Filing # 150410711 E-Filed 05/26/2022 05:17:09 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-
`DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`FERMIN SUAREZ, an individual,
`and HIGH & FUTURE INVESTMENT FUND SA, LLC,
`a Florida limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW H. JACOBUS, an individual,
`FINSER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
`a Florida company, and
`FINSER ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,
`a Florida limited liability company,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`/
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs FERMIN SUAREZ and HIGH & FUTURE INVESTMENT SA, LLC (together,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case concerns a multi-year fraud by Andrew H. Jacobus (“JACOBUS”), a
`
`formerly-registered investment adviser and broker, who is the sole principal and owner of FINSER
`
`International Corporation (“FINSER”) and FINSER Asset Management LLC (“FINSER LLC”)
`
`(Jacobus, together with FINSER and FINSER LLC, the “Defendants”). Between March 2017 and
`
`June 2021, Jacobus stole approximately $22 million from his advisory client, Fermin Suarez
`
`(“SUAREZ” or “Plaintiff”) and the Florida limited liability company Suarez created to hold the
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`investments to be managed by JACOBUS, HIGH & FUTURE INVESTMENT SA, LLC (“HFI”
`
`and together with SUAREZ, the “Plaintiffs”).
`
`2.
`
`As part of this scheme, JACOBUS represented to SUAREZ that he would invest
`
`the client’s funds in a private fund, Corfiser SIMI Fund B.V. (“Corfiser SIMI Fund” or the
`
`“Fund”), which would provide very high rates of return on investment (“ROI”). Through material
`
`false and fraudulent statements, such as that Plaintiffs' money would be invested for the purpose
`
`of generating a return on investment, JACOBUS induced SUAREZ to invest money in a fund, the
`
`holdings of which JACOBUS diverted for his own personal gain instead of for generating the
`
`promised ROI for Plaintiffs. Contrary to JACOBUS’ representations, the Fund quickly stopped
`
`producing any rates of return, as JACOBUS converted the money invested by Plaintiffs to his own
`
`personal use, and ultimately refused to return Plaintiffs’ money despite repeated requests and
`
`without justification
`
`3.
`
`In addition, JACOBUS convinced Plaintiffs to open and invest over $4 million with
`
`an account at Charles Schwab Corporation (the “Schwab Account”), for which he later
`
`fraudulently and without Plaintiffs’ authorization obtained unfettered access by preparing a forged
`
`power of attorney, liquidated the securities, and siphoned all the proceeds and cash to himself. To
`
`conceal his fraud, JACOBUS created and provided Plaintiffs with fictitious account statements
`
`purporting to show the investment portfolio and related balances, when in fact the account had
`
`significantly smaller balances. JACOBUS also manipulated the Schwab Account records to ensure
`
`that Plaintiffs did not receive notifications for wire transfers out of Plaintiffs’ account.
`
`4.
`
`By engaging in the conduct described herein, JACOBUS directly violated anti-fraud
`
`provisions of the Florida securities laws and committed fraud, civil theft, conversion, and breach
`
`of fiduciary duty.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`ANDREW JACOBUS resides in Coconut Grove, Florida. He is FINSER’s sole
`
`owner, president, and chief compliance officer. JACOBUS has been in the global asset management
`
`business for over 30 years, holds a Series 65 License, and exercised control over all investment
`
`decisions made for the Corfiser SIMI Fund.
`
`2.
`
`JACOBUS is the sole managing member and owner of FINSER. FINSER offers
`
`discretionary and nondiscretionary management and portfolio recommendation services. During the
`
`Relevant Period, FINSER’s advisory business was comprised of portfolio management, hedge fund
`
`management, and venture capital advisory services. In its most recent Form ADV filed on June 26,
`
`2020, FINSER reported regulatory assets under management of approximately $79 million, of which
`
`$53 million are discretionary and $26 million are nondiscretionary.
`
`3.
`
`Both FINSER and FINSER LLC have their principal place of business in Miami-
`
`Dade County, Florida. FINSER, a Florida corporation located in Coral Gables, Florida, was
`
`registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) as an investment advisor from
`
`June 2010 through January 2021.
`
`4.
`
`FINSER LLC, a Florida corporation located in Coral Gables, Florida, was not
`
`registered with the SEC.
`
`5.
`
`KRONUS Financial Corporation (“KRONUS”) replaced the Confiser SIMI Fund on
`
`August 10, 2018. This change did not alter the nature of SUAREZ’s investments.
`
`6.
`
`Neither JACOBUS nor FINSER are currently registered as a broker or investment
`
`advisor with the SEC.
`
`7.
`
`Neither JACOBUS nor FINSER is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory
`
`Authority (“FINRA”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Neither JACOBUS nor FINSER is registered as a broker or investment adviser with
`
`the State of Florida.
`
`9.
`
`FERMIN SUAREZ is a citizen of Venezuela and resides in Panama City, Panama.
`
`SUAREZ is the sole owner and manager of HFI.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`HFI is a Florida limited liability company.
`
`This is an action for damages in excess of $750,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs
`
`and for such other relief as is within the equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is obligated to pay the undersigned
`
`a reasonable attorney’s fee.
`
`13.
`
`JACOBUS resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida, FINSER is a Florida corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. JACOBUS and FINSER
`
`transacted business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and most of the acts, practices, and courses of
`
`business constituting the violations alleged herein occurred within Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`
`FACTS
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs’ direct losses derive from two investments, induced and perpetuated by
`
`Defendants through fraud: (a) $18 million invested with the Corfiser SIMI Fund, and (b) $4 million
`
`invested in an account with the Charles Schwab Corporation (the “Schwab Investment”). These
`
`monies are collectively referred to as the “Investments.”
`
`The Corfiser SIMI Fund Fraud
`
`15.
`
`Beginning on or about March 2, 2017, and continuing thereafter, JACOBUS falsely
`
`and fraudulently represented to SUAREZ that investments in the Corfiser SIMI Fund would be
`
`invested for Plaintiffs’ benefit and would yield an annual ROI of 12% payable, monthly.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`JACOBUS’s repeated promises of these returns were intended to induce SUAREZ
`
`and did induce SUAREZ to invest in the Corfiser SIMI Fund over the next several years.
`
`17.
`
`At the time JACOBUS made the false and fraudulent statements about the ROI on
`
`monies invested with the Corfiser SIMI Fund, JACOBUS had no intention of generating any such
`
`returns and/or investing the money for Plaintiffs’ benefit, as he intended to divert for his own use
`
`and for his own benefit. As part of the same scheme, JACOBUS induced SUAREZ into investing
`
`$5 million in a fixed-term investment product with a purported 9.5% yield.
`
`18.
`
`In September 2018, in an effort to convince SUAREZ to further invest $5 million
`
`into the fixed term product, JACOBUS provided a materially false PowerPoint presentation
`
`purporting to show the high level of returns for the Fund. The Relative Performance section of the
`
`PowerPoint claimed that the Fund for the years 2012 through 2018 outpaced the S&P 500 index
`
`consistently every single year.1 This material statement was false.
`
`19.
`
`Over the next four years SUAREZ ultimately invested approximately $18 million in
`
`the Corfiser SIMI Fund through inducement by false and fraudulent misrepresentations by
`
`JACOBUS that the monies would be legitimately invested rather than diverted to JACOBUS’s own
`
`use and sole benefit.
`
`20.
`
`The so-called interest payments and Corfiser SIMI Fund performance income
`
`quickly came to a halt.
`
`21.
`
`Once the monthly interest payment ceased, JACOBUS continued making false and
`
`fraudulent misrepresentations to prevent detection of the fraudulent scheme. For example, On
`
`December 22, 2021, in response to an inquiry from SUAREZ regarding the interest payments,
`
`
`
`1 The S&P 500 is a stock market index that tracks 500 large companies listed on the stock exchange in the
`United States.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`JACOBUS sent an email to SUAREZ. He stated that SUAREZ was not permitted to communicate
`
`with individuals at the fund as this violated so-called conflicts of interest. In a further attempt to
`
`obfuscate the situation, JACOBUS stated that the funds were “cumulative” or “non-cumulative.”
`
`He also stated for the first time that the “funds make periodic adjustments to their investments and
`
`delay payment of interest until the job is done.” JACOBUS’s communication with SUAREZ about
`
`the stopped interest payments was clearly an attempt to confuse the situation.
`
`22.
`
`Eventually, after the Corfiser SIMI Fund continued to fail to generate any kind of
`
`ROI and after JACOBUS on December 28, 2020, asked to borrow $750,000 from SUAREZ,
`
`SUAREZ began to lose confidence in JACOBUS.
`
`23.
`
`On January 2, 2021, SUAREZ made a written demand for the return of $7 million of
`
`his Corfiser SIMI Fund investment.
`
`24.
