- 1 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

JEFF LE RICHE, admitted pro hac vice

PAUL M. FLUCKE, CA Bar No. 274913 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: (816) 960-7700 

Facsimile: (816) 960-7750 

jleriche@cftc.gov 

pflucke@cftc.gov 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAFEGUARD METALS LLC and 

JEFFREY IKAHN (a/k/a JEFFREY 

S. SANTULAN and JEFF HILL), 

Defendants. 

 

 

Civil No.: 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SKx 

CONSENT ORDER OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 

OTHER STATUTORY AND 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS 

Hon. John F. Walter Crtrm 7A 

Complaint Filed: February 1, 2022 

FAC Filed: May 25, 2022 

Trial Date: November 28, 2023 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 71 Page ID #:2420
- 2 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. INTRODUCTION 

On February 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“CFTC”), Alabama Securities Commission (“State of Alabama”), Arizona 

Corporation Commission (“State of Arizona”), Arkansas Securities Department 

(“State of Arkansas”), California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation 

(“State of California”), State of Connecticut Department of Banking (“State of 

Connecticut”), State of Florida, Office of Financial Regulation (“State of Florida”), 

State of Hawaii, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (“State of 

Hawaii”), Idaho Department of Finance (“State of Idaho”), Office of the Secretary of 

State, Illinois Securities Department (“State of Illinois”), Indiana Securities Division 

(“State of Indiana”), Iowa Insurance Commissioner Douglas M. Ommen (“State of 

Iowa”), Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (“Commonwealth of 

Kentucky”), State of Maryland Ex Rel the Maryland Securities Commissioner (“State 

of Maryland”), Attorney General Dana Nessel on Behalf of the People of the State of 

Michigan (“People of the State of Michigan”), Mississippi Secretary of State (“State 

of Mississippi”), Missouri Commissioner of Securities (“State of Missouri”), 

Nebraska Department of Banking & Finance (“State of Nebraska”), Securities 

Division New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department (“State of New 

Mexico”), The People of the State of New York by Letitia James, Attorney General 

of the State of New York (“State of New York”), North Carolina Department of the 

Secretary of State (“State of North Carolina”), Ohio Department of Commerce, 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 71 Page ID #:2421
- 3 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Division of Securities (“State of Ohio”), Oklahoma Department of Securities (“State 

of Oklahoma”), State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Consumer and 

Business Services and Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum (“State of Oregon”), 

State of South Carolina, by and through Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney 

General, and Mark Hammond, South Carolina Secretary of State (“State of South 

Carolina”), South Dakota Department of Labor & Regulation (“State of South 

Dakota”), Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance 

(“State of Tennessee”), Utah Division of Securities (“State of Utah”), Vermont 

Department of Financial Regulation (“State of Vermont”), Washington State 

Department of Financial Institutions (“State of Washington”), and the State of 

Wisconsin (“State of Wisconsin”) (collectively “the States”), filed a Complaint 

against Defendants Safeguard Metals LLC (“Safeguard Metals”) and Jeffrey Ikahn 

(a/k/a Jeffrey S. Santulan and Jeff Hill) (“Ikahn”) (collectively referred to as 

“Defendants”) 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 and the Commission’s Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 17 

C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2022), as well as violations of state laws. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

To effect partial settlement of the matters alleged in the Complaint, and all 

amendments to the Complaint (collectively referred to as the “Complaint”), against 

Defendants Safeguard Metals and Ikahn without a trial on the merits or any further 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 71 Page ID #:2422
- 4 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judicial proceedings, Defendants Safeguard Metals and Ikahn specifically 

acknowledge the following: 

A. Injunctive Relief 

1. Consent to the entry of this Consent Order of Permanent Injunction and 

Other Relief Against Defendants Safeguard Metals and Ikahn (“Consent Order”); 

2. Affirm that they have read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, 

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

made by the CFTC, the States, or any member, officer, agent or representative 

thereof, or by any other person, to induce consent to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledge service of the original and amended Summons and 

Complaints; 

4. Admit to the jurisdiction of this Court over them and the subject matter 

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

5. Admit to the jurisdiction of the CFTC and the States over the conduct 

and transactions at issue in this action pursuant to the Act and the state law violations 

alleged in the Complaint; 

6. Admit that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e); 

7. Waive: 

(a) Any and all claims that Defendants may possess under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 

and/or the rules promulgated by the CFTC in conformity 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 4 of 71 Page ID #:2423
- 5 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2022), 

relating to, or arising from, this action; 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 

No. 104-121, tit. II, §§ 201–253, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (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; 

(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 Consent 

Order; and 

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

8. Agree that the CFTC is the prevailing party in this action for purposes of 

the waiver of any and all rights under the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 specified in subparts (a) and 

(b) of paragraph 7. 

9. Consent to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over them for the 

purpose of implementing and carrying out the terms and conditions of all orders and 

decrees, including orders setting the appropriate amounts of restitution, disgorgement, 

and civil monetary penalty that may be entered herein, to entertain any suitable 

application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of the Court, to 

assure compliance with this Consent Order, and for any other purpose relevant to this 

action, even if Defendants now or in the future reside outside the jurisdiction of this 

Court; 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 5 of 71 Page ID #:2424
- 6 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. Agree that they will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order by 

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

Procedure and waive any objection based thereon; 

11. Agree that neither Defendants nor any of their agents or employees 

under their 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 Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the 

impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is without a factual basis; 

provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect the Defendants’: 

(a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to 

which the CFTC and the States are not a party. Defendants shall comply with this 

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

employees under their authority or control understand and comply with this 

agreement; and 

12. Consent to the entry of this Consent Order without admitting or denying 

the allegations of the Complaint or any findings or conclusions in this Consent Order, 

except as to jurisdiction and venue, which they admit; 

13. Consent to the use of the findings and conclusions in this Consent Order 

in this proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the CFTC or to which the 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 6 of 71 Page ID #:2425
- 7 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC is a party or claimant, and agree that they shall be taken as true and correct and 

be given preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

14. Consent to the use of the findings and conclusions in this Consent Order 

in this proceeding and in any other civil or administrative proceeding brought by the 

States or to which the States are a party or claimant, and agree that they shall be taken 

as true and correct and be given preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

15. Agree that no provision of this 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 Defendants in any other proceeding; and 

16. The issues of necessary relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1, as well as pursuant to the applicable laws from the States regarding 

restitution, disgorgement, and appropriate civil monetary penalties to be assessed 

against Defendants are still unresolved and are hereby reserved for further 

determination by this Court upon motion of the CFTC and/or the States or by a 

proposed consent order. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

17. The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good 

cause for the entry of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. 

The Court therefore directs the entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law, permanent injunction and equitable relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as set forth herein. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 7 of 71 Page ID #:2426
- 8 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

1. The Parties to this Consent Order 

18. Plaintiff CFTC is an independent federal regulatory agency that is 

charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act and the Regulations. 

19. The State Plaintiffs are the attorneys general or state regulatory agencies 

charged with administering and enforcing the commodities and securities laws and 

regulations of their states. The State Plaintiffs join the claims asserted by the CFTC 

and, for the State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of California, State of 

Connecticut, State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Illinois, State of Kentucky, 

State of Maryland, State of Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of New Mexico, 

State of North Carolina, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, 

State of Utah, and State of Vermont, have asserted state-specific claims, within their 

jurisdiction. 

