IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

David Seibert, individually and d/b/a SEIEquity Investments, a/k/a SEI Equity 

Investments, a/k/a Seibert Equity Investments, 

and d/b/a Great America Funding, LLC, a/k/a 

Great American Funding, L.L.C., a/k/a Great 

American Funding Lender Services, 

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 1:20-CV-00935-RP

Hon. Judge Robert Pitman 

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ORDER ASSESSING RESTITUTION AND A CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTY AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID SEIBERT

I. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“Commission” or “CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendant David Seibert, individually and 

d/b/a SEI-Equity Investments, a/k/a SEI Equity Investments, a/k/a Seibert Equity Investments, 

and d/b/a Great America Funding, LLC, a/k/a Great American Funding, L.L.C., a/k/a Great 

American Funding Lender Services (“Seibert” or “Defendant”) seeking injunctive and other 

equitable relief, as well as the imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26 (2018), and the Commission’s Regulations 

(“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2020). The Court entered a 

Consent Order of Permanent Injunction and for Other Statutory and Equitable Relief against

Defendant Seibert on September 15, 2020 (“Consent Order”).

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ July 06, 2022 Julie Golden

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 39
2 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To resolve the remaining issues of the amounts of restitution, disgorgement, and civil 

monetary penalty (as provided in the Consent Order), without any further judicial proceedings, 

Defendant Seibert: 

1. Consents to the entry of this Supplemental Consent Order Assessing Restitution 

and a Civil Monetary Penalty Against Defendant Seibert (“Supplemental Consent Order”);

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Supplemental Consent Order 

voluntarily, and that no promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been 

made by the CFTC or any member, officer, agent or representative thereof, or by any other 

person, to induce consent to this Supplemental Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint; 

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him and the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018); 

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the CFTC over the conduct and transactions at issue in 

this action pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1; 

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e);

7. Waives: 

(a) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2018) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2018), and/or the rules 

promulgated by the Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2020), relating to, or arising from, this 

action;

(b) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, 

§§ 201–53, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (1996), (codified as amended at 

28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), 

relating to, or arising from, this action;

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 39
3 

(c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or 

the entry in this action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or 

any other relief, including this Supplemental Consent Order; and

(d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action; 

8. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the purpose of 

enforcing the terms and conditions of the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order and 

for any other purpose relevant to this action even if Defendant Seibert now or in the future 

resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court; 

9. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Supplemental Consent Order 

by alleging that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

waives any objection based thereon; 

10. Agrees that neither he nor any of his agents or employees under his authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Supplemental 

Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this 

Supplemental Consent Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this 

provision shall affect his: (a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other 

proceedings to which the CFTC is not a party. Defendant Seibert shall comply with this 

agreement, and shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of his agents or employees 

under his authority or control understand and comply with this agreement; and 

11. In United States v. Seibert, No. 1:21-CR-00104-RP (W.D. Tex.) (“Criminal 

Action”), Seibert pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §1343 and 18 U.S.C. §1957, and in 

connection with that plea, on June 3, 2021, entered into a plea agreement [Doc. 3] whereby 

Seibert agreed and stipulated to the facts recited in the plea agreement and in the Felony 

Information [Doc. 1] incorporated therein by reference, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 39
4 

A and B to this Supplemental Consent Order, and those same facts are admitted as if set forth in 

this Supplemental Consent Order; 

12. Agrees to provide immediate notice to this Court and the CFTC by certified mail, 

in the manner required by paragraph 22 of Part V. of this Supplemental Consent Order, of any 

bankruptcy proceeding filed by, on behalf of, or against him, whether inside or outside the 

United States; and

13. Agrees that no provision of this Supplemental Consent Order shall in any way 

limit or impair the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy 

against Defendant Seibert in any other proceeding. The Court, being fully advised in the 

premises, finds there is good cause for entry of this Supplemental Consent Order and that there is 

no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the entry of Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law and a permanent injunction and ancillary equitable relief pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as 

set forth herein. 

III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

14. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the Consent Order are 

incorporated herein by reference and given preclusive effect as provided in the Consent Order. 

In addition, the factual basis for the guilty plea in the Criminal Action contained in the criminal 

plea allocution is also incorporated herein by reference and given preclusive effect.

IV. RESTITUTION AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Seibert shall comply fully with the following 

terms, conditions, and obligations relating to the payment of restitution and the civil monetary 

penalty:

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 39
5 

A. Restitution

15. Defendant Seibert shall pay restitution in the amount of Ten Million SevenHundred and Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Dollars ($10,794,508) (“Restitution 

Obligation”). If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately, post-judgment interest shall 

accrue on the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and 

shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this 

Supplemental Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2018). 

16. Defendant Seibert is currently the defendant in the Criminal Action. For amounts 

disbursed to Defendant’s participants (referred to as “Investors” in the Criminal Action) as a 

result of satisfaction of any restitution ordered in the Criminal Action, the Defendant shall 

receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution Obligation. Within ten days of 

disbursement in the Criminal Action to Defendants’ Investors, Defendant shall, under a cover 

letter that identifies the name and docket number of this proceeding, transmit to the Chief 

Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581, copies of the form of payment to those participants. 

17. The amounts payable to each participant shall not limit the ability of any 

participant from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendant Seibert or any other 

person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of 

any participant that exist under state or common law. 

18. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each participant of 

Defendant Seibert who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended third-party beneficiary of 

the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order and may seek to enforce obedience of the 

Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order to obtain satisfaction of any portion of the 

restitution that has not been paid by Defendant Seibert to ensure continued compliance with any 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 39
6 

provision of the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order and to hold Seibert in contempt 

for any violations of any provision of this Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order. 

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

19. Defendant Seibert shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of Two 

Million Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Three Dollars and 

Fourteen Cents ($2,278,853.14) (“CMP Obligation”). If post-judgment interest shall accrue on 

the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Supplemental Consent Order and shall 

be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Supplemental 

Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2018).

20. Seibert shall pay his CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest by 

electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank 

money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment 

shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address 

below: 

CFTC

C/O ESC/AMK-326; RM 265 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

(405) 954-6569 office 

(405) 954-1620 fax 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Seibert shall contact Marie Thorne or her 

successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with those 

instructions. Seibert shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that 

identifies Seibert and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Seibert shall 

simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 6 of 39
7 

Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. 

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

21. Partial Satisfaction: Any acceptance by the CFTC or the Monitor of any partial 

payment of Seibert’s Restitution Obligation, Disgorgement Obligation, or CMP Obligation shall 

not be deemed a waiver of his obligation to make further payments pursuant to this Consent 

Order, or a waiver of the CFTC’s right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance.

V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

22. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Supplemental 

Consent Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

Notice to Commission/CFTC: 

Robert T. Howell

Deputy Director

Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 West Monroe St. 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60661 

Notice to Defendant Seibert:

David Seibert

 103 Palos Verdes Dr. 

Lakeway, Texas 79734 

All such notices to the CFTC shall reference the name and docket number of this action.

23. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Seibert satisfies in full his 

Restitution Obligation and CMP Obligation as set forth in this Supplemental Consent Order, 

Seibert shall provide written notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to his 

telephone number and mailing address within ten (10) calendar days of the change.

