UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DIANA MAE FERNANDEZ, 

 Defendant. 

 Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-_________ 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) files this Complaint 

against defendant Diana Mae Fernandez (“Defendant” or “Fernandez”) and alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. This matter involves an offering fraud orchestrated by Fernandez in which she 

raised approximately $364,000 from at least 20 investors through the fraudulent offer and sale of 

securities. 

2. Between 2018 and at least 2020, Fernandez—through her alter ego entities “The 

Self-Made Success” and “Diana Mae K., LLC”—orchestrated a scheme by touting the false 

narrative that she was a successful businesswoman with access to no-risk, short-term investments. 

3. Fernandez induced investors to participate in the unregistered securities offering 

by claiming that she would use their money to invest in, among other things, private and publicly 

traded companies, cryptocurrency, and luxury real estate properties, and guaranteeing returns as 

high as 63 percent. 

5:23-CV-372 Bailey

12/21/2023

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

 ELECTRONICALLY 

 FILED 

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

 Northern District of WV 
2 

4. Instead of investing investor funds as promised, Fernandez commingled them 

with her own, using investor money to pay for her day-to-day living expenses and lavish hotel 

stays, fund numerous cash withdrawals, and make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors. 

5. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant violated, and 

unless enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities 

Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] and 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]. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Sections 21(d) and 21(e) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u(e)] to enjoin such acts, transactions, practices, and courses of 

business, to enjoin Fernandez from directly or indirectly—including, but not limited to, through 

any entity owned or controlled by Fernandez—participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or 

sale of any security (provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Fernandez from 

purchasing or selling securities for her own personal account); and to obtain disgorgement, 

prejudgment interest, civil money penalties, an officer-and-director bar against Fernandez, and 

such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d), 21(e), 

and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa]. 

8. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Among other things, 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
3 

certain of the acts, practices, and courses of business constituting the violations of the federal 

securities laws alleged herein occurred within the Northern District of West Virginia. 

DEFENDANT

9. Diana Mae Fernandez, age 37, is a United States citizen currently residing in 

Serbia. Fernandez is the founding and sole member of Diana Mae K., LLC and its sole owner 

and control person. She also is the founding and sole member of the Self-Made Success and its 

sole owner and control person. 

OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY

10. Diana Mae K., LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, registered on 

October 29, 2018. According to Fernandez, the company’s primary objective was “to provide 

sophisticated investors an opportunity to grow their capital” through “day trading, real estate 

company exits, start-up buy ins, cryptocurrency and stocks.” 

11. The Self-Made Success was an unregistered entity that Fernandez portrayed as a 

purported incubator for start-up companies. 

FACTS 

Background 

12. Between 2018 and at least 2020, Fernandez—through her alter ego entities “The 

Self-Made Success” and “Diana Mae K., LLC”—orchestrated a scheme by touting the false 

narrative that she was a successful businesswoman with access to no-risk, short-term investments. 

13. As part of the deception, Fernandez portrayed herself as an experienced trader and 

financier who guaranteed returns as high as 63 percent by investing in private and publicly traded 

companies, cryptocurrency, and luxury real estate. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
4 

14. Fernandez recruited many of her investors through church groups and social 

networking geared toward entrepreneurs, and developed those relationships to recruit additional 

investors. 

15. All told, Fernandez fraudulently raised more than $364,000 from at least 20 

investors through false and misleading statements and omissions. 

Misrepresentations and Omissions Regarding 

Investment Experience and Returns 

16. Fernandez made a variety of material misstatements and omissions about her 

investment experience and the returns associated with those investments, orally, and in writing. 

17. Fernandez drafted written offering materials. One set of offering materials used 

by Fernandez included a document styled as an “Investor Packet.” This document falsely 

proclaimed that Fernandez had over 15 years of investment experience and had raised $100 

million across 25 countries. This offering document also stated that Fernandez only targeted 

“low to zero risk” investments in private and publicly traded companies, cryptocurrency, and 

luxury real estate. 

18. Fernandez marketed three tiers of investments, which purported to guarantee 

returns ranging from 15 to 63 percent. 

19. Investment contracts drafted by Fernandez stated the investments were “secure” 

and guaranteed the return of principal. 

