption from registration under the Securities Act.\n\n23. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondents violated Section 5(a) of the Securities Act, which states that \"[u]nless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, (1) to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell such a security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise, or (2) to carry or cause to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale.\"\n\n24. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondents violated Section 5(c) of the Securities Act, which states that \"[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has been filed as to such security.\"\n\n#### **The Coin Offering**\n\n#### *The G Entities Solicited the General Public to Invest in the Coin Offering*\n\n25. From approximately April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020, the G Entities, through their management team and agents, marketed the sale of G-Coins and G-Dollars to the general public through online videos on YouTube, Twitter, and other video-sharing and social media platforms. The G Entities have yet to develop or distribute the digital assets sold in the Coin Offering or a platform that would allow users to transact with or sell digital assets.\n\n26. The G Entities' online promotions set forth that G-Coins, which the G Entities' indicated would eventually be merged into G-Dollars forming a single digital asset, and G-Dollars would be usable to purchase goods or services or exchange for gold or fiat currency on the G Entities' online platform. As part of its solicitation of G-Coin and G-Dollar investors, the G Entities did not provide investors with financial information about the plan to develop any digital asset or platform, or any written offering materials, including, for example, a white paper or private placement memorandum.\n\n27. The G Entities collected approximately \\$34 million from the G-Coin and G-Dollar investors, pooling the proceeds in the G Entities' bank accounts and commingling them with proceeds from the Stock Offering. As part of the Coin Offering, many investors received a 20% discount on the \\$.01 purchase price for G-Coins and G-Dollars. Investors participated in the Coin Offering by transferring funds directly to the G Entities' U.S. bank accounts, by making payments to the G Entities' accounts on online payment platforms, by making purchases via the Apple App Store, or by writing checks. The vast majority of G-Coin and G-Dollar investors invested no more than \\$10,000 per investor, and the G Entities never inquired as to the financial or investment background of these investors.\n\n#### *Investors in the Coin Offering had a Reasonable Expectation of Obtaining a Future Profit from the Efforts of the G Entities*\n\n28. The G Entities promoted the sale of G-Coins and G-Dollars as an opportunity to obtain future profits from the efforts of the G Entities' management team and agents in the development of a digital asset and platform, and purchasers would have reasonably expected that they would profit from the G Entities' efforts. In the G Entities' online solicitations, the G Entities referred to G-Coin and G-Dollar purchases as \"investments\" and highlighted the likelihood of significant return on capital on the investment. In their online videos, the G Entities also discussed their view of the anticipated liquidity of G-Coins and G-Dollars on the GTV online platform, and their plan to allow users to exchange G-Coins and G-Dollars for fiat currency and goods and services available through the platform. At the time of the Coin Offering, the G Entities also discussed plans to develop the GTV online platform's capability to process transactions using G-Coins and G-Dollars and touted the \"management, financial, investment, and merger and acquisition\" experience of the G Entities' management team and agents. In fact, the Coin Offering's online materials stated that the GTV team would be \"making an all-out effort to completely upgrade the G-Dollar system.\" The Memorandum also stated that the G Entities and their management team planned to build a platform that \"will utilize state-of-the-art technology\n\nincluding big data, artificial intelligence, 5G, and the blockchain payment system (G coin).\"\n\n#### *The G Entities Offered and Sold G-Coins and G-Dollars in Violation of the Securities Act*\n\n29. Based on the above, the G Entities offered and sold G-Coins and G-Dollars as investment contracts and therefore securities pursuant to *SEC v. W. J. Howey Co.*, 328 U.S. 293 (1946), and its progeny, including the cases discussed by the Commission in its *Report of Investigation Pursuant To Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO* (Exchange Act Rel. No. 81207) (July 25, 2017) (the \"DAO Report\").\n\n30. No registration statements were filed or in effect for the G Entities' offers and sales of securities as part of the Coin Offering, and the offers and sales did not qualify for an exemption from registration under the Securities Act.\n\n31. As a result of the conduct described above, the G Entities violated Section 5(a) of the Securities Act, which states that \"[u]nless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, (1) to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell such a security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise, or (2) to carry or cause to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale.\"\n\n32. As a result of the conduct described above, the G Entities violated Section 5(c) of the Securities Act, which states that \"[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has been filed as to such security.\"\n\n#### **Disgorgement and Civil Penalties**\n\n33. The disgorgement and prejudgment interest ordered in paragraph IV is consistent with equitable principles and does not exceed each Respondent's net profits from its violations, and will be distributed to harmed investors to the extent feasible. The Commission will hold funds paid pursuant to paragraph IV in an account at the United States Treasury pending distribution. Upon approval of the distribution final accounting by the Commission, any amounts remaining that are infeasible to return to investors, and any amounts returned to the Commission in the future that are infeasible to return to investors, may be transferred to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, subject to Section 21F(g)(3) of the Exchange Act.\n\n#### **Undertakings**\n\n- 34. Respondents have undertaken to:\n\t- A. Not participate, directly or indirectly, in any offering of a digital asset\n\nsecurity.\n\nB. Assist the Commission staff in the administration of a distribution plan,\n\nincluding any and all efforts to distribute to affected investors the monetary relief described in paragraph IV below. In connection with such assistance, Respondents will produce, without service or notice of subpoena, any and all documents and other information reasonably requested by the Commission staff.\n\nC. Publish notice of this Order on the G Entities' websites, including, but not limited to, *[www.gtv.org](htt)* and *[www.gnews.org](htt)*, and social media channels, in a form not unacceptable to Commission staff, within 10 days of the date of this Order.\n\nD. Certify, in writing, compliance with the undertaking set forth above in paragraph 34.C. The certification shall identify the undertakings, provide written evidence of compliance in the form of a narrative, and be supported by exhibits sufficient to demonstrate compliance. The Commission staff may make reasonable requests for further evidence of compliance, and Respondents agree to provide such evidence. The certification and supporting material shall be submitted to Sandeep Satwalekar, Assistant Regional Director, Division of Enforcement, with a copy to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Enforcement Division, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the completion of the undertakings.