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 7 of 39
8 

24. Entire Agreement and Amendments: The Consent Order and Supplemental 

Consent Order incorporates all of the terms and conditions of the settlement among the parties 

hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to amend or modify the Consent Order or Supplemental 

Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to writing; (b) signed by all parties 

hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court. 

25. Invalidation: If any provision of the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent 

Order or if the application of any provision or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of 

the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent Order and the application of the provision to any 

other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the holding. 

26. Waiver: The failure of any party to the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent 

Order or of any participant at any time to require performance of any provision of the Consent 

Order or Supplemental Consent Order shall in no manner affect the right of the party or investor 

at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of the Consent Order or Supplemental 

Consent Order. No waiver in one or more instances of the breach of any provision contained in 

the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent Order shall be deemed to be or construed as a 

further or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of the breach of any other provision of the 

Consent Order or Supplemental Consent Order. 

27. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this 

action to ensure compliance with the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order and for all 

other purposes related to this action, including any motion by Seibert to modify or for relief from 

the terms of the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent Order. 

28. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable relief 

provisions of the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order shall be binding upon Seibert, 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 8 of 39
9 

upon any person under his authority or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of 

the Consent Order and Supplemental Consent Order, by personal service, e-mail, facsimile or

otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with Seibert. 

29. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Supplemental Consent Order may be

executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same 

agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each

of the parties hereto and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being

understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other 

signature to this Supplemental Consent Order that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for

all purposes as constituting good and valid execution and delivery by such party of this 

Supplemental Consent Order. 

30. Contempt: Seibert understands that the terms of the Consent Order and

Supplemental Consent Order are enforceable through contempt proceedings, and that, in any 

such proceedings he may not challenge the validity of the Consent Order or Supplemental 

Consent Order. 

31. Agreements and Undertakings: Seibert shall comply with all of the undertakings

and agreements set forth in the Consent Order or Supplemental Consent Order. 

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to enter 

this Supplemental Consent Order Assessing Restitution and A Civil Monetary Penalty Against 

Defendant David Seibert.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this _____day of ________________________, 2022. 

_________________________________ 

Robert Pitman 

U.S. District Judge

6th July

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 9 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

avid Seibert, �yidually-an alb/a 

SEI-Equity Investments, a/k/a SEI Equity 

Investments, a/k/a Seibert Equity 

Investments, and d/b/a Great American 

Funding, L.L.C., a/k/a Great American 

Funding Lender Services 

Dated: �) J/trJ d � 

Approved as to form: 

Att' r 

individually an 

SEI-Equity Investments, a/k/a SEI Equity 

Investments, a/k/a Seibert Equity 

Investments, and d/b/a Great American 

Funding, L.L.C., a/k/a Great American 

Funding Lender Services 

A. Boone Almanza

State Bar No. 01579001

Almanza, Blackbum, Dickie & Mitchell, LLP 

2301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Bldg. H 

Austin, Texas 78746 

(512) 474-9486

(512) 478-7151 (facsimile)

Dated: 01/05/ Z:DZ'k I 

Susan B. Padove 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60661 

312-596-0544

312-596-0714 (facsimile)

spadove@cftc.gov

Dated ---------- 03/24/2022

/s/ Susan B. Padove

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 10 of 39
EXHIBIT A 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 11 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

DAVID BYRON SEIBERT 

NO. 1:21-CRPLEA AGREEMENT

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas (“the government”) 

and the Defendant, David Byron Siebert (“Seibert”) and/or (the “Defendant”), personally and by 

and through her attorney, Brian J. Roark, enter into the following plea agreement pursuant to Rule 

11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

1. Defendant’s Agreement to Plead Guilty

The Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Information, which charges the

Defendant with wire fraud in violation of Sections 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code; and 

Count Two of the Information, which charges the Defendant with money laundering in violation 

of Section 1957 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

2. Penalties

The offenses to which the Defendant is pleading guilty subject the Defendant to the

following possible penalties: 

Count One – Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343 

Maximum possible prison term: 20 years without parole 

Mandatory minimum prison term: none 

Maximum term of supervised release: 3 years

Maximum fine:

The greatest of $1,000,000; or twice 

the pecuniary gain to the defendant; or 

twice the pecuniary loss to the victims

Mandatory monetary assessment: $100 

Amount of Restitution: $10,794,508.00 

Forfeiture: As set forth below. 

June 3, 2021 1:21-CR-00104-RP

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 15

Exhibit A

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 12 of 39 FILED 

CLERK, U.S. 0 

WESTERN 1• -,- ~"' 

BY: -.s..fi~ ---

DEPUTY 
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 2 of 15

Count Two– Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957 

Maximum possible prison term: 10 years without parole 

Mandatory minimum prison term: none 

Maximum term of supervised release: 3 years

Maximum fine:

The greatest of $1,000,000; or twice 

the pecuniary gain to the defendant; or 

twice the pecuniary loss to the victims

Mandatory monetary assessment: $100 

Amount of Restitution: $10,794,508.00 

Forfeiture: As set forth below. 

If the Court imposes a term of imprisonment on each of these two counts, the Court 

can order the Defendant to serve the terms of imprisonment consecutively, which means that 

the Defendant would complete one term of imprisonment before beginning to serve the other 

term of imprisonment. Therefore, the Court can order the Defendant to serve up to 20 years

on Count One, followed by up to 10 years on Count Two, resulting in a total period of 

incarceration of up to 30 years.

The Defendant will not be released on parole from any term of imprisonment that the 

Court may impose. 

3. Sentencing Matters

 a. Court to Determine Sentence: The Defendant understands that the Court will 

decide the Defendant’s sentence. The Court will determine the sentence in accordance with 

18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a), after considering the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

The Guidelines are advisory and not binding, but the Court must consider them. Any prediction 

or estimate of the probable sentencing range or ultimate sentence, whether from the government, 

the Defendant’s attorney, or the Probation Office, is not a promise, is not binding, and is not an 

inducement for the Defendant=s guilty plea or waivers. The Defendant will not be permitted to 

withdraw the Defendant’s guilty plea if the sentence imposed differs from the sentence the 

Defendant expected or hoped for. 

b. Reservation of Sentencing Rights: Both the government and the Defendant 

reserve the rights to: (1) inform the U.S. Probation Office and the Court of all information relevant 

to determining sentence; (2) dispute facts relevant to sentencing; (3) seek resolution of disputed 

facts or factors in conference with opposing counsel and the U.S. Probation Office; (4) address the 

Court at sentencing (consistent with promises by the government concerning recommended 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 13 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 3 of 15

findings and punishment); and (5) ask the Court to depart from the applicable supervisory 

guideline range based upon aggravating or mitigating factors. 

c. Non-Binding Stipulation Regarding Loss Amounts: For purposes of 

determining the Defendant’s offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the 

parties agree and stipulate that: the loss that resulted from the Defendant’s violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1343 was not greater than $25,000,000. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, this stipulation does not bind the Court. In other words, the Court may find 

that those loss amounts are greater than the amounts stated in this paragraph. 

d. Acceptance of Responsibility: The government will not oppose the maximum 

applicable downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E1.1 of the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines, so long as the Defendant, prior to sentencing, refrains from

engaging in any conduct that may demonstrate a lack of acceptance of responsibility, including, 

but not limited to: violating any condition of release, engaging in obstruction of justice, and/or 

providing false or misleading statements or information to the Court, U.S. Probation, U.S. Pretrial 

Services, the United States Attorney’s Office, or any law enforcement entity.

e. Non-Binding Recommendation Regarding Sentence: The government’s 

attorney will recommend at sentencing a term of imprisonment no greater than the high end of the 

Guideline range of imprisonment determined by the Court. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government’s recommendation does not bind the Court. 

