EFTA00071948¶
waivers to Opco within days of its AML complaint. WHO was the SEC protecting? WHO were the customers and executing BD’s/MM’s in the Opco complaint? ALSO well known to the SEC:¶
MY INFORMATION. 5 years to get a preliminary denial: statute of limitations. BUT the last overt act of this ongoing conspiracy has not yet occurred.¶
Chris¶
From: Chris Dilorio¶
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 7:56 AM¶
Subject: Fw: Formal appeal for preliminary denial covered action 2015-016/ Knight Capital TCR & Appendix¶
Still more evidence of a well orchestrated scheme to cover up and obstruct a FULL SEC investigation into Opco/Gibraltar/NITE/UBSS trading activity in billions of shares of OTCM money laundering shells. The SEC used my information to bring AND obstruct complaints.¶
The 2 SEC Commissioners dissent in granting Oppenheimer waivers after this egregious activity https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/dissenting-statement-oppenheimer-inc.html¶
SEC.gov | Dissenting Statement In the Matter of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.¶
Dissenting Statement In the Matter of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., by Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar and Commissioner Kara M. Stein, February 4, 2015¶
In fact, the SEC waivers came within days of their complaint. Here, these 2 Commissioners cite Oppenheimer trading “BILLIONS of shares of penny stocks”. Clearly, they were not JUST referencing the SEC Gibraltar complaint. WHO was the SEC protecting with its complaint then waivers?¶
The smoking gun which I have provided to the SEC on several e mails:¶
Which came in an SEC reviewed CGFIA 10Q¶
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1344394/000135448814000425/cgfi_10q.htm¶
cgfi_10q.htm - SEC¶
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.¶