1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

________________________________________________

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

META 1 COIN TRUST, §

ROBERT P. DUNLAP, individually and d/b/a § Civil Action No.: 

CLEAR INTERNATIONAL TRUST, §

NICOLE BOWDLER, and DAVID A. SCHMIDT, §

§ FILED UNDER SEAL 

Defendants, § 

§

and §

§

PRAMANA CAPITAL, INC., and §

PETER K. SHAMOUN a/k/a PETER K. SHAMOON, §

§

Relief Defendants. §

________________________________________________§

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), for its 

Complaint against Defendants Meta 1 Coin Trust (“Meta1”), Robert P. Dunlap, individually and 

d/b/a Clear International Trust (“Dunlap”), Nicole Bowdler (“Bowdler”), David “Dave” A. 

Schmidt (“Schmidt”) (together, “Defendants”) and Pramana Capital, Inc. (“Pramana”) and Peter 

K. Shamoun a/k/a Peter K. Shamoon (“Shamoon”) (together, “Relief Defendants”), alleges:

SUMMARY

1. This is an emergency action to stop Dunlap, his girlfriend, Bowdler, and Schmidt, 

a former Washington state senator, from continuing to fraudulently solicit investors in an 

unregistered securities offering of a purported digital currency called the Meta 1 Coin (the 

“Coin”). The Defendants have variously claimed that the Coin is backed by a $1 billion art 
2

collection and/or $2 billion of gold. In reality, the Coin is backed by nothing. 

2. From April 2018 through the present (the “relevant period”), Defendants, both 

directly and through entities they control, have raised at least $4.38 million from over 150

investors throughout the United States and internationally, through deceptive acts and materially 

false and misleading statements and omissions. For example, Defendants have falsely stated 

that: (a) investors were, in fact, purchasing asset-backed digital coins; (b) Meta1 owned $1 

billion in art insured against loss by a surety bond, and later, that Meta1 owned $2 billion in gold

assets; (c) KPMG, one of the largest independent financial audit firms in the world, was auditing 

Meta1’s gold assets; (d) Meta1 formed its own investment bank and developed its own digital 

currency exchange; (e) the Coin is safe and risk-free and will never lose value; (f) an initial

public offering of the Coin (“ICO”) on its own exchange was imminent; and (g) each Coin, sold 

for either $22.22 or $44.44 would in two years be worth $50,000—up to a 224,923% return—as 

a “very conservative value.”

3. Defendants enticed investors with the allure of a cryptocurrency, but the securities 

offering is nothing but a vehicle to steal investors’ money. In reality, as Defendants knew, or 

were severely reckless in not knowing, each of the statements listed above was and is false. 

There is no reasonable basis to project any investment returns—much less a 224,923% return—

given that, as Defendants knew or were severely reckless in not knowing, victims were simply 

investing in a scam. And although Defendants assured investors that KPMG verified and 

affirmed Meta1’s gold valuations to bolster their claims that the Coin was safe and risk-free, 

those assurances were lies. KPMG confirmed that it has never performed any audit services for 

Meta1, or anyone associated with Meta1 or any of the Defendants.

4. Defendants made the misstatements variously on the Meta1 website—including in 
3

a “whitepaper” issued by Meta1 in connection with the offer and sale of its securities during the 

“pre-ICO launch”—as well as during in-person presentations and “workshops” held across the 

country and internationally, in periodic email newsletters, on websites related to the Defendants, 

and on Internet radio broadcasts accessible worldwide on numerous online fora such as 

BlogTalkRadio, YouTube, and Facebook.

5. The offers and sales of these purported “Coins” are (and were) illegal offerings of 

securities for which no registration statement has been filed, and as to which no exemption from 

registration is or was available (the “Coin Offerings”). The Coin Offerings are (and were)

conducted through general solicitations made using statements posted on the Internet and 

distributed throughout the world, including in the United States and in this District. Defendants 

took no steps to determine whether investors were accredited or sophisticated, and, in fact, 

disregarded evidence that they were neither. 

6. Relief Defendants Pramana and Shamoon each received proceeds of the fraud and 

have no legitimate claim to those ill-gotten investor funds. 

7. The scheme is ongoing, and investor funds are at risk. Meta1 continues to solicit 

new investors, and Defendants are actively promoting the Coin and falsely stating that an ICO is 

imminent.

VIOLATIONS AND RELIEF REQUESTED

8. By committing the acts alleged in this Complaint, the Defendants directly and 

indirectly engaged in, and unless restrained and enjoined by the Court will continue to engage in, 

acts, transactions, practices, and courses of business that violate the anti-fraud and securities 

registration provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of 

the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c), 77q(a)] and Section 
4

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].

9. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, 

and civil penalties against each Defendant, and all other equitable and ancillary relief to which 

the Court determines the Commission is entitled. Additionally, the Commission seeks 

disgorgement from the Relief Defendants—persons or entities to which Defendants diverted illgotten investor funds—regarding all funds derived, directly or indirectly, from the Defendants’ 

fraudulent conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under Sections 20(d) and 22(a) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 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 78(aa)].