In other words, the Court may impose a term of imprisonment greater than any term of 

imprisonment that the government recommends. 

f. Concurrent sentences recommended: Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B), Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government agrees to recommend to the Court that any terms of 

imprisonment imposed on Count One and Two of the Information be run concurrent to each other. 

Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government’s 

recommendation does not bind the Court. In other words, the Court may decide that the terms of 

imprisonment will run consecutively, meaning that the Defendant would serve one term of 

imprisonment in its entirety before beginning to serve the other. 

4. Factual Basis for the Guilty 

The Defendant agrees and stipulates that the government’s evidence at trial would have 

established the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and he agrees that these facts are true 

and correct:

Background 

The government hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the Felony Information, 

and the Defendant agree and stipulates to the allegations contained in the Felony Information as 

true and correct to include the Background, Object of the Scheme, Manner and Means, and 

Execution of the Scheme via Wire Transmission and Engaging in Monetary Transactions in 

Property Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity. 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 14 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 4 of 15

As early as 2016 and continuing until in or about May 2019 (“Relevant Period”), the 

Defendant received monies from the Investors who relied upon his false and fraudulent 

representation and material omissions. The Investors included individuals, charitable trust and 

business entities (the “Investors”). 

From the beginning of the Relevant Period, the Defendant misappropriated the Investors’ 

monies, kept the monies for himself, and never applied the Investors’ monies as he promised. He 

initially sought investment opportunities with no avail. The Defendant told Investors that he would 

pool their money to fund short-term, high interest commercial loans, when in fact he did not. 

Without the Investor’s permission or authorization and with the use of interstate wire 

transmissions, the Defendant stole these monies and used said monies to (1) make Ponzi payments; 

(2) to trade futures and option on futures in the commodities market; and (3) for personal expenses. 

During the Relevant Period, the Defendant lived and conducted his primary business 

operations in Lakeway, Texas, within the Western District of Texas. The Defendant operated his 

business using two relevant businesses: (1) Seibert Equity Investments, aka: SEI Equity 

Investments (“SEI”); and (2) Great American Funding LLC, aka: Great American Funding Lender 

Service (“GAF”). 

He maintained and controlled several relevant financial accounts to include: (1) Bank of 

America Account ending in xx0021 (“Seibert’s BOA Account”) is an account registered to 

David Seibert and Sxxx Seibert (“SS”); (2) Straits Financial Group Account ending in xx0387 

(“Seibert’s Straits Account”) is an account held by Seibert and used to trade futures and options 

in the commodities market; (3) AMEX Account xxxx7-31019 is an account utilized by Seibert 

(“Seibert’s AMEX Account”), although the master account is assigned to SS. Prior to receiving 

the first investor deposit on March 23, 2016, the Defendant had cumulative deposits of 

$65,923.65 from August 15, 2012 to March 22, 2016 in Seibert’s BOA Account. 

The Defendant misrepresented to the Investors that he and his company, GAF, were in the 

business of making short-term, high interest loans to borrowers in order to make renovations, 

additions, and/or repairs to existing properties to meet cash needs before permanent financing 

could be secured. These loans are often referred to as “hard money loans,” bridge loans,” or land 

loans.” The Defendant advised the Investors that he would be responsible for completing the due 

diligence, preparation of the loan documents, servicing the loan, and closing. Each loan was 

represented to be an interest only loan with a balloon payment of all principal after a term of 

approximately one year. According to the Defendant, the loan was to be secured by a first lien 

deed of trust on the real property, a security interest on the assets of the debtor, and a personal 

guarantee. 

Once the Investor decided to participate in the Defendant’s fraudulent deals, the Defendant 

instructed the Investors to either write a check made payable to him personally or, more frequently, 

to wire the funds to a bank account which he said was held in the name of GAF. In truth, the funds 

were pooled in Seibert’s BOA Account. During the relevant period, the Defendant stole 

$14,993,033.00 from Investors. 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 15 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 5 of 15

After the closing, the Defendant paid some of the Investors monthly “interest” payments 

on the loans, representing to the Investors they were paid by the borrower in the loan/investment

deal. In reality, the payments derived from funds of subsequent Investors, which the Defendant

paid out in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. In all, the Defendant used $4,198,525.00 to pay "returns" 

to earlier Investors, but the monies actually constituted funds provided by later Investors. Hence, 

the total amount for restitution, or the net amount, is $10,794,508.00. 

When the loans never came to fruition, he began using the Investor’s monies to trade in 

commodity interests without disclosing the use to the Investors. On or about March 14, 2017, the 

Defendant transferred $25,000 of investor proceeds to Seibert’s Straits Account which represented 

the initial funding of the commodities account. The Defendant continued to fund, and trade, the 

commodities account using Investors’ proceeds through April 2019. During this time period, the 

Defendant used $8,645,197.51 of Investors’ funds trading commodity interest in a commodity 

account bearing his name and for his personal use. Seibert lost $8,334,988.72 of this amount. 

Near the end of the Scheme on or about January 8, 2019, the Defendant transferred 

$100,000 from the Seibert’s Straits Account to Seibert’s BOA Account at which point he made 

several lulling payments to Investors. Additionally, on or about April 2, 2019, the Defendant 

withdrew $209,000 which represented essentially the remaining balance of Seibert’s Straits 

Account. 

 

Throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendant used the Investor’s monies for his personal 

expenses in the amount of $2,278,853.14. Many of those expenses were incurred with the use of 

Seibert’s AMEX Account. Some of those expenses included $330,385.00 cash withdrawals, 

$100,572.79 on a Ferrari, $45,928.73 towards a Maserati, and $45,700.00 on a yellow diamond 

engagement ring. 