20. In early versions of the contract sent to some investors, Fernandez stated that 

investors could expect investment returns that ranged from 12 to 51 percent. In later iterations of 

the contract, Fernandez guaranteed returns of at least 15 percent within six months. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
5 

21. Many investors invested because they believed Fernandez’s claims about her 

financial expertise and her guarantees about generating significant investment returns with no 

risk of loss. 

Misstatements and Omissions Regarding Use of Investor Proceeds 

22. Between December 2017 and March 2020, Fernandez raised more than $360,000 

from at least 20 investors, falsely claiming that she would invest their funds in private and publicly 

traded companies, “cryptocurrency,” and luxury real estate. 

23. In soliciting investments, Fernandez instructed her victims to wire money directly to 

her bank account, or to send funds to her PayPal address. 

24. Fernandez exercised sole control over these accounts, but instead of using such 

funds as promised, she used the vast majority of investor proceeds for her personal benefit and the 

remainder to make Ponzi payments to investors to allow the fraud to continue. 

25. Fernandez comingled the investor funds with her own funds into her personal bank 

and PayPal accounts, and used investor money as her own to pay for her day-to-day living expenses 

and lavish hotel stays, fund numerous cash withdrawals, and make Ponzi-like payments to earlier 

investors. 

26. The balance of Fernandez’s checking account followed a consistent pattern of being 

spent down to the verge of depletion until she found another victim to replenish the account with 

additional funds earmarked for investment. 

27. For example, in May 2018, Fernandez received two wires totaling $11,000 from 

investors who were told that their money would be placed in “no-risk” investments. 

28. At the time Fernandez received the wires, her checking account balance was $400. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
6 

29. Within a week, Fernandez spent approximately $7,200 on personal items during a 

trip to Barcelona and Paris, including a $2,000 purchase at an Apple Store, luxury hotel stays and 

dinners, and significant ATM withdrawals of cash. 

30. Fernandez also made a $3,000 Ponzi-like payment to an earlier investor. 

31. By the end of the week, Fernandez’s checking balance was $1,343. 

32. Similarly, in August 2018, Fernandez received three wires from investors totaling 

$67,500. 

33. Over the next three months, Fernandez withdrew over $20,000 in cash from the 

account in various ATM withdrawals, made approximately $17,000 in Ponzi-like payments to 

earlier investors, and spent the remainder on a series of personal expenses, including hotel stays, 

clothing stores, and other non-investment related expenses. 

34. As an additional example, in late June 2019, an investor wired $5,000 to Fernandez 

over the course of a week. 

35. At the time she began sending payments, Fernandez’s checking account was 

overdrawn. 

36. As soon as the investor proceeds were deposited, Fernandez used the funds for 

airline tickets, hotel and spa expenses, restaurant visits, and multiple ATM withdrawals, again 

leaving the account overdrawn. She did not use the funds as promised. 

37. Fernandez continued this pattern throughout the life of the fraud. 

38. In February 2020, as her investment scheme began to end, Fernandez began 

accepting smaller amounts from her victims. 

39. On February 14, 2020, she received a $500 wire from a victim and immediately 

withdrew approximately $470 from her checking account at an ATM. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
7 

40. Four days later, another investor wired Fernandez $500, and she similarly withdrew 

$480 on the same day at an ATM. 

Additional Deceptive Acts Regarding Investment Returns 

41. To conceal her conduct and to avoid detection, Fernandez engaged in additional 

deceptive conduct by providing false investment returns and telling investors she could “roll[] 

over” investments when investors sought to redeem. 

42. For example, in July 2018, Fernandez falsely informed an investor that her $6,000 

investment grew 12 percent during the two months she had invested, and Fernandez 

recommended that the client roll over the investment because she expected profits to “skyrocket” 

during the coming months. The investor immediately agreed to roll over her investment based 

on these assertions. 

43. On December 13, 2018, Fernandez sent a quarterly update to one of her investors 

in the Northern District of West Virginia, which falsely stated “overall strong returns of 21%” 

generated from investments in “startup opportunities, crypto market watch, and varied market 

avenues.” 

44. Fernandez sent a similar update to another investor in the Northern District of 

West Virginia on March 25, 2019, falsely stating that her initial $50,000 investment had 

generated returns of 18.7% and that she had the option to roll over her investment for additional 

six or twelve months with “guaranteed” returns of 38.5% or 70%, respectively. 

45. Fernandez used a variety of additional lulling tactics to avoid returning funds to 

investors who demanded payment, which included altered emails suggesting that Fernandez had 

initiated wire transfers that her bank had stopped because of a security alert. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
8 

46. Among other lies, Fernandez falsely told investors that: (1) the invested money 

was tied up in escrow because of immigration difficulties associated with starting a business in 

Spain; (2) she was having difficulties accessing “cryptocurrency” funds; and (3) her company 

was filing for bankruptcy because her business partner had stolen a portion of the investment 

proceeds. 

Defendant Violated the Federal Securities Laws

47. The investments offered and sold by Defendant were securities within the 

meaning of the Securities Act and Exchange Act. 

48. The investments were all in a common enterprise run by Fernandez, with the 

expectation of profits to be derived solely from her efforts. 

49. Investors played no role in the management or operations of the investments. 

50. Investors provided Fernandez with money—between 2018 and 2020, at least 20 

investors gave Fernandez approximately $364,000. 

51. Investors made their investment with a reasonable expectation of profits to be 

derived solely from Fernandez’s purported ability to generate profits without any participation by 

any of her investors. 

52. Fernandez engaged in the offer and sale of the securities by use of the means or 

instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, and/or by use of the mails. 

53. Directly or indirectly, Defendant made materially false and misleading statements 

and omissions concerning her investment experience, the use of investor proceeds, and the 

returns on the investment. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
9 

54. Defendant, directly or indirectly, knowingly, or recklessly made material untrue 

statements and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in 

light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 

55. A reasonable investor would consider the misrepresented facts and omitted 

information described herein—including, among other information, misrepresentations and 

omissions regarding Fernandez’s investment experience, use of investors’ money to pay for her 

personal expenses, and the rates of investment returns—important in deciding whether or not to 

purchase the securities. 

56. The untrue statements of material fact and material omissions described herein 

were made in the offer or sale and in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. 

57. In connection with the conduct described herein, Defendant acted knowingly or 

recklessly. Defendant knew or was reckless in not knowing that Defendant was making material 

misrepresentations and omitting to state material facts necessary to make certain statements not 

misleading under the circumstances. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act) 

58. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

59. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendant knowingly or recklessly, 

in the offer or sale of securities, directly or indirectly, by the use of means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: 

a. employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; 

b. obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material fact or 

omissions to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
10 

made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not 

misleading; and/or 

c. engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or 

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities. 

60. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendant violated and, unless enjoined, 

will continue to violate Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder) 

61. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

62. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendant knowingly or recklessly, 

in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or indirectly, by use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails or of any facility of a national securities 

exchange: 

a. employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; 

b. made untrue statements of material fact, or omitted to state material facts 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

under which they were made, not misleading; and 

c. engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with the purchase 

or sale of any security. 

63. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendant violated and, unless enjoined, 

will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
11 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a final 

judgment: 

I. 

Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant from, directly or indirectly, violating 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; 

II. 

Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant from, directly or indirectly—including, 

but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by Fernandez—participating in the 

issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall 

not prevent Defendant from purchasing or selling securities for her own personal account; 

III. 

 Ordering Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or unjust enrichment derived from the 

activities set forth in this Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon, pursuant to 

Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 

78u(d)(7)]; 

IV. 

 Ordering Defendant to pay civil penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78(u)(d)(3)]; 

V. 

Prohibiting Fernandez from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class 

of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is 

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
12 

required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)] 

pursuant to Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and 

VI. 

 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAM IHLENFELD 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

__________________________ 

Maximillian F. Nogay 

West Virginia State Bar No. 13445 

Assistant United States Attorney, Civil Division 

P.O. Box 591 

1125 Chapline Street 

Wheeling, WV 26003 

Phone: (304) 234-0100 

Fax: (304) 234-0112 

Email: Max.Nogay@usdoj.gov 

Christopher R. Kelly 

Gregory R. Bockin 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

Philadelphia Regional Office 

1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 520 

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 597-3100 

Email: KellyCR@sec.gov 

 (Pro hac vice to be filed)

Of Counsel: 

Brendan P. McGlynn 

Michael McGraw 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Dated: December 21, 2023 

Digitally signed by MAXIMILLIAN NOGAY 

Date: 2023.12.21 17:58:20 -05'00'

Case 5:23-cv-00372-JPB Document 1 Filed 12/21/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12