20. Defendant Safeguard Metals initially registered as a Wyoming limited 

liability company on October 13, 2017, with its principal office located at 30 N Gould 

St., Suite R, Sheridan, Wyoming. Subsequently, on March 26, 2019, Safeguard 

Metals registered as a California limited liability company with its principal place of 

business located at 21550 Oxnard St., 3rd Floor, Woodland Hills, California. 

Safeguard Metals has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 8 of 71 Page ID #:2427
- 9 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21. Defendant Jeffrey Ikahn (a/k/a Jeffrey S. Santulan and Jeff Hill) is the 

sole owner and sole manager of Safeguard Metals. Ikahn is the only signatory on 

Safeguard Metals’ bank accounts. From at least October 2017 and continuing 

through at least July 2021 (“Relevant Period”), Ikahn owned and controlled 

Safeguard Metals, supervised (directly and indirectly) its employees and agents, and 

made hiring and firing decisions on behalf of the company. Ikahn is a resident of 

Tarzana, California, and has never been registered with the CFTC or any of the States 

in any capacity. Ikahn used the pseudonym “Jeff Hill” while representing Safeguard 

Metals to customers and potential customers. Ikahn’s legal name was once Jeffrey 

Santulan. In July 2021, his name was legally changed from Jeffrey Santulan to 

Jeffrey Ikahn.

2. Safeguard Metals’ Operations 

22. Safeguard Metals is a company that marketed, promoted, and sold 

precious metals, primarily consisting of gold and silver coins, that the company 

marketed and classified as either bullion, semi-numismatic, and numismatic precious 

metals (collectively “Precious Metals”), including, but not limited to, silver coins that 

Safeguard Metals claimed possess semi-numismatic and numismatic value (“Silver 

Coins”). The firm placed advertisements on financial media and websites, and 

promoted its products on social media platforms and websites linked to media 

personalities and financial gurus. Safeguard Metals also marketed and promoted 

Precious Metals through its company website, https://www.safeguardmetals.com/. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 9 of 71 Page ID #:2428
- 10 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23. Safeguard Metals used the advertisements, social media platforms, and 

websites to generate leads, which resulted in solicitations by telephone to potential 

customers. 

24. Safeguard Metals operated a call center located in Woodland Hills, 

California, staffed by sales representatives known as “Openers” and “Closers.” 

Safeguard Metals distributed lists of potential customers to Openers and Closers, 

which permitted the sales representatives to contact potential customers by telephone. 

Using the leads, Openers marketed and promoted Precious Metals to potential 

customers. Once an Opener confirmed a potential customer’s interest in purchasing 

Precious Metals, the potential customer was transferred over to the Closer, and the 

Closer executed the sale of Precious Metals with the customer. 

25. Safeguard Metals operated as an intermediary, essentially controlling all 

buy and sell aspects of customer transactions to maximize its profits. Safeguard 

Metals, by and through its sales representatives or other agents, recommended 

customers form a self-directed individual retirement account (“SDIRA”) for the 

purchase of Precious Metals (“SDIRA accounts”) and hold Precious Metals at a 

depository instead of taking personal delivery of Precious Metals themselves. 

Safeguard Metals told customers that storing Precious Metals in a depository was the 

safest way to store Precious Metals and economically better because the depository 

was purportedly federally insured. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 10 of 71 Page ID #:2429
- 11 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. In reality, these representations disguised the way Safeguard Metals 

controlled the transactions. Once a customer opened a SDIRA account, often through 

a custodian and depository recommended by Safeguard Metals, Safeguard Metals 

was initially the only party authorized to buy or sell the Precious Metals in the 

customer’s SDIRA. Unless a customer knew to remove Safeguard Metals as the 

designated representative on their SDIRA account, the customer was required to use 

Safeguard Metals to perform any future transactions, including if they chose to 

liquidate their Precious Metals holdings. 

27. Safeguard Metals’ core strategy for profitability was to charge an 

exorbitant markup on sales of Precious Metals, and in particular, on Silver Coins to 

customers. Safeguard Metals purchased Precious Metals from a wholesale 

distributor, and generated nearly all of its profits through what it represented, though 

falsely, to customers as its “operating margins,” which is the difference between 

Safeguard Metals’ cost of acquiring Precious Metals from a wholesale distributer and 

the prices paid by customers, i.e., the markup. 

28. To benefit its own self-interest, Safeguard Metals directed the vast 

majority of SDIRA funds into certain coins that Safeguard Metals marked up 

excessively, notwithstanding the customer’s individual investment needs. Safeguard 

Metals accomplished this by pressuring customers to purchase coins that it claimed 

had “numismatic” or “semi-numismatic” value. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 11 of 71 Page ID #:2430
- 12 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. Numismatic Precious Metals are rare, of limited availability, and have 

significant broad-based market demand and therefore have a value substantially more 

than the prevailing market price of the precious metal contained in the bullion. Seminumismatic Precious Metals are bullion that are claimed to exhibit both bullion and 

numismatic traits, such that the value is derived from the precious metal content, 

limited circulation, and some recognized exclusive or collectible value. 

30. Safeguard Metals offered coins with purported semi-numismatic or 

numismatic value in addition to the bullion value and coins with only bullion value. 

In particular, the 1.25 oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea was the individual coin most 

frequently sold to customers. Safeguard Metals claimed the Silver Coins it sold to 

customers, including the 1.25 oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea, had semi-numismatic or 

numismatic value and sold them to customers at a premium far above Safeguard 

Metals’ acquisition cost and the melt value of the bullion. 

31. In regards to gold coins, Safeguard Metals, by and through its sales 

representatives or other agents, most frequently sold the 0.1 oz Gold American Eagle 

to customers. Contrary to Silver Coins, which Safeguard Metals claimed to have 

semi-numismatic or numismatic value, most gold coins were sold as common bullion 

products that lacked external value above and beyond their melt value. 

32. Consequently, Safeguard Metals pressured customers to purchase Silver 

Coins and sold vastly more Silver Coins to customers than gold coins. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 12 of 71 Page ID #:2431
- 13 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Approximately 97%, or $66 million of the $68 million in total revenue Safeguard 

Metals solicited from customers was used to purchase Silver Coins. 

33. Safeguard Metals also levied transaction fees to liquidate the Precious 

Metals held in SDIRA accounts. So after fraudulently overcharging customers on the 

front end when the Precious Metals transaction was executed, Safeguard Metals also 

imposed storage fees and commissions up to 10% exceeding the 1% to 3% in 

liquidation fees quoted to customers as the only charges imposed on Precious Metals 

transactions within SDIRA accounts, significantly contributing to customers’ overall 

transaction costs. 

3. Defendants Defrauded Mostly Elderly Customers into 

Establishing SDIRAs and Cash Accounts to Purchase Precious 

Metals. 

34. Defendants targeted a vulnerable population of mostly elderly or 

retirement-aged persons. Many of these individuals had little experience investing in 

Precious Metals. Nonetheless, Defendants fraudulently solicited them to open 

SDIRAs or cash and credit sales (“Cash Accounts”) in order to purchase Precious 

Metals. 