`
`JACOBUS, in contradiction to the representations in the Corfiser SIMI Fund’s
`
`subscription booklet, for the first time advised that the Bank of Curacao’s purported requirements
`
`mandated that the invested amounts be placed in a separate bank account, earning only 5% interest,
`
`and would be returned in variable payments taking as long as up to a year.2
`
`25.
`
`JACOBUS insisted that SUAREZ was required to wait a year for a return of his
`
`invested monies. The year passed on January 1, 2022. Less than $1.8 million has been returned to
`
`date.
`
`26.
`
`To further his fraud, JACOBUS engaged in an elaborate scheme to trick SUAREZ
`
`into believing that the fund was regularly audited.
`
`
`
`2 The reference to the Bank of Curacao was the first time SUAREZ was advised his funds were tied to regulations
`with the Bank of Curacao.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`On December 30, 2020, SUAREZ requested from JACOBUS the audited
`
`financial statements of KRONUS for the year ending 2019.3 In response to this request,
`
`JACOBUS provided a sham audit report from the audit firm Deloitte. At that time, the report
`
`appeared to be legitimate. However, given that the report matched in many respects a different
`
`audit report, it now appears that the Deloitte report is a sham.
`
`b.
`
`On August 27, 2021, SUAREZ again requested from JACOBUS the
`
`KRONUS audited financial statement for the year ending 2020. JACOBUS provided a sham audit
`
`from the audit firm ONE IBC CPA. The report was riddled with inaccuracies. The date of the
`
`report’s certification signature stated “April 17, 2020,” which was impossible given that the report
`
`was for the year ending December 31, 2020. Additionally, the amounts corresponding to its cash
`
`flow perfectly matched the cash flow indicated in the 2019 fake Deloitte report stating a “Cash and
`
`Cash equivalents at end of the year $1,418,817.” Finally, the email domain used to send the audit
`
`report did not in fact belong to the legitimate ONE IBC CPA firm. The email domain was created
`
`by JACOBUS to trick SUAREZ into believing it was sent from the real One IBC CPA firm.4
`
`c. On October 11, 2021, JACOBUS, in a further attempt to deceive SUAREZ,
`
`and to make KRONUS appear legitimate, provided a fake email from the British Virgin Islands
`
`law firm Harneys. The email purports to show that Harneys was the fund administrator. However,
`
`in reality Harneys was never retained and never sent the email. Further, JACOBUS created a fake
`
`Harneys domain email address to trick SUAREZ into believing that the email was in fact from the
`
`
`
`3 KRONUS was the successor entity to Confiser SIMI Fund, which was then holding SUAREZ’s investments.
`4 The true email domain belonging to ONE IBC CPA is www.oneibc.com. However, the fake email that
`JACOBUS used to trick SUAREZ into believing the phony report was oneibc-cpa.com, a domain that does not belong
`to the real ONE IBC CPA firm.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`law firm Harenys. But in reality, the domain was created by JACOBUS on the same day that
`
`JACOBUS sent the fake email.5 Harneys has confirmed that it did not represent KRONUS.
`
`The Schwab Account Fraud
`
`27.
`
`Concurrently with the Confiser SIMI fund fraud described above, JACOBUS
`
`induced SUAREZ to make investments in the Schwab Account.
`
`28.
`
`On or about November 2020, JACOBUS induced Plaintiffs to open and invest $4
`
`million in the Schwab Account, in the name of HFI, of which SUAREZ was the sole owner.
`
`29.
`
` JACOBUS was only to receive a limited power of attorney and limited transaction
`
`authority.
`
`30.
`
`Nevertheless, in a span of four months, JACOBUS liquidated all the securities in the
`
`Schwab Account and siphoned the assets to bank accounts he, and not SUAREZ, controlled.
`
`31.