\n\nE. In determining whether to accept the Offers, the Commission has considered these undertakings.\n\n#### **IV.**\n\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondents' Offers.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act:\n\nA. Respondents cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.\n\nB. Respondents shall comply with the undertakings enumerated in paragraph 34 above.\n\nC. Respondents GTV and Saraca shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of \\$434,134,141, and prejudgment interest of \\$15,776,488 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If timely payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to SEC Rule of Practice 600.\n\nD. Respondent GTV shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil penalty of \\$15,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If timely payment of penalty is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3717.\n\nE. Respondent Saraca shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay a\n\ncivil penalty of \\$15,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If timely payment of penalty is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3717.\n\nF. Respondent VOG shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement of \\$52,610,922, prejudgment interest of \\$1,911,877, and a civil penalty of \\$5,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If timely payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to SEC Rule of Practice 600. If timely payment of civil penalty is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3717.\n\nPayment by each Respondent must be made in one of the following ways:\n\n- (1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which will provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request;\n- (2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov through the SEC website at **; or\n- (3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier's check, or United States postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission and hand-delivered or mailed to:\n\nEnterprise Services Center Accounts Receivable Branch HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341 6500 South MacArthur Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73169\n\nPayments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying Respondent GTV, Saraca, or VOG, respectively, as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to Sanjay Wadhwa, Senior Associate Regional Director, Securities and Exchange Commission, 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, New York 10281, or such other person or address as the Commission staff may provide.\n\nG. Pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a Fair Fund is created for the disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties referenced in paragraph IV above. Amounts ordered to be paid as civil money penalties pursuant to this Order shall be treated as penalties paid to the government for all purposes, including all tax purposes. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty, each of the Respondents GTV, Saraca, and VOG agrees that in any Related Investor Action, it shall not argue that it is entitled to, nor shall it benefit by, offset or reduction of any award of compensatory damages by the amount of any part of Respondent's payment of a civil penalty in this action (\"Penalty Offset\"). If the court in any Related Investor Action grants such a Penalty Offset, each of the Respondents GTV, Saraca, and VOG agrees that it shall, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting the Penalty Offset, notify the\n\nCommission's counsel in this action and pay the amount of the Penalty Offset to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such a payment shall not be deemed an additional civil penalty and shall not be deemed to change the amount of the civil penalty imposed in this proceeding. For purposes of this paragraph, a \"Related Investor Action\" means a private damages action brought against Respondents GTV, Saraca, or VOG by or on behalf of one or more investors based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Order instituted by the Commission in this proceeding.\n\nBy the Commission.\n\nVanessa A. Countryman Secretary\n\n# EXHIBIT B\n\n#### 1\n\n# **Limited Purpose Agency Agreement**\n\nKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ (hereinafter referred to as the \"Investor\"), hereby intending to be legally bound, and in consideration of One Dollar (\\$1.00), and other good, valuable and sufficient considerations, the receipt and adequacy whereof being hereby acknowledged by the Agent and for the benefit of the Investor and his/her successors and assigns, does hereby assign, direct, and designate Lihong Wei Lafrenz (hereinafter referred to as the \"Agent\"), her successors, assigns, and affiliates, to purchase on my behalf, with funds to be provided by me in the sum of \\$\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, certain shares in GTV Media Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the \"Investment\") together with all rights of action accrued or which may accrue thereunder; and the Investor does hereby constitute and appoint said Agent as the Investor's true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact, for the limited purpose of completing the Investment on my behalf and to do and perform all acts, matters, and things touching upon the premises, in like manner, and to all intents and purposes as the Investor could do if personally present.\n\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Investor has caused these presents to be executed this \\_\\_\\_\\_ day of \\_\\_\\_\\_, 2020. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and delivered by electronic means and signatures on this stipulation delivered electronically shall be deemed originals.\n\n| Agent contact information: | Agent |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|\n| Tel: +15202739848 | By:
_____________________________ |\n| Email: vog202064@gmail.com | Signature_________________________ |\n| Address:
1850 W Orange Grove Rd, Tucson,
AZ 85704 | Date: ____________________________ |\n| | Investor |\n| Investor contact information: | By: _____________________________ |\n| Tel: | Signature_________________________ |\n| Email: | Date: ____________________________ |\n| Address: | |","body_zh":"WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\nFREEMAN & HERZ LLP（沃尔夫·哈尔登斯坦·阿德勒·弗里曼及赫兹律师事务所）\nBenjamin Y. Kaufman（本杰明·Y·考夫曼）（获准以特许方式出庭）\nkaufman@whafh.com\nMalcolm T. Brown（马尔科姆·T·布朗）（获准以特许方式出庭）\nbrown@whafh.com\n270 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016\n电话：(212) 545-4600\n\nLYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP（林奇·达斯卡尔·埃默里律师事务所）\nBernard Daskal（伯纳德·达斯卡尔）（获准以特许方式出庭）\ndaskal@lde.law\nXun Chen（陈勋）（获准以特许方式出庭）\nchen@lde.law\n137 W. 25th St.\nNew York, NY 10001\n电话：(212) 302-2400\n原告 Rong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及\nChong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）的代理律师，并为该集体的拟任首席律师\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n亚利桑那地区\n\nRong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及 Chong 案号 CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB\nShen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）\n原告， 第一次修订的\n诉 集体诉讼起诉状\nVoice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）、GTV Media\nGroup, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）、Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca\n媒体集团公司）、Rule\nof Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）、Rule of Law\nSociety IV Inc.（法治协会IV公司）、Sara Wei（魏莎拉），又名 Lihong Wei\nLafrenz（拉弗伦茨·魏丽红），以及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵），又名\nMiles Guo（郭文贵）\n又名 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）\n又名 Nan Wu（吴楠），又名 Haoyun Guo（郭浩云），\n被告。\n\n原告 Rong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及 Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）（以下统称“原告”），以其个人身份并代表所有其他处境相同之人，通过其下列签名律师，基于其本人及其自身行为的个人知悉，以及就所有其他事项基于信息和信念，提出如下主张；该等信息和信念尤其基于其律师开展并通过其律师进行的调查，该调查包括但不限于审阅被告的公开文件、被告作出的公告、电讯及新闻稿、司法案卷中的公开提交文件、美国证券交易委员会（“SEC”）审理的行政程序《GTV Media Group, Inc.