The Defendant failed to disclose to the Investors that instead of using their funds to make 

bridge loans as he had promised, he was actually pooling their funds with other Investors and using 

them to make Ponzi payments, trade commodity interests, and use for his personal expenses. 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 16 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 6 of 15

Count One –Wire Fraud (§1343) 

On or about August 5, 2018, the Defendant sent an email from his personal email account 

<dseibert@austin.rr.com> to John Harris, Edward Blum, and Donald Clayton. The email was a 

solicitation for an investment opportunity in El Paso, TX and more specifically at Commerce Park 

a 120,000 sq. ft. office park. The purported investment was a cumulative loan of $1,700,000 

earning 13% over a year. Pursuant to this email solicitation, the below Investors provided their 

proceeds as follows: 

Investor(s) Date (on or 

about)

Amount Method From Financial 

Institution(s)

To Financial 

Institution

Diana Weil 

Family Trust

08/13/2018 $100,000 Wire JP Morgan Chase, 

New York, NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Nancy Roucher 08/14/2018 $100,000 Wire Wells Fargo, San 

Francisco, CA

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

BHW Family 

LP

08/14/2018 $100,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Donald 

Clayton 

08/15/2018 $800,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Edward Blum 08/15/2018 $100,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

John Harris 08/15/2018 $400,000 Check Morgan Stanly, 

Kansas City, MO 

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 17 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 7 of 15

In an effort to reduce any cognitive dissonance on behalf of the Investors, the Defendant 

claimed to invest $100,000 of his own money into the deal. In fact, on August 13, 2018, the 

Defendant sent a follow-up email from his personal email account <dseibert@austin.rr.com> to 

investor Edward Blum which read: 

Just checking to see if everyone received the wiring info last week and when I can expect funds to 

arrive so I can confirm closing date. 

I have these investors listed and amounts:

Clayton $800k 

Harris $400k (received)

Weil $200k 

Roucher $100k 

Blum $100k 

Seibert $100k (received)

Also, which “Weil” entity will be sending $200k so I may add proper names to the closing 

documents. 

Thank you, 

David Seibert

SEI/GAF

In the email, the Defendant falsely represented that he had already put in his $100,000 

when in fact he had not nor did he ever “invest” in any deal. 

On or about October 3, 2018, the Defendant sent an email from his personal email account 

<dseibert@austin.rr.com> to Investors Edward Blum, Donald Clayton and John Harris. The email 

was a solicitation for an investment opportunity in Amarillo, Texas and more specifically at 

Wolflin Point a 15,000 sq. ft mix used retail/office space on 1.5 acres. The purported investment 

was a cumulative loan of $1,500,000 earning 12% over a year. Pursuant to this email solicitation, 

the below Investors provided their proceeds as follows: 

Investor(s) Date (on or 

about)

Amount Method From Financial 

Institution(s)

To Financial 

Institution

BHW Family LP 10/11/2018 $150,000 Wire JP Morgan Chase, New 

York, NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Donald Clayton 10/12/2018 $750,000 Wire Citibank, New York, NY Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

John Harris 10/12/2018 $300,000 Check Prosperity Bank, Sugar 

Land, TX

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Gale Foundation 

Trust

10/12/2018 $200,000 Check Hilltop Securities, Dallas, 

TX

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 18 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 8 of 15

In an effort to reduce any cognitive dissonance on behalf of the Investors, the Defendant

claimed to invest $100,000 of his own money into the deal. This amount was never contributed 

by the Defendant. 

Part and parcel to his scheme to defraud, the Defendant created closing binders for each 

investment which contained a purported Loan Agreement, Deed of Trust, Guaranty Agreement, 

and Assignment of Leases and Rents. Since the investments pertained to real estate, a policy of 

title insurance and a UCC-1 financing statement were to be obtained and filed. No title insurance 

policies were obtained, no UCC-1 financing statements were filed and only four (4) Deeds of Trust 

were filed but even these deeds were filed with errors and/or altered notary stamps and forged 

signatures. 

On or about May 22, 2019, John Harris (“Harris”) was interviewed by law enforcement 

and provided the following information. He initially met the Defendant in 2007 or 2008, but it 

wasn’t until 2016 that he first invested. Harris understood that the Defendant was pooling money 

from Investors to make hard-money loans to borrowers that was to pay interest from 11%-15% 

over the course of year and then a return of capital at the end of the term in the form of a balloon 

payment. Each deal would be collateralized by the underlying real estate property and the 

Investors would enjoy a first lien position. One of the conditions placed on the Defendant was that 

he [Seibert] invest $100,000 of his own money into each deal. The money Harris gave to Seibert 

was specifically an investment to be utilized as was represented and or no other purpose. 

Prior to Harris’ interview with law enforcement, the Defendant requested and met with 

Harris privately. During this conversation the Defendant admitted that he was a thief and had lied 

and stolen from Harris. The Defendant claimed to have no defense and had lost all the investment 

money in the futures market. 

On or about July 22, 2019, Edward Blum was interviewed by law enforcement and 

provided the following information. Blum was introduced to the Defendant through Harris, a 

family friend. Blum eventually spoke to the Defendant who explained that he [Seibert] was 

providing short term loans to businesses who did not want to wait for traditional financing and 

could provide short term loans using the borrower’s real estate as the collateral. These loans 

provided for a return of approximately 12% over the course of a year, paying interest monthly, 

and a balloon payment at the end of the term. Blum received portfolios of the investment 

properties which included pictures, borrower information, property appraisals and how the 

investor monies would be utilized to improve the property. The majority of Blum’s interaction 

was through email. 

 

 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 19 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 9 of 15

Count Two – Money Laundering (§1957) 

Immediately following the investment(s) into the El Paso property at Commerce Park as 

described in Count One of the Information, on or about August 17, 2018, the Defendant made 

a $11,930.86 payment to Seibert’s AMEX Account, and the following transfers to Seibert’s 

Straits Account: 

Date (on 

or about)

Amount

08/17/2018 $200,000

08/31/2018 $80,000

Immediately following the investment(s) into the Amarillo property at Wolflin Point, the 

Defendant made a $29,860.30 payment Seibert’s AMEX Account on October 12, 2018 and the 

following transfers to Seibert’s Straits Account: 

Date (on 

or about)

Amount

10/22/2018 $200,000

10/24/2018 $300,000

10/24/2018 $300,000

10/31/2018 $200,000

11/01/2018 $200,000

5. Government’s Agreement

In exchange for the Defendant=s agreement to plead guilty, the Defendant’s agreement to 

waive the rights listed in this plea agreement, and any other agreements by the Defendant in this 

plea agreement, the United States Attorney=s Office for the Western District of Texas agrees not 

to institute additional criminal charges against the Defendant based on the facts set forth in this 

plea agreement under the heading “Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea.” 

6. Defendant’s Waiver of Rights 

a. Advice of Trial Rights. The Defendant understands that he has the following 

rights: 

(1) The right to plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded, to persist in that 

plea;

(2) The right to a trial by jury; 

(3) The rights at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; to be 

protected from compelled self-incrimination (the right to remain silent); to testify and present 

evidence; and to compel the attendance of witnesses;

(4) The right to be represented by counsel – and, if necessary, to have the court 

appoint counsel at public expense – at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding; and 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 9 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 20 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 10 of 15

(5) The right not to be prosecuted unless the grand jury returns an indictment. 

b. Waiver of Trial Rights. The Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he 

waives and gives up the foregoing rights, except the right to be represented by counsel – and, if 

necessary, to have the court appoint counsel at public expense – at every stage of the proceeding 

other than trial. In addition, the Court may require the Defendant to answer truthfully questions 

about the offense(s), and he may be prosecuted if knowingly makes false statements or gives false 

answers.

c. Waiver of Additional Rights. In addition to giving up the rights described above, 

the Defendant agrees to give up and waive the following: 

(1) Pretrial Motions: The Defendant understands that he could raise a number 

of issues and challenges by pretrial motion, including motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss 

the charges against her. By entering into this agreement and pleading guilty, the Defendant agrees 

to give up any and all claims he has made or might have made by pretrial motion, and agrees to 

the dismissal of any motions that currently are pending. 

(2) Discovery: The Defendant agrees to give up and waive any claims he may 

have now or may acquire later to any information possessed by the prosecution team that might be 

subject to disclosure under discovery rules, including the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 

Jencks Act, local court rules, and Court Orders, including information that might be considered 

exculpatory or impeaching under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. The Defendant 

waives any continuing discovery request and additional discovery. The Defendant also waives all 

rights to request from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the 

investigation or prosecution of this case, including without limitation any records that may be 

sought under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) or the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a). 

(3) Appeal: The Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives and gives up the 

right to appeal his conviction or sentence on any ground, including but not limited to any 

challenges to the determination of any period of confinement, monetary penalty or obligation, term 

of supervision and conditions thereof. This waiver includes any appeal right conferred by 18 

U.S.C. §3742, except in a case in which the sentence imposed by the Court is greater than the 

maximum sentence authorized by statute. Moreover, the Defendant waives the right to challenge 

the sentence imposed, even though he knows the Court has not yet decided what the sentence will 

be. In sum, the Defendant understands that he cannot challenge the sentence imposed by the Court, 

even if it differs from any sentencing range or estimate made by the Defendant’s attorney, the 

attorney for the Government, or the Probation Officer. Realizing that he does not know what 

sentence he will ultimately receive, the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to 

appeal the sentence. The Defendant does so in exchange for the concessions made by the 

Government in this Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein. 

(4) Collateral Attack: The Defendant also waives and gives up the right to 

challenge his conviction or sentence in a post-conviction collateral challenge, including but not 

limited to a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255; except that the Defendant does 

not waive the right to challenge the Defendant’s sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel 

or prosecutorial misconduct. If the Defendant makes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 10 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 21 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 11 of 15

the Defendant will, by making that claim, waive any right the Defendant may have to the 

attorney/client privilege arising from counsel’s representation of the Defendant. 

(5) Attorney’s Fees: The Defendant hereby stipulates and agrees that he is not 

entitled to and shall not seek from the United States any attorney’s fees he has incurred or will 

incur in connection with this prosecution. 

7. Defendant’s Financial Obligations. 

a. Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, and Related Relevant Conduct. 

The Defendant agrees that the Court should order his to pay restitution to the victim or 

victims of the offense alleged in Count One and any related relevant conduct in the amount of 

$10,794,508.00. 

b. Cooperation regarding Financial Obligations. 

The Defendant will cooperate with the government as follows: 

(1) The Defendant will make a good faith effort to pay any fine, forfeiture, or 

restitution ordered by the Court. 

(2) Before or after sentencing, the Defendant will provide, upon request by the 

Court, the government, or the U.S. Probation Office, in whatever form requested, accurate and 

complete financial information, and will submit sworn statements and give depositions under oath 

concerning all assets and the Defendant’s ability to pay. The Defendant agrees to truthfully 

complete a financial statement form provided by the United States Attorney’s Office. The 

Defendant shall date and sign the form under penalty of perjury to certify that the Defendant’s

financial statement fully and completely discloses the Defendant’s financial condition, including 

all assets owned or held directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, or in which the Defendant

has any legal interest, regardless of title, including any interest held or owned under any other 

name, trusts, and/or business entities. 

(3) The Defendant will surrender and release any assets, money, or other 

property, whether or not derived from the commission of crimes, as well as any information about 

assets, money, or other property, in order to satisfy any fine, forfeiture or restitution order entered 

by the Court. This includes signing any waivers, consents, or releases required by third parties.

Also, the Defendant will provide any privacy waivers, consents, or releases requested by the 

United States Attorney’s Office for verification of financial disclosures and authorizes the United 

States Attorney’s Office to inspect and copy all financial documents and information provided by 

the Defendant to the United States Probation Office or the Courts. Furthermore, the Defendant 

will identify any transfer of assets made for the purpose of evading or defeating financial 

obligations, and refrain from making any such transfers. If required to pay restitution, the 

Defendant will immediately commence the sale of any properties he owns and apply the proceeds 

of those sales to any order of restitution. The Defendant will take any and all reasonable actions 

requested by the government to facilitate payment of restitution.

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 11 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 22 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 12 of 15

(4) The Defendant shall provide the fully executed financial statement along 

with any and all supporting documents within [30] days of the Defendant’s signature on this plea 

agreement, and thereafter, the Defendant shall notify the United States Attorney’s Office and 

update the financial statement regarding any material change in the Defendant’s economic 

circumstances within [10] days of the event changing the Defendant’s financial condition or upon 

request of the United States Attorney’s Office. The Defendant understands and agrees that the 

Defendant’s financial statement will be used for the collection of any monetary imposition ordered 

by the Court and for the identification of any property subject to forfeiture. 

(5) The parties agree that the Defendant’s failure to timely and accurately 

complete and sign a financial statement, and any update thereto may, in addition to any other 

penalty or remedy authorized by law, constitute the Defendant’s failure to accept responsibility 

under USSG 3E1.1. 

(6) The Defendant certifies that the Defendant has made no transfer of assets in 

contemplation of this prosecution for the purpose of evading or defeating financial obligations that 

are created by the Agreement and/or that may be imposed upon the Defendant by the Court. In 

addition, the Defendant promises that the Defendant will make no such transfers in the future. 

(7) The Defendant understands and agrees that any financial obligation 

imposed by the Court, including a restitution order and/or the implementation of a fine, is due and 

payable immediately. In the event the Court imposes a schedule for payment of restitution, the 

Defendant agrees that such a schedule represents a minimum payment obligation and does not 

preclude the United States Attorney’s Office from pursuing any other means by which to satisfy 

the defendant’s full and immediately enforceable financial obligation. The Defendant understands 

that the Defendant has a continuing obligation to pay in full as soon as possible any financial 

obligation imposed by the Court. 

8. Forfeiture

As part of this Plea Agreement, Defendant David Byron Seibert expressly agrees to 

immediately and voluntarily forfeit to the United States all right, title, and interest in the following 

properties which were listed in the Notice of United States of America’s Demand for Forfeiture 

within the Indictment returned against the Defendant, namely: 

• Silver Band Breitling Gold Ring Around Face watch; 

• Silver Breitling Yellow Face watch;

• Rose Gold & Diamond Bulgari ring; 

• $5,000.00, more or less, in United States Currency; and 

• Any and all other items used and/or intended to be used in the commission of the criminal 

offenses. 

hereinafter referred to as the Subject Personal Properties.

Money Judgment: 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 12 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 23 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 13 of 15

A sum of money equal to Fourteen Million Nine Hundred Ninety Three Thousands and 

Thirty Three Dollars ($14,993,033.00) that represents the properties involved in and/or the 

amount of proceeds traceable, directly or indirectly, to the violations set forth in Counts 

One and Two, for which Defendant David Byron Siebert is liable 

hereinafter referred to as the Subject Money Judgment.