35. Defendants instructed their sales representatives or other agents to 

concentrate their fraudulent solicitations on elderly or retirement-aged persons in 

order to gain access to their retirement savings, including but not limited to, money 

market accounts and retirement savings held in tax advantaged accounts such as: 

Individual Retirement Accounts; employer sponsored 401(k) and 457(b) plans; Thrift 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 13 of 71 Page ID #:2432
- 14 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Savings Plans; annuities; and other long-term retirement savings vehicles 

(collectively “Qualified Retirement Savings”). 

36. As part of the scheme to gain access to customers’ retirement accounts 

and other savings, Defendants published misinformation on Safeguard Metals’ 

website in 2019 and 2020. Defendants made numerous false and misleading 

statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements 

made not untrue or misleading, or made statements in reckless disregard about the 

firm’s business activities on their website, including, but not limited to, the following: 

a. Safeguard Metals is rated number one among wealth protection 

firms (with no basis for this assertion); 

b. Safeguard Metals oversees more than $11 billion in assets under 

its management (when, in reality, the firm had sold substantially 

less than $75 million in Precious Metals and Silver Coins since it 

had been in business); 

c. Safeguard Metals has been in business for more than twenty years 

(when, in truth, the startup formed in 2017, but did not appear to 

have significant operations until 2019; 

d. the number and location of Safeguard Metals’ offices, including 

office locations in London, England and Beverly Hills, California 

(when in actuality, the firm only has offices in Woodland Hills, 

California); and 

e. the use of false and fictitious employee names, touting nonexistent employees on LinkedIn, misrepresenting employee job 

titles, and exaggerating employee qualifications and years of 

industry experience. 

37. Defendants removed the foregoing statements and blatant website 

misrepresentations in or about January 2021 after becoming informed of a law 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 14 of 71 Page ID #:2433
- 15 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enforcement investigation, and began to rely on other more nuanced 

misrepresentations, half-truths, and omissions as part their solicitation scheme, as 

discussed further below. 

38. Safeguard Metals utilized fraudulent solicitations designed to build trust 

with customers based on representations of political affinity and through references to 

and statements from financial gurus. 

39. In furtherance of the scheme, Ikahn personally solicited customers, 

misrepresenting that Safeguard Metals was “the #1 name in precious metals and lead 

[sic] the industry as the fastest growing house, offering the cheapest and purest 

bullion in the country for the benefit of our clients and we hold all proper and full 

accreditation from the state, federal government, and distributors alike,” with no basis 

for these material misstatements, half-truths or omissions, and in reckless disregard 

for the truth. Ikahn also created sales scripts that were used to solicit customers. 

40. Defendants instructed Safeguard Metals’ sales representatives or other 

agents to employ fraudulent solicitations designed to instill fear in elderly and 

retirement aged investors and other customers. To frighten those customers about the 

risk and safety of their investments in Qualified Retirement Savings and traditional 

accounts, Safeguard Metals made repeated material misrepresentations, half-truths, 

and omissions regarding the Money Market Fund Reform regulation promulgated by 

the Securities and Exchange Commission, Money Market Fund Reform Amendments 

to Form PF, 70 Fed. Reg. 47,736 (Aug. 14, 2014), and more recently, the Orderly 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 15 of 71 Page ID #:2434
- 16 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Liquidation Authority promulgated pursuant to Dodd Frank, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5381-5394. 

Safeguard Metals played on the customers’ fears and materially misrepresented these 

provisions, omitting to disclose which asset classes the Money Market Fund Reform 

applies to, and making false and misleading statements about each law’s or 

regulation’s effects, and the extent to which these and other investor protections 

applied. For example, during fraudulent solicitations over the telephone, via email 

and in its sales scripts, Safeguard Metals and/or Ikahn made the following 

misrepresentations: 

a. financial institutions can “freeze you out of your retirement 

accounts if there was ever a market crash or correction again,” and 

either “confiscate” or freeze all of the holdings in your retirement 

or investment accounts, particularly during either a liquidity or 

financial crisis. “Banks then will use people’s money to bail 

themselves out.”; 

b. an investor is “just a beneficial owner” and “leases” securities and 

funds held in Qualified Retirement Savings, and further, the 

government “owns” the certificates on securities and funds held in 

these accounts; and 

c. “you’re pretty much in these [Qualified Retirement Savings] 

accounts with no types of insurance,” but “the good news is that 

there are loopholes within the law to help protect . . . from it” 

through safe and conservative investments in Precious Metals 

purchased through SDIRAs. 

41. Defendants misrepresented that the Money Market Fund Reform and/or 

the Orderly Liquidation Authority regulations apply to stocks and certain bonds held 

in Qualified Retirement Savings. They do not. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 16 of 71 Page ID #:2435
- 17 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. Safeguard Metals misrepresented that the government, not the investor, 

owns the certificates on securities and funds held in a Qualified Retirement Savings 

account. This is false. The beneficial owner is the true owner of an asset or security 

that is under a different legal name and the government does not own the certificates 

on securities and funds held in these accounts. 

43. Safeguard Metals misrepresented that Qualified Retirement Savings are 

uninsured. In reality, investor protections and insurance are offered through the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities Investor Protection 

Corporation. 

44. In 2021, Safeguard Metals misrepresented to customers that a change to 

Rule 22e-3 under the Money Market Fund Reform permits financial institutions to 

permanently freeze the liquidity in accounts, confiscate funds and will never pay 

participants back if the market fails. Furthermore, Safeguard Metals maintained the 

goal of investment firms is “to stop you from being able to redeem your shares, or 

redeem the funds that you have in your retirement and stock accounts, by any means 

necessary.” 

45. These and similar misrepresentations made by Safeguard Metals and/or 

Ikahn are false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose to customers the 

narrow circumstances in which a money market fund can be permanently suspended, 

and furthermore, that liquidation follows when redemptions are permanently 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 17 of 71 Page ID #:2436
- 18 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

suspended, thereby returning money to shareholders and allowing investors to 

recover funds. 

46. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that their 

communications with customers contained material misstatements, half-truths, and 

omissions described above. 

4. Safeguard Metals Charged Exorbitant Price Markups on Silver 

Coins That Bore No Relation to the Ranges Represented to 

Customers. 

47. After the SDIRAs and Cash Accounts were opened under false and 

fraudulent pretenses, Defendants executed their core strategy of selling customers 

Silver Coins with enormous price markups, which Defendants referred to as 

“operating margins” when they communicated with customers about the price 

markups with customers. Safeguard Metals grossly misrepresented the “operating 

margins” that they would charge customers in Shipping and Account Agreements 

(“Customer Agreements”) and representations made during sales confirmation calls. 

48. The Customer Agreements purported to establish the terms and 

conditions regarding sales of Precious Metals by Defendants to their customers. 

During the Relevant Period, Safeguard Metals used at least two versions of the 

Customer Agreements – one version prior to January 2021 and a revised version 

following purported attempts to implement compliance measures at Safeguard 

Metals. Safeguard Metals purportedly implemented those compliance measures 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 18 of 71 Page ID #:2437
- 19 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

beginning in or around January 2021 after Defendants received notice of an 

investigation by law enforcement. 