等事项》，行政程序档案号 3-20537（以下简称“行政程序”），以及互联网上可轻易获得的信息。原告进一步相信，在获得合理的证据开示机会后，将存在支持这些主张的大量证据。\n\n一、诉讼性质\n\n1. 本集体诉讼涉及一项计划：被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）（以下简称“Guo”）——一名拥有多媒体帝国的富有中国商人——被告 Sara Wei（魏莎拉）（以下简称“Wei”）——Guo 所属公司及相关实体帝国中最显眼的领导人之一——以及由 Guo 和/或 Wei 经营及控制的被告实体，通过该计划欺诈包括华人离散社群在内的投资者，骗取其辛苦赚得的资金。\n\n2. 自约 2020 年 4 月至 2020 年 6 月期间，被告 Guo、Wei、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）（以下简称“GTV”）、Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca媒体集团公司）（以下简称“Saraca”）、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）（以下简称“VOG”）公开招揽数千人投资于 purportedly 私募发行的 GTV 普通股。Guo 将 GTV 发行宣传为一个机会，使投资者能够在一个新媒体平台的起步阶段参与投资；该平台旨在让其成员在不受中华人民共和国政府控制和影响的情况下，就中华人民共和国相关信息进行自由流通，并由此为世界各地华人社区成员提供另一种沟通方式。根据 Guo 的说法，该平台将拥有庞大的用户群，因为其将不受中华人民共和国对其国内媒体渠道的广泛监管。\n\n3. Guo 和 Wei 通过多个媒体渠道——如 www.gtv.org 和 www.gnews.org（由 Guo 控制的网站），以及社交媒体平台 Guo Media、YouTube、Twitter 和 Discord——向潜在投资者营销未注册的 GTV 普通股，称其无风险且利润极高。Guo 网站 www.gnews.org 上的投资材料包含如下笼统表述：“从商业角度看，只要你有信任，就完全没有风险。”1\n\n4. Guo 通过两种渠道招揽对 GTV 的投资。第一，Guo 通过 purportedly 私募股票发行，向合格投资者直接提供 GTV 投资，最低投资额为 $100,000。第二，Guo 向无法达到股票发行 $100,000 最低门槛的合格及不合格投资者提供对 GTV 的间接投资。Guo 向第二类投资者表示：(a) 他们可通过 Wei 和 VOG 购买 GTV 普通股；(b) 通过 Wei 和 VOG 购买 GTV 证券不存在最低投资额；以及 (c) Wei 将汇集投资者资金，并代表其通过 VOG 购买 GTV 股票。\n\n5. Guo、Saraca 和 GTV 向 Wei 和 VOG 提供文件，以供其向寻求通过第二种替代方式购买 GTV 证券的潜在投资者提供。然而，作为投资的先决条件，Guo 要求这些潜在投资者通过向 Guo 的非营利组织 Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（法治基金会III公司）（以下简称“Rule of Law Foundation”）和 Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（法治协会IV公司）（以下简称“Rule of Law Society”）2，或向 Guo 本人捐款，来表明其对 Guo 及其所宣称的与中国政府对抗事业的忠诚。\n\n1 参见 Brian Spegele（布赖恩·斯皮格尔）和 Sha Hua（华沙）：《筹款纷争引发一名中国流亡者、其追随者及其批评者之间的愤怒》，《Wall St. J.》（2020 年 10 月 4 日），载于 http（同上）。\n\n6. Guo 利用该要求，通过“美德信号展示”进一步诱使潜在投资者相信 GTV purportedly 致力于与中国政府对抗。作为 ROL 实体的创始人和所有人，Guo 将捐款作为投资的先决条件，以使其本人及 ROL 实体获益。\n\n7. 原告及该集体（定义如下）向 ROL 实体之一或 Guo 捐款，并通过 Wei 和 VOG 购买 GTV 证券，但从未获发 GTV 普通股。要求返还资金的投资者一无所获，这进一步表明，被大力宣传的在 GTV 新媒体平台起步阶段参与投资的机会既非无风险、非利润丰厚，亦不真实。Guo 和 Wei 从未打算将 VOG 获得的资金用于购买 GTV 证券。投资者并不知情的是，Wei 将从投资者获得的收益中超过一半转入由 Guo、Saraca 和 GTV 控制的银行账户，并将其余部分保留在由其本人和 VOG 控制的银行账户中。\n\n8. 通过一场不懈的宣传活动，Guo 和 Wei 说服原告及该集体将其辛苦赚得的资金投资于一项毫无价值的项目。GTV 证券从未依照州或联邦法规注册（亦未适用任何注册豁免）。GTV 从未编制或发布有关公司业绩或其投资收益用途的年度或季度报告或财务报表。投资者亦未获发 GTV 普通股。由于不断受到 Guo 和 Wei 的敷衍拖延，许多投资者要求退款。\n\n9. 在本集体诉讼开始数月后，即 2021 年 9 月 13 日，SEC 同时提起并和解了针对 GTV、Saraca 和 VOG 的行政程序。根据同日作出的《根据 1933 年证券法第 8A 条启动停止及终止程序、作出认定并施加停止及终止命令的裁定》（以下简称“该裁定”），SEC 认定 GTV、Saraca 和 VOG 通过招揽数千人投资 GTV 普通股发行（以下简称“股票发行”），违反了联邦证券法的注册规定（1933 年证券法（以下简称“证券法”）第 5(a) 和 5(c) 条）。\n\n10. 该裁定（随附于此并通过援引纳入本文，作为附件 A）作出了与本文主张相关的如下认定：\n\na. Saraca 于 2020 年 4 月设立 GTV 作为其全资子公司，以拥有和运营一个社交媒体平台；\n\nb. 就股票发行而言，Saraca 同意出售其在 GTV 中最多 10% 的所有权权益，并将在股票发行后继续对 GTV 施加重大控制；\n\nc. 自 2020 年 4 月至 2020 年 6 月，Saraca 和 GTV 通过其管理团队和代理人，在 GTV 网站及其他社交媒体平台上发布公开可得的视频向投资者营销股票发行；该等视频说明了投资条款（包括 $100,000 的最低投资额），并为有意参与股票发行的投资者提供联系信息；\n\nd. 同时，Saraca 和 GTV 通过其管理团队和代理人，指示 VOG 代表希望以低于 $100,000 的金额参与股票发行的投资者购买 GTV 普通股；\n\ne. 为便利 VOG 在出售 GTV 股票中的角色，Saraca 和 GTV 向 VOG 提供了一份《有限目的代理协议》（随附于此并通过援引纳入本文，作为附件 B）（以下简称“LPAA”）；根据该协议，潜在投资者可指定 VOG 的代表（具体而言为 Wei）作为其代理人，代表其各自购买 GTV 股票；\n\nf. Saraca 和 GTV 向超过 1,000 名投资者出售了价值约 $339 million 的 GTV 普通股，其中部分投资者不具备合格投资者资格；\n\ng. VOG 向超过 4,500 名投资者出售了价值约 $114 million 的 GTV 普通股，其中许多投资者不具备合格投资者资格，且无一人获发 GTV 股票；\n\nh. 2020 年 5 月，VOG 按照 Saraca 和 GTV 的指示，向 Saraca 和 GTV 的银行账户转入超过 $61 million；\n\ni. VOG 至少持续至 2020 年 6 月仍从投资者处收取用于购买 GTV 股票的资金；\n\nj. 在股票发行期间，VOG 向 Saraca 和 GTV 提供了其筹款工作及从投资者处收取金额的更新情况；\n\nk. VOG 采取了 GTV 股票分配所必需的步骤，因此提出并出售了 GTV 股票；\n\nl. 2020 年 6 月，Saraca 将股票发行所得中的 $100 million 转入一家对外未指明的对冲基金进行投资；\n\nm. 至 2020 年 7 月下旬，该对冲基金已投资所转入资金中的 $30 million，该项投资损失了约 $29.2 million 的价值；以及\n\nn. Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 对 GTV 普通股的要约和出售均未提交或生效任何注册声明，且该等要约和出售不符合证券法规定的注册豁免条件。3\n\n11. 该裁定尤其命令如下：\n\na. Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 应停止并终止实施或导致任何违反证券法第 5(a) 和 5(c) 条的行为，或未来违反该等条款的行为；\n\n3 SEC 还认定，在同一 2020 年 4 月至 2020 年 6 月期间，Saraca 和 GTV 招揽个人投资其数字资产证券发行，并从投资者处收取约 $34 million。\n\nb. Saraca 和 GTV 应向 SEC 支付 $434,134,141 的追缴款及 $15,776,488 的判决前利息；Saraca 和 GTV 还应各自向 SEC 支付 $15 million 的民事罚款；\n\nc. VOG（郭媒体之声公司）应向 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）支付 $52,610,922 的追缴款及 $1,911,877 的判决前利息，并向 SEC 支付 $5 million 的民事罚金；以及\n\nd. 作为民事罚金支付的金额，在所有目的下均应视为向政府支付的罚金；为保持民事罚金的威慑效果，Saraca（萨拉卡媒体集团）、GTV（GTV媒体集团）和 VOG 同意，在任何关联投资者诉讼（Related Investor Action）4中，不得主张有权以其在本案中支付的民事罚金的全部或部分金额抵销或减少任何补偿性损害赔偿裁决，亦不得从中受益。\n\n12. 本集体诉讼代表所有向 VOG 支付款项以购买 GTV 证券、但从未收到该等证券或已付款项退款的人士（以下简称“集体”）提起。原告代表其自身及集体，就被告违反《亚利桑那州修订法典》（Arizona Revised Statutes，“ARS”）第44编第12章（证券出售）规定的证券法，以及普通法欺诈、违反受托义务、协助及教唆违反受托义务、民事共谋、过失性虚假陈述及不当得利所造成的损害，请求获得损害赔偿。\n\nII. 管辖权与审理地\n\n13. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1331 及 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) 对本案具有事项管辖权。本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1367 对本案提出的州法请求具有管辖权。\n\n14. 本院对被告具有属人管辖权，因为每名被告均通过以下方式有目的地利用本州提供的利益：(a) 居住于本州内；(b) 从事商业活动；及/或 (c) 在本州内实施侵权行为。\n\n4 该裁定将“关联投资者诉讼”定义为由一名或多名投资者针对 Saraca、GTV 或 VOG 提起或代表其提起的私人损害赔偿诉讼（如本案），该诉讼基于与该裁定所载基本相同的事实。\n\n此外，每名被告与本地区均具有足够的最低联系，使本院行使管辖权符合传统的公平正义和实质正义观念。\n\n15. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)，本院为适格审理地，原因包括：(a) 许多虚假及误导性陈述是在本地区作出或自本地区发布的；(b) VOG 是一家亚利桑那州公司，其办公地点位于本地区内；以及 (c) Wei（魏）为亚利桑那州居民并以该州为住所地。\n\nIII. 当事人\n\n原告\n\n16. 原告 Rong Zhang（张蓉）为加利福尼亚州居民，曾如本案所述受到被告招揽，向被告捐赠 $500，并向被告投资 $100,000。\n\n17. 原告 Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）为加拿大居民，曾如本案所述受到被告招揽，向被告捐赠 $100，并向被告投资 $50,000。\n\n18. 原告 Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）为马里兰州居民，曾如本案所述受到被告招揽，向被告捐赠 $30，并向被告投资 $10,000。\n\n被告\n\n19. 被告 Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）是一家特拉华州公司，办公地址为 162 E. 64th Street, New York, New York 10065。据所知及相信，被告 Guo（郭文贵）创立了 Saraca。Saraca 还拥有包含 Guo 姓名及别名的商标，包括“Guo Wengui”和“Miles Guo”。\n\n20. 2020年4月，Saraca 设立被告 GTV，作为其全资子公司运营社交媒体平台，并将该平台的全部资产出资给 GTV。据所知及相信，Saraca 拥有 GTV 至少90%的股权。\n\n21. Saraca 并非经纪商或交易商，亦未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或为证券要约或出售促成交易。\n\n22. 被告 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）是一家特拉华州公司，办公地址为 162 E. 64th Street, New York, New York 10065。GTV 拥有并运营一个包含大量公开可访问视频的社交媒体平台。自其成立以来，Saraca 始终控制 GTV。\n\n23. GTV 并非经纪商或交易商，亦未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或为证券要约或出售促成交易。GTV 未在亚利桑那州登记其证券。\n\n24. 被告 Voice of Guo Media Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）是一家亚利桑那州公司，所在地为 14747 N. Northsight Boulevard, Suite 111 # 405, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260。在所有相关期间，Guo 一直控制 VOG 及/或对其行使重大权力。\n\n25. VOG 并非经纪商或交易商，亦未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或为证券要约或出售促成交易。\n\n26. 被告 Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（法治基金会III公司）是一家特拉华州非营利公司及 501(c)(3) 组织，所在地为 800 5th Avenue, Suite 21F, New York, New York 10065。Rule of Law Foundation 由 Guo 创立，并由 Guo 全资拥有及控制。\n\n27. 被告 Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（法治协会IV公司）是一家特拉华州非营利公司及 501(c)(4) 组织，所在地为 800 5th Avenue, Suite 21F, New York, New York 10065。Rule of Law Society 由 Guo 创立，并由 Guo 全资拥有及控制。\n\n28. 被告 Sara Wei（魏莎拉），又名 Lihong Wei Lafrenz，是 VOG 的总裁、董事及经理。Wei 为亚利桑那州居民，并担任 VOG 的注册代理人。Wei 还于 2019年1月至 2020年12月期间担任 Rule of Law Society 的董事。\n\n29. Wei 未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或为证券要约或出售促成交易。\n\n30. 被告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵），又名 Miles Guo、Ho Wan Kwok、Miles Kwok、Nan Wu 及 Haoyun Guo，是居住在纽约州的外国国民。Guo 拥有、指挥及/或以其他方式控制 Saraca、GTV、VOG 及 ROL Entities（法治实体），对 Saraca、GTV 及 ROL Entities 作出的任何重大决定行使专属权力，并拥有指定及解任 Saraca、GTV、VOG 及 ROL Entities 的高级职员和董事，以及扩大或限制授予其权限的权力。5\n\n31. Guo 未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或为证券要约或出售促成交易。\n\n32. GTV、Saraca、VOG、ROL Entities、Wei 和 Guo 以下统称为“被告”。\n\n33. 在所有相关期间，每一被告均为其他被告的代理人、雇员、员工、合伙人或另一个自我，且每一被告的行为均在该等关系范围内。通过实施本案所述行为，每一被告均是在知悉、许可、同意并依照其他被告要求的情况下行事。每一被告均协助及教唆其他被告实施本案所述行为。\n\n34. 在所有相关期间，Guo 对其他被告、股票发行及股票发行所得款项的使用和分配行使控制权和支配权。Guo 是其他被告就股票发行向投资者及公众发言的主要发言人，其他被告服从其权威。Guo 为股票发行提供资金，控制 GTV 证券的发行方式、谁有权投资、股票发行所得款项将如何分配和投资，以及哪些人将（及哪些人不会）因其投资而获发 GTV 证券。\n\n5 2020年12月，Guo 将 Wei 从其在 Rule of Law Foundation 的董事职位上免职。