Defendant agrees not to contest the administrative, civil, and/or criminal forfeiture of the 

Subject Personal Properties and Subject Money Judgment and further agrees not to assist others in 

filing a claim or petition. 

Defendant further agrees that the facts set forth in the Factual Basis of this Plea Agreement 

are true and correct, and establish a nexus between the Subject Personal Properties and Subject 

Money Judgment and the violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 1957, thereby 

subjecting the Subject Personal Properties to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)C) 

and Title 18 U.S.C. § 982 (a)(1)(C). 

Defendant hereby waives the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 with respect to the 

imposition of any forfeiture action carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement. The 

Defendant waives all constitutional, legal, and equitable defenses to the forfeiture in any 

proceedings, and further waives direct appeal of forfeiture issues including habeas corpus and 

those arising under the Excessive Fines Clause. 

Defendant further waives all right to a jury trial on forfeiture issues regarding the Subject 

Properties and Subject Money Judgment. 

Defendant further agrees and stipulates as part of this Plea Agreement that the United States 

is not limited to the forfeiture of the Subject Money Judgment. If the United States determines, at 

any time, that any of the conditions set forth in Title 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) exist, then the United 

States shall, at its option, be entitled to forfeiture of any other property (substitute assets) 

equivalent to the value of the Subject Money Judgment. 

9. Collateral Consequences 

The Defendant understands that, in addition to the punishments described above, his guilty 

plea and conviction may have other or “collateral” consequences. These consequences may 

adversely affect such things as the Defendant=s right to possess firearms and right to vote. The 

Defendant has discussed with the Defendant’s attorney the punishments and other consequences 

of pleading guilty, understands that not all of the consequences can be predicted or foreseen, and 

still wants to plead guilty in this case. 

10. Breach of Agreement

If the Defendant violates or breaches any of the terms of the plea agreement, the 

government will be released from its obligations under this agreement and in its sole discretion 

may do any or all of the following:

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 13 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 24 of 39
Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 14 of 15

a. Move to set aside the Defendant=s guilty plea and proceed on charges previously 

filed and any additional charges; 

b. Use against the Defendant any statements or information the Defendant provided 

during the course of cooperation, at sentencing, or in any prosecution; 

c. Seek additional charges based on false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice, 

or any other criminal acts committed by the Defendant before or during the Defendant’s 

cooperation, including offenses disclosed during the Defendant=s cooperation; 

d. Seek to revoke or modify conditions of release; and/or 

e. Decline to file a motion for a reduced sentence.

11. Voluntariness 

In entering into this Plea Bargain Agreement, agreeing to plead guilty, and waiving the 

rights set forth above, the Defendant understands and affirms the following: 

a. The Defendant has discussed with the Defendant’s attorney the charges, the 

possible punishments upon conviction, the evidence and any defenses to the charges, and the 

benefits and risks of going to trial. 

b. The Defendant has a right to plead not guilty, and by entering this agreement and 

pleading guilty, the Defendant is waiving or giving up a number of important rights, described 

above. 

c. The Defendant has had sufficient time to discuss the case with the Defendant’s 

attorney and is satisfied with the advice given by counsel. 

d. The Defendant’s good judgment and ability to understand this plea agreement and 

its consequences are not impaired or diminished due to the use of alcohol, drugs, or medications, 

or the effect of any physical, mental, or emotional illness, disease, or injury. The Defendant 

understands the significance of the proceedings and the importance of the decision to plead guilty 

and waive rights. 

e. The Defendant enters this agreement and decision to plead guilty voluntarily, and 

not on account of force, threats, promises or inducements, apart from the promises and 

inducements set forth in this agreement. 

f. The Defendant agrees to plead guilty because he is guilty of the offense charged. 

12. Entire Agreement

This plea agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Defendant and the United 

States Attorney=s Office for the Western District of Texas and is binding only upon those parties. 

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 14 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 25 of 39
Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 3 (Court only) Filed 06/03/21 Page 15 of 15 Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 26 of 39

The parties have not made any other promises or inducements or entered into any other agreements. 

The Court may accept or reject this agreement and may wait to decide whether to accept or reject 

the agreement until it has reviewed the presentence report. If the Court accepts the agreement but 

declines to follow any sentencing recommendations or stipulations that the government may make, 

the Defendant will have no right to withdraw his guilty plea. 

By: 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ashley C. Hoff 

Unit d States Attorney 

Defendant's Signature: l, David Byron Seibert, have carefully read and reviewed the 

foregoing plea agreement in its entirety. After giving careful and mature consideration to the 

making of this plea agreement, thoroughly discussing the plea agreement with my attorney, and 

fully understanding my rights with respect to the pending criminal charge(s), and in reliance upon 

my own judgment and the advice of my attorney, I freely and voluntarily agree to the specific 

terms and conditions of the plea agreement. I admit that all of the facts contained in the Factual 

Basis are true and correct, and that I am guilty of the offense(s) to which I am pleading guilty. 

Moreover, I am satisfied with my attorney's representation of me in this matter, with the advice 

my attorney has provided to me, and that my attorney has rendered effective assistance. 

a~~ Date 

Defense Counsel Signature: I am counsel for the Defendant, David Byron Seibert, in this 

case. l have fully explained to the Defendant all of his rights with respect to the pending criminal 

charge(s). I have carefully reviewed this plea agreement in its entirety with the Defendant and 

provided the Defendant with my best professional advice. In my opinion, the Defendant's decision 

to enter into this plea agreement is made freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of its 

obligations and consequences. 

Brian 

~~ J. Roark, Altorney for the Defendant Date 

Seibert, David / Plea Agreement Page 15 of 15 
EXHIBIT B 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 27 of 39
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. 

DAVID BYRON SEIBERT,

Defendant.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

NO. 1:21-CR- 

[Violations: Count One: Wire Fraud, 18 

U.S.C. §1343; Engaging in Monetary 

Transactions in Property Derived From 

Specified Unlawful Activity, 18 U.S.C. 

§1957.]

Notice of Government’s Demand for 

Forfeiture

FELONY INFORMATION

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES:

Introduction

1. The following entities (hereinafter referred to individually or collectively as

the "Siebert Entities") were formed at the direction of, used by, and/or maintained by, the 

Defendant, David Byron Siebert (“Seibert”) and/or (the “Defendant”): 

a. Seibert Equity Investments, aka: SEI Equity Investments (“SEI”).

According to Comprehensive Business Reports, Seibert Equity Investments is an 

assumed name entity and was initially registered on or about November 2, 2006. The 

Standard Industrial Classification Code 6282 listed for this entity is “Investment Advice.” 

The recorded address for Seibert Equity Investments is 103 Palos Verdes Drive, 

Lakeway, Texas 78734 (“Seibert’s Residence”). 