49. Prior to January 2021, Safeguard Metals’ Customer Agreements 

represented, in pertinent part, the following relating to Safeguard Metals’ “operating 

margins” on Precious Metals: 

a. “The operating margin is the difference between Safeguard’s 

approximate acquiring cost of the Precious Metals and the price 

the Client pays.” 

b. “Safeguard’s operating margin quoted to the Client for most 

common bullion products . . . is typically four percent (4%) for 

cash, and seven percent (7%) for IRA purchases.” 

c. “Operating margin on coins with semi-numismatic or numismatic 

value are rare coins . . . is usually twenty percent (20%) and for 

Proof products is twenty-three percent (23%).” 

50. Despite these representations, Safeguard Metals actually sold Silver 

Coins to customers at average “operating margins” of 71%. This vastly exceeded the 

maximum “operating margin” of 23% disclosed in Safeguard Metals’ Customer 

Agreement. These overcharges were material misrepresentations and omissions. 

Further, Ikahn admitted to establishing the price of these exorbitantly priced Precious 

Metals during Safeguard Metals’ initial period of operation. 

51. During purported implementation of compliance measures in or about 

January 2021, Safeguard Metals revised its sales confirmation scripts, and its 

Customer Agreements to provide new representations about its “operating margins” 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 19 of 71 Page ID #:2438
- 20 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for Precious Metals. While Safeguard Metals’ representations about its “operating 

margins” varied between the sales confirmation scripts and Customer Agreements, 

the actual “operating margins” charged by the firm still far exceeded either 

representation. 

52. After January 2021, Safeguard Metals represented the following 

“operating margins” to customers during sales confirmation calls: 

SAFEGUARD METAL’S OPERATING MARGIN IS 

USUALLY 1% - 23%[.] THIS MAY VARY AND EXCEED 

40% BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS. 

53. After January 2021, Safeguard Metals’ Customer Agreements 

represented to customers the following relating to “operating margins”: 

Current operating margins on coins with semi-numismatic 

or numismatic value . . . is usually 23% - 33% . . . . The actual operating margin on any particular transaction can be 

any amount usually within, but also could be outside this 

range, but not exceeding 42%. 

54. Following the purported implementation of compliance measures in 

January 2021, Safeguard Metals’ actual “operating margin” on Silver Coins routinely 

exceeded 40% and averaged about 51%. Consequently, despite the inconsistent 

disclosures between sales confirmations and Customer Agreements, the “operating 

margin” on Silver Coins represented in sales confirmations rarely, if ever, fell within 

the “usual” and customary ranges disclosed to customers and averaged greater than 

the maximum “operating margin” represented in Customer Agreements. These 

overcharges were material misrepresentations and omissions. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 20 of 71 Page ID #:2439
- 21 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. Safeguard Metals also provided inconsistent and misleading disclosures 

to customers during the sales confirmation process. In at least one instance, an 

Opener falsely represented to at least one customer that the specified “operating 

margins” only applied to investments exceeding $1 million and were therefore 

inapplicable to that customer’s transaction because his investment fell under the 

threshold. Later, in contrast, a Closer stated during the sales confirmation call that 

specified “operating margins” do in fact apply because the customer is an accredited 

investor, resulting in ambiguous and conflicting disclosures. 

56. Safeguard Metals’ core strategy of selling fraudulently overpriced Silver 

Coins to customers was designed to maximize its profits through “operating margins” 

and commissions and resulted in substantial and nearly immediate customer losses. 

Silver Coin purchases were more than 97%, or $66 million of the $68 million in total 

revenue fraudulently solicited from customers, of the purchases by Safeguard Metals 

on behalf of its customers. The purchase of Silver Coins had significantly higher 

“operating margins” compared to gold coins. 

57. Safeguard Metals knowingly or recklessly failed to inform customers of 

the material fact that the exorbitant “operating margins” charged on Silver Coins bore 

no relation to the figures represented in the Customer Agreements, or otherwise 

stated to customers. This had the effect of substantially and immediately depleting 

the values of investments held in customers’ SDIRAs and Cash Accounts. 

Nonetheless, Safeguard Metals continued to misrepresent to prospective and current 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 21 of 71 Page ID #:2440
- 22 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SDIRA and Cash Account customers that Precious Metals were a safe and 

conservative investment. 

5. Safeguard Metals Misrepresented to Customers How It Earned 

Profits and Lulled Customers by Making Misrepresentations 

About the Value of Customers’ Precious Metals. 

58. As part of the scheme, Safeguard Metals misrepresented and omitted 

material facts regarding how Safeguard Metals earned profits from Precious Metals 

transactions. 

59. During telephone sales calls, Safeguard Metals repeatedly misstated that 

its earnings arose solely from a 1% fee, and later in 2021, a 1% to 3% fee, that 

applied only when customers liquidated investments in Precious Metals. During a 

sales solicitation call with a prospective customer, a Safeguard Metals employee 

stated, in pertinent part, that “We take 1 percent of what we liquidate . . . . It’s our 

only way we make money,” leaving customers with the impression that Safeguard 

Metals did not profit in other respects from their Precious Metals transactions. 

60. In reality, Safeguard Metals was paying its sales representatives 

commissions that far exceeded 1% to 3%, including commissions upwards of 10%, 

all while misinforming customers that a liquidation fee was the only fee charged. 

61. Also, as discussed above, Safeguard Metals also made money from 

charging excessive premiums on Silver Coins. For instance, Safeguard Metals earned 

an estimated 71% “operating margin” on Silver Coins during the 2019 to 2020 

timeframe—about 48% more than the maximum permitted pursuant to the Customer 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 22 of 71 Page ID #:2441
- 23 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Agreement. In 2021, Safeguard Metals earned an estimated 51% “operating margin” 

on Silver Coins, about 9% more than the maximum permitted pursuant to the revised 

Customer Agreement. 

62. Safeguard Metals also falsely asserted “[i]f our clients are making 

money, that’s when we make money.” In fact, Safeguard Metals made money on 

Precious Metals notwithstanding whether its customers made money, and customers 

incurred additional transactional costs far greater than a 1% to 3% liquidation fee. 

Safeguard Metals failed to disclose the true and accurate transaction costs or provide 

accurate “operating margins” even when customers specifically inquired. 

63. As part of the scheme to defraud, Safeguard Metals also deceived 

customers and concealed its fraud by hiding that customers significantly overpaid for 

their investments. Instead, Safeguard Metals made further misrepresentations about 

the value of the Precious Metals in customer accounts to placate and calm investors 

who were upset about the losses shown on their SDIRA statements. 

64. Customers received account statements from their SDIRA custodians 

showing account values significantly below the values originally paid to Safeguard 

Metals. The account statements were significantly lower because the SDIRA 

custodians assigned asset values to the coins held based on the melt value of the coin, 

ignoring any purported numismatic or semi-numismatic value. When customers 

confronted Safeguard Metals’ sales representatives about the disparity between their 

original investment and the value assigned by SDIRA custodians, the sales 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 23 of 71 Page ID #:2442
- 24 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

representatives rejected lower valuations and misrepresented to customers that values 

did not accurately reflect the resale value of the Precious Metals and Silver Coins. 

Instead, they misrepresented that the actual resale value of their investments was 

much higher than that reported by the SDIRA custodians. 

65. Safeguard Metals, however, knew or recklessly disregarded that the 

resale price of the Silver Coins that it marketed and promoted was much lower than 

the amount customers paid for the Silver Coins. 