11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act and 

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

acts, practices, and courses of business described herein occurred within the Western District of 

Texas. For example, Dunlap and Bowdler began the fraud while living in Fredericksburg, Texas, 

where they offered and sold unregistered securities to investors and operated the scheme for over 

a year; sold the Coin to investors who live within this judicial district; and falsely claimed 

ownership of an art collection that was, at all times, located in Fredericksburg.

12. In connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business 

described in this Complaint, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the means and instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce. 
5

PARTIES

A. Defendants

13. Meta1 is an unincorporated entity purporting to be an irrevocable trust with 

Dunlap and Bowdler as trustees. From at least April 2018 to the present, Meta1 has offered and 

sold securities in the form of the Coin. Meta1 is not registered with the Commission in any 

capacity, and has not filed a registration statement in connection with the offering of any 

securities.

14. Dunlap d/b/a Clear International Trust (“Clear”), age 48, currently resides in 

Boca Raton, Florida. Dunlap created, owns, and controls Meta1. Dunlap is responsible for the 

content on Meta1’s website and in its offering documents. Dunlap now, and during the relevant 

period, solicits investors in person and via Skype in nationwide and international “workshops” 

and via regular live Internet radio broadcasts. Dunlap has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity, and has never been licensed to offer or sell securities. Clear is 

another purported trust owned and controlled by Dunlap and Bowdler. Clear has at least two

bank accounts where investor funds were deposited: one at Bank of America, and one at Morgan 

Stanley Smith Barney (for which both Dunlap and Bowdler are signatories). 

15. Bowdler, age 39, currently resides with Dunlap in Boca Raton, Florida. She is 

Meta1’s purported “Trustee and Art Acquisitions & Forensics Director of Business 

Development.” Bowdler claims to use her “psychic expertise” to provide investment guidance to 

listeners who share her beliefs, encouraging them to invest in Meta1. In particular, Bowdler 

claims to be an “Earth Angel incarnated to help humanity,” and purports to regularly channel and 

commune with angels, including the mythical angel, Metatron, who frequently teaches her about 
6

“the realities of our world.” Bowdler is not, and has never been, registered with the Commission 

in any capacity and has never been licensed to offer or sell securities.

16. Schmidt, age 55, currently resides in Boca Raton, Florida and, during the relevant 

period, was a member of Meta1’s “board.” Schmidt served in the Washington State Legislature

from 1994 to 2006, first as a state representative and then as a state senator. On March 20, 2012, 

the Public Disclosure Commission of the State of Washington found (and Schmidt stipulated)

that Schmidt improperly reimbursed himself from campaign funds for wages he claimed to have 

lost and improperly used campaign funds for personal use, among other findings. Schmidt was 

also ordered to pay a civil penalty of $10,000. See Final Order, In the Matter of Enforcement 

Action Against: David Schmidt and 2006 Schmidt Campaign), PDC Case No. 11-018, available 

at https://pdc-case-tracking.s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/2252/11018.Order.pdf. Schmidt 

publishes content regarding Meta1 on his websites, www.thesedonaconnection.com, 

https://thecosmicconnections.wordpress.com, and www.thesedonaconnectionfoundation.com. 

Schmidt also hosts a weekly online radio talk show called “Cosmic Connections” (formerly 

known as “The Sedona Connection”), which is typically posted to one or more of his websites, 

his YouTube channel (available at https://www.youtube.com/user/repdas/featured), and to his 

Facebook page, where he discusses the Coin Offering and solicits investments in Meta1 (the 

“Radio Shows”) (available at https://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-sedona-connection). Schmidt

also drafts and disseminates a periodic email newsletter to investors and potential investors in 

Meta1 (the “Newsletter”). Schmidt also runs a series of conferences and workshops in various 

cities nationwide where he and Dunlap pitch the Coin Offering (the “Workshops”). Schmidt has 

never been registered with the Commission in any capacity and has never been licensed to offer 

or sell securities. 
7

B. Relief Defendants

17. Pramana is an Illinois shell corporation, not in good standing, with its principal 

place of business listed as a private residence in Saint Charles, Illinois. Pramana is owned and 

controlled by Shamoon, its sole officer. Pramana received at least $1 million in investor funds

from Dunlap and Clear International Trust. Pramana has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity.

18. Shamoon, age 52, currently resides in Saint Charles, Illinois and is Pramana’s 

sole owner and officer. In April 2019, Shamoon purported to form a trust named “Meta 1 Coin 

Trust” in Saint Charles, Illinois. In December 2019, Shamoon opened a bank account at BMO 

Harris Bank under the name “Meta 1 Coin Trust,” and is the sole signatory (“BMO Harris 

Account”). Shamoon has been depositing new investor funds in the BMO Harris Account. 

Shamoon used over $215,000 in investor funds from the BMO Harris Account to purchase a 

Ferrari. Shamoon has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity and holds no 

securities licenses. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Overview of the Fraudulent Scheme and the Defendants’ Material Misstatements. 

19. In or around April 2018, Dunlap and Bowdler began this fraudulent scheme while 

living in Fredericksburg, Texas. Schmidt joined the team no later than September 2018, and 

began extensively marketing the Coin Offering. 

20. Dunlap claimed to have created and developed a new digital currency that he 

called the “Meta 1 Coin.” Dunlap and Bowdler began to solicit investors, telling them that they 

could get in on the ground floor before the initial public offering of the Coin, or “ICO.” 