1:21-CR-00104-RP June 3, 2021

Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 12

Exhibit B

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 28 of 39 FILED 
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 2 of 12

b. Great American Funding LLC, aka: Great American Funding Lender 

Service (“GAF”). According to Nevada Secretary of State, GAF is a domestic limited 

liability company registered in the state of Nevada and was initially registered on or about 

June 28, 2006. The current business license expired on or about June 30, 2019. The 

Defendant is listed as a “manager,” and Seibert’s Residence is listed as an address 

associated with GAF. 

c. From at least as early as January 2016, the primary place of business for the 

aforementioned entities is Lakeway, Texas, located within the Western District of Texas. 

2. Since at least 2016, the Defendant promoted and sold interest in several investment 

opportunities and obtained over $14 million. These “investments” provided short-term secured 

loans in return for the promise of high interest from third-party borrowers, when in fact, none of 

the investments existed. 

3. The Defendant used and/or maintained the following accounts:

a. Bank of America Account ending in xx0021 (“Seibert’s BOA Account”) is 

an account registered to David Seibert and Sxxx Seibert (“SS”). The address associated 

with this account is Seibert’s Residence. SS is Seibert’s adult aged daughter. This account 

was represented to be the business and operating account of Great American Funding/ 

Seibert Equity Investments (SEI) but proved to merely be the shared personal bank account 

of the Defendant and SS. 

b. Straits Financial Group Account ending in xx0387 (“Seibert’s Straits 

Account”) is an account held by David Seibert. The address associated with this account 

is Seibert’s Residence. Seibert’s Straits Account was an account used to trade futures and 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 29 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 3 of 12

options on futures in the commodities market. Seibert completed a customer application 

for the above account in or about March 2017. In the account application, Seibert 

fraudulently claimed to be employed by “Seibert Equity Investments” (SEI) with an 

individual annual income of $300,000 and net worth of $10,000,000. Additionally, Seibert 

checked “no” when asked “Does any other person or entity have any financial interest in 

the account?”

c. AMEX Account xxxx7-31019 is an account utilized by Seibert (“Seibert’s 

AMEX Account”). The master account is assigned to SS, AMEX Account xxxx7-31001. 

The listed mailing address for both accounts is Seibert’s Residence. Payments to AMEX 

were made from Seibert’s BOA Account.

The Scheme

4. Beginning at least as early as 2016 and continuing until in or about May 2019, the 

Defendant devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money 

and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 

5. The object and purpose of the Scheme was for the Defendant to enrich himself 

unjustly and illegally through false, misleading, and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and 

promises, and material omissions to Investors who were individuals, charitable trust, and 

business entities (the “Investors”). Beginning as early March 2016 and continuing until May 

2019, the Defendant executed a scheme to defraud whereby the Defendant received monies from 

the Investors who relied upon false and fraudulent representations and material omissions made 

by the Defendant. In summary, the Defendant told the Investors that he would pool their money 

to fund short-term, high-interest commercial loans, when in fact he did not. Without permission 

or authorization, the Defendant stole these monies and used said monies to (1) to make Ponzi 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 30 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 4 of 12

payments; (2) to trade futures and option on futures in the commodities market; and (3) for 

personal expenses.

6. The Defendant misrepresent to the Investors that he and his company, GAF, were 

in the business of making short-term, high interest loans to borrowers in order to make 

renovations, additions, or repairs to existing properties to meet cash needs before permanent 

financing could be secured. These loans are often referred to as “hard money loans,” “bridge 

loans,” or “land loans.” The Defendant advised the Investors that he would be responsible for 

completing the due diligence, preparation of the loan documents, servicing the loan, and closing. 

Each loan was represented to be an interest only loan with a balloon payment of all principal 

after a term of approximately one year. According to the Defendant, the loan was to be secured 

by a first lien deed of trust on the real property, a security interest on the assets of the debtor, and 

a personal guarantee.

 7. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant made false and 

fraudulent promises, representations, omissions, and pretenses to solicit the Investors and 

claimed that the funds would be used to provide short-term secured loans in return for the 

promise of high interest from third-party borrowers who purportedly would use the loaned funds 

to make renovations, additions, and repairs to property before permanent financing could be 

secured. The Defendant represented that he would be responsible for completing the due 

diligence, preparation of the loan documents, servicing the loan, and closing. 

8. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant would fraudulently 

acquire investment funds for the following purposes: 

a. to maintain an ongoing or expanding Ponzi scheme in which the "returns" 

paid to earlier Investors actually constituted funds provided by later Investors; 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 31 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 5 of 12

b. to make payments and/or fund distributions to some Investors so as to lull 

Investors into the mistaken belief that their investment remained sound; 

c. trade futures and options on futures in the commodities market; and 

d. for personal expenses. 

9. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant, through one or more of 

the Seibert Entities, would acquire cash and assets from individual Investors from across the 

United States by means of false and fraudulent promises, representations, pretenses, and material 

omissions. 

10. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant transmitted and caused to 

be transmitted wire communications in interstate commerce, writings, signals, signs, pictures and 

sounds to and from the Western District of Texas to locations outside of the State of Texas. These 

wire communications included, but were not limited to, the following: 

a. telephone calls;

b. email communications via the internet;

c. electronic communications involving the clearing of checks and other 

financial transactions through the Federal Reserve banking system;

d. transfer by wire and electronic means of funds between financial 

institutions and investment companies located outside the State of Texas and financial 

institutions and investment companies in the Western District of Texas.

11. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant represented that the 

Seibert Entities purchased assets with the funds obtained from the Investors when, in truth and 

fact, the Investors' funds were applied toward other fraudulent investment activities: the 

payment of "dividends," "returns," and “redemptions” to prior Investors; trading futures and 

options on futures in the commodities market; and the Defendant's own personal use and benefit.

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 32 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 6 of 12

12. It was part of the scheme and artifice that accurate and material cash flow and 

accounting information was not provided to the Investors. 

13. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the Defendant omitted and failed to 

disclose material facts to potential Investors and current clients, including but not limited to the 

following: 

a. that Investors funds had been, and would be, funneled and diverted to making 

Ponzi-type payments to prior Investors; 

b. that the Defendant traded futures and options on futures in the commodities 

market and for personal expenses, and

c. that the Defendant used a substantial portion of Investors’ funds for the personal 

use and benefit of himself. 

Manner and Means

The Defendant carried out the scheme in the following manner and by the following 

means:

14. The Defendant utilized interstate wire transmissions in furtherance of the scheme. 

For example, The Defendant utilized interstate wires to receive investment monies and 

transmit fictitious investment payments to the Investors based upon false and fraudulent 

misrepresentations and material omissions. The Defendant could not have carried out the 

fraudulent scheme without the benefit of interstate wire communications.

15. Because of the nature of the monetary transactions (i.e., wire transfer and credit 

card purchases), the Defendant used electronic communication to conduct the Scheme. 

Because the transactions took place in many locations, the Defendant transmitted the 

electronic communications in interstate or foreign commerce. 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 33 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 7 of 12

Execution of the Scheme via Wire Transmission

16. Once the Investors decided to participate in the Defendant’s fraudulent deals, the 

Defendant instructed the Investors to either write a check made payable to him personally or, 

more frequently, to wire the funds to a bank account which he said was held in the name of GAF. 

In truth, the funds were pooled in Seibert’s BOA Account. 

17. After the closing, the Defendant paid some of the Investors monthly “interest” 

payments on the loans, representing to the Investors they were paid by the borrower in the 

loan/investment deal. In reality, the payments derived from funds of subsequent Investors, 

which the Defendant paid out in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. In all, the Defendant used over 

$4 million to pay "returns" to earlier Investors, but the monies actually constituted funds 

provided by later Investors. 

18. When the loans never came to fruition, he began using the Investor’s monies to 

trade in commodity interests without disclosing the use to the Investors. During the Relevant 

Period, the Defendant used and lost over $8 million of Investors’ funds trading commodity 

interest in a commodity account bearing his name. The Defendant traded through Seibert’s 

Straits Account. 

 19. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendant used the Investor’s monies for his 

personal expenses in the amount over $2 million. Many of those expenses were incurred with the 

use of Seibert’s AMEX Account. 

20. The Defendant omitted to disclose to the Investors that instead of using their 

funds to make bridge loans as he had promised, he was actually pooling their funds with other 

Investors and using them to make Ponzi payments, trade commodity interests, and use for his 

personal expenses.

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 34 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 8 of 12

COUNT ONE

Wire Fraud

(Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343) 

 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Information are realleged and incorporated as 

though fully set forth herein.

From in or about 2016 and continuing until in or about May 2019, in the Western 

District of Texas and elsewhere, the Defendant,

DAVID BYRON SEIBERT, 

(“the Defendant”), having devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, as set 

forth above, to obtain money and property by means of false, misleading, and fraudulent 

pretenses, representations, and promises, and omissions of material facts, did knowingly cause to 

be transmitted by wire, radio, or television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, a 

wire transfer of funds, constituting and containing a writing, sign, signal, picture, and sound, for 

the purpose of executing and attempting to execute said scheme and artifice, on or about the date 

set forth below. 

On or about August 5, 2018, the Defendant sent an email from his personal email account 

<dseibert@austin.rr.com> to Investors John Harris, Edward Blum, and Donald Clayton. The 

email was a solicitation for an investment opportunity in El Paso, TX and more specifically at 

Commerce Park a 120,000 sq. ft. office park. The purported investment was a cumulative loan 

of $1,700,000 earning 13% over a year. Pursuant to this email solicitation, the below Investors 

provided their proceeds as follows: 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 35 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 9 of 12

Investor(s) Date (on 

or about)

Amount Method From Financial 

Institution(s)

To Financial 

Institution

Diana Weil 

Family Trust

08/13/2018 $100,000 Wire JP Morgan Chase, 

New York, NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Nancy Roucher 08/14/2018 $100,000 Wire Wells Fargo, San 

Francisco, CA

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

BHW Family 

LP

08/14/2018 $100,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Donald 

Clayton 

08/15/2018 $800,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

Edward Blum 08/15/2018 $100,000 Wire Citibank, New York, 

NY

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

John Harris 08/15/2018 $400,000 Check Morgan Stanly, 

Kansas City, MO 

Seibert’s BOA 

Account-Austin, 

Texas

All in violation of Title 18, United States Codes, Sections 1343. 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 36 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 9 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 10 of 12

COUNT TWO 

Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property 

Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity

(Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957) 

 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated 

as though fully set forth herein. 

23. From in or about 2016 and continuing until in or about May 2019, in the 

Western District of Texas and elsewhere, the Defendant, 

DAVID BYRON SEIBERT,

did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction by through or to a 

financial institution, affecting interstate or foreign commerce, in criminally derived property 

of a value greater than $10,000, that is deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange of U.S 

currency, funds, and monetary instruments, such property having been derived from a specified 

unlawful activity: Wire Fraud, as described in Count One of this Information, and contrary to 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as follows: 

Immediately following the investment(s) into the El Paso property at Commerce 

Park, on or about August 17, 2018, the Defendant made a $11,930.86 payment from Seibert’s 

BOA Account-Austin, Texas, a financial institution, to Seibert’s AMEX Account; and the 

following transfers from Seibert’s BOA Account-Austin, Texas, a financial institution, to 

Seibert’s Straits Account: 

Date (on 

or about)

Amount

08/17/2018 $200,000

08/31/2018 $80,000

All in violation of Title 18, United States Codes, Section 1957. 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 37 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 10 of 12
Seibert, David / Felony Information—Page 11 of 12

NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT’S DEMAND FOR FORFEITURE

[See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2] 

I.

Wire Fraud Violation and Forfeiture Statute

[Title 18 U.S.C. §1343, subject to forfeiture pursuant Title 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(C)] 

As a result of the criminal violations set forth in Count One, the United States of America 

give notice to the Defendant David Byron Siebert of its intent to seek the forfeiture of property, 

including the items listed below, upon conviction and as part of sentencing pursuant to FED. R.

CRIM. P. 32.2 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which states:

Title 18 U.S.C. § 981. Criminal Forfeiture

(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States: 

(C) Any property, real, or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds 

traceable to . . . any offense constituting “specific unlawful activity” (as defined in section 

1956(c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense. 

II.

Money Laundering Violation and Forfeiture Statutes

[Title 18 U.S.C. §1957 and subject to forfeiture pursuant Title 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)] 

As a result of the foregoing criminal violation set forth in Count Two, the United States 

gives notice to the Defendant David Byron Siebert of its intent to seek the forfeiture of properties, 

including the items listed below, Defendant shall forfeit all right, title, and interest in said 

properties to the United States pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), 

which states:

Title 18 U.S.C. § 982. Criminal Forfeiture 

(a)(1) The court is imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of 

sections 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title, shall order that the person forfeit to the United 

States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable 

to such property. 

This Notice of Demand for Forfeiture includes, but is not limited to, the properties 

described below in Paragraph III. 

Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 38 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:20-cv-00935-RP Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 39 of 39 Case 1:21-cr-00104-RP Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 12 of 12

III. 

Subject Properties 

• Silver Band Breitling Gold Ring Around Face watch; 

• Silver Breitling Yellow Face watch; 

• Rose Gold & Diamond Bulgari ring; 

• $5,000.00, more or less, in United States Currency; and 

• Any and all other items used and/or intended to be used in the commission of the 

criminal offenses. 

Money Judgment: 

A sum of money equal to Fourteen Million Nine Hundred Ninety Three Thousands and 

Thirty Three Dollars ($14,993,033.00) represents the properties involved in and/or the 

amount of proceeds traceable, directly or indirectly, to the violations set forth in Counts 

One and Two, for which Defendant David Byron Siebert is liable. 

Substitute Assets: 

If any of the properties described above, as a result of any act or omission of Defendant 

David Bryon Siebert: 

a. Cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 

b. Has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; 

c. Has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; 

d. Has been substantially diminished in value; or 

e. Has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without 

difficulty; 

it is the intent of the United States to seek the forfeiture of any other properties owned by 

Defendant up to the value of the Money Judgment as substitute assets, pursuant to FED. R. 

CRIM. P. 32.2 and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). 

By: 

Seibert, David I Felony Information- Page 12 of 12 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ashley C. Hoff 

United States Attorney