参见 http（“[我们将]收回目前由 VOG 和 Phoenix Base 持有的所有与 Rule of Law Foundation 和 Rule of Law Society 有关的文件。Sara，Rule of Law Foundation 的一名董事，将在明天的董事会会议上被免职。你们持有的所有 G-News 及与 G-有关的资料都必须返还。”）（非官方译文）。\n\nIV. 实质性指控\n\n股票发行的背景\n\n35. Guo 是一名自称的中国政治异议人士。2014年抵达美国后，Guo 通过指称中国共产党（有时在本文中称为“CCP”）内部存在高层腐败，在网上建立了大量追随者，尤其是在世界各地的华人侨民中。他还据报道因其对中国官员的公开指控“使他成为‘中国政权的政治对手’”，而在美国申请庇护。6\n\n36. Guo 以其奢华的生活方式而闻名。他在纽约拥有一套 $65 million 的公寓和一艘超级游艇，7并经常从两处在线直播视频。Guo 的追随者众多，以至于其铁杆支持者会集结反对任何异议声音，并经常在异议者住宅和营业场所外骚扰及纠察。\n\n37. Guo 试图通过设立一个用于用户生成政治内容的视频流媒体社交媒体平台，将其网络人气变现。在2019年全年及2020年初，Guo 致力于开发该平台；至2020年3月，Guo 与 Saraca 已拥有一个初始发布版本。\n\n38. GTV 是 Guo 创办的。2020年4月17日，Guo 促使 Saraca 将 GTV 注册成立为拥有并运营该平台的全资子公司。Guo 还促使 Saraca 将该平台的全部资产，包括 www.gtv.org 网站，出资给 GTV。\n\n6 Michael Forsythe（迈克尔·福赛思），《指控中国高级官员腐败的亿万富翁向美国申请庇护》，N.Y. Times（《纽约时报》）（Sept. 7, 2017），载于 http\n\n7 Ken Dilanian（肯·迪拉尼安）、Andrew Blankstein（安德鲁·布兰克斯坦）、Tom Winter（汤姆·温特）和 Katy Tur（凯蒂·图尔），《拥有史蒂夫·班农被捕所在船只的中国亿万富翁郭文贵是谁？》，NBC News（Aug. 20, 2020），载于 http\n\n39. 2020年4月20日，Guo 促使 Saraca 和 GTV 启动股票发行。根据该股票发行，Saraca 和 GTV 提议以每股 $1 的价格出售 20 million 至 200 million 股未登记的 GTV 普通股。如该裁定所述：\n\n根据股票发行的信息备忘录（“备忘录”），[Saraca 和 GTV] 最近推出了一个以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台，包括网站 www.gtv.org[（“GTV平台”）]。备忘录声称该平台将是“首个结合公民新闻和社交新闻的力量与最先进技术、大数据、人工智能、区块链技术及实时互动通信的平台”，并计划成为“中国与西方世界之间唯一未受审查且独立的桥梁”。\n\n裁定第2页。\n\n40. 自2020年4月至2020年6月，Guo、Saraca 和 GTV 通过多个渠道招揽投资者，包括 www.gtv.org、www.gnews.org（另一个由 Guo 控制的网站），以及社交媒体平台 Guo Media、YouTube、Twitter 和 Discord。\n\n41. 该等招揽向潜在投资者陈述，GTV 将成为一个新闻、社交媒体和电子商务平台，其竞争对手包括 Amazon.com Inc.、Tencent Holdings Ltd. 的 WeChat 和 ByteDance Ltd. 的 TikTok。据《华尔街日报》报道，备忘录载明 GTV 的投资前估值为 $1.8 billion。8\n\n42. 2020年4月21日，Guo 在 YouTube 上录制并发布了一段题为（英文）GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions（“启动视频”）的视频，该视频说明了股票发行的条款，并提供了供潜在\n\n8 Brian Spegele（布莱恩·斯皮格尔）、Sha Hua（沙华）和 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），《与史蒂夫·班农和郭文贵有关联的公司筹资面临调查》，Wall St. J.（《华尔街日报》）（Aug. 19, 2020），载于 http faces-probe-11597857467.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 有意参与的投资者。9 尽管郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）在发布视频中披露“[该项发行]不面向公众”，但对发布视频以及与股票发行相关的投资文件的观看和分享权限并未受到限制。因此，在任何可访问 YouTube 的地方，包括 Arizona（亚利桑那州），发布视频和投资文件均向公众普遍开放。\n\n6 7 8 9 10 43. 郭文贵在发布视频中披露，该股票发行拟以每股 \\$1 的价格出售 2,000 万至 2 亿股 GTV 普通股。他还披露，尽管该股票发行要求投资者最低投资额为 \\$100,000，但对于希望投资少于 \\$100,000 的人士，另有可供选择的途径。\n\n- 11 12 13 14 44. 郭文贵连同发布视频一并发布了一个链接，用于下载与股票发行相关的文件，包括备忘录、认购协议、保密协议、一份题为“投资程序指南”的文件、投资说明以及其他相关文件。\n\n- 15 16 17 18 19 45. 如上所述，郭文贵、Saraca（萨拉卡）和 GTV（GTV）并未限制对发布视频、与股票发行相关文件链接的访问，亦未限制发布视频及相关文件被分享的能力。事实上，郭文贵、Saraca 和 GTV 未采取任何措施阻止公众访问已在网上提供的营销视频。\n\n20 21 22 23 24 46. 郭文贵、Saraca 和 GTV 通过短信将发布视频发送给数百名潜在投资者，不论其是否具备认可投资者资格，短信中包括一个用于下载与股票发行有关文件的链接。郭文贵、Saraca 和 GTV 未限制短信接收者将所链接的股票发行文件转发给其他潜在投资者的能力。\n\n- 25\n\n- 26\n\n- 27\n\n28 9 见发布视频，载于 http\n\n- 12 -\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47. 在郭文贵的指示下，Wei（魏丽红）和 VOG（VOG）亦就股票发行招揽投资者。如命令中的认定所述，为“促进 VOG 在发行和销售”GTV 证券中的作用，Saraca 和 GTV 向魏丽红和 VOG 提供了股票发行文件，包括 LPAA，以“提供给股票发行中的潜在投资者”。命令第 4 页。Saraca 和 GTV 还“指示 VOG 代表希望投资少于 \\$100,000 的潜在投资者购买 GTV 股票……随后，VOG 招揽投资者并收集资金，以代表其购买 GTV 股票。”同上。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 48. 在所有相关期间，VOG 作为郭文贵、Saraca 和 GTV 的代理人运营，潜在投资者即使持有少于 \\$100,000、无法直接向 Saraca 和 GTV 购买 GTV 证券，仍可通过该代理人参与股票发行。通过设立这一“后门”，郭文贵显著提高了对 GTV 证券的需求。然而，为了获得这一后门的准入并购买 GTV 证券，郭文贵要求他们首先向 ROL Entities（法治实体）之一，或者通过 Livestream（另一郭文贵视频直播平台）向郭文贵本人捐款。\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. 在郭文贵网站 www.gtv.org 上播放的一段视频中，郭文贵表示（以中文）只有他的真正支持者才能投资 GTV，而捐款是证明支持的一种方式。见 http（“我们所想做的，只是与我们的战友分享 GTV 爆料平台、其利润、其预期价值及其增值。这就是为什么，我们只把它给了法治基金会和法治协会的捐款人，以及那些作出贡献、流过血汗泪并在这场运动中承担风险的人。”（非官方译文））；http（“我们不卖给任何其他人，我们只卖给那些支持爆料革命、法治基金会和法治协会的战友，和我们并肩作战的战友，以及投资了 GTV 的人，其他任何人都不卖。”（非官方译文））。\n\n3 50. 虽然捐款使投资者能够参与股票发行并支付 GTV 证券的款项，但投资者并未取得其已付款购买的 GTV 普通股股份。\n\n4 51. 郭文贵特别指示拟花费少于 \\$100,000 购买 GTV 证券的投资者联系魏丽红和 VOG。在郭文贵网站 www.gtv.org 上播放的另一段视频中，郭文贵确认他“在[其]直播中说了十多次，如果你有少于 \\$100,000，你就去找 Sara。”10\n\n52. 当魏丽红从投资者处汇集约 \\$70 million 时，郭文贵在 2020 年 5 月 21 日的视频中称赞魏丽红帮助了“许多原本没有机会参与的战友”：\n\n仅 Sara 一个人，仅 Sara 她自己，你能想象吗，[汇集了] \\$70 million，接近 \\$100 million，天哪。\n\n这一次，我被 VOG 深深打动。Sara，无意之中，她从多年前起一直在支持爆料革命；她注册了这家公司，开始获得广告收入，并开展业务。\n\n不仅有持续进行的业务，而且这也是一家完全合法的公司。经过审计，完全合法。结果，她帮助了如此多的战友，许多战友原本不会有机会参与。帮助了这么多人！11\n\n22 53. 在 2020 年 5 月 22 日的一段视频中，郭文贵再次称赞魏丽红帮助“经济条件较差的战友”参与 GTV 私募配售：\n\nSara 真是一位菩萨。我最关心的是我们经济条件较差的战友；我们不能把钱不多的战友落下。\n\nSara 帮助我们实现了这一点。我非常感谢她的努力。12\n\n28 10 http（非官方译文）。\n\nhttp（强调部分为原文所加）（非官方译文）。\n\n12 http（非官方译文）。\n\n- 14 -\n\n1 54. 与 GTV 一样，魏丽红和 VOG 运营多个社交媒体频道，例如 YouTube 和 Discord（Discord）。\n\n2 通过这些频道，魏丽红直接与有意通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的潜在投资者沟通。\n\n3 55. 在 2020 年 5 月 12 日发布于 www.gtv.org 的一段视频中，魏丽红告诉投资者（以中文）：\n\n6 我首先需要你们提供的是向 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）捐款的证明。不要问我，如果你在 4 月 1 日之后捐款，你是否仍然符合资格；只要你有捐款证明就可以。你支持郭先生的经历，我也喜欢读，我们之后可以分享。然后你需要告诉我，你有多于还是少于 \\$100,000。你必须让我知道。如果多于 \\$100,000，我会联系总部；如果少于 \\$100,000，VOG 会……为你办理。”13\n\n11 56. 根据所知所信，魏丽红就股票发行招揽向 ROL Entities 捐款的行为是在 Arizona 州作出的。在招揽捐款时，魏丽红系依郭文贵、GTV、Saraca 以及由郭文贵创立、拥有和控制的 ROL Entities 的指使行事。通过 VOG 对 GTV 进行的捐款和投资，均用于中饱郭文贵私囊。\n\n16 57. 在确认捐款后，魏丽红或其代理人会通过电子邮件或私人聊天联系投资者，要求填写各种表格，并提供身份证明。魏丽红在该过程中使用了以下电子邮件地址：sarawei@protonmail.com；vog202064@protonmail.com；以及 vog202064@gmail.com。\n\n20 58. 发送供填写的文件包括 LPAA（有限目的代理协议），投资者据此同意指定魏丽红为其代理人，代表其各自购买 GTV 证券。LPAA 的相关部分规定如下：\n\n24 特此昭告，_____,（以下称“投资者”）特此意图受法律约束，并鉴于一美元（\\$1.00）及其他良好、有价值且充分的对价，代理人特此确认已收到该等对价且其充分性已获确认，为投资者及其继承人和受让人的利益，特此指定、指示并委任 Lihong Wei Lafrenz（魏丽红·拉弗伦茨）（以下称“代理人”）、其继承人、受让人及关联方，代表本人使用本人将提供的金额为 \\$________ 的资金，购买 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）（以下称“投资”）的若干股份，连同根据该投资已产生或可能产生的一切诉权；投资者特此指定并委任上述代理人为投资者真实、合法的代理人及事实代理人，仅为代表本人完成该投资之有限目的，并以投资者亲自到场时能够进行的同等方式及为一切目的，作出和完成与前述事项有关的一切行为、事项和事务。（强调部分为原文所加）\n\n10 59. LPAA 完成后，魏丽红指示潜在投资者将购买金额电汇至由魏丽红和/或 VOG 控制的银行账户。\n\n12 60. 郭文贵在 2020 年 6 月 2 日的一段视频中宣布，股票发行已结束，筹集了数亿美元资金，GTV 的所谓估值为 \\$2 billion。尽管该股票发行据称于 2020 年 6 月 2 日结束，Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 仍持续招揽投资，直至 2020 年 7 月。\n\n16 61. 根据命令中的认定，Saraca 和 GTV 向逾 1,000 名投资者出售了价值约 \\$339 million 的 GTV 普通股，其中部分投资者并非认可投资者。VOG 向逾 4,500 名投资者出售了价值约 \\$114 million 的 GTV 普通股，其中许多投资者并非认可投资者。没有任何通过 VOG 购买 GTV 普通股的投资者曾收到 GTV 股份。\n\n21 被告人在股票发行中作出的重大虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏\n\n23 62. 在向投资者推介股票发行时，郭文贵、魏丽红及其关联方对投资者作出了重大虚假和误导性陈述，和/或遗漏了事实，致使其陈述具有误导性。郭文贵和魏丽红作出虚假陈述和遗漏，其意图和目的在于诱使潜在投资者购买 GTV 证券，并通过向非认可投资者出售未注册股份来提高需求，试图在股票发行中筹集尽可能多的资金。\n\n- 16 -\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 63. 例如，在 2020 年 4 月 6 日上传至 YouTube 的一段视频中，郭文贵夸口称，“[一年内，][GTV 平台]的市值绝对会达到数千亿美元，绝对是数千亿美元。”（非官方译文）。14\n\n64. 在 2020 年 4 月 7 日的一次直播中，郭文贵表示，想要投资 GTV 的人如此之多，以至于“在一分钟内就可以筹集一二三十亿美元”，且 GTV 股票将上涨多达“10 倍”。\n\n65. 在 2020 年 5 月 9 日上传至 www.gtv.org 的另一段视频中，郭文贵声称，通过股票发行购买 GTV 证券的机会是“无风险的”，并且“将产生 100 倍或 1000 倍的回报。”15\n\n12 13 14 66. 在 2020 年 6 月 2 日发布于 www.gnews.org 的一则帖子中，郭文贵声称，股票发行所筹集的资金“已将[GTV]的估计市值从 2 billion dollars 提升至 10 billion dollars。16\n\n15 16 17 67. 在据称股票发行结束后，郭文贵在 2020 年 8 月 2 日发布于 www.gnews.org、题为“郭文贵：GNews 和 GTV 的潜力无限”的帖子中作出如下陈述：\n\n我们的 Gnews（Gnews）观看人数和注册人数每周都成倍增长。截至上周，其商业估值已达 $2 billion U.S. dollars。那么，我们的 GTV（GTV）产品将价值多少？很快，所有中国共产党（CCP）应用程序都将在美国被禁止并下架。届时，我们的 Gnews 和 GTV 将成为数千万海外华人以及中国共产党互联网防火墙内人士了解中国共产党和世界真相的唯一平台和应用程序。我们的产品迅速增长并获取巨额利润的机会是无限的！我们甚至尚未采取下一项秘密重大行动。不要忘记，我们日后将进行兼并与收购。我们将彻底改变过去受中国共产党操控的商业世界。17\n\n68. Guo（郭文贵）明知而作出上述极具误导性的主张，以推广 GTV 并推动对 GTV 证券的需求，包括在股票发行之前及期间。为试图兑现这些主张，Guo 明知或鲁莽地违反亚利桑那州法律，促使 Saraca（萨拉卡）、GTV 和 VOG（VOG）向不合格投资者发售未经登记的 GTV 普通股，且未设最低购买金额。\n\n69. 如上文详述，2020年4月21日，Guo 录制并在 YouTube（优兔）发布了发布视频，其中他告诉潜在投资者“[其]不向公众开放”，但明知或鲁莽地未限制潜在投资者观看该视频或与他人分享该视频的能力。Guo 发布了包含发布视频的链接，供潜在投资者下载股票发行文件。Guo 明知或鲁莽地未限制潜在投资者查阅和分享这些文件的能力。\n\n70. Wei（魏）通过收集并归集投资者资金用于所谓对 GTV 的投资，以及为 ROL Entities（法治实体）和 Guo 个人募集捐款，在 Guo 的欺诈计划中发挥了关键作用。Wei 还明知或鲁莽地违反亚利桑那州法律，促使 VOG 向不合格投资者发售未经登记的 GTV 普通股，且未设最低购买金额。事实上，只要投资者能够证明其向 ROL Entities 或 Guo 所作的捐款，其即有资格参与股票发行，并通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券。\n\n71. ROL Entities 还通过借出其挑战中国政府所积累的名义和声誉，以进一步增强 GTV 投资的可信度，并让其推广人 Guo 和 Wei 将向 ROL Entities 或 Guo 个人捐款作为直接投资 GTV 或通过 VOG 投资 GTV 的先决条件，从而参与了该欺诈计划。\n\n72. 如下文所述，一旦 Wei 确认投资者的捐款，她便通过电子邮件向其发送包含股票发行文件的公开链接（或指示投资者在网上何处查找该等文件），包括 LPAA（有限授权委托协议），以及有关将填写完成的文件和与其购买相关的电汇确认函寄往何处的说明。\n\n73. 在所有相关期间，Guo 和 Wei 均知悉 GTV 证券未在亚利桑那州登记。在所有相关期间，Guo 和 Wei 均知悉其未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或促成证券要约或销售交易。在所有相关期间，Guo 和 Wei 均知悉 Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均非经纪商或交易商，且未获许可在亚利桑那州招揽客户或促成证券要约或销售交易。Guo 和 Wei 的知情应归责于 Saraca、GTV、VOG 和 ROL Entities。\n\n74. 尽管如此，Guo、Wei 及受其控制的关联公司，明知或鲁莽地向潜在投资者虚假陈述该股票发行“完全合法”和“完全合规”，并未披露其未遵守亚利桑那州法律的事实，以诱使潜在投资者购买 GTV 证券。\n\n75. 在所有相关期间，Guo 和 Wei 均知悉该股票发行绝非合法或合规。Guo 无意将股票发行所得用于开发 GTV 平台或 GTV 的业务。如该裁定所述，Saraca 在股票发行之前及之后均对 GTV 行使控制权。Guo 对 Saraca 行使支配和控制权。Guo（通过 Saraca）将股票发行所得中的 $100 million 转移至一家对冲基金，用于投资该基金。据 Bloomberg（彭博社）报道，该对冲基金由非当事人 Hayman Capital Management L.P.（海曼资本管理有限合伙企业）管理。18 非当事人 Kyle Bass（凯尔·巴斯）是 Hayman Capital Management, L.P. 的创始人兼首席投资官。值得注意的是，Bass 被 Guo 在备忘录中列为 GTV 的董事之一。19\n\n76. 此外，Guo、Wei 及其控制下的公司明知地就原告及集体诉讼成员购买 GTV 证券一事实施欺骗。根据各 LPAA，Wei 担任投资者通过 VOG 购买 GTV 普通股的代理人。Wei 于2020年5月15日向 Saraca 和 GTV 交付 $61,274,318 的股票发行所得时，作为投资者的受托人，她本应同时代表投资者收取价值 $61,274,318 的 GTV 证券。\n\n77. 在所有相关期间，Guo 和 Wei 均知悉并意图不向通过 VOG 购买的投资者发行任何 GTV 证券。Wei 于5月15日向 Saraca 和 GTV 交付 $61,274,318 后，尽管她至少持续至2020年6月仍从投资者处收取资金，但她未再向 Saraca 和 GTV 发送任何股票发行所得。尽管筹集了超过 $114 million，Guo、Saraca 或 GTV 均未要求 Wei 或 VOG 汇付任何股票发行所得余额。通过 VOG 购买的投资者从未获发任何普通股，也从未收到任何购买确认函。2020年6月2日，Guo 表示通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券者“将于日后作为机构投资者并入”，这进一步加深了投资者对其参与股票发行合法性的担忧。\n\n18 Tom Schoenberg（汤姆·舍恩伯格）、Matt Robinson（马特·罗宾逊）和 Joshua Green（乔舒亚·格林），《Kyle Bass 灾难性的香港做空获得与 Bannon 有关联的资金》，Bloomberg，2021年10月13日，载于 http\n\n19 Bass 于2020年7月14日在其 Twitter（推特）动态中表示，截至7月9日，他已不再担任 GTV 董事。\n\n被告就投资者资金状况作出的重大虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏\n\n78. 股票发行结束后，Guo 和 Wei 向投资者作出重大虚假和误导性陈述，并遗漏事实，致使其陈述不具有重大误导性。Guo 和 Wei 作出重大虚假陈述和遗漏，意图向投资者隐瞒股票发行的不正当性和非法性。\n\n79. 2020年6月2日，Guo 宣布该股票发行据称已成功结束。Guo 作出如下相关陈述：\n\n我们已经完成了 GTV 的私募项目，承载着我们战友和志同道合之人的希望。在这场疫情、经济停摆和金融低迷期间，我们创造了历史：除从 VOG 筹集的 1170 [sic] million dollars 外，我们成功从个人处筹集了 3500 [sic] million dollars，后者将于日后作为机构投资者并入。每位投资者都是法治基金会或法治协会的捐赠人，每一笔资金都标志着他们对自由、民主以及反中国共产党斗争的信念。筹集的资金总额已将我们的估计市场价值从 2 billion dollars 提升至 10 billion dollars。（着重号为原文所加）\n\n80. Guo 的陈述在作出时是虚假和误导性的，因为如上所述，该股票发行并非私募。\n\n81. 股票发行结束后不久，投资者开始在聊天室和其他媒体中对其 GTV 投资提出疑问。通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的投资者尤其感到震惊。Guo 于6月2日所称从 VOG 筹集的 $117 [sic] million“将于日后作为机构投资者并入”，并未带来任何安慰。\n\n82. 在上传至 www.gwins.org 和 YouTube 的2020年6月17日讲话中，Guo 告诉投资者：“关于[资金]去了 VOG 一事，VOG 的资金不能动，它被冻结在银行里，而那笔钱你们需要等待 VOG 给出结果。”20\n\n83. 在2020年6月和7月，Wei 明知地向投资者虚假陈述，Wells Fargo（富国银行）和 Chase（大通银行）应对延迟交付 GTV 普通股负责。21 Wei 还虚假表示，一旦银行放行资金，她和其同事将会副签各 LPAA。Guo 和 Wei 还试图欺骗投资者，鼓励他们加入 VOG 据称即将对 Wells Fargo 提起的诉讼，以便释放投资者资金。\n\n84. 如该裁定所述，VOG 于2020年5月15日将股票发行所得中的 $61,274,318 投资者资金转移给 Saraca 和 GTV。因此，银行与所谓延迟交付 GTV 证券和经副签的 LPAA 毫无关系。Wei 的误导仅旨在延迟披露：永远不会向通过 VOG 购买的投资者发行任何股份。\n\n85. 2020年8月，《Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报）》报道称，FBI（联邦调查局）、SEC（证券交易委员会）和 New York Attorney General's Office（纽约州总检察长办公室）均在调查所谓对 GTV 的投资。该文章作出如下相关陈述：\n\n知情人士称，联邦调查由 Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局）和 Securities and Exchange Commission（证券交易委员会）进行。调查人员一直在审查 GTV Media（GTV 媒体）或 Guo 先生的关联人士是否通过私募配售股份违反证券法律。这些人士称，纽约州总检察长办公室也一直在审查此事。筹款后不久，一些投资者开始要求退款——他们称，除其他导致其不再信任 Guo 先生的问题外，他们从未收到验证其对 GTV Media 投资的正式文件。\n\n……\n\n该报审阅的筹款文件称，GTV Media 旨在出售该公司 10% 的股权，最高筹资 $200 million，其余股权由另一家与 Guo 先生有关联的公司持有。\n\nGuo 先生于6月在一段在线视频中表示，GTV Media 已筹集超过 $300 million，对股份的需求超过预期。\n\nGTV Media 未向 SEC 登记该交易。为避免登记，公司通常必须仅向符合要求的富裕“合格投资者”出售股份，例如拥有超过 $1 million 的资产（不包括主要住所的价值），或年收入超过 $200,000。GTV Media 表示，其拟向该等合格投资者出售股份。（着重号为原文所加）22\n\n20 http http（非官方译文）。\n\n21 例如，参见 Sara Wei（莎拉·魏）于2020年6月25日在 GNews 平台发布的直播文字记录，http\n\n86. 2020年12月，VOG 和 Wei 开始向某些人士发放序列号。\n\n使 VOG 投资者得以据称通过 VOG 建立的网站追踪其退款请求的状态。\n\n87. 据知情及信念，大约在 2020 年年底，Guo（郭文贵）与 Wei（魏）据称发生决裂，导致所谓的退款程序停止。Guo 和 Wei 各自持有通过 VOG 投资的超过 $114 million 股票发行所得款项中的一部分，随后开始相互指责对方欺诈投资者。2021 年，Guo 和 Wei 开始告知投资者，由于正在进行的 SEC 调查，他们已无法退还投资款。\n\n88. 2021 年 September 13 日，SEC 对 Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 提起并和解了行政程序，并发布了该命令，部分揭露了被告不当行为的真相。正如该命令所述，Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 预期行政程序将启动而提交了和解要约，SEC 决定接受该等要约。\n\n22 B. Spegele、S. Hua 及 A. Viswanatha，Fundraising at Company Tied to Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui Faces Probe，Wall St. J.，同上。\n\n个别原告的经历\n\n1. 原告 Rong Zhang（张蓉）\n\n89. 原告 Zhang 为购买 GTV 证券而向 VOG 付款。\n\n90. 原告 Zhang 及其家人自约 2017 年或 2018 年起一直在 YouTube 上关注 Guo。\n\n91. 2020 年 April，原告 Zhang 及其家人在 YouTube 上观看了 Guo 的直播视频，其中 Guo 宣传 GTV Media 的推出。Guo 表示，GTV 的观众和访客数量极为可观23，且该公司未来将取得更大成功。Guo 告知其观众，GTV 将通过私募配售（即股票发行）开始筹集资金，并将为早期投资者带来显著回报。基于这些陈述，原告 Zhang 及其家人希望投资 GTV。\n\n92. 原告 Zhang 及其家人通过 Guo 的视频得知，向 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）捐款是参与私募配售的前提条件。93. 因此，2020 年 April 12 日，原告 Zhang 通过 PayPal 向 Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（法治基金会 III 公司）汇出 $500。\n\n94. 2020 年 April 16 日，原告 Zhang 的一名家庭成员通过电子邮件向 Guo（gtvstock@gmail.com）发送了捐款证明。\n\n23 参见，例如，http（Guo 在 2020 年 April 10 日的直播中声称有超过 10 million 人正在观看）；http（Guo 在 2020 年 April 14 日于 GTV 平台进行的直播中声称约有 10 至 20 million 人正在观看）；http（Guo 声称，尽管中国共产党试图歪曲数字，GTV 平台的实际访问量约为 500 million）。Zhang 后来发现，Guo 所提供的这些数字被严重夸大。\n\n95. 2020 年 April 17 日，Guo 回复称：“[c]urrently the minimum amount is $100,000. For amount less than $100,000, VOG will aggregate and invest. Will register you if you want to join. Thanks.”（非官方翻译：目前最低金额为 $100,000。对于低于 $100,000 的金额，VOG 将汇集并投资。如您希望加入，将为您登记。谢谢。）\n\n96. 2020 年 May 3 日，原告 Zhang 的一名家庭成员通过电子邮件向 Wei（sarawei@protonmail.com）询问其是否获准投资。Wei 要求提供其向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款的证明。\n\n97. 在确认向 Rule of Law Foundation 的捐款后，Wei 通过电子邮件告知原告 Zhang 的家庭成员：“the minimum investment is 100 thousand dollars. For investment under 100 thousand: based on trust, you can join our VOG partnership team. Please reply if confirmed to invest, I will register you[.] Please attach a proof of donation of your donation in the Rule of Law Foundation[.] must be with date[.] thank you very much!”（非官方翻译：最低投资额为 100 thousand dollars。对于低于 100 thousand 的投资：基于信任，您可以加入我们的 VOG 合伙团队。如确认投资，请回复，我将为您登记。请附上您向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款的证明。必须注明日期。非常感谢！）\n\n98. 原告 Zhang 的家庭成员回复 Wei，表示希望登记进行 $100,000 的投资。\n\n99. 2020 年 May 5 日，Wei 通过电子邮件向原告 Zhang 的家庭成员发送了一系列步骤，指示其：(1) 访问一个包含电汇指示和空白 LPAA（有限目的代理协议）的 Google Drive 链接；(2) 填写 LPAA，附上其身份证件复印件，并附上电汇确认书副本；(3) 将该等文件通过电子邮件发送至 vog202064@protonmail.com；以及 (4) 等待 VOG 对该协议进行会签。\n\n100. 2020 年 May 11 日，尽管已达到据称直接投资 GTV 所需的 $100,000 最低门槛，原告 Zhang 仍依照 Wei 的指示，通过 VOG 投资 GTV 以取得 GTV 股份，并通过电汇向 VOG 在 Wells Fargo Bank, NA. 的账户（账户号码尾数为 536）汇入 $100,000。同日，她将已签署的 LPAA、电汇确认书、其护照复印件及向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款的证明，通过电子邮件发送至 vog202064@protonmail.com。\n\n101. 投资后，原告 Zhang 多次就通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券一事进行询问。在未能就其询问获得满意答复后，原告 Zhang 请求退款。未提供任何退款。此外，原告 Zhang 未获发 GTV 普通股股份。\n\n2. 原告 Chong Shen Raphanella\n\n102. 原告 Raphanella 为购买 GTV 证券而向 VOG 付款。\n\n103. 2020 年 April 和 May，原告 Raphanella 观看了 Guo 宣布并宣传 GTV 私募配售的直播视频，其中他宣称原始发行股份将产生 100 倍回报。原告 Raphanella 还观看了 Guo 先生的各种直播视频，其中他表示，投资超过 $100,000 的投资者应直接联系他，而投资低于 $100,000 的投资者应联系 Wei，通过 VOG 进行集合投资。原告 Raphanella 通过 Guo 的直播视频得知，捐款是投资 GTV 的前提条件。\n\n104. 2020 年 May 12 日，原告 Raphanella 观看了 Wei 的直播视频，Wei 在视频中表示，VOG 将汇集投资者的资金以投资 GTV 股份，即使低至 $100 的小额投资也可以接受。此外，Wei 表示，投资者必须向她提供向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款的证明，并告知她投资者拟用于购买 GTV 证券的金额。\n\n105. 2020 年 April 28 日，原告 Raphanella 通过 Livestream 向 Guo 汇出 $30，以获得通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的资格。\n\n106. 约于 2020 年 May 22 日，原告 Raphanella 在 Discord 聊天室与 Wei 交谈，Wei 确认了向 Guo 的捐款，并指引她前往一个包含电汇指示和空白 LPAA 的 Google Drive。\n\n107. 2020 年 May 27 日和 28 日，原告 Raphanella 分两次向 VOG 在 Bank of America 的银行账户（账户号码尾数为 226）各电汇 $5,000。\n\n108. 2020 年 May 28 日，她通过电子邮件向 Wei（sarawei@protonmail.com）发送了两份电汇确认书、已签署的 LPAA 及其驾驶执照复印件。\n\n109. 原告 Raphanella 曾多次就其投资进行询问，并请求退款。未提供任何退款。原告 Raphanella 未获发 GTV 普通股股份。\n\n3. 原告 Xiaodan Wang\n\n110. 原告 Wang 为购买 GTV 证券而向 VOG 付款。\n\n111. 约于 2020 年 April 和 May，原告 Wang 在 YouTube 上观看了有关 GTV 推出及宣传 GTV 私募配售的 Guo 直播视频，其中他宣称原始发行股份将产生 100 倍回报。Guo 还表示，有意投资超过 $100,000 的人士应直接联系他，而有意投资低于 $100,000 的人士应联系 Wei。