66. To further obfuscate customers’ true account values, Safeguard Metals 

also lulled customers by telling them to wait or give it at least six months, or in some 

instances, three to five years, to allow their SDIRA accounts to make money. 

67. Due to the acts, omissions, and failures of Safeguard Metals, at least two 

SDIRA custodians terminated their business relationships with Safeguard Metals and 

no longer conducted business with the company. 

68. In terminating its contract with Safeguard Metals, one custodian stated, 

in pertinent part, that: 

It has come to our attention that certain trades made in 

accounts represented by Safeguard Metals appear to not be 

in the best interest of the IRA owner as the values of the 

accounts were significantly less after the trade activity than 

the values of the accounts prior to the trades. 

 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 24 of 71 Page ID #:2443
- 25 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. Ikahn Controlled the Operations of Safeguard Metals and Is 

Therefore Liable for Its Actions. 

69. During the Relevant Period, Ikahn was the controlling person of 

Safeguard Metals and held 100% ownership of the company and held exclusive 

authority over the company’s business decisions. 

70. Ikahn was the sole member of the limited liability company, and no one 

else has ever served as a member. He executed the limited liability company 

registration using the title of “Principal.” 

71. As the controlling person, Ikahn initially handled all aspects of 

Safeguard Metals’ operations and made all significant business decisions. Ikahn was 

responsible for the creation of Safeguard Metals’ website and had authority over it, 

and the website contained numerous false statements. Ikahn initially hired and 

trained sales representatives, and was authorized to make personnel decisions 

regarding the hiring and firing of employees. Ikahn initially provided training, 

created a sales script, and prepared email templates for sales representatives to use, 

and created the account agreement that Safeguard Metals entered into with customers 

that contained false information. Among other things, Ikahn emailed sales 

representatives and instructed them to provide the false information to potential 

customers that big banks or brokerage firms can freeze retirement accounts in times 

of financial turmoil. Ikahn determined and set the prices at which Safeguard Metals 

sold Precious Metals and Silver Coins to the public. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 25 of 71 Page ID #:2444
- 26 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

72. For the entirety of the Relevant Period, Ikahn was the only signatory on 

Safeguard Metals’ bank accounts and served as the only person authorized to enter 

into financial transactions on behalf of the company. 

7. Defendants Acted in the States as Unregistered Investment 

Advisers or Investment Adviser Representatives and Engaged 

in Fraud 

73. The Laws of the States govern the registration of Investment Advisers 

(“IAs”) and Investment Adviser Representatives (“IARs”) (collectively, “IAs & 

IARs”). 

74. Collectively, the Laws of the States prohibit (1) fraud in connection with 

investment advisory services; (2) fraud in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale 

of securities; (3) fraud in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of commodities; 

and (4) financial exploitation of the elderly. 

i. Defendants Acted in the States as Unregistered Investment 

Advisers or Investment Adviser Representatives 

75. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales representatives 

or other agents, offered and provided investment advice to investors for 

compensation. 

76. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales representatives 

or other agents, acted as IAs & IARs, because Defendants, for compensation, 

engaged in the business of advising another, either directly or through publications or 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 26 of 71 Page ID #:2445
- 27 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, 

purchasing, or selling securities, including, but not limited to: 

a. Safeguard Metals held itself out as a full-service investment firm, 

claimed that it was rated number one among wealth protection 

firms, touted alleged relationships with securities industry 

professionals, and claimed years of industry experience; 

b. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representatives or other agents, solicited investors and provided 

investment advice to investors with respect to the value of 

securities or to the advisability of selling currently held securities, 

and encouraged investors to liquidate their Qualified Retirement 

Savings and existing securities holdings; 

c. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representatives sent victims emails highlighting articles that would 

induce fear in the investors about securities held in preexisting 

Qualified Retirement Savings; 

 d. Safeguard Metals, either directly or by and through their sales 

representatives or other agents, aided investors in setting up 

SDIRAs, including but not limited to, provided assistance with 

SDIRA applications and facilitating contact with the custodians of 

their Qualified Retirement Savings to initiate the liquidation and 

transfer of funds to the SDIRA; 

e. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representatives or other agents, advised about market trends, 

specifically emphasizing the volatility of the stock market and 

suggesting that the stock market could crash; 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 27 of 71 Page ID #:2446
- 28 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representatives or other agents, advised about advantages of 

investing in securities versus other types of investments, 

specifically advising that precious metals would be a better or 

safer investment vehicle than Qualified Retirement Savings; 

g. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representative or other agents, provided advice about asset 

allocation, including advising investors that up to 20% of their 

assets should be in physical Precious Metals; 

h. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales 

representative or other agents, provided further advice about asset 

allocation, and selected the type of metals on behalf of the 

investors, primarily the 1.25 oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea, which 

constituted over 97% of the total coins sold to investors; 

i. Ikahn was a controlling person of Safeguard Metals during the 

Relevant Period, owned 100% of the company, and was the sole 

member and Principal of the limited liability company. Prior to 

October 2020, Ikahn created sales scripts and email templates and 

distributed customer leads and provided training to sales 

representatives at Safeguard Metals, and set the prices at which 

Safeguard Metals sold Precious Metals and Silver Coins to the 

public. 

77. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales representatives 

or other agents, received compensation from investors in the form of substantial 

markups on the coins that were sold. For example, for the 1.25 oz Silver Rose Crown 

Guinea which constituted over 97% of the total coins sold to investors, Safeguard 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 28 of 71 Page ID #:2447
- 29 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Metals charged an average markup of 71% prior to 2021, and about 51% during 

2021. During the Relevant Period, Safeguard Metals obtained approximately $67 

million from the sale of gold and silver coins to more than 450 mostly elderly, retail 

investors. Safeguard Metals kept approximately $25.5 million of the approximately 

$67 million paid by investors for itself in the form of markups on the price Safeguard 

Metals paid for the coins. Ikahn personally received compensation in the form of 

markups charged on the Precious Metals sold to customers. 

78. By way of example, Defendants, either directly or by and through their 

sales representatives or other agents, provided investment advice to the following 

investors: 

a. Alabama Investor #1, aged 61, was contacted by a Safeguard Metals 

sales representative and pressured to liquidate her and her husband’s 

IRA accounts, which contained securities. The investor was told that the 

government could seize her securities at any time and that the stock 

market was about to crash. Alabama Investor #1 made 2 purchases with 

Safeguard Metals in April of 2020. Another purchase was made in the 

name of her husband in May of 2020. The purchases were placed into 

SDIRAs that a Safeguard Metals sales representative helped her set up, 

including being on a three-way call with the investor and her brokerage 

firm. The Alabama Investor #1 was also told that her purchases would 

be insured and was never told about the high-risk nature of precious 

metals investments. At no time was the investor given the opportunity to 

choose which metals she was buying or the diversification of the metals 

she bought. At no time was she told that Safeguard Metals was 

collecting a 55% mark-up on the silver coins she bought. Alabama 

Investor #1 was unaware of the mark-up until an investigator from the 

Alabama Securities Commission met with her in August, 2021. 