21. The Coin Offering would allegedly convert “fiat currency” (such as the U.S. 
8

dollar) into “tokenized” currency that, in the case of the Coin, was supposedly backed by hard 

assets. The hard assets supposedly backing the Coin changed over time. Between approximately 

April 2018 and March 2019, the Defendants claimed that the Coin was backed by $1 billion in 

fine art and insured by a $1 billion surety bond. Between approximately April 2019 and 

November 2019, the Defendants claimed that the Coin was backed by $1 billion in fine art and 

gold. Since approximately November 2019, the Defendants have claimed that the Coin was 

backed by $2 billion in gold. 

22. During the relevant period, Dunlap and Schmidt told prospective investors that 

the Coin was a safe investment. They claimed it could never lose its value, and that one Coin, 

which could be purchased for $22.22 (or $44.44), would be worth as much as $50,000 after the 

ICO, which was imminent. 

23. Dunlap and Schmidt solicited investors using a “whitepaper,” which Dunlap 

drafted and/or copied from publicly available online sources, and updated as the scheme 

progressed (the “Whitepaper”). 

24. In general, a “whitepaper” is an informational report used as a marketing tool to 

educate an audience about a particular issue, or to explain a product, service or technology. 

25. By at least August 2018, Dunlap had created Meta1’s website, https://meta1.io. 

The website described Meta1 and claimed that it was not bound by any laws. Specifically, the 

website noted that Meta1 is “a Private trust operating in a ‘Private Jurisdiction’. Meaning [sic] 

META 1 Coin is not within a State or Federal jurisdiction and not accepting contracts from any 

such parties. The various federal agencies and their attempts of defaming and stopping the 

advent of digital assets have no legal bearing on META 1 allowing META 1 to operate without 

the interference of such agencies.” 
9

26. During the relevant period, the website has prominently featured different 

versions of the Whitepaper, at least two of which describe the Coin as:

an asset-backed “Smart” Crypto Currency Secured by Humanity’s greatest 

expressions of Life, by Master artists such as Picasso and Van Gough(sic). META 

1 Coin is a coin for Humanity, built on the framework of abundance by smart 

contracts, unbreachable on the blockchain, ensuring appreciation and never 

devaluation. META 1 COIN has a Private Bank and Private Exchange ensuring 

liquidity, security, and unencumbered transactions. META 1 COIN has a Powered 

Blockchain ensuring high-performance Global transactions called the 

‘METATRONIC NETWORK.’ 

1. Meta1 Lied About Owning Art

27. Until at least March 2019, the Whitepaper included pictures of fine art that Meta1 

claimed it owned and backed the Coin. This is, and has always been, false. 

28. At the outset of the scheme, Dunlap posed as a wealthy banker and signed a 

contract to purchase 18 pieces of a rare art collection (the “Collection”) owned by a 

Fredericksburg, Texas resident (the “Art Collector”). Notably, the Collection had never been 

appraised or authenticated, but even the Art Collector valued the entire Collection at $100 

million. Dunlap, however, never paid for or acquired any of the art. 

29. Nevertheless, to bolster their false claims, Defendants continued to tell investors 

and potential investors that Meta1 owned the art. 

30. On January 15, 2019, the Art Collector sued Dunlap and Meta1 in Bexar County, 

Texas to stop them from claiming ownership over his art (the “Art Lawsuit”). 

31. Undeterred, Dunlap modified the Whitepaper in approximately April 2019, 

maintaining its claim that Meta1 owned $1 billion in art, but adding that the Coin was also 

backed by “gold bonds.”

32. On June 13, 2019, the Art Collector obtained a final judgment declaring that 

neither Dunlap nor Meta1 “has any interest, right, or title to the artwork [which Meta1 claimed it 
10

owned]” and awarding the Art Collector $25 million in damages for slandering the Art 

Collector’s title to the paintings and interfering with his prospective contractual relations with 

buyers of the art. 

2. Meta1 Lied About Owning Gold

33. Meta1 has also claimed that it owns $2 billion in gold. This was another lie, 

despite Meta1, Dunlap, and Schmidt’s efforts to convince investors otherwise.

34. In February 2019, Dunlap, acting by and through Clear, worked with a company 

called ICTS, LLC (“ICTS”), who contracted with a company (the “Claim Company”) who 

owned an unpatented mining claim to an 80-acre parcel of public land in Lincoln County, 

Nevada (“Nevada Claim”). ICTS agreed to provide start-up capital within 30 days to the Claim 

Company, which would then work the land and split any profits from resulting mineral 

production (“2019 Contract”). 

35. As part of the negotiations, ICTS asked the Claim Company to give Clear a 

limited power of attorney to “arrange for finance loans and leveraging of the assigned assets”

and a quitclaim deed, which purported to transfer its mining claim to Clear. The Claim 

Company representative told ICTS that the quitclaim deed alone was worthless to convey rights 

or title, and was not official until additional documentation is sent to the Bureau of Land 

Management, approved, returned, and recorded with the county. The ICTS representative, acting 

on behalf of and at the direction of Dunlap and Clear, told the Claim Company that the quitclaim 

deed he signed was “good enough” to show investors, and that they did not actually need to 

transfer title. 