\n\n112. 2020 年 May，原告 Wang 加入了 Wei 的 Discord 频道，在那里她得知，向 Rule of Law Foundation 或 Rule of Law Society（法治协会）捐款是投资 GTV 的前提条件。\n\n113. 2020 年 May 13 日，她通过 PayPal 向 Rule of Law Society 汇出 $100，以获得通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的资格。\n\n114. 在 2020 年 May 16 日与 Wei 在 Discord 聊天室的沟通中，Wei 确认收到该笔捐款，并指引原告 Wang 前往包含电汇指示和空白 LPAA 的 Google Drive。\n\n115. 2020 年 May 19 日，她通过 Bank of Montreal 向 VOG 在 Wells Fargo 的账户电汇 $50,000。\n\n116. 2020 年 May 21 日，她通过 Bank of Montreal 向 VOG 在 JP Morgan Chase Bank 的账户进行了第二笔金额为 $20,000 的电汇。该笔汇款后来被拒绝，$20,000 已退回。\n\n117. 2020 年 May 25 日，原告 Wang 通过电子邮件向 Wei 女士（vog202064@protonmail.com）发送以下材料：(1) 三份已签署的 LPAA，一份投资金额为 $50,000，一份投资金额为 $20,000，另一份合计投资金额为 $70,00024；(2) 两份电汇确认书，金额分别为 $50,000 和 $20,000；(3) 原告 Wang 的护照复印件；(4) 通过 PayPal 以信用卡向 Rule of Law Society 捐款 $100 的证明；以及 (5) 一张载有原告 Wang 姓名的信用卡照片，以证明该笔捐款由其作出。\n\n118. 原告 Wang 曾多次就该投资进行询问，并请求退款。未提供任何退款。原告 Wang 未获发 GTV 普通股股份。\n\nV. 集体诉讼主张\n\n119. 原告依据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）Rule 23(a) 和 b(3)，代表其本人并以集体诉讼方式，代表所有为购买 GTV 证券而向 VOG 付款、却从未收到该等证券或所付款项的退款，并因此遭受损害的人员提起本案。\n\n120. 集体不包括 Guo、Wei 及其家人、继承人和受让人，Saraca、GTV、VOG 及其董事、高级管理人员、法定代表人、雇员、代理人、继承人、子公司、受让人和关联方。原告保留根据通过证据开示获得的信息修改集体定义的权利。\n\n121. 对原告主张进行集体范围审理的认证是适当的，因为原告可使用与用于证明主张相同的个别诉讼中的该等要件的相同证据，在集体范围内证明其主张的各项要件。\n\n24 原告 Wang 在其电子邮件中解释称，由于她进行了两笔独立的电汇，她不确定有限目的代理协议中所列金额是否应予合并。为方便 Wei，原告 Wang 签署了三份协议，并请求 Wei 酌情会签该协议或该等协议。然而，原告 Wang 从未收到 Wei 会签的协议。\n\n122. 本案系代表拟议集体依据 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 提起，并可得到适当维持。\n\n123. 集体成员人数众多，以致将所有成员合并参加诉讼不可行。根据知情及信念，原告相信集体成员超过 4500 人，其中许多人居住在美国。可通过公认的、经法院批准的通知发放方式，向集体成员通知本案正在审理，该等方式可包括美国邮件、电子邮件、互联网发布和/或公告通知。\n\n124. 本案所涉法律和事实问题具有明确界定的共同利益。集体成员共同享有、且优先于可能影响个别集体成员的问题的法律和事实问题包括但不限于：\n\na. 被告是否违反《亚利桑那州修订法规》，发行和出售未经注册的证券；\n\nb. 被告是否通过参与实施发行和出售未经注册证券的计划，采用了欺诈原告和集体成员的手段、计划或诡计，或从事了构成欺诈的交易、做法或经营过程；\n\nc. 被告是否如本诉状所述违反了其对原告和集体所负的信义义务，和/或协助及教唆违反信义义务；\n\nd. 被告是否通过参与实施发行和出售未经注册证券的计划，共谋欺诈、违反对原告和集体所负的信义义务，和/或协助及教唆违反信义义务；\ne. 被告是否因其行为而获得不当得利；\n\nf. 被告是否未能就发行和出售未经注册证券行使合理注意或胜任能力，并就股份发行向原告和集体成员过失性虚假陈述事实；以及\n\ng. 集体成员是否因被告的行为而遭受损害。125. 原告的请求与集体的请求具有典型性，因为原告和集体均以实质相同的方式因被告的不法行为而遭受损害。126. 原告将充分保护集体的利益，并已聘请具有集体诉讼经验的律师。原告不存在与集体其他成员利益相冲突的利益。127. 与其他可用方法相比，集体诉讼是对本争议进行公平、高效裁判的更优方法。VI. 救济请求\n罪名项 I\n违反 ARS § 44-1991——证券买卖欺诈\n（针对被告 Guo（郭文贵）、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG）\n\n128. 原告通过援引将上述第1至127段的每一项主张重新主张，如同在此完整载明。\n\n129. ARS § 44-1801 将“证券”定义为包括任何“股票”、“债务凭证”或“投资合同”。\n\n130. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 就股份发行所推介的 GTV 权益，属于 ARS § 44-1801 所称的证券。\n\n131. 通过 VOG 向原告和集体发行及出售的 GTV 证券，不属于 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f) 所定义的受涵盖证券，因此不受《证券诉讼统一标准法》（“SLUSA”）排除适用。\n\n132. 在向原告和集体发行及出售之前，GTV 证券未向亚利桑那州公司委员会登记。此外，所发行和出售的 GTV 证券不受亚利桑那州法律、法规或规章规定的任何注册豁免的约束。\n133. ARS § 44-1841 规定：\n\n139. 由于本诉状所述行为，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均发行和出售了未经注册的证券，和/或控制了发行和出售未经注册证券之人，违反 ARS § 44-1991，致使原告和集体成员因此遭受损害。140. 原告请求依据 ARS §§ 44-1998、44-1999、44-2001 和 44-2002 获得一切可用救济，包括惩罚性赔偿。罪名项 II\n违反 ARS § 44-1998——要约和出售；责任\n（针对被告 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG）\n141. 原告通过援引将上述第1至127段的每一项主张重新主张，如同在此完整载明。142. ARS § 44-1801 将“证券”定义为包括任何“股票”、“债务凭证”或“投资合同”。143. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 就股份发行所推介的 GTV 权益，属于 ARS § 44-1801 所称的证券。144. 通过 VOG 向原告和集体发行及出售的 GTV 证券，不属于 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f) 所定义的受涵盖证券，因此不受 SLUSA 排除适用。145. 在向原告和集体发行及出售之前，GTV 证券未向亚利桑那州公司委员会登记。此外，所发行和出售的 GTV 证券不受亚利桑那州法律、法规或规章规定的任何注册豁免的约束。146. ARS § 44-1841 规定：除非证券已依本章第6条或第7条完成登记，或者该证券为联邦受涵盖证券且符合本标题第 44-1843.02 条或第13章第12条，否则在本州境内或自本州出售或要约出售任何证券均属违法。147. ARS § 44-1998 规定：\n\n在任何涉及于本州境内或自本州要约或出售证券的案件中，任何人以载有对重要事实的不实陈述，或者遗漏陈述为使该等陈述在作出时所处情形下不具误导性所必需的重要事实的招股说明书或口头通讯，发行或出售证券的，应依本条规定对该证券的购买人承担责任，但购买人不知道该不实陈述或遗漏的除外。购买人可向有管辖权的任何法院或行政机构提起诉讼，在交还证券后，追偿为该证券支付的对价及利息，扣除从该证券取得的任何收入；如购买人不再持有该证券，则可请求损害赔偿。\n\n148. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 是向原告和集体发行及出售未经注册证券的发行人、控制人、交易商和/或其他代表其或为其利益进行该等发行及出售之人，或者是参与作出该等发行及出售的经纪人或销售人员，或者是参与发行及出售未经注册 GTV 证券的 Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 的控制人。\n\n149. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均通过股份发行推介、发行和出售了 GTV 证券。\n\n150. 如上文第2-10、39-52、54-70、72-80、82-84、91-92、99、103-04、106、111-12 和114段所述，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 通过其行为、交易及行为过程，实施了欺诈原告和集体的计划，并在发行和出售未经注册证券时，向原告和集体作出了重大虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏。\n\n151. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 明知而从事通过 VOG 汇集非经认可投资者的投资，以规避对未经注册证券的监管的行为。未披露向非经认可投资者发行和出售未经注册证券的违法性，以及在原告和集体成员购买后未发行 GTV 普通股股份或交付任何所有权证明，使被告就股份发行所作的陈述具有重大误导性。\n\n152. 由于本诉状所述行为，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均发行和出售了未经注册的证券，和/或控制了发行和出售未经注册证券之人，违反 ARS § 44-1998，致使原告和集体成员因此遭受损害。153. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 应向原告和集体承担经审判证明的金额的责任。罪名项 III\n普通法欺诈\n（针对被告 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG）\n154. 原告通过援引将上述第1至127段的每一项主张重新主张，如同在此完整载明。155. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 分别及共同通过招揽原告和集体成员投资 GTV 证券，向原告和集体成员作出了重大虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏。156. 如上文第3-5、8、10、52、63-67、69、74-77、79-80、82-84、91、95、97、103-04 和111段所述，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均明知或鲁莽地就股份发行以及通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的机会作出了重大虚假和误导性陈述，并遗漏了重要事实，意图诱使原告和集体成员信赖该等陈述，并取得原告和集体购买所得款项。157. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 作出的虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏，是在明知其虚假性或误导性，并意图欺骗、操纵和诈欺的情况下作出的。158. 原告和集体成员在同意购买 GTV 证券并以资金交换该等证券时，不可能且实际上也不知道 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 的陈述是虚假的。\n\n159. 原告和集体成员在决定通过 VOG 购买 GTV 普通股股份时，事实上依赖了 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 作出的虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏。\n\n160. 原告和集体成员对 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 作出的虚假和误导性陈述及遗漏的信赖是合理的。鉴于其与 Guo 和 Wei 的同胞情谊，原告和集体成员在 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 作出该等陈述时，没有理由不相信该等陈述。\n\n162. 如果原告和集体成员知道真相，他们就不会购买 GTV 证券。由于 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 的不法行为和欺骗性计划这一直接及近因，原告和集体成员遭受了重大损害。\n\n163. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 应向原告和集体承担经审判证明的金额的责任。\n罪名项 IV\n违反信义义务\n（针对被告 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG）\n\n164. 原告通过援引将上述第1至127段的每一项主张重新主张，如同在此完整载明。\n\n165. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均就股份发行招揽原告和集体成员购买未经注册的 GTV 股份。\n\n166. 作为董事、高级管理人员、发行人、发行人的控制人、发行人的控股股东、GTV 的发起人，以及原告和集体成员的代理人，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均对原告和集体负有忠诚、诚信、审慎注意和披露的信义义务。\n\n167. 在所有相关期间，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 对原告和集体成员为购买 GTV 证券而支付的股份发行所得款项行使完全控制。\n\n168. 如上文第2-10、39-52、54-70、72-80、82-84、91-92、99、103-04、106、111-12 和114段所述，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 通过其行为、交易及行为过程，分别并作为共同计划的一部分行事，以原告和集体的费用和损害为代价推进其自身利益。\n\n169. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 均以下列方式等违反了其对原告和集体所负的信义义务：\n\na. 通过非法招揽发行或出售未经注册证券，借由股份发行实施欺诈原告和集体的计划；\n\nb. 就投资者通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的机会误导原告和集体；\n\nc. 在明知不会向原告及集体成员发行任何证券的情况下，接受投资者为购买 GTV（GTV）证券而支付的资金；\n\nd. 未能根据 LPAA 所确立的代理关系保全投资者资产；以及\n\ne. 就未能交付作为其 GTV 投资对价的证券所涉退款状况，误导原告及集体成员。\n\n170. 由于前述行为、做法及行为过程，Guo（郭文贵）、Wei（魏某）、Saraca（Saraca）、GTV 和 VOG（VOG）在履行其对原告及集体所负的信义义务时，未尽到通常注意及勤勉义务。\n\n171. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 实施欺诈及违法行为，未以善意对待原告及集体，并且未披露有关股票发行及通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券机会的重要事实，违反了其对原告及集体成员所负的信义义务。\n\n172. 由于 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 违反信义义务，原告及集体成员直接且近因地遭受了重大损失。\n\n173. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 应就审判中证明的金额对原告及集体承担责任。\n\n第五项罪名\n协助及教唆违反信义义务\n（针对被告 ROL Entities（法治实体））\n\n174. 原告通过援引方式纳入并再次主张上文第 1-127 段中的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n175. Rule of Law Entities 协助、教唆并为上文第 5-7、48-50、55-57、61、68-75、92-93、104-06、112-14 段所述的被诉不当行为提供了实质性协助。ROL Entities 在采取行动为所诉不当行为的实施提供实质性协助时，明知主要不当行为的存在，并知悉其对该不当行为的整体促成和推进作用。\n\n176. ROL Entities 就股票发行向 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 提供了实质性支持。\n\n177. ROL Entities 明知 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 就股票发行所采取的行动，违反了其对寻求通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的投资者所负的信义义务。\n\n178. ROL Entities 明知，股票发行中涉及要约及出售未注册 GTV 证券的部分系属违法。\n\n179. 尽管如此，ROL Entities 仍接受投资者的捐款，以使其具备参与股票发行并通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的资格，从而向 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 提供了实质性协助。\n\n180. 由于 ROL Entities 协助及教唆 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 违反信义义务，原告及集体成员直接且近因地遭受了重大损失。\n\n181. ROL Entities 应就审判中证明的金额对原告及集体承担责任。\n\n第六项罪名\n民事共谋\n（针对全体被告）\n\n182. 原告通过援引方式纳入并再次主张上文第 1-127 段中的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n183. 如上文第 2-10、33-34、38-40、45-48、51-52、55-61、68-77 及 79-84 段所述，被告及其各自相互共谋，并秘密同意实施包括但不限于下列行为：\n\na. 通过涉及违法要约及出售未注册 GTV 证券的股票发行欺诈原告及集体；\n\nb. 通过就招揽对 GTV 的投资以及向 ROL Entities 和 Guo 捐款作出重大虚假陈述及遗漏，欺诈原告及集体；\n\nc. 通过下列方式违反其对原告及集体成员所负的信义义务：(i) 未披露有关股票发行以及通过 VOG 要约和出售 GTV 证券的重要事实；(ii) 明知不会向原告及集体成员发行任何 GTV 普通股股份，仍接受投资者资金；(iii) 未在依据 LPAA 所接受的代理关系范围内保全投资者资产；以及 (iv) 未披露有关未交付证券所涉投资者资金退款状况的重要事实。\n\n184. 为推进该共谋，被告实施了下列行为：\n\na. Guo 指使 Saraca 注册成立 GTV 并注入所有相关资产；\n\nb. Guo、Saraca 和 GTV 编制并传播了用于要约及出售未注册 GTV 普通股股份的股票发行文件；\n\nc. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 使用股票发行文件，以招揽对 GTV 的投资以及向 ROL Entities 和 Guo 的捐款；\n\nd. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 通过社交媒体及新闻媒体发表公开声明，推广和营销未注册 GTV 证券的要约及出售；\n\ne. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 声称，向 ROL Entities 或 Guo 捐款是投资 GTV 的先决条件，并意图借股票发行进一步使 Guo 获利；\n\nf. ROL Entities 利用其挑战中国政府的名称和声誉，为 GTV 投资提供进一步信誉，并使其推广人 Guo 和 Wei 将向 ROL Entities 捐款作为直接或通过 VOG 投资 GTV 的先决条件进行招揽；\n\ng. Guo 和 ROL Entities 接受投资者作出的捐款，该等捐款是获准通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的先决条件；\n\nh. Wei 同意担任寻求通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的投资者的代理人，并以该身份接受投资者资金；\n\ni. Wei 为通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券收取了超过 \\$114 million 的投资者资金，并将该等投资者资金中的 \\$61,274,318 交付给 Guo、Saraca 和 GTV；\n\nj. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 在未向原告及集体成员发行证券的情况下，保留了 \\$114 million 的投资者资金。\n\n185. 每名被告均怀有损害原告及集体成员的共同目的和意图。每名被告均明白，所有其他被告均具有相同的共同意图和目的。\n\n186. 由于上述侵权行为，原告及集体直接且近因地遭受了损失。\n\n187. 被告应就审判中证明的金额对原告及集体承担责任。\n\n第七项罪名\n过失性失实陈述\n（针对被告 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG）\n\n188. 原告通过援引方式纳入并再次主张上文第 1-127 段中的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n189. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 自称为发行人，或发行人的代理人及代表。因此，各方均在 GTV 证券的要约及出售中对原告及集体成员负有义务。\n\n190. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 向原告反复作出重大失实陈述和遗漏；其明知该等陈述和遗漏虚假，或因过失而未能知悉其虚假。具体而言，Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 向原告及集体作出的陈述或遗漏，对下列事项作出了不实陈述：(a) GTV 的真实价值；(b) GTV 投资的真实性质；(c) GTV 证券的相对风险；(d) 如何通过 VOG 获得该等证券；(e) 投资者资金将如何使用；以及 (f) 各被告之间或彼此的关系。\n\n191. 该等陈述和遗漏在作出时即属虚假和/或误导性，并且对原告及集体成员作出投资 GTV 证券的决定具有重要性。若原告及集体成员知悉包括下列事项在内的情况，其本不会寻求参与股票发行：(a) GTV Platform（GTV 平台）的价值远低于被告所声称的价值；(b) 股票发行以及招揽投资未注册 GTV 证券违反相关证券法律；(d) GTV 证券绝非“无风险”。\n\n192. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 在向原告传达该等虚假和/或误导性信息时，未尽到合理注意或胜任能力。\n\n193. 原告及集体成员在决定参与股票发行并通过 VOG 投资 GTV 证券时，有正当理由依赖 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 所作的陈述。\n\n194. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 明白或理应合理明白，原告及集体成员在决定参与股票发行并通过 VOG 投资 GTV 证券时，依赖其公开声明和陈述。\n\n195. 由于 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 的不当作为，原告及集体成员直接且近因地遭受了重大损失。\n\n196. Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 应就审判中证明的金额对原告及集体承担责任。\n\n第八项罪名\n不当得利\n（针对全体被告）\n\n197. 原告通过援引方式纳入并再次主张上文第 1-127 段中的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n198. 原告及集体成员各自在向 VOG 支付超过 \\$114 million 的股票发行所得款项，并指定 Wei 为其代理人以使用该等资金购买 GTV 证券时，向 Guo、Wei、Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 提供了利益。根据该命令中的认定，其中 \\$61,274,318 被转移给 Saraca 和 GTV。\n\n199. 原告及集体成员各自在获准通过 VOG 购买 GTV 证券的先决条件下，被要求向 ROL Entities 或 Guo 作出“捐款”时，向 Guo 和 ROL Entities 提供了利益。\n\n200. 尽管原告及集体成员向 Guo 和 ROL Entities 作出捐款、向 VOG 支付款项以购买 GTV 证券，且被告接受了该等款项，原告及集体成员从未获发行 GTV 证券股份。\n\n201. 被告保留该等资金有失公平。\n\n202. 允许被告以原告及集体成员的费用和损害为代价保留该等资金，有违衡平与良知。\n\nVII. 救济请求\n\n因此，原告请求作出如下判决：\n\n（A）宣告本案请求适宜依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》Rule 23(a) 和 (b)(3) 作为集体诉讼维持，并指定原告为集体代表，指定原告的律师为集体律师；\n\n（B）判令全体被告就因被告不当行为所造成的一切损失，对原告及集体其他成员承担连带赔偿责任，赔偿金额以审判中证明的金额为准，并包括其利息；\n\n（C）判令全体被告就因被告不当行为所造成的损失，对原告及集体其他成员承担连带惩罚性赔偿及一切适用的法定罚金，金额以审判中证明的金额为准，并包括其利息；以及\n\n（D）判令向原告及集体支付其因提起本诉讼而产生的合理费用和开支，包括合理的律师费及专家费；以及\n\n（E）判给法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n陪审团审判请求\n\n原告特此请求由陪审团审判。\n\n日期：November 5, 2021\n\n谨此提交，\n\nWOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n\n/s/ Benjamin Y. Kaufman\nBenjamin Y. Kaufman（Benjamin Y. Kaufman）\n（经许可临时出庭）\nkaufman@whafh.com\n\nFREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n\nMalcolm T. Brown（Malcolm T. Brown）\n（经许可临时出庭）\nbrown@whafh.com\n\n270 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016\n电话：(212) 545-4600\n传真：(212) 686-0114\n\nLYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP（林奇·达斯卡尔·埃默里律师事务所）\nBernard Daskal（贝纳德·达斯卡尔）（获准 pro hac vice 临时出庭）\ndaskal@lde.law\nXun Chen（陈逊）（获准 pro hac vice 临时出庭）\nchen@lde.law\n137 W. 25th St.\nNew York, NY 10001\n\n电话：(212) 302-2400\n原告 Rong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及 Chong Shen Raphanella（拉法内拉·沈冲）的代理律师，\n并担任该集体的拟任首席律师\n/811836\n\n- 43 -\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，本人于 November 5, 2021，使用 CM/ECF 系统向法院书记员以电子方式提交了上述文件的真实、准确副本以供备案，因而使本案中已出庭的所有 CM/ECF 注册用户均收到该文件的电子通知。\n\n此外，于 November 5, 2021，根据日期为 August 5, 2021 的裁定（ECF No. 24）的授权，本人通过将文件发送至以下电子邮件地址，安排向被告 Sara Wei a/k/a Lihong Wei Lafrenz（又名黎红·魏·拉弗伦茨）送达上述文件的真实、准确 PDF 副本：\n\"duizhang@vog.media,\" \"sarawei808@gmail.com\", \"help@vog.media\", \"sarawei@protonmail.com\", \"vog202064@protonmail.com\", \"vog202064@gmail.com.\"\n\n/s/ Benjamin Y. Kaufman\nBenjamin Y. Kaufman（本杰明·Y·考夫曼）（获准 pro hac vice 临时出庭）\n\n/811891\n\n附件 A\n\n美利坚合众国证券交易委员会（SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION）前\n\n1933 年《证券法》发布编号 10979 / September 13, 2021\n\n行政程序案卷编号 3-20537\n\n关于\n\nGTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）及 VOICE OF GUO MEDIA, INC.（郭媒体之声公司）\n\n被申请人。\n\n根据 1933 年《证券法》第 8A 条启动停止并终止程序、作出认定并施加停止并终止命令的命令\n\nI.\n\n证券交易委员会（“委员会”）认为，根据 1933 年《证券法》（“证券法”）第 8A 条，对 GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（“Saraca”，与 GTV 合称“G 实体”）及 Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（“VOG”）（统称“被申请人”）启动停止并终止程序是适当的，现特此启动该程序。\n\nII.\n\n为预期启动本程序，被申请人已提交和解要约（“要约”），委员会已决定接受该等要约。仅为本程序以及由委员会提起或代表委员会提起、或委员会作为当事方的任何其他程序之目的，且在不承认或否认本命令所载认定的情况下（但承认委员会对其及本程序标的事项具有管辖权），被申请人同意按如下所述作出本《根据 1933 年〈证券法〉第 8A 条启动停止并终止程序、作出认定并施加停止并终止命令的命令》（“命令”）。\n\nIII.\n\n委员会根据本命令及被申请人的要约，认定[1]：\n\n摘要\n\n1. 本程序涉及被申请人违反《证券法》注册规定的行为。自约 April 2020 至 June 2020，被申请人面向数千名个人普遍招揽其投资于 GTV 普通股发行（“股票发行”）。在同期内，G 实体招揽个人投资于其发行的一种数字资产证券，该证券被称为 G-Coins 或 G-Dollars（“代币发行”）。由于这两次未注册证券发行的所得款项被混同，被申请人截至约 July 2020 从逾 5,000 名投资者（包括美国境内个人）处共筹集约 $487 million。\n\n2. 根据股票发行的信息备忘录（“备忘录”），G 实体近期推出了一个以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台，包括网站 [www.gtv.org.]。备忘录声称，该平台将成为“首个将公民新闻与社交新闻的力量，同最先进的技术、大数据、人工智能、区块链技术和实时互动通信相结合的平台”，并计划成为“中国与西方世界之间唯一不受审查且独立的桥梁”。\n\n3. 被申请人通过 G 实体网站 [www.gtv.org] 和 [www.gnews.org] 上可公开获取的视频，以及 YouTube 和 Twitter 等社交媒体平台，向公众传播有关两次发行的信息。就股票发行而言，被申请人向潜在投资者提供访问 Google Drives 的权限，其中载有投资协议及电汇指示，供投资者汇款购买证券；同时，G 实体在其公开网站、社交媒体平台和移动应用程序上招揽代币发行投资。\n\n4. G 实体将代币发行宣传为一项投资机会，称其有可能获得显著回报，依据是 G 实体能够开发一个在线平台，投资者将可通过该平台使用 G-Coins 或 G-Dollars 进行交易。截至目前，G 实体尚未开发出其社交媒体平台使用数字资产接受付款或以其他方式交换任何数字资产（包括代币发行中提供的数字资产）的能力。\n\n5. 通过股票发行和代币发行，G 实体在未向委员会提交或维持有效注册说明书、亦不符合注册豁免条件的情况下要约和出售证券，违反了《证券法》第 5(a) 和 5(c) 条。\n\n1 本命令所载认定系根据被申请人的和解要约作出，对本程序或任何其他程序中的任何其他个人或实体均不具有约束力。\n\n被申请人\n\n6. GTV 是一家总部位于 New York, New York 的 Delaware corporation（特拉华州公司），拥有并运营一个包含大量可公开获取视频的社交媒体平台。Saraca 在股票发行前全资拥有 GTV，并自 GTV 于 April 2020 成立以来始终控制 GTV。GTV 及其证券从未以任何身份在委员会注册。\n\n7. Saraca 是一家总部位于 New York, New York 的 Delaware corporation（特拉华州公司），为 GTV 的母公司。Saraca 通过股票发行出售了其在 GTV 所持所有权权益中的少数股权。Saraca 及其证券从未以任何身份在委员会注册。\n\n8. VOG 是一家总部位于 Phoenix, Arizona 的 Arizona corporation（亚利桑那州公司），向 G 实体提供包括翻译服务在内的各种支持服务。VOG 未以任何身份在委员会注册。\n\n事实\n\n9. 于 April 17, 2020，Saraca 设立 GTV 作为其全资子公司，以拥有并运营一个仍在开发中的以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台。Saraca 将该平台的全部资产投入 GTV。