`
`Surreptitious wire transfers were made by JACOBUS to entities that he owned and
`
`controlled as follows:
`
`Approximate Date
`of Transfer
`December 10, 2020
`January 5, 2021
`January 11, 2021
`January 13, 2021
`January 25, 2021
`January 27, 2021
`January 27, 2021
`January 29, 2021
`February 1, 2021
`February 1, 2021
`
`Amount of
`Transfer
`$60,000.00
`$98,575.45
`$240,000.00
`$240,000.00
`$350,000.00
`$500,000.00
`$500,000.00
`$500,000.00
`$500,000.00
`$500,000.00
`
`
`JACOBUS Entity
`Receiving Transfer
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`KRNOUS
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`FINSER LLC
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`FINSER LLC
`
`Reference Number of
`Transfer
`1210IB7032R014393
`0105I1B7033R006011
`0111I1B7031R006819
`0113I1B7032R015466
`0125I1B7031R005668
`0127I1B7033R006551
`0127I1B7031R015738
`0129I1B7031R029151
`0201I1B7033R021460
`0201I1B7033R021344
`
`5 The true email domain belonging to Harneys is www.harneys.com. The fake account that JACOBUS
`created to trick SUAREZ was harneysbvi.com.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`February 5, 2021
`March 10, 2021
`June 11, 2021
`June 11, 2021
`
`
`
`$250,000.00
`$170,950.00
`$40,000.00
`$53,703.20
`
`FINSER LLC
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`KRONUS
`
`0205I1B7033R019803
`0310I1B7031R005567
`0611I1B7032R003927
`0611I1B7032R003633
`
`32.
`
`JACOBUS perpetuated and concealed the fraud in several ways:
`
`a.
`
`In regular meetings, discussions, with Plaintiffs, JACOBUS misrepresented the
`
`performance, account balances, and rates of return for the Schwab account,
`
`while failing to disclose his unauthorized transfers.
`
`b.
`
`JACOBUS prepared and submitted to Charles Schwab Corporation a
`
`fraudulent power of attorney containing SUAREZ’ forged signature.
`
`c.
`
`JACOBUS employed the services of a notary to fraudulently certify that
`
`SUAREZ had signed the power of attorney, when in reality SUAREZ had not.
`
`d.
`
`JACOBUS altered Schwab’s records relating to the account to ensure that
`
`Suarez did not receive email notification of wire transfers from that account.
`
`e.
`
`JACOBUS prepared and provided SUAREZ with false account statements
`
`that inflated the balances of the Schwab Account.
`
`f.
`
`For the period from December 10, 2020 through January 26, 2022, JACOBUS
`
`sent SUAREZ fake monthly Schwab account statements purporting to show the
`
`account had approximately $4 million, when in reality as of June 11, 2021, the
`
`account balance was at zero after JACOBUS siphoned the monies.
`
`33.
`
`On October 11, 2021, unaware of the total depletion of the Schwab Account by
`
`JACOBUS, SUAREZ gave JACOBUS specific instructions to request that Schwab wire funds from
`
`the Schwab Account to another brokerage.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Of course, these transfers were never made because by this time JACOBUS had
`
`already drained the account.
`
`35.
`
`Having heard no confirmation that his requested transfers were made, SUAREZ
`
`contacted Schwab directly, at which time Schwab alerted SUAREZ that his account had been
`
`suspended.
`
`36.
`
`In or around November 2021, SUAREZ learned that the Schwab Account balance
`
`was zero and that the account had been liquidated at a $400,000 loss.
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of FDUTPA
`(Fla. Stat. § 501.204 et seq.)
`Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`This is a claim for violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`(“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201-501-213.
`
`39.
`
`FDUTPA provides that unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or
`
`practices, and unfair or deceptive act or practices in the conducts of any “trade or commerce” are
`
`unlawful. Fla. Stat. §501.204. Under FDUTPA, “trade or commerce” is broadly defined to include
`
`the “advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise,
`
`of any good or service, or any property.” Fla. Stat. § 501.203(08).
`
`40.
`
`The Defendants named herein employed practices that are unfair and deceptive in
`
`conducting trade or commerce.
`
`41.
`
`Specifically, JACOBUS established, managed, and controlled FINSER and FINSER
`
`LLC, and he and the FINSER entities controlled all of Plaintiffs’ investments in the Fund and the
`
`Schwab Account and fraudulently induced SUAREZ to invest money in the Investments.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`JACOBUS made a series of sales pitches to SUAREZ which was replete with false
`
`information and omissions in an effort to convince him to invest over $18 million in the Fund and
`
`place another nearly $4 million in the Schwab account to be managed by JACOBUS and FINSER.
`
`43.
`
`Specifically, JACOBUS made the false representations and omissions alleged in
`
`paragraph(s) 15 through 36 above.
`
`44.
`
`FINSER, through JACOBUS, made the false representations and omission alleged in
`
`paragraphs 15 through 36 above.
`
`45.
`
`SUAREZ relied on those representations and omissions, and as a result, agreed to
`
`invest over $18 million in the Fund and nearly $4 million in the Schwab Account.
`
`46.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered substantial damages.
`
`COUNT II
`Common Law Fraud
`Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`To induce SUAREZ to invest over $18 million in the Fund and open and fund $4
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`million in the Schwab Account, Defendants knowingly made numerous material misstatements and
`
`omissions.