36. Nonetheless, upon information and belief, Meta1, Dunlap, and Schmidt used the 

worthless deed to misrepresent to prospective investors and investors that Meta1 owned gold or a 
11

producing gold mine.

37. However, ICTS never performed under the 2019 Contract, and the Claim 

Company never received any start-up money, or other funds, as promised. Neither ICTS, Clear, 

Dunlap, nor Meta1 have, or ever had, any ownership interest in any mining claim to the Nevada 

Claim.

38. Further, the Nevada Claim has never produced gold in any value, let alone $2 

billion of gold. There is also no gold mine on the property. And, contrary to representations 

made by Dunlap and Schmidt to prospective investors, there are no “vaults of gold” containing 

gold bricks from this property, because none exist. 

3. Defendants’ Deception in Marketing and Selling the Coin to Investors Worldwide

39. In approximately September 2018, Schmidt joined the scheme and, along with 

Dunlap and Bowdler, began extensively marketing the Coin and soliciting investors worldwide 

to invest in Meta1.

40. Defendants solicited investors through the Meta1 website and the Whitepaper, at

in-person presentations and “workshops” given around the country and internationally, in 

periodic email newsletters, on websites related to the Defendants, and on Internet radio 

broadcasts accessible worldwide on numerous online fora such as BlogTalkRadio, YouTube, and 

Facebook. 

41. Meta1, through Dunlap and Schmidt, claimed to offer 450 million Coins to the 

general public at a price of $22.22 per Coin, and purported to allocate a specific number of Coins

to investors based on their investment. Meta1 investors received a paper receipt as confirmation 

of their purchase, and Dunlap and Schmidt represented that Meta 1 would assign a proportionate 

value of the art collection (and later, gold) to each Coin.
12

42. Meta1, however, has never distributed any Coins to investors. 

43. The Defendants claimed that Meta1 investors would earn a return on their 

investment in two ways: (1) the underlying assets (first art, and later gold) would naturally 

appreciate, thereby increasing the value of each Coin; and (2) Meta1 would purchase additional 

art pieces or collections (and later, additional gold), and assign the value of those assets equally 

among the existing 450 million Coins, thereby increasing the value of each Coin. Dunlap and 

Schmidt projected exorbitant returns—as high as 224,923%—and often told prospective 

investors that, within two years, each Coin would be worth as much as $50,000 or more.

44. At all times, the most basic assurance Meta1, Dunlap, and Schmidt provided 

investors about the Coin—that it was backed by billions of dollars of assets Meta1 already 

owned, and more assets it would acquire—was completely fabricated. 

45. During the relevant period, as described herein, the Defendants also falsely and 

repeatedly claimed, among other things: (a) that KPMG was auditing Meta1’s gold assets; (b) 

that Meta1 formed its own investment bank and developed its own digital currency exchange; (c) 

that Meta1 had its own debit card; (d) that the Coin is safe and risk-free in that it will never lose 

value; and (e) that a public offering of the Coin on its own exchange was imminent. None of 

these statements was true, and these misstatements were highly material to investors.

46. Defendants falsely represented KPMG’s involvement to provide prospective and 

current investors with comfort that one of the world’s largest independent financial audit firms 

had verified and endorsed Meta1’s gold asset valuations. In fact, KPMG has never audited 

Meta1, and has no current or past business relationship with Meta1 or any related entity or 

individuals. 

47. Defendants also lied about the investment returns the Coins would generate. 
13

While the particular rate of return constantly varied, it was always exorbitant. For example, 

Schmidt and Dunlap represented that each Coin (sold for $22.22 or $44.44, depending on when it 

was purchased) would be worth up to $50,000—up to a 224,923% return—as a “very 

conservative value.” As Defendants knew, or were severely reckless in not knowing, Meta1 

owned no significant assets, including either art or gold, so there was no reasonable basis for 

Defendants to project any investment returns, let alone such exorbitant returns.

48. In particular, as described herein, Meta1, Dunlap, and Schmidt falsely 

represented that the Coin investment would generate returns stemming from: (1) additional 

purchases of the art and/or gold that would, in turn, appreciate in value; (2) the appreciation in 

value of the Coin due to the supposed increase in demand for the coins after Meta1 launched an 

ICO, which was imminent; and (3) the expertise of Dunlap and the Meta1 team, which included 

a “state-of-the-art in-house forensics team” and a sophisticated technology staff and laboratory in 

Sedona, Arizona. Defendants falsely stated that these factors would “launch META 1 Coin 

values in the Trillions of Dollars outperforming other coin currencies [such as Bitcoin], which 

“has no financial security backing. META 1 Coin is backed by Surety Bonds and Fine Art with 

skyrocketing values over the last century!”

49. In reality, as the Defendants knew, or were severely reckless in not knowing: (1) 

Meta1 owned no assets to back the Coin; (2) the “surety bond” was a bogus instrument simply 

printed on certificate paper; (3) Meta1 did not use investor money to purchase “additional” 

assets; (4) there were no actual plans, and Meta1 had no ability, to launch an ICO; and (5) Meta1 

had no “forensics team” as described and no sophisticated laboratory or operations. Instead, 

Defendants controlled Meta1 and conducted their fraudulent scheme from their homes; Meta1’s

addresses are mailboxes at UPS stores in Sedona, Arizona and Boca Raton, Florida, and it has no 
14

physical locations anywhere.