当时，Saraca 的总裁兼唯一董事被任命为 GTV 的执行董事之一，两家公司在 New York, New York 共用同一总部。GTV 成立后几乎立即，G 实体启动了两次未注册证券发行：股票发行和代币发行。\n\n股票发行\n\n10. 于 April 20, 2020，G 实体启动股票发行，以每股 $1 的价格出售 20 million 至 200 million 股 GTV 普通股。股票发行拟出售 Saraca 在 GTV 所持 100% 所有权权益中最多 10% 的权益。备忘录告知潜在投资者，Saraca 在股票发行后将继续对 GTV 施加重大控制。\n\nG 实体向公众招揽投资股票发行\n\n11. 自约 April 20, 2020 至 June 2, 2020，G 实体通过其管理团队和代理人，借由 GTV 网站 [www.gtv.org] 和 [www.gnews.org]、以及构成普遍招揽的 YouTube、Twitter 和其他社交媒体平台上一系列可公开获取的视频，向公众推销股票发行。首个视频于 April 21, 2020 发布于 YouTube，其英文译名为“GTV 私募认购指示”（“启动视频”）。启动视频说明了股票发行的投资条款，并提供了一个手机号码，供潜在投资者就该发行进行咨询。启动视频的观看次数已超过 4,000 次。G 实体的任何发行视频，包括启动视频，均未设密码保护，亦未对可查看视频的人员或视频分享能力施加任何限制。因此，公众（包括潜在美国投资者）可通过例如独立在线研究、社交媒体或其他投资者的转介，访问有关股票发行的在线营销视频。尽管启动视频称股票发行的最低投资额为 $100,000，但如以下所述，许多投资者的投资额低于 $100,000。\n\n12. 此外，G 实体通过短信向数百名潜在个人投资者发送启动视频，并附上一个 Google Drive 文件夹的链接，该文件夹载有股票发行的其他发行材料，例如信息备忘录、认购协议和投资指示。G 实体拥有并控制该 Google Drive 文件夹，且未对接收者将该未受密码保护的 Google Drive 文件夹或其内容转发给其他潜在投资者的能力施加任何限制。\n\n13. G 实体共向逾 1,000 名投资者（包括美国投资者）出售约 $339 million 价值的 GTV 普通股。其中部分投资者为非认可投资者。根据股票发行的投资指示，绝大多数（如非全部）发行所得款项被直接存入以 Saraca 名义开设的美国银行账户。\n\n14. 于 June 5, 2020 前后，Saraca 为投资于 Hedge Fund A（对冲基金 A）之目的，将股票发行所得款项中的 $100 million 转移给该基金。Hedge Fund A 的投资策略包括通过外汇远期及期权合约，持有各种亚洲货币（尤其是港元）相对于某些发达市场货币的头寸。截至 July 2020 末，Hedge Fund A 已投资 Saraca 所转移 $100 million 中的 $30 million；截至目前，对 Hedge Fund A 的该笔 $30 million 投资已损失约 $29.2 million 的价值。\n\nVOG 要约并出售 GTV 股票\n\n15. VOG 采取了股票发行分销所必需的步骤。具体而言，G 实体通过其管理团队和代理人，指示 VOG 代表希望投资少于 $100,000 的潜在投资者向 G 实体购买 GTV 股票。随后，VOG 招揽投资者并收取投资者资金，以代表其购买 GTV 股票。通过 VOG 投资股票发行不存在最低投资金额，投资金额通常为 $100 或以上。\n\n16. 为协助促成 VOG 在要约和出售 GTV 股票中的角色，G 实体向 VOG 提供了一份单页《有限目的代理协议》（“LPAA”），供其向股票发行的潜在投资者提供。LPAA 规定，VOG 的一名代表将以极少对价担任投资者所谓的“代理人”，并以该投资者提供的资金为交换，代表该投资者购买 GTV 股份。\n\n17. 为回应从潜在投资者收到的关于股票发行的询问，VOG 向潜在投资者发送了一条短信，其中附有其 Google Drive 上一个文件夹的链接；该文件夹包含 LPAA 以及向 VOG 银行账户电汇的指示，但不包含任何其他\n\n发行文件或有关G实体（G Entities）的财务信息。VOG未对潜在投资者将未设密码保护的Google Drive文件夹或其内容转发给其他潜在投资者的能力施加任何限制。\n\n18. 作为股票发行的一部分，VOG向4,500多名投资者（包括美国投资者）出售了约$114 million的GTV股票。最终未向任何该等投资者发行GTV股份。其中许多投资者并非合格投资者。\n\n19. 根据G实体的指示，VOG将通过股票发行从投资者处收到的资金共计$61,274,318转入G实体的银行账户。具体而言，于May 15, 2020，VOG分别向GTV和Saraca各提供了一张$15 million的支票。VOG还向Saraca提供了一张$31,274,318的支票，Saraca于July 22, 2020当日或前后将该支票存入账户。VOG至少持续至June 2020仍在接收投资者为购买GTV股票而支付的资金。\n\n20. 在股票发行期间，VOG向G实体提供其募资工作及从投资者处收取金额的最新情况。\n\n21. 根据上述情况，VOG实施了GTV股票分销所必需的步骤，因此要约及出售了GTV股票。\n\n被申请人的行为违反了《证券法》关于发行登记的规定\n\n22. 对于被申请人要约及出售GTV普通股，未提交亦无生效的登记声明，且该等要约及出售不符合《证券法》规定的登记豁免条件。\n\n23. 由于上述行为，被申请人违反了《证券法》第5(a)条，该条规定：“除非某一证券的登记声明已生效，任何人直接或间接地：(1) 利用州际商业中的任何运输或通信手段或工具，或者利用邮件，通过任何招股说明书或以其他方式出售该证券；或者(2) 为出售目的或为出售后交付目的，通过邮件或州际商业，利用任何运输手段或工具，运输或促使运输任何该等证券，均属违法。”\n\n24. 由于上述行为，被申请人违反了《证券法》第5(c)条，该条规定：“除非已就某一证券提交登记声明，任何人直接或间接地利用州际商业中的任何运输或通信手段或工具，或者利用邮件，通过任何招股说明书或以其他方式提出出售或提出购买任何证券，均属违法。”\n\n虚拟币发行\n\nG实体向公众招揽投资虚拟币发行\n\n25. 自约April 1, 2020至June 30, 2020期间，G实体通过其管理团队及代理人，在YouTube、Twitter及其他视频分享和社交媒体平台上的在线视频，向公众推销G-Coins和G-Dollars的出售。G实体迄今尚未开发或分发在虚拟币发行中出售的数字资产，亦未开发使用户能够交易或出售数字资产的平台。\n\n26. G实体的在线宣传说明，G-Coins（G实体表示其最终将并入G-Dollars，形成单一数字资产）及G-Dollars可用于在G实体的在线平台上购买商品或服务，或兑换黄金或法定货币。作为其对G-Coin及G-Dollar投资者的招揽的一部分，G实体未向投资者提供有关开发任何数字资产或平台之计划的财务信息，亦未提供任何书面发行材料，包括例如白皮书或私募备忘录。\n\n27. G实体从G-Coin和G-Dollar投资者处收取约$34 million，将所得款项汇集于G实体的银行账户，并与股票发行所得款项混同。作为虚拟币发行的一部分，许多投资者获得了G-Coins和G-Dollars的$.01购买价格20%的折扣。投资者通过直接向G实体的美国银行账户转入资金、向G实体在在线支付平台上的账户付款、通过Apple App Store购买，或开具支票的方式参与虚拟币发行。绝大多数G-Coin和G-Dollar投资者每位投资者的投资额不超过$10,000，且G实体从未询问该等投资者的财务或投资背景。\n\n虚拟币发行的投资者对从G实体的努力中获得未来利润具有合理预期\n\n28. G实体将G-Coins和G-Dollars的出售宣传为从G实体管理团队及代理人在开发数字资产和平台方面的努力中获得未来利润的机会，购买者可合理预期其将从G实体的努力中获利。在G实体的在线招揽中，G实体将购买G-Coin和G-Dollar称为“投资”，并强调该项投资获得重大资本回报的可能性。在其在线视频中，G实体还讨论了其对于G-Coins和G-Dollars在GTV在线平台上预期流动性的看法，以及其允许用户将G-Coins和G-Dollars兑换为法定货币以及通过该平台提供的商品和服务的计划。在虚拟币发行时，G实体还讨论了开发GTV在线平台使用G-Coins和G-Dollars处理交易能力的计划，并宣传G实体管理团队及代理人的“管理、财务、投资以及合并与收购”经验。事实上，虚拟币发行的在线材料说明，GTV团队将“全力彻底升级G-Dollar系统”。该备忘录还说明，G实体及其管理团队计划建设一个“将利用包括大数据、人工智能、5G及区块链支付系统（G coin）在内的最先进技术”的平台。\n\nG实体违反《证券法》要约及出售G-Coins和G-Dollars\n\n29. 根据上述情况，G实体将G-Coins和G-Dollars作为投资合同进行要约及出售，因此根据SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)及其后续判例（包括委员会在其依据《1934年证券交易法》第21(a)条作出的调查报告：The DAO (Exchange Act Rel. No. 81207) (July 25, 2017)（“DAO报告”）中讨论的案件），该等虚拟币构成证券。\n\n30. 对于G实体作为虚拟币发行一部分的证券要约及出售，未提交亦无生效的登记声明，且该等要约及出售不符合《证券法》规定的登记豁免条件。\n\n31. 由于上述行为，G实体违反了《证券法》第5(a)条，该条规定：“除非某一证券的登记声明已生效，任何人直接或间接地：(1) 利用州际商业中的任何运输或通信手段或工具，或者利用邮件，通过任何招股说明书或以其他方式出售该证券；或者(2) 为出售目的或为出售后交付目的，通过邮件或州际商业，利用任何运输手段或工具，运输或促使运输任何该等证券，均属违法。”\n\n32. 由于上述行为，G实体违反了《证券法》第5(c)条，该条规定：“除非已就某一证券提交登记声明，任何人直接或间接地利用州际商业中的任何运输或通信手段或工具，或者利用邮件，通过任何招股说明书或以其他方式提出出售或提出购买任何证券，均属违法。”\n\n返还不当得利及民事罚款\n\n33. 第IV段所命令的返还不当得利及判决前利息符合衡平原则，且不超过每一被申请人从其违法行为中获得的净利润，并将在可行范围内分配给受损投资者。委员会将在分配前，将根据第IV段支付的资金存放于美国财政部的账户中。经委员会批准分配最终核算后，任何无法返还给投资者的剩余款项，以及未来返还给委员会而无法返还给投资者的任何款项，均可在遵守《证券交易法》第21F(g)(3)条的前提下转入美国财政部的一般基金。\n\n承诺事项\n\n34. 被申请人承诺：\n\nA. 不直接或间接参与任何数字资产证券的发行。\n\nB. 协助委员会工作人员管理分配计划，包括采取任何及一切努力，向受影响投资者分配下文第IV段所述的金钱救济。就该等协助而言，被申请人将无需送达或通知传票，即提供委员会工作人员合理要求的任何及所有文件和其他信息。\n\nC. 在本命令之日起10日内，以委员会工作人员不认为不可接受的形式，在G实体的网站（包括但不限于[www.gtv.org]和[www.gnews.org]）及社交媒体渠道上公布本命令的通知。\n\nD. 以书面形式证明已遵守上文第34.C段所载承诺。该证明应明确承诺事项，以叙述形式提供书面遵守证据，并附有足以证明遵守情况的附件。委员会工作人员可合理要求进一步的遵守证据，被申请人同意提供该等证据。该证明及支持材料应在完成承诺事项之日起不迟于三十（30）日，提交给执法部助理区域主任Sandeep Satwalekar，并抄送执法部首席法律顾问办公室。\n\nE. 在决定是否接受该等要约时，委员会已考虑这些承诺事项。\n\nIV.\n\n鉴于上述情况，委员会认为施加被申请人在其要约中同意的制裁措施是适当的。\n\n因此，现依据《证券法》第8A条命令如下：\n\nA. 被申请人停止并终止实施或导致实施任何违反《证券法》第5(a)条及第5(c)条的行为，以及任何未来违反行为。\n\nB. 被申请人应遵守上文第34段列举的承诺事项。\n\nC. 被申请人GTV及Saraca应于本命令录入之日起14日内，对返还不当得利$434,134,141及判决前利息$15,776,488向美国证券交易委员会承担连带责任并予以支付。未及时支付返还不当得利及判决前利息的，应根据SEC Rule of Practice 600计收额外利息。\n\nD. 被申请人GTV应于本命令录入之日起14日内，向美国证券交易委员会支付$15,000,000的民事罚款。未及时支付罚款的，应根据31 U.S.C. §3717计收额外利息。\n\nE. 被申请人Saraca应于本命令录入之日起14日内，向美国证券交易委员会支付$15,000,000的民事罚款。未及时支付罚款的，应根据31 U.S.C. §3717计收额外利息。\n\nF. 被申请人 VOG 应在本命令录入之日起 14 日内，向 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）支付 \\$52,610,922 的追缴款、\\$1,911,877 的判决前利息以及 \\$5,000,000 的民事罚金。如未及时支付追缴款和判决前利息，应根据 SEC Rule of Practice 600 计收额外利息。如未及时支付民事罚金，应根据 31 U.S.C. §3717 计收额外利息。\n\n各被申请人必须以下列方式之一付款：\n\n- (1) 被申请人可向委员会电子汇款；委员会将应要求提供详细的 ACH 转账/Fedwire 指示；\n- (2) 被申请人可通过 SEC 网站上的 Pay.gov 从银行账户直接付款；或\n- (3) 被申请人可通过经认证支票、银行本票或美国邮政汇票付款，收款人为 Securities and Exchange Commission，并亲自递送或邮寄至：\n\n企业服务中心应收账款处\n总部大楼，181 室，AMZ-341\n6500 South MacArthur Boulevard\nOklahoma City, OK 73169\n\n以支票或汇票支付时，必须附有一封附函，分别注明被申请人 GTV、Saraca（萨拉卡）或 VOG 为本程序中的被申请人，以及本程序的档案编号；该附函以及支票或汇票的副本必须寄送至 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）高级副区域主任 Sanjay Wadhwa（桑杰·瓦德瓦），地址为 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, New York 10281，或委员会工作人员可能提供的其他人员或地址。\n\nG. 根据 2002 年《萨班斯—奥克斯利法案》第 308(a) 条，为上文第 IV 段所述的追缴款、判决前利息和罚金设立公平基金。根据本命令被命令支付的民事金钱罚款，就所有目的而言，包括所有税务目的，均应视为向政府支付的罚金。为维持民事罚金的威慑效果，被申请人 GTV、Saraca 和 VOG 各自同意，在任何相关投资者诉讼中，其不得主张其有权就本案中被申请人支付的任何部分民事罚金抵销或减少任何补偿性损害赔偿裁决，亦不得从中受益（“罚金抵销”）。如任何相关投资者诉讼中的法院准予该等罚金抵销，被申请人 GTV、Saraca 和 VOG 各自同意，其应在准予罚金抵销的终局命令录入后 30 日内通知委员会在本案中的律师，并向 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）支付罚金抵销的金额。该等支付不得视为额外民事罚金，亦不得视为改变本程序中施加的民事罚金金额。就本段而言，“相关投资者诉讼”是指一名或多名投资者基于委员会在本程序中提起的命令所指称的实质相同事实，针对被申请人 GTV、Saraca 或 VOG 提起或代表其提起的私人损害赔偿诉讼。\n\n经委员会授权。\n\nVanessa A. Countryman（瓦妮莎·A·康特里曼）\n秘书\n附件 B\n\n有限目的代理协议\n\n特此昭告，________________（以下简称“投资者”）特此意图受法律约束，并鉴于一美元（\\$1.00）以及其他良好、有价值且充分的对价，代理人特此确认已收到该等对价且其充分性得到确认，为投资者及其继承人和受让人的利益，特此指定、指示并委任 Lihong Wei Lafrenz（李红·魏·拉弗伦茨）（以下简称“代理人”）、其继承人、受让人及关联方，代表本人以本人将提供的 \\$________________ 款项购买 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）的若干股份（以下简称“投资”），连同据此已产生或可能产生的所有诉权；投资者特此指定并任命该代理人为投资者真实合法的代理人及授权代理人，仅为代表本人完成该投资之有限目的，并以投资者如亲自到场所能采取的同等方式及为实现一切目的，办理和完成与此相关的一切行为、事项及事宜。\n\n兹证明，投资者已促使于 2020 年 ____ 月 ____ 日签署本文件。本协议可签署多份副本并以电子方式交付，且以电子方式交付的本约定签名应视为原件。\n\n代理人联系信息： 代理人\n\n电话：+15202739848 签署人：\n\n电子邮件：vog202064@gmail.com 签名_________________________\n地址：\n1850 W Orange Grove Rd, Tucson,\nAZ 85704 日期：____________________________\n投资者\n投资者联系信息： 签署人：_____________________________\n电话： 签名_________________________\n电子邮件： 日期：____________________________\n地址：","key_entities":["GTV","Guo","Saraca","CIPA","Je","CCP","Miles Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":30,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":19337,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:17:03"}