`
`49.
`
`JACOBUS and, through JACOBUS, FINSER made the false representations and
`
`omissions alleged in paragraph(s) 15 through 36 above.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants made these material misrepresentations and omissions with the intent to
`
`induce SUAREZ to rely on them in deciding to invest and hold money in the FUND and to open,
`
`fund, and hold a $4 million Schwab account.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`SUAREZ would not have invested $18 million in the Fund or $4 million in the
`
`Schwab account except for his reliance on the misrepresentations and omissions made by
`
`Defendants.
`
`52.
`
`SUAREZ reasonably relied on the misrepresentations and omissions made by
`
`Defendants in deciding to make and hold the Investments for as long as he did.
`
`53.
`
`SUAREZ suffered substantial damages as a direct result of the material
`
`misrepresentations and omissions made by each of the Defendants named in this count.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ actions were willful and intentional, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
`
`damages upon application to the Court at a later time.
`
`COUNT III
`Civil Theft
` (Fla. Stat. §772.11)
` Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`Defendants knowingly obtained or used or endeavored to obtain or use Plaintiffs’
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`property, $18 million invested in the Fund and $4 million invested in the Schwab Account with the
`
`felonious intent to temporarily or permanently deprive Plaintiffs of their right to or benefit of the
`
`property or appropriate the property to Defendants’ own use.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`All of the money taken, in total $20.2 million, was lawfully property of Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs’ have provided Defendants the required pre-suit notice more than 30 days
`
`before the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`59.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been harmed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`COUNT IV
`Common Law Conversion
`Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`Defendants took the Investments from Plaintiffs without their knowledge,
`
`authorization, or consent.
`
`62.
`
`In doing so, Defendants improperly and without authorization exercised dominion
`
`over the Investments, exceeding any authority, express or implied over the Investments, depriving
`
`Plaintiffs over dominion and control over the same and putting the Investments out of reach of the
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`63.
`
`As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have suffered harm in at least the amount
`
`of the value of the Investments.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants’ actions were willful and intentional, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
`
`damages upon application to the Court at a later time.
`
`COUNT V
`Common Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty
`Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`JACOBUS was acting through the FINSER entities.
`
`JACOBUS was SUAREZ’ financial adviser.
`
`JACOBUS represented to SUAREZ that he had vast experience and knowledge in
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`investment advisory services, such as those he was to provide SUAREZ.
`
`69.
`
`JACOBUS and SUAREZ entered into a relationship of trust, and therefore
`
`JACOBUS had a fiduciary duty to SUAREZ to act in his best interest.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`70.
`
`JACOBUS had complete discretion as to the investment of monies in the Corfiser
`
`SIMI Fund. Therefore, JACOBUS had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`JACOBUS was SUAREZ’ investment adviser as to the Schwab Account.
`
`JACOBUS breached that fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs when he misappropriated the
`
`$18 million invested in the Corfiser SIMI Fund and when he wrongfully refused to return Plaintiffs’
`
`investment in the Corfiser SIMI Fund.
`
`73.
`
`JACOBUS also breached that fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs when he submitted to
`
`Charles Schwab a forged power of attorney, prevented Plaintiffs from receiving notifications of
`
`account activity, liquidated the securities held in the Schwab Account, and siphoned off the proceeds
`
`and cash to his own accounts.
`
`74.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of JACOBUS’ breach of fiduciary duties, Plaintiff
`
`were harmed.
`
`
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`COUNT VI
`Violation of Fla. Stat. Sec. 517.301
`Against All Defendants
`
`Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36 and incorporate them by reference herein.
`
`The Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“FSIPA”) is designed to protect
`
`investors from misrepresentations made in connection with the offer and sale of securities in Florida.
`
`When a seller or its agents make false representations or omit material facts in connection with the
`
`offer and sale of a security, the FSIPA provides the buyer the right to unwind the transaction, which
`
`is a remedy Plaintiff seeks here.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiffs’ investment in the Corfiser SIMI Fund constitutes a “security” within the
`
`meaning the FSIPA.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`78.