b. Alabama Investor #2, aged 65, wanted to purchase both silver and gold 

in equal amounts. To do so, he liquidated a Thrift Savings Plan that held 

securities into cash, $89,997.96. Despite his stated desire to split his 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 29 of 71 Page ID #:2448
- 30 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investment equally between gold and silver, Safeguard Metals sold 

Alabama Investor #2 two thousand twenty-eight (2,028) 11⁄4 ounce Silver 

Rose Crown Guineas for $87,467.64 and twelve (12) 1/10 ounce Gold 

American Eagles for $2,530.32. The melt price for silver on the date of 

the sale, April 13, 2020, was $27.47 per ounce. The melt price for gold 

on the same date was $1,717.72 per ounce. Thus, Alabama Investor #2 

incurred a 54% loss upon the purchase of the Silver Guineas. This loss 

was not disclosed to him at any time. 

c. Arkansas Investor #1 (“AR1”) was a retiree and senior citizen that had 

approximately $1,000,000.00 in bonds in his IRA accounts. A sales 

representative from Safeguard Metals stated that precious metals were a 

safe way to preserve and grow his wealth. He was advised by the sales 

representative that the stock market was in for a major correction and 

was overvalued. The sales representative also told AR1 how the Federal 

Reserve was devaluing the dollar by excessive printing and how the rise 

of inflation was going to make precious metals more valuable. AR1 was 

advised to invest his entire retirement portfolio in silver numismatic 

coins. The sales representative told AR1 that the purchase price would 

be market value for the coins, and the only commission charged would 

be about 5% at the time of liquidation. AR1 from October 2019 through 

August 2020 liquidated all his retirement accounts around $1,000,000 in 

bonds, and purchased precious metals. 

d. Arkansas Investor #2 (“AR2”) was age 66 at the time of the transactions 

and was semi-retired. She was contacted by a sales representative for 

Safeguard Metals and liquidated her only retirement account to buy 

silver numismatic coins. AR2 was told that those coins were increasing 

in value and that they would be a good investment. The sales 

representative never disclosed to AR2 the manner or amount of 

compensation the representative or Safeguard Metals would receive on 

the transaction AR2 liquidated her entire retirement account and invested 

it into precious metals the sales representative recommended. 

e. California Investor #1 was advised by his sales representative that 

precious metals were a more stable investment that would hold its value, 

as opposed to securities held in traditional retirement accounts as the 

value of the dollar was declining. California Investor #1 had little 

experience in investing in metals and coins, and the sales associate 

assisted in liquidating approximately $111,000 from his traditional IRA, 

invested in securities, to roll over to a SDIRA account to purchase 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 30 of 71 Page ID #:2449
- 31 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

metals. California Investor #1 asked the sales representative to select the 

metals for best value, and the sales associate purchased a little under 

$100,000 in 1.25 oz. Silver Rose Crown Guineas on his behalf. 

f. California Investor #2 was advised by a sales representative that she 

could be frozen out of her traditional IRA account that was invested in 

securities, emphasized the volatility of the stock market, and advised her 

that 25 to 50 percent of the money held in her traditional IRA account 

should be put into precious metals instead. Although California Investor 

#2 was primarily interested in purchasing gold, her sales representative 

advised her that the market was better for silver, and convinced her to 

purchase primarily Silver Coins. 

g. Connecticut Investor #1 was 71 years old and retired when he 

purchased precious metals from Safeguard Metals. A Safeguard 

Metals sales representative advised him that precious metals are 

stable unlike the investments he had in his Qualified Retirement 

Savings account and that the stock market was about to crash. 

The sales representative also told him his Qualified Retirement 

Savings account was uninsured and that he could get frozen out 

of it if there was a market crash. The sales representative advised 

him to sell everything in the account and buy precious metals. 

Connecticut Investor #1 had no prior experience or knowledge in 

investments. The sales representative assisted him with selling 

approximately $114,000 worth of investments from his Qualified 

Retirement Savings account which included securities, setting up 

a SDIRA, and then purchasing precious metals from Safeguard 

Metals with these funds. The sales representative never told him 

anything about fees or costs associated with this transaction, and 

although Connecticut Investor #1 asked for only gold, the sales 

representative invested almost all of the funds in Silver Rose 

Crown Guinea coins and told him after the fact this was a better 

investment for him. 

h. Connecticut Investor #2 was 62 years old and planning for retirement 

when she purchased precious metals from Safeguard Metals. A 

Safeguard Metals sales representative told her the economy was going to 

crash and that she could lose everything in her Qualified Retirement 

Savings account. The sales representative advised her to liquidate the 

account and invest in precious metals which are stable. Other Safeguard 

Metals sales representatives kept calling her and telling her to “hurry up” 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 31 of 71 Page ID #:2450
- 32 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and “make a decision” because time was running out. Connecticut 

Investor #2 had no prior experience or knowledge in investments. A 

Safeguard Metals sales representative assisted her with selling 

approximately $130,000 worth of investments from her Qualified 

Retirement Savings account which included securities, setting up a 

SDIRA, and then purchasing precious metals with these funds from 

Safeguard Metals. The sales representative never told her anything 

about fees or costs associated with this transaction, and although 

Connecticut Investor #2 asked for only gold, the sales representative 

invested almost all of the funds in Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins. 

i. Florida Investor #1 was over 65 years old when she purchased precious 

metals from Safeguard Metals. She told the sales representative that she 

needed more income because of her age. The sales representative 

assisted her in selling securities she owned to obtain the money she used 

to purchase precious metals. The sales representative facilitated or 

assisted Florida Investor #1 in opening a SDIRA and moving money into 

the SDIRA which she then used to purchase precious metals. Florida 

Investor #1 relied on the sales representative’s advice when she 

purchased precious metals. 

j. Florida Investor #2 was over 65 years old when she purchased precious 

metals from Safeguard Metals. She told her sales representative that she 

did not want to lose any value in her investment. The sales 

representative gave her a chart that showed that metals had outperformed 

the “S&P”. The sales representative told her that precious metals were 

secure and low risk. He also said that she would get a high return on 

metals because “the market” would crash. With the assistance of her 

sales representative, Florida Investor #2 sold securities she owned to 

obtain the money she used to purchase precious metals. The sales 

representative also facilitated or assisted Florida Investor #2 in opening a 

SDIRA which she then used to purchase precious metals. Florida 

Investor #2 relied on the sales representative’s advice when she 

purchased precious metals. 

k. Florida Investor #3 was over 65 years old when she purchased precious 

metals from Safeguard Metals. The sales representative told her that 

precious metals were better and safer than stocks and leaving her money 

in a 401(k) plan. He also told her that she would make plenty of money 

through the purchase of precious metals. The sales representative 

facilitated or assisted Florida Investor #3 in selling the securities she 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 32 of 71 Page ID #:2451
- 33 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

owned to obtain the money to purchase precious metals. He also 

facilitated or assisted her in opening a SDIRA which she used to 

purchase precious metals. Florida Investor #3 relied on the sales 

representative’s advice when she purchased precious metals. 

l. Idaho Investor #1, age 62, was advised by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative that the Biden presidency was giving money away and 

that the dollar would soon be worthless. The Safeguard Metals 

representative also stated that her 401(k) retirement funds actually 

belonged to her former employer, an airline company, and could be 

taken, like the way that Delta took their pilots’ pensions years ago. The 

Safeguard Metals representative recommended that she put most of 

retirement funds into silver and a little bit of gold. Based on the advice 

of the Safeguard Metals representative, Idaho Investor #1 liquidated her 

entire 401(k) account totaling more than $592,000 to purchase precious 

metals from Safeguard Metals. Safeguard Metals charged Idaho 

Investor #1 $567,273.57 for 9,953 1.25 oz. Silver Rose Crown Guinea 

coins and 52 1/10 oz Gold American Eagle coins. However, these coins 

were transferred the same day to the investor’s Equity Trust account at a 

value of only $326,402.83. This represents a markup of $241,385.75 or 

74%. 

m. Illinois Investor #1 is a senior citizen and had a traditional IRA with 

Fidelity. The sales representative at Safeguard Metals advised Investor 

#1 to invest in gold and silver coins because they were more stable than 

the stock market. Investor #1 is not an accredited investor and did not 

have a working knowledge of or experience concerning securities, 

precious metal bullion, or numismatic coins, investments prior to 

investing through Safeguard Metals. The sales representative also 

recommended investing in Safeguard Metals over Fidelity because it had 

a higher BBB rating and that Investor #1 would have more control over 

his investment. Investor #1 wired $105,000 from his Fidelity IRA 

account to his Entrust SDIRA in May of 2021. The sales representative 

did not inform Investor #1 of any fees or mark-ups associated with 

investing in precious metals and coins. Safeguard Metals charged 

Investor #1 $99,540.81 for 2,181 1.25 oz. Silver Rose Crown Guineas. 

However, these 2,181 silver coins were transferred the same day to the 

investor’s Entrust account at a value of only $57,578.40. This represents 

a markup of $41,962.41 or 73%. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 33 of 71 Page ID #:2452
- 34 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

n. Illinois Investor #2 is a senior citizen and had a 401(k) with Sentry 

which included mutual funds. Investor #2 is not an accredited investor. 

The sales representative recommended that Investor #2 invest in metals 

to protect against large swings in the market. The sales representative 

recommended that Investor #2 open up a SDIRA account with Equity 

Trust. In April of 2021, Investor #2 transferred $64,000 to Equity Trust. 

The value of his 401(k) account was approximately $80,000 at the time 

of the transfer. Based on the recommendation of the sales 

representative, Investor #2 purchased 1,015 Silver Coins. Safeguard 

Metals charged Investor #2 $59,976.35 for 1,015 1.25 oz. Silver Rose 

Crown Guineas. However, these 1,015 Silver Coins were transferred the 

same day to the investor’s Entrust account at a value of only $38,235.05. 

This represents a markup of $21,741.30 or 57%. 

o. Kentucky Investor #1 is a 63-year-old Kentucky resident. On or around 

May 2020, Kentucky Investor #1 watched a cable news talk show 

discussing alternative investments. The commentator insinuated that the 

stock market was going to crash and advertised for Safeguard Metals. 

Kentucky Investor #1 filled out a form on the Safeguard Metals website 

and soon received a call from an account executive at Safeguard Metals. 

The account executive told Kentucky Investor #1 that investing in 

precious metals was better than investing in the stock market. Kentucky 

Investor #1 told the account executive that he had a 401(k) at Edward 

Jones and a Thrift Savings Plan. The account executive told Kentucky 

Investor #1 that precious metals were a much safer investment and 

advised him to roll over the money he had in stocks into a SDIRA 

invested in precious metals. Based on the advice of Safeguard Metals, 

Kentucky Investor #1 decided to purchase $50,148.88 in metals and, on 

May 1, 2020, rolled over his stock account with Edward Jones to a 

SDIRA account at Equity Trust. Safeguard Metals failed to disclose 

how the precious metals were valued and how the valuations could differ 

significantly. In January 2022, Kentucky Investor #1’s metals, which he 

believed to be worth approximately $50,000, were only valued at the 

melt value of $18,000. 

p. Kentucky Investor #2 is a 67-year-old Kentucky resident, who on 

December 2019 was listening to a radio financial program and heard an 

advertisement for Safeguard Metals. Kentucky Investor #2 called the 

number for Safeguard Metals and spoke to a sales representative with 

Safeguard Metals. Kentucky Investor #2 told the sales representative 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 34 of 71 Page ID #:2453
- 35 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that she was concerned about the safety of her 401(k) and wanted a 

short-term investment with a good return because she and her husband 

would need to buy a new home in the next few years. The sales 

representative told Kentucky Investor #2 that she would make six times 

what she currently had by investing in precious metals, and that she 

would not make any money under her current 401(k) and that Safeguard 

Metals would buy back her metals if she ever needed the money. 

Kentucky Investor #2 invested as the sales representative advised. The 

sales representative informed Kentucky Investor #2 that he was opening 

a SDIRA for her invested in precious metals, and initiated a three-way 

call with Fidelity, where Kentucky Investor #2’s 401(k) was located, and 

assisted with the rollover of the 401(k) to Equity Trust. On December 

23, 2019, Kentucky Investor #2 invested $26,604.21 into a SDIRA 

backed by precious metals through Safeguard Metals. Safeguard Metals 

did not disclose to Kentucky Investor #2 how precious metals were 

valued and how the valuations could differ significantly. In June 2019, 

she discovered that the metals she purchased after liquidating the 

$26,604.21 from her 401(k) were only worth the melt value of 

$19,614.78. 

q. Maryland Investor #1 was advised by a sales representative claiming 

extensive experience dealing with precious metals that the investor’s 

money would be safer in precious metals than the stock market; in fact, 

that the crash of the market was inevitable because the economy is being 

flooded with printed money. Though Maryland Investor #1 was not 

interested in coins, he was told that he could only purchase coins and 

was recommended the 1.25 oz. Silver Rose Crown Guineas as the sales 

representative advised the coins were limited edition and would 

appreciate in value quickly. Maryland Investor #1 subsequently decided 

to liquidate securities and transfer his entire IRA – roughly $240,000 – 

to invest with Safeguard Metals. These funds represented the entirety of 

his anticipated retirement savings. 

r. Mississippi Investor #1 was advised by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative to purchase metals immediately as prices were going up 

and the securities market was unstable and about to “blow up.” The 

Safeguard Metals representative told Mississippi Investor #1 that if the 

economy collapses, the government could come in and take over the 

banks and credits unions. Defendants advised Mississippi Investor #1 to 

get out of the market completely and move all his money to precious 

metals. The representative called every day. With Safeguard Metals 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 35 of 71 Page ID #:2454
- 36 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

facilitating, Mississippi Investor #1 rolled 401(k)s and Roth IRAs, all of 

which contained securities, valued at approximately $737,000 to a 

SDIRA at Equity Trust. Mississippi Investor #1 was never informed of 

any risks of liquidating his securities accounts, was never told of any 

spread or markup, or informed that precious metals were a long-term 

investment. The first account statement showed the precious metals 

valued at less than half his original investment. 

s. Mississippi Investor #2 was contacted by a representative at 

Safeguard Metals who stated that Mississippi Investor #2 had 

requested a call from Safeguard Metals (she had not). The 

representative stated that the market was about to crash again, 

sending articles to her about a pending market crash. The 

representative told Mississippi Investor #2 that precious metals 

would always be safe and the representative did not want to see 

her lose her “life savings if [she] left it where it was.” The 

representative called multiple times a day. With Safeguard 

Metals facilitating, Mississippi Investor #2 liquidated the 

securities in her 401(k), approximately $29,500, and moved her 

money to a SDIRA at Equity Trust Company. Mississippi 

Investor #2 was not told of any fees, spread, markup, or 

commissions. Account statements showed the precious metals 

valued at $17,500. 

t. Mississippi Investor #3 communicated with Safeguard Metals almost 

every day, sometimes multiple times a day. The representative told 

Mississippi Investor #3 that the stock market was going to crash and it 

was the time to invest in gold and silver as they were about to go up. 

