Initial Decision Release No. 1324

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

In the Matter of

Tintic Gold Mining Company

Initial Decision of Default

December 6, 2018

Appearances: David S. Frye for the Division of Enforcement,

Securities and Exchange Commission

Before: Cameron Elliot, Administrative Law Judge

SUMMARY

This initial decision revokes the registration of the registered securities 

of Respondent Tintic Gold Mining Company due to its failures to timely file 

required periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

INTRODUCTION

On September 6, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued 

an order instituting proceedings (OIP) pursuant to Section 12(j) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Respondent has securities 

registered with the Commission under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act and 

is delinquent in its periodic filings. 

A different administrative law judge was originally assigned to this 

proceeding and issued an initial decision of default against Respondent. 

Tintic Gold Mining Co., Initial Decision Release No. 1197, 2017 SEC LEXIS 

3367 (ALJ Oct. 23, 2017). The Commission vacated that decision following 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). See 

Pending Admin. Proc., Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 10536, 2018 SEC 

LEXIS 2058, at *2-3 (Aug. 22, 2018). The matter was then reassigned to me 

to provide Respondent with the opportunity for a new hearing. Respondent 

was directed to submit a proposal for the conduct of further proceedings. 
2

Tintic Gold Mining Co., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6054, 2018 SEC 

LEXIS 2517, at *1 (ALJ Sept. 21, 2018). It failed to do so. I have therefore 

proceeded under the Commission’s instruction not to give weight to or 

otherwise presume the correctness of any prior opinions, orders, or rulings 

issued by the prior administrative law judge. Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 

SEC LEXIS 2058, at *4.

Previously, I independently reviewed the evidence submitted by the 

Division and determined that Respondent was served with the OIP by 

September 11, 2017. Tintic Gold Mining Co., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release

No. 6313, 2018 SEC LEXIS 3174, at *1-2 (ALJ Nov. 9, 2018). Because 

Respondent failed to answer, I ordered it to show cause why the registration of 

its securities should not be revoked by default due to its failure to file an 

answer or otherwise defend this proceeding. Id. at *2. To date, Respondent 

has failed to answer, submit a proposal for the conduct of further proceedings, 

respond to the show cause order, or otherwise defend this proceeding.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Tintic Gold Mining Company, CIK No. 1301839 and ticker symbol 

TMGG, is a Nevada corporation located in Shanghai, China, with a class of 

securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 

12(g). The company is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, 

having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period 

ended June 30, 2014, which reported a net loss of $15,443 for the prior six 

months. As of August 30, 2017, the company’s common capital voting stock 

was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc., had three 

market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange 

Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).

In addition to its repeated failures to file timely periodic reports, 

Respondent failed to heed the delinquency letter sent to it by the 

Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance requesting compliance with its

periodic filing obligations or, through its failure to maintain a valid address 

on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules, did not receive 

such letter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 require issuers 

of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act 

Section 12 to file with the Commission current and accurate information in 

annual and quarterly reports, even if the registration is voluntary under 

Exchange Act Section 12(g). 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13a-1, .13a-13. Compliance 
3

with these reporting requirements is mandatory. America’s Sports Voice, 

Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 55511, 2007 SEC LEXIS 1241, at *12 (Mar. 

22, 2007), recons. denied, Exchange Act Release No. 55867, 2007 SEC LEXIS 

1239 (June 6, 2007). Scienter is not required to establish violations of 

Exchange Act Section 13(a) and rules thereunder. SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 

732, 740-41 (2d Cir. 1998). By failing to timely file required annual and 

quarterly reports, Respondent violated Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 

13a-1 and 13a-13.

SANCTION

Under Exchange Act Section 12(j), the Commission is authorized, “as it 

deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors,” to revoke the 

registration of a security or suspend the registration for a period not 

exceeding twelve months if it finds, after notice and an opportunity for 

hearing, that the issuer of the security has failed to comply with any 

provision of the Exchange Act or rules thereunder. 15 U.S.C. § 78l(j). In 

determining what sanctions will adequately protect investors, the 

Commission “consider[s], among other things, the seriousness of the issuer’s 

violations, the isolated or recurrent nature of the violations, the degree of 

culpability involved, the extent of the issuer’s efforts to remedy its past 

violations and ensure future compliance, and the credibility of its assurances, 

if any, against further violations.” Gateway Int’l Holdings, Inc., Exchange 

Act Release No. 53907, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1288, at *19-20 (May 31, 2006).

Respondent’s failures to file required periodic reports are serious because 

they violate a central provision of the Exchange Act. The purpose of periodic 

reporting is “to supply investors with current and accurate financial 

information about an issuer so that they may make sound [investment] 

decisions.” Id. at *26. The reporting requirements are the primary tool that 

Congress “fashioned for the protection of investors from negligent, careless, 

and deliberate misrepresentations” in the sale of securities. Eagletech 

Commc’ns, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 54095, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1534, at 

*12 (July 5, 2006) (quoting SEC v. Beisinger Indus. Corp., 552 F.2d 15, 18 

(1st Cir. 1977)). The violations are recurrent in that Respondent failed to file 

any periodic reports since 2014. See Nature’s Sunshine Prods., Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 59268, 2009 SEC LEXIS 81, at *20 (Jan. 21, 2009); 

Impax Labs., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 57864, 2008 SEC LEXIS 1197, 

at *25-26 (May 23, 2008). Respondent is culpable because it knew, or should 

have known, of its obligation to file periodic reports. It further failed to heed 

the delinquency letter sent to it by the Division of Corporation Finance. Even 

if Respondent did not receive such a letter due to its failure to maintain a 

valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules, 
4

the other factors weigh in favor of revocation, and scienter is not necessary to 

establish grounds for revocation. See China-Biotics, Inc., Exchange Act 

Release No. 70800, 2013 SEC LEXIS 3451, at *37 & n.60 (Nov. 4, 2013). In 

any event, there is no indication that its violations were inadvertent or 

accidental. Id. Finally, Respondent has not answered the OIP, submitted 

proposals for the further conduct of this proceeding, responded to the show 

cause order, or otherwise participated in the proceeding to address whether it

has made any efforts to remedy its past violations.

On these facts, it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of 

investors to revoke the registration of each class of Respondent’s registered 

securities.

ORDER

I ORDER that, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934, the registration of each class of registered securities of Tintic Gold 

Mining Company is REVOKED.1

This initial decision shall become effective in accordance with and 

subject to the provisions of Rule of Practice 360. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. 

Pursuant to that Rule, I FURTHER ORDER that, a party may file a petition 

for review of this initial decision within twenty-one days after service of the 

initial decision. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(b). A party may also file a motion to 

correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the initial decision, 

pursuant to Rule of Practice 111. 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct 

a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then a party shall have twenty-one 

days to file a petition for review from the date of the order resolving such 

motion to correct a manifest error of fact. This initial decision will not 

become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The 

Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for 

review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission 

determines on its own initiative to review the initial decision as to a party. If 

any of these events occur, the initial decision shall not become final as to that 

party. 

A respondent has the right to file a motion to set aside a default within a 

reasonable time, stating the reasons for the failure to appear or defend and 

 

1 This order applies to all classes of Respondent’s securities registered 

under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, whether or not such securities are 

specifically identified by ticker symbol or otherwise in this initial decision.
5

specifying the nature of the proposed defense. 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(b). The 

Commission can set aside a default at any time for good cause. Id.

_______________________________

Cameron Elliot

Chief Administrative Law Judge