`
`In violation of the FSIPA, the Defendants (JACOBUS through and with the
`
`assistance and participation of the FINSER entities) offered for sale and sold to Plaintiffs the
`
`Corfiser SIMI Fund securities by making the untrue statements and omissions of material fact
`
`identified above, including the statements and omissions at a meeting in Miami, Florida, as well as
`
`in emails and telephone calls made to and from Florida. These untrue statements and omissions
`
`include but are not limited to: (a) at the time of the initial investment JACOBUS made false promises
`
`of investment returns all while knowing he would steal the funds; (b) JACOBUS provided fraudulent
`
`audit reports; (c) JACOBUS continued to induce Suarez into investing an additional $5 million based
`
`upon a bogus PowerPoint presentation as detailed in paragraph 18 above; (d) SUAREZ was misled
`
`for over one year that his investments with Schwab were intact all while JACOBUS had siphoned
`
`the monies from the account; (e) JACOBUS continued to send fraudulent and fake Charles Schwab
`
`statements to SUAREZ showing that the account had a substantial amount of money, when in fact
`
`the account was ultimately brought to zero after JACOBUS stole the funds; and (f) when SUAREZ
`
`asked JACOBUS about the stopped monthly payments in the Fund, JACOBUS provided
`
`nonsensical, incoherent, and irrelevant statements to justify the stopped payments.
`
`79.
`
`All of these representations and omissions were material to Plaintiffs’ purchase of
`
`the Corfiser SIMI Fund securities and continued investment with the Fund.
`
`80.
`
`In addition, the Defendants had a duty to disclose all material facts necessary to make
`
`the representations made not misleading. Moreover, Defendants had superior and/or exclusive
`
`knowledge of the true facts concerning Corfiser SIMI Fund’s financials and, therefore, had a duty
`
`to disclose all material facts regarding Corfiser SIMI Fund’s financials in connection with the sale
`
`of Corfiser SIMI Fund’s securities to Plaintiffs.
`
`81.
`
`The stocks purchased by Plaintiffs thought the Schwab Account were each a
`
`“security” within the meaning of FSIPA.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`82.
`
`Defendants’ statements and omissions in connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of
`
`securities through the Schwab Account were false, material, and made for the purpose, and with the
`
`result, of inducing Plaintiffs into investing approximately $4 million to purchase securities through
`
`the Schwab Account. The Defendants’ statements included that Plaintiffs’ money would be invested
`
`in the Schwab Account for the benefit of Plaintiffs, that the purchased securities and any returns on
`
`investment would remain property of the Plaintiffs while in the Schwab Account, and the false and
`
`fabricated account statements created by Defendants to disguise the draining of the Schwab Account.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants made these statements knowing that Plaintiffs purchase of the securities
`
`through the Schwab Account was intended to facilitate Defendants liquidation and conversion of the
`
`assets for its own benefit rather than for legitimate investment purposes for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
`
`84.
`
`As planned and intended at the time the fraudulent statements were made to induce
`
`Plaintiffs into purchasing the securities, Defendants fraudulently gained complete access to the
`
`Schwab Account, liquidated the securities, and diverted the cash proceeds to their own use and
`
`benefit.
`
`85.
`
`Each of the Defendants participated in or aided in making the offer or sale.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
`
`(a) That pursuant to Count I for Violation of FDUTPA, judgment be entered in favor of
`
`Plaintiff against named Defendants for a violation of § 501.204, and Plaintiffs demand all
`
`actual and compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and costs, in an amount to be proven
`
`at trial;
`
`(c) That pursuant to Court II for Common Law Fraud, judgment be entered in favor of
`
`Plaintiffs against each of the named Defendants, and Plaintiffs demand compensatory
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at
`
`trial;
`
`(d) That pursuant to Count III for Civil Theft, judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs
`
`against each of the named Defendants, and Plaintiffs demand actual or compensatory
`
`damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus treble damages in the amount of $60,600,000.00;
`
`(e) That pursuant to Count IV for Conversion, judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs
`
`against each of the named Defendants, and Plaintiffs demand actual or compensatory
`
`damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus punitive in an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`(f) That pursuant to Count V for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, judgment be entered in favor of
`
`Plaintiff against each of the named Defendants, and Plaintiffs demand actual or
`
`compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`(g) That pursuant to Count VI for violation of FSIPA, judgment be entered in favor of
`
`Plaintiffs and against each of the Defendants, and Plaintiffs demand rescission of the
`
`purchase of the securities, compensatory damages, reserves the right to seek punitive
`
`damages upon an application for leave of court, attorneys’ fees and costs;
`
`(h) That Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest as provided by law; and
`
`(i) That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael D. Padula
`Michael D. Padula, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 314810
`PADULA LAW FIRM
`Courvoisier Centre II
`601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: (305) 455-5206
`Email: mpadula@padulalawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`