SEC obtains entry of default against Spot Option, Pini Peter
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has secured an entry of default against Spot Option and its owner Malhaz Pinhas Patarkazishvili (Pini Peter) – defendants in a binary options fraud case.
The entry was made on October 29, 2021. The document states that the defendants had failed to plead or otherwise defend in the SEC action as required.
Let’s note that the entries of default are usually followed by judgments of default, which would include stipulation of fines and restitution.
The case concerns a multi-million dollar fraudulent scheme involving unregistered offers and sales of security-based “binary options” to retail investors in the United States from at least April 2012 through August 2017. The scheme was overseen by Pini Peter and Ran Amiran through a company they owned and controlled called Spot Option, Ltd. (“Spot Option”) now known as Spot Option Tech House, Ltd.
Through deceptive and fraudulent acts, Spot Option sought and reached thousands of investors in the United States, including retirees, who traded through its platform. Many of those investors lost most of their money including, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars meant for retirement. Spot Option and its Partners, on the other hand, raked in millions in profits, the regulator says.
The SEC accuses Spot Option of violation of the registration provisions of Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)], the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b‒5].
The Complaint says that Defendants Pini Peter and Amiran are liable for violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act because they each played a substantial role in Spot Option’s offers and sales of binary options. Pini Peter and Amiran are also allegedly liable for Spot Option’s violations of the Exchange Act because they are controlling persons of Spot Option as defined by the Exchange Act.