50. From April 2018 to the present, using deceptive acts and material 

misrepresentations described herein, Defendants raised at least $4.38 million from at least 150 

investors in 32 states and at least five foreign countries. 

B. Defendants’ Material Misrepresentations

1. False and Misleading Statements on Meta1’s Website And In Its Whitepaper

51. Throughout the relevant period, the website directed investors to call Meta1 to 

purchase the Coin. When potential investors called Meta1 with questions about investing in the 

Coin, Meta1’s representatives, who worked from their homes, directed potential investors to go 

to the website to view the Whitepaper.

52. Several versions of the Whitepaper contain biographies of members of the 

supposed “core team of Principle Trustees, Board Members, [and] technical and administrative 

staff performing the daily operations.” Dunlap was and is listed as a founder, the “architect” of 

the Coin, and the “Executive Trustee and Global Visionary” for Meta1, who “oversees the 

technology regarding the cyber coin and the deployment of all technology for promotions and 

legal establishment of Art.” Bowdler was and is listed as a co-founder and “Trustee, Secretary 

[and] Director of Business Development” whose “resources and skill set have allowed her to 

access human consciousness and understand the market entirely.” Schmidt was and is listed as 

“Public Relations/Board Member” for Meta1. His biography says that “[h]is business is the 

Sedona Connection,” and that he “has a background in banking and finance and has been a parttime market trader for over 20 years.” Schmidt’s biography also highlights the 12 years he spent 

in the Washington State Legislature, his military service, and his seminary training, giving the 

false impression that his representations about the Coin are trustworthy.
15

53. Investors who transferred funds to Meta1 never actually received a digital asset, 

token, or coin. Instead, investors were given either nothing or a “receipt of Coin Certificate” 

created by Meta1. 

54. The website continues to falsely represent that an investment in the Coin is “Safe 

& Secure.” 

55. In addition, several versions of the Whitepaper claim that the Coin “is 

exchangeable for all major crypto and fiat currencies by several exchanges,” that Meta1 has its 

own investment bank, and that Meta1 offers a debit card to its investment bank account 

holders. None of these claims is true.

2. False and Misleading Statements on Internet Broadcasts and in Live

Workshops

56. During the relevant period, Defendants repeated the same misrepresentations 

about the Coin to the general public on Schmidt’s radio shows and other Internet broadcasts, in 

an emailed newsletter, and during in-person workshops held nationwide and internationally.

57. The following are a few examples of the materially false and misleading

statements Defendants made during the relevant period.

September 5, 2018 Crypto Visions Internet Talk Show (Dunlap and Bowdler)

58. On September 5, 2018, Dunlap and Bowdler appeared together to promote the 

Coin on an Internet talk show called “Crypto Visions, Evolutionary Journeys” (“Crypto 

Visions”), which was hosted by a self-proclaimed psychic and is accessible on YouTube. The 

show’s host claimed that “Spirit Guides” empower her to recommend specific 

cryptocurrencies. On this show, Dunlap falsely claimed that Meta1: (1) owns $1 billion worth of 

art that Dunlap purchased with his own money, insures the art with a $1 billion surety bond, and 

keeps the art in a vault; (2) owns a forensics laboratory in Sedona, which Dunlap uses to 
16

authenticate all of the art that Meta1 acquires, and that Dunlap developed an authentication 

process; (3) is “operating outside the jurisdiction of the state and federal government, and so 

we’re very, very let’s say astute, regarding asset protection”; (4) owns its own exchange and “all 

aspects of source code”; (5) is acquiring its own offshore bank; (6) acquired a company which 

will enable Meta1 to offer a “non-bank credit card”; (7) developed a “smart contract” which 

ensures that the Coin cannot be sold for less than asset value; and (8) has a goal of “get[ting] the 

asset value to . . . several trillion dollars.”

59. Bowdler contributed to the deception, telling the Crypto Visions audience that 

“the Coin has been specifically architected out of the angelic realm” and that it is “really exciting 

when people find out what we’re doing with the art.” Bowdler told the audience that she 

channeled “the Archangel Metatron,” who told her that: (a) of all the cryptocurrencies being 

issued, only 15-20 would be left standing; and (b) the Coin would be one of them. Bowdler also 

told the audience that Metatron and Abraham Lincoln revealed to her what would happen in the 

world’s financial and economic structure over the next 20 years. Because the audience shared 

her “metaphysical beliefs,” Bowdler knew her statements would influence them to invest in the 

Coin.

October 3, 2018 Radio Show (Schmidt and Dunlap)

60. On the October 3, 2018 broadcast of The Sedona Connection, Dunlap and 

Schmidt represented that the Coin Offering was the first time that “everyday people” could

invest in fine art that previously was available only to the ultra-wealthy. Dunlap explained that 

he used rare art to back the Coin because “there’s just a lot of fun with art. It’s very secure, it 

trades in any market condition, and it’s appreciated like no other asset, and it outperforms gold 

every day of the week.” Dunlap falsely claimed that Meta1: (1) bought an art collection that 
17

appraised for as high as $1.2 billion, is “perfect in forensics and providence,” and is insured for 

$1 billion; (2) has “one of the most advanced forensics labs” in Sedona; and (3) has its own 

bank, exchange, and a debit card which investors will get after the ICO.

61. Dunlap and Schmidt falsely claimed that: (1) “you can be guaranteed if you 

purchase a Meta 1 Coin, the value of that coin will never, ever fall below the value of the 

combined asset of the art that the company has backing it up”; (2) Dunlap is in negotiations to 

pick up trillions of dollars of new art, and that in two years, a coin purchased for $22.22 could be 

worth up to $40,000 in “asset value” and more in “market value”; (3) “it has a 99% certainty that 

it’s going to skyrocket in value because you’re going to have the opportunity to acquire the coin 

before it goes public, [which is] very similar to buying Bitcoin when it was at 50 to $150 per 

coin and it went to $20,000;” and (4) “you have the opportunity to get in something on the 

ground floor that you can’t lose on.”

April 24, 2019 Radio Show (Dunlap and Schmidt)

62. Dunlap and Schmidt had the following discussion:

SCHMIDT: [P]eople have been viciously attacking us and calling us scammers. 

And they’ve been telling everybody, “Call the SEC. Call the SEC and report them.” 

And here’s what’s so ironic. Robert . . . recently had about a one-hour discussion 

with a man from the SEC. And the fact that he was so impressed with everything 

that we’re doing, that’s absolutely upfront and legal, he came in and bought coins. 

Was that correct?

DUNLAP: Absolutely. 

SCHMIDT: Yeah.

DUNLAP: So the person I was speaking with, has been working with, is with the 

SEC, legal counsel for, you know, over a decade plus. And when he understood the 

entirety of our presentation and our legal disposition, and the architecture that we 

created, he was extremely, extremely impressed. He had very little to say regarding 

any shortcomings or alleged illegalities. There’s no illegalities. He was just 

absolutely impressed. And he actually is, he’s coming on board very strong with, 

you know, investing in the Meta 1 coin. So yeah. That was, it was a lot of fun. And 
18

you know, Dave, we’ve, we’ve known that this is a very, very legal and very 

legitimate operation. The one thing the SEC resource did say, he said that we are 

leading the way with KYC, which is Know Your Clients. And our equity position, 

meaning the asset valuation and the asset itself. He said we're leading the way in 

equity. We’re receiving anything ever considered, you know, out there right now.

63. As Dunlap and Schmidt knew, or were severely reckless in not knowing, those 

statements were false. In fact, Dunlap later admitted in testimony during the SEC’s investigation

prior to the filing of this lawsuit, he had never spoken with anyone at the SEC.

October 14, 2019 Radio Show (Dunlap and Schmidt)

64. On the October 14, 2019 Radio Show, Schmidt and Dunlap had the following 

discussion:

SCHMIDT: Okay, well, are we ready then to make the big announcement?

DUNLAP: Which one? Which announcement would you like to make?

SCHMIDT: What you said at the workshop in Australia about how much assets 

you have backed up for the coin, what you have out there as a value for it? Or is 

that something you want to make an announcement here?

DUNLAP: Well, yeah, I can make that announcement. But it has -- you know, it's 

complex. It is simple.

SCHMIDT: Right, um-hmm.

DUNLAP: So what Dave is alluding to, there was a show in Hawaii in which I 

wish I could have been there physically, but I came in through Skype. And I was 

mentioning to the coinholders and the participants of Dave’s workshop, you know, 

someone asked a question, so, I mean, what do you mean the coin can go to 24,000 

or a zillion dollars or whatever, you know? They're like, what are you talking about, 

you know? And so I said, very simply, we have the assets and we always have. 

We have enough assets to run this coin by our smart contract modality, which is on 

the white papers, we have the assets to run them as, you know, quite honestly, very 

high. What number did I say?

SCHMIDT: Can we say what you said at Australia?

DUNLAP: Absolutely. I can't remember.
19

SCHMIDT: At Australia, when I brought him on Skype, he said they have now the 

assets to put the asset value of the coin at $22,000 a coin.

DUNLAP: Oh, absolutely.

SCHMIDT: And it's actually -- then in Hawaii a week later, you said it’s beyond 

that.

DUNLAP: Yeah.

SCHMIDT: Folks, you just heard me right. Did you hear? Remember, this coin is 

not public yet. And it was about three or four months ago, you had an offer from 

an individual to buy all the remaining coins, an $8 billion offer, and you turned it 

down.

DUNLAP: Oh, absolutely.

SCHMIDT: Because this is a coin that’s designed for humanity. It’s designed for 

everyday people like you and me. Right now, you can buy the coin before it goes 

public at $44, and it's going to be an asset-backed coin and you already have assets 

to have it over $22,000 a coin.

DUNLAP: Yeah, way, way over 22,000.

SCHMIDT: Way over. Now, we had talked about this, is that when the coin goes 

public, we'll use the 22,000 number, just for to keep it simple.

DUNLAP: Right. And that’s one trillion in assets, if anyone does the math, yeah.

65. Dunlap and Schmidt both knew, or were severely reckless is not knowing, that 

these representations were false.

November 6, 2019 Radio Show (Schmidt)

66. On the November 6, 2019 Radio Show, Schmidt responded to a question posted 

to Facebook asking about the Art Lawsuit, and said:

The guy who did the paintings was an absolute fraud. He flat out fabricated his 

ownership of the paintings and what he filed against—against Robert and META 1 

Coins, they counter-filed against him. It ended up going to court, and that guy is 

on his way to jail. . . . you could go on the Internet, and you could say that, you 

know, META 1 Coin was involved in fraud. You can -- the man who put the 

information out fabricated all that stuff. He said he owned the paintings when he 

never legally owned them, and he has charges filed against him, and he’s the one 
20

that’s on his way to jail.

67. As Schmidt knew, or was severely reckless in not knowing, his response was 

false. 

January 18, 2020 Workshop in Atlanta, Georgia (Schmidt)

68. Schmidt told investors at a January 2020 Workshop in Atlanta, Georgia that the 

Coin was secured by $2 billion in gold that Meta1 owned. He said that Meta1 had deferred 

going public because KPMG was in the middle of auditing the “gold mine” that backed the 

investment.

69. When one investor at the Workshop questioned the legitimacy of the Coin, 

Schmidt and others attempted to physically remove her from the room, and forced her to leave 

the workshop. 

70. Later, Dunlap sent the investor a certified letter labeled: “CEASE AND DESIST 

SLANDER, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER,” where he threatened legal action, 

commented that he was “looking forward” to such action, and attempted to intimidate and scare 

the investor.

January 15. 2020 (Dunlap and Schmidt) and January 29, 2020 (Schmidt) Radio Shows

71. On the January 15, 2020 Radio Show, Dunlap claimed that KPMG is auditing 

Meta1’s “metal reserves” and that Meta1 is “the highest rated digital asset that is known at this 

time.” Schmidt chimed in saying, “When you’ve got KPMG, one of the largest auditing firms in 

the world doing the audit on Meta1, verifying the amount of gold, you have the authentication 

that’s there, this is for real. This is the real stuff. You can’t get much better than that.”

72. On the January 29, 2020 Radio Show, Schmidt told listeners that KPMG, “the 

largest auditing firm in the United States, if not in the world,” is auditing “all of the assets and 
21

the gold that Meta1 has so that you know when the assets are posted, they are audit certified and 

verified by probably the largest auditing firm in the world.” 

73. These statements are false. KPMG has never audited any purported gold assets of 

Meta1 and has no current or prior business relationship with Meta1 or anyone associated with

Meta1.

February 12, 2020 Radio Show (Schmidt and Dunlap)

74. On the February 12, 2020 Radio Show, Schmidt misrepresented, among other 

things, that: (1) the Coin is “secure and safe” and protected from “government intervention”; (2) 

the Coin is based on asset value that will never drop, and cannot be sold for less than asset value; 

and (3) in two years, “$50,000 a coin is going to be a very conservative value. Okay? Very 

conservative value.”

75. Dunlap falsely stated, among other things: (1) the value of a Coin “cannot go 

down. It can only go up”; (2) that Meta1 is backed by $2 billion, 100% of which is in gold; and 

(3) that Meta1 has cash reserves so that if there isn’t a buyer for the Coin on the open market, 

Meta1 will automatically buy it back from the holder.

C. Defendants’ Non-Responsiveness During the SEC Investigation

76. During the SEC’s underlying investigation of this matter, the SEC subpoenaed 

each of the Defendants for documents and to appear to testify. Each Defendant returned the 

subpoena to the SEC with the word “Fraudulent” marked on every page. Schmidt refused to 

produce documents to the SEC, and refused to testify. Dunlap refused to produce documents. 

He appeared for testimony, but refused to answer several important questions, such as whether 

he drafted the Whitepaper, claiming at various times the questions were ridiculous, the answers 
22

were none of the SEC’s business, and he “[has] no contract with the SEC.” Bowdler produced 

some documents, but refused to testify. 

D. The Coin Offerings Were Illegal, Unregistered Offerings of Securities.

77. During the relevant period, the investments offered by Defendants were 

“securities” within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1)] 

and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)].

78. Although the Coin Offering purported to be a pre-ICO “private sale” of 

cryptocurrency, no digital currency actually existed. Instead, the Coin Offering was a scam, and 

an investment contract, whereby investors gave money to Meta1 with the expectation that the 

efforts of Meta1 and its principals would yield investment returns. From the investors’ 

perspective, this was a passive investment.

79. The Coin Offering was not registered with the Commission, nor were any 

exemptions to registration applicable. The Defendants also sold the Coin to unaccredited 

investors, and made no efforts to ensure that investors were accredited. In fact, they recklessly 

disregarded that the investors were not accredited.

E. Bank Record Analysis and Use of Investor Funds

80. As explained above, through the foregoing false and misleading statements and 

deceptive acts, Defendants collectively raised approximately $4.38 million in investor funds

from at least 150 investors during the relevant period. Contrary to Defendants’ representations 

that investor funds would be used to acquire either additional art or gold assets, none of the 

investor funds was used to acquire art or gold or anything else to increase the value of the Coin. 

81. There is no evidence that any money moved from Meta1 bank accounts to any

Blockchain address, no evidence of digital payments, and no evidence that any investor money
23

has been used to purchase digital currency. 

82. Instead, the funds fraudulently raised during the relevant period have been 

channeled through various bank accounts controlled by Dunlap, Bowdler, and the Relief 

Defendants, including accounts at BBVA Compass Bank, Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC 

(“Fidelity”), Branch Banking and Trust Company, Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Morgan 

Stanley & Co., LLC, BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Navy Federal Credit Union (“Navy Federal”), and 

Fifth Third Bank.

83. On November 20, 2018, Bowdler wired $620,000 from Meta1’s Fidelity account 

to her personal account. 

84. On January 31, 2019, Dunlap used over $75,000 of investor funds in Clear’s bank 

account at BOA—which he controlled—to purchase a BMW.

85. On May 22, 2019, Dunlap and Bowdler wired $605,000 from Meta1’s Navy 

Federal account to Bowdler’s personal account.

86. On July 1, 2019, Dunlap wired $1 million from a Clear account to a Pramana 

account held at Fifth Third Bank controlled by Shamoon. 

87. On July 15, 2019, Dunlap and Bowdler wired $312,000 from Meta1’s Navy 

Federal account to Bowdler’s personal account.

88. On December 16, 2019, Shamoon opened an account for Meta 1 Coin Trust at 

BMO Harris Bank (“BMO Harris Account”). Shamoon is the only signatory on the BMO Harris 

Account; however, the account was accessed from both Illinois, where Shamoon lives, and 

Florida, where, Dunlap, Bowdler, and Schmidt live. 

89. Shortly after opening the BMO Harris Account, Shamoon used $215,276 of 

investor funds to purchase a Ferrari.
24

90. Relief Defendants Pramara and Shamoon have each received the proceeds of 

fraud in amounts described herein, and have no legitimate claim to those ill-gotten investor

funds.

F. Continued Deceptive Acts and Threatened Investor Harm 

91. On a February 12, 2020 Radio Show, Dunlap claimed he was in the process of 

hiring 200 people within the next two months. Additionally, Schmidt continues to advertise 

upcoming conferences around the world. In fact, Schmidt’s websites promote upcoming 

Workshops in Denver, Boston, Seattle, Phoenix, Puerto Rico, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, 

and a cruise, among other places. 

92. In a recent newsletter emailed to investors on February 21, 2020, Dunlap and 

Schmidt, through Meta1, falsely stated (emphasis in original): 

We are pleased to announce that the META 1 Coin value will increase in 

value dramatically on March 1st, 2020.

We are in the final stages of asset verification “Audit” for the launch of 

META 1 Coin and very excited to publish the audited META 1 Assets. Orders 

placed before March 1st, 2020 will be honored at the $44.44 value.

The META Trust System is in the final development stage. This is a very 

exciting accomplishment and worth $6000-$8000 to each coin holder. We are so 

thrilled to be able to offer this to all of you. The META Trust System includes a 

Private Irrevocable International Trust and extremely comprehensive Secured Party 

Creditor instruments and UCC filings. This is the complete package for ensuring 

our Human rights.

Our established track record of success and performance prove META 1 

SPC filings are superior in nature with a comprehensive 'Private' status.

META 1 has added several Secured Party Creditor experts to our team and 

will be offering educational material and additional service opportunities for coin 

holders.

93. The Meta1 website is live today, and investors may currently transfer funds 

through the Meta1 website.
25

94. Defendants are continuing to solicit investors and their fraud is ongoing.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

First Claim

Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities

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

(Against All Defendants)

95. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this

Complaint as if set forth verbatim herein. 

96. By engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, with scienter, 

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

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

exchange: (a) Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, Bowdler, and Schmidt employed a device, scheme or 

artifice to defraud; and/or (b) Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, and Schmidt made an untrue statement 

of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements 

made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) 

Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, Bowdler, and Schmidt engaged in an act, practice, or course of 

business that has operated or will operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.

97. By engaging in the conduct described above, each Defendant violated, and unless 

restrained and 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].
26

Second Claim

Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]

(Against All Defendants)

98. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this 

Complaint as if set forth verbatim herein.

99. By engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or 

sale of securities, and by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce the mails, 

or any facility of a national securities exchange: (a) Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, Bowdler, and 

Schmidt employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, and 

Schmidt obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or omitted 

to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, 

Bowdler, and Schmidt engaged in a transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or 

would operate as a fraud and deceit upon the purchaser.

100. With respect to violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, Defendants 

acted knowingly or with severe recklessness regarding the truth. With respect to violations of 

Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, Defendants were at least negligent in their actions 

regarding the representations and omissions alleged herein. 

101. For these reasons, Defendants Meta1, Dunlap, Bowdler, and Schmidt each have 

violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
27

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unregistered Offer and Sale of Securities

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act

(Against All Defendants)

102. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this 

Complaint as if set forth verbatim herein.

103. Defendants directly or indirectly offered and sold securities in offerings that were

not registered with the SEC and that were not subject to a valid exemption to registration.

104. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants, directly or indirectly,

singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce, or of the mails, to offer to sell or to sell securities, or 

carried or caused to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by means or 

instruments of transportation, securities for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, when no 

registration statement had been filed or was in effect as to such securities, and when no 

exemption from registration was applicable.

105. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants violated, and unless 

enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

77e(a) & 77e(c).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court:

(1) Enter an Order finding that Defendants committed, and unless restrained will 

continue to commit, the violations alleged in the Complaint;

(2) Permanently enjoin Defendants from future violations of 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