1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 83234 / May 15, 2018 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18481

In the Matter of

ANGELA RUBBO 

BECKCOM MONACO, 

Respondent.

ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND

NOTICE OF HEARING

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the 

public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to 

Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Angela Rubbo 

Beckcom Monaco (“Respondent” or “Monaco”). 

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

A. RESPONDENT

1. Beginning no later than January 2013 and during the period of the offenses 

described in Paragraph II.B.2, Monaco offered and sold investments and/or issued restricted shares 

of stock in VIP TV, LLC, VIP Television Inc., and The Spongebuddy, LLC (collectively “VIP”), 

which are penny stocks. Monaco directly solicited investors and along with her siblings controlled 

VIP, hired an unregistered broker to sell investments in VIP, and paid the unregistered broker 

undisclosed sales commissions for the investments he successfully solicited. Monaco has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. Monaco, 46 years old, is a resident of 

Coconut Creek, Florida.
2

B. RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION

2. On May 1, 2018, Monaco pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and one count of engaging in a 

monetary transaction in property derived from specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1957 before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in United States v. 

Angela Monaco, Criminal Case No. 17-cr-417-RBJ. 

3. In connection with her guilty plea, Monaco admitted that she and other coconspirators (collectively “criminal defendants”) each acted as part of a scheme to (1) use the mails

to defraud at least thirty investors of over $6 million, (2) commit securities fraud, and (3) engage in 

money laundering. Monaco further admitted in her plea agreement that she is the president of VIP 

Television, LLC (“VIP Television”) and managing member of ANJ Productions, LLC (“ANJ”). 

Beginning in 2012, Monaco or a co-conspirator contacted investors and made false statements

about specific business opportunities for VIP Television and/or Spongebuddy, LLC. Monaco or a 

co-conspirator then directly solicited money from the investors and directed that investments be 

mailed or wired. Monaco then sent or caused to be sent to investors via U.S. Mail and/or Federal 

Express investment contracts or revised addenda to existing investment contracts with those 

investors. The addenda memorialized the investors’ investments, and were sometimes 

accompanied by stock certificates in VIP Television which were typically signed by Monaco and a 

co-conspirator. Monaco also admitted that the criminal defendants did not disclose to investors 

(1) that in 2013 and 2014 the criminal defendants were subject of a civil investigation, and 

resulting consent order by the State of Illinois in connection with the offering of securities related 

to VIP Television, Spongebuddy, and ANJ, and (2) that in 2002 Monaco and two of her siblings 

were charged by the Commission with violations of the antifraud and registration provisions of the 

federal securities laws. They also failed to disclose the co-conspirators’ criminal histories, 

including a co-conspirator’s prior convictions for Larceny and Grand Theft Larceny as well as 

certain of the co-conspirators’ prior convictions for conspiracy to commit racketeering. 

III.

In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 

necessary and appropriate in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted 

to determine:

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II hereof are true and, in connection 

therewith, to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; 

B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent 

pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act; and

C. Whether, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, it is appropriate and in 

the public interest to suspend or bar Respondent from participating in any offering of penny 

stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in 
3

activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny 

stock; or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.

IV.

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 

set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 

Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 

Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations 

contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 

of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220. 

If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly 

notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 

him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 

provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310.

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent as provided for in the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(a)(2), the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision 

no later than 75 days from the occurrence of one of the following events: (A) The completion of 

post-hearing briefing in a proceeding where the hearing has been completed; (B) Where the 

hearing officer has determined that no hearing is necessary, upon completion of briefing on a 

motion pursuant to Rule 250 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.250; or (C) 

The determination by the hearing officer that a party is deemed to be in default under Rule 155 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.155 and no hearing is necessary. 

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 

in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 

proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 

or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 

the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 

provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary