UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 81458 / August 22, 2017

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

Release No. 4752 / August 22, 2017

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18126

In the Matter of

GERARDO E. REYES, 

Respondent.

ORDER INSTITUTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

AND SECTION 203(f) OF THE 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

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”) and Section 203(f) of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Gerardo E. Reyes (“Respondent” or 

“Reyes”).

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

A. RESPONDENT

1. Reyes, age 54, is a resident of Sunrise, Florida. Reyes was a registered 

representative, associated with Allstate Financial Services, LLC (“Allstate”) from August 1999 

through April 2011 and with New England Securities (“New England”) from April 2011 through 

October 2012. Both Allstate and New England were broker-dealers registered with the 

Commission. New England was also registered as an investment adviser with the Commission.
2

Additionally, Reyes was the owner of Gerardo E. Reyes & Associates Inc., a non-registered 

business that purported to offer investment services.

B. RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION

2. On March 29, 2017, Reyes pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud in 

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, before the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida. United States v. Gerardo Reyes, Case No. 1:16-CR-20963-MGC-1 

(S.D. Fla.). On June 27, 2017, a judgment in the criminal case was entered against Reyes. He was 

sentenced to probation for a term of 4 years and ordered to make restitution in the amount of 

$129,273.00.

3. In connection with that plea, Reyes admitted that in 2008, Reyes convinced 

an investor to shift her real estate investments to United States Treasury Bonds and falsely 

confirmed to her that the investment in Treasury Bonds had been made.. However, Reyes never 

purchased the Treasury Bonds. In November 2011, the victim requested early distribution of her 

funds, and Reyes provided her with false paperwork showing that the request had been approved. 

To further the fraud, in June 2012, Reyes sent the victim $7,163.52, purportedly as part of the early 

distribution she had requested. Reyes admitted that he provided fraudulent documentation to the 

victim to cover up the fact that her money had been lost as a result of bad investments.

 

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)(6) of the Exchange Act; 

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

pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act; and

D. Whether, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) 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 

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.
3

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.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary