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.: 1:20-cv-273-RP 

CLEAR INTERNATIONAL TRUST, § 

NICOLE BOWDLER, and DAVID A. SCHMIDT, § 

 § 

 Defendants, § 

§ 

and § 

 § 

PRAMANA CAPITAL, INC., § 

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

WANDA IRONHEART TRAVERSIE-WARNER, § 

ALFRED DEWITT WARNER JR., and § 

IRONHEART TRUST, § 

 § 

Relief Defendants. § 

________________________________________________§ 

ORDER 

Following the entry of an Agreed Partial Judgment against Defendant David A. Schmidt 

(“Schmidt”) [Doc. 101] and the Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to 

certain parties (“Default Order”) [Doc. 114], Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 

(“Commission”) filed a Motion for Monetary Remedies and Brief in Support, and Motion for 

Entry of Final Judgment as to: (1) Defendants Meta 1 Coin Trust (“Meta1”), Robert P. Dunlap, 

individually and d/b/a Clear International Trust (“Dunlap”), and Nicole Bowdler (“Bowdler”) 

(together, “the Defaulting Defendants”); (2) Schmidt (collectively, with the Defaulting 

Defendants “Defendants”); and (3) Relief Defendants Wanda Ironheart Traversie-Warner 

(“Traversie”), Alfred Warner (“Warner”), Ironheart Trust (“Ironheart”) (together, the “Warner 

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ March 15, 2023 Julie Golden

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 7
Relief Defendants”) (“Motion”). Based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the 

Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. By separate document, the Court 

will issue final judgments against all parties, incorporating the terms of the Agreed Partial 

Judgment and the Default Order. 

THEREFORE, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a), the Court enters the Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law set forth below relating to monetary remedies. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. From April 2018 through the present, working in collaboration with each other, 

the Defendants raised over $15.2 million from at least 800 investors in 40 states and eight 

foreign countries in a fraudulent and unregistered securities offering in the form of bogus crypto 

assets they called the “Meta1 Coin.” Defendants enticed investors with the allure of a 

cryptocurrency, but the securities offering is nothing but a vehicle to steal investors’ money.

2. Defendants have 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 [and now $8.8 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.” All of 

those statements are false.

3. Each of the Defendants acted with a high degree of scienter.

4. Accounting for returns to investors, the total amount of ill-gotten gains or net 

profits realized among the parties is $13,451,212.89. Because Meta1 is wholly a fraudulent 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 7
operation and illegal scheme orchestrated by the Defendants, there are no legitimate business 

expenses to be deducted from the total amount of net profits. 

5. Investor money was not used for the stated purpose of the investment. Instead, 

investor money was distributed to Meta1-related individuals, used to pay bills (such as credit 

card and loan payments), and used to pay personal expenses and costs associated with marketing 

the fraud scheme.

6. Dunlap continues to operate the Meta1 scheme through various Meta1 associates. 

From the start of the scheme through March 16, 2020, when the Court entered its temporary 

restraining order and imposed an asset freeze [Doc. 8] (the “Initial TRO”), a significant portion 

of the Meta1 investor proceeds were sent or deposited into accounts controlled by Pramana 

Capital, Inc. and Peter K. Shamoun a/k/a Peter K. Shamoon (the “Shamoon Relief Defendants”).

7. After the Court froze Shamoon’s accounts, Meta1 investor funds were directed to 

accounts controlled by the Warner Relief Defendants. After the Court froze the Warner Relief 

Defendants’ accounts, Meta1 investor funds were directed to accounts controlled by Meta1 board 

member Richard Grassie. Grassie continued a pattern established by Meta1 and Dunlap: open 

and use a bank account for a short period of time, deposit investor funds, spend investor funds on 

purposes not disclosed to investors, including the withdrawing of investor funds using cashier’s 

checks to pay other related third parties, and then open a new bank account at a different bank to 

repeat the process again.

8. Dunlap directed or caused Meta1 to transfer the proceeds of Defendants’ fraud to 

entities he controlled and persons acting in concert with him, including Bowdler in the amount of 

$1,540,679.48 (representing her net profit), and the Shamoon Relief Defendants in the amount of 

$7,457,998. Of the amount transferred to the Shamoon Relief Defendants, $5,938,180.21 has not 

been turned over to the Commission for distribution to victims. Further, Dunlap funneled the 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 7
proceeds of the Defendants’ fraud to the Warner Relief Defendants in the amount of 

$1,057,408.63. None of the Warner Relief Defendants has a legitimate claim to these funds, 

which represent investor funds gained by the Defendants through fraud. 

9. Schmidt’s net profit is at least $24,210. 

10. The Commission seeks to recover disgorgement so that it may return those funds to 

investors who lost significant sums of money when they invested money in the fraudulent scheme. 

11. The conduct of each of the Defendants involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or 

deliberate disregard of a regulatory requirement and directly or indirectly resulted in substantial 

losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Commission is authorized to seek, and the Court is authorized to order, 

disgorgement that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims. The 

district court has broad discretion in calculating the amount to be disgorged. Disgorgement need 

only be a reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation. 

2. In determining an approximate amount of ill-gotten profits, the risk of uncertainty 

should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created the uncertainty. Doubts are to be 

resolved against the defrauding party. 

3. An order for disgorgement and pre-judgment interest against each Defendant is 

proper because each Defendant violated the federal securities laws. 

4. The court may order equitable relief against a person who is not accused of 

wrongdoing in a securities enforcement action where that person: (1) has received ill-gotten 

funds; and (2) does not have a legitimate claim to those funds. This Court has the equitable 

power to order the Relief Defendants to disgorge all proceeds of fraud they received to prevent 

them from being unjustly enriched through the Defendants’ wrongdoing. 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 4 of 7
5. Courts have flexibility to impose joint and several liability against individuals or 

partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing. 

6. An award of pre-judgment interest in a case involving violations of the federal 

securities laws rests within the equitable discretion of the district court to be exercised according to 

considerations of fairness. Where a securities law violator has enjoyed access to funds over a period 

of time as a result of his or her wrongdoing, requiring the wrongdoer to pay prejudgment interest is 

consistent with the equitable purpose of the remedy of disgorgement. 

7. The IRS underpayment of federal income tax rate as set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 

6621(a)(2) is appropriate for calculating prejudgment interest in SEC enforcement actions such as 

this one. That rate of interest reflects what it would have cost to borrow the money from the 

government and therefore reasonably approximates one of the benefits the defendant derived from 

its fraud. 

8. The Securities Act and the Exchange Act both authorize courts to impose civil 

penalties, and establish an escalating, three-tier structure for securities violations depending upon 

the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct and the losses (or risk of losses) to investors. 15 

U.S.C. §77t(d); 15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3), and 17 C.F.R. 201.1001 (increasing statutory amounts to 

reflect inflation). These penalties are designed to punish individual violators and deter future 

violations of the securities laws, which is necessary because, without civil penalties, the only 

financial risk to violators is the forfeiture of their ill-gotten gains. 

9. The Commission has established that the Defendants’ violations involved fraud and 

deceit and resulted in substantial losses of over $13.4 million to investors. Each of the Defendants 

is therefore subject to a third-tier penalty. The amount of civil penalties to assess within the 

permissible statutory range is left to the Court’s discretion. 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 5 of 7
10. Under these statutes, the Court may impose a civil penalty against a defendant not 

exceeding the greater of $207,183 for a natural person or $1,035,909 for any other person per 

violation or the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation. 

Because each of the Defaulting Defendant’s gross pecuniary gain far exceeds the maximum 

statutory amount, those amounts are the maximum penalty that the Court may impose. 

11. In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considers: (1) the egregiousness 

of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the degree of the defendant’s scienter; (3) whether the 

defendant’s conduct created substantial losses or the risk of substantial losses to other persons; 

(4) whether the defendant’s conduct was isolated or recurrent; (5) whether the defendant has 

admitted wrongdoing; and (6) whether the penalty should be reduced due to the defendant’s 

demonstrated current and future financial condition. 

12. The following monetary relief is appropriate in this case: 

Party Disgorgement PJI Penalty Total 

Meta1 and Dunlap, jointly and 

severally

$10,849,776.47 $939,183.45 $10,849,776.47 $22,638,736.39 

 Of that total disgorgement: 

Meta1 and Dunlap, jointly 

and severally 

$3,370,916.78 $291,794.87 

Meta1/Dunlap, jointly and 

severally with Shamoon Relief 

Defendants 

$5,938,180.21 $514,023.55 

Meta1/Dunlap jointly and 

severally with Bowdler

$1,540,679.48 $133,365.03 

Bowdler, jointly and severally with 

Meta1/Dunlap 

$1,540,679.48 $133,365.03 $1,540,679.48 

(individual 

penalty) 

$3,214,723.99 

Schmidt $24,210.00 $2,095.68 $24,210.00 $50,515.68 

Warner Relief Defendants, jointly 

and severally 

$1,057,408.63 $91,531.90 N/A $1,148,940.53 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 6 of 7
SO ORDERED this ____ day of __________, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

ROBERT PITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

15th March 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 138 Filed 03/15/23 Page 7 of 7