The representative stated that Safeguard Metals would double the 

investment in 12 months. Mississippi Investor #3 was advised to invest 

in silver because it had the best return. With Safeguard Metals 

facilitating, Mississippi Investor #3 rolled his 401(k), with 

approximately $152,000 in the account, to a SDIRA at Equity Trust. 

Account statements showed the precious metals valued at approximately 

$97,000. 

u. Missouri Resident #1 (“MR1”), at the age of 61 and while disabled 

following a stroke, was contacted by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative that identified himself as Michael Roeder (“Roeder”) and 

advised that she should liquidate 100% of her retirement savings of an 

IRA she had inherited held at Fidelity with the promise that her $85,000 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 36 of 71 Page ID #:2455
- 37 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would grow to $100,000 in a very short period of time. Roeder also 

made disparaging comments that Fidelity was “shady” to further induce 

MR1’s investment through Safeguard Metals. Roeder convinced MR1 

that metals investments offered by Safeguard Metals were easier to 

protect from government confiscation and based his arguments on proRepublican platform statements. Roeder facilitated the transfer of the 

funds from Fidelity Investments to Equity Trust and instructed MR1 to 

remain silent during the call initiating the liquidation and transfer from 

Fidelity to Equity. Despite investing $85,179.69 in 9 Gold American 

Eagles and 1,241 Silver Rose Crown Guineas, MR1 lost $15,882.88 

when she sold 598 Silver Rose Crown Guineas and has a current 

estimated value of only $20,000 in the remaining precious metals she 

purchased through Safeguard Metals. 

v. Missouri Resident #2 (“MR2”), at the age of 64, received a cold call 

from someone at Safeguard Metals identifying themselves as Lyn Chase 

(“Chase”) and convinced MR2 to liquidate and invest nearly $50,000 in 

precious metals while aware that said amount constituted the entirety of 

MR2’s retirement savings. Chase assisted MR2 with the transfer from 

her Thrift Savings Plan to a SDIRA at Equity. Despite investing 

$46,169.67 in 3 American Gold Eagles and 760 Silver Rose Crown 

guineas, MR2 lost $17,742.34 after selling all the coins. 

w. Missouri Resident #3 (“MR3”), at the age of 72, received a call from 

Roeder after she left her contact information over the phone after she 

heard a radio announcement about Safeguard Metals during a Rush 

Limbaugh show in February, 2021. Roeder used high pressure sales 

tactics according to MR3 and fear tactics related to claims of 

government freezes and seizures. Knowing that MR3 only had $74,800 

representing the entirety of MR3’s retirement assets, Roeder convinced 

MR3 to invest in precious metals through Safeguard Metals and sent 

MR3 the paperwork necessary to effectuate the liquidation of MR3’s 

401(k) and opening of a SDIRA at Equity. Despite investing $76,691.73 

in 4 Gold American Eagles and 1,557 Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins, 

MR3 lost $1,671.88 when MR3 sold 98 Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins 

and has a current estimated value of only $52,800 in remaining precious 

metals purchased through Safeguard Metals. 

x. Fifteen other Missouri investors purchased precious metals 

through similar transactions with Safeguard Metals for a total 

amount of $1,682,463.62. At least half of the Missouri investors 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 37 of 71 Page ID #:2456
- 38 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

liquidated or sold securities in order to make the purchases 

recommended by Safeguard Metals. Given the high markup and 

commissions earned on the sales of the precious metals offered 

by Safeguard Metals, none of the 18 Missouri residents recorded 

a profit on their precious metals investments. Interviews 

conducted with the other fifteen Missouri investors confirmed 

that the same or similar tactics were used to induce their 

investments in precious metals through Safeguard Metals. 

y. New Mexico Investor #1 was never advised by his sales representative 

of the risks of investing the entirety his 401(k)’s holdings into precious 

metals. New Mexico Investor #1 was never advised by his sales 

representative that his first SDIRA statement would indicate that New 

Mexico Investor # 1’s initial $33,000 investment into precious metals 

would decrease in value with the sales representative’s only explanation 

that this decrease was due to “melt value” with no further explanation. 

New Mexico Investor #1 was advised by his sales representative to 

invest the entirety of his 401(k)’s holdings into precious metals. New 

Mexico Investor #1 was advised by his sales representative that Investor 

#1’s 401(k)’s holdings “were in trouble” and Investor #1 needed to 

transfer his 401(k)’s holdings into precious metals because gold holds its 

power, gold holds its worth, gold will have gains and “the government is 

fixing to screw your 401(k).” 

z. North Carolina Investor #1, age 69, was advised by a Safeguard Metals 

sales representative that 401(k) laws were changing and to not invest in 

securities via an IRA account, but instead to open an SDIRA, established 

by Safeguard Metals and purchase gold and silver coins. The Safeguard 

Metals sales representative advised North Carolina Investor #1 that 

silver was going to double in value, the metals in her account would 

increase in value and thus would cover future storage fees for her metals. 

A Safeguard Metals sales representative persuaded North Carolina 

Investor #1, who had no prior knowledge nor experience investing in 

metals, to liquidate $65,966 from her IRA that held securities, and open 

an SDIRA. The Safeguard Metals sales representative, on the investor’s 

behalf, invested 99.5% of available funds in 1.25-oz Silver Rose Crown 

Guinea coins. 

aa. North Carolina Investor #2, aged 60, was advised by a Safeguard Metals 

sales representative that due to stock market fluctuation, silver was a 

better opportunity to increase her investment value over the purchase of 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 38 of 71 Page ID #:2457
- 39 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

gold. North Carolina Investor #2 was interested in purchasing gold and 

silver, but had no prior knowledge or experience in precious metals or 

with a SDIRA. A Safeguard Metals sales representative called 

frequently prior to the investment and advised the investment in precious 

metals would retain the value of the original investment. North Carolina 

Investor #2 was persuaded to liquidate $101,182 from her traditional 

IRA account which held securities, and purchase precious metals 

through a SDIRA account established by Safeguard Metals on her 

behalf. A Safeguard Metals sales representative invested 97.6% of the 

investor’s available funds in 1.25 oz. Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins. 

bb.North Carolina Investor #3, aged 69, was advised by a Safeguard Metals 

sales representative to liquidate his traditional IRA account because of a 

pending stock market crash in Spring 2021 and instead purchase 

precious metals, specifically silver, as a safe investment against a 

declining stock market and government confiscation of IRAs. North 

Carolina Investor #3 had no prior knowledge or experience in metals or 

with a SDIRA, but was persuaded by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative to liquidate $95,485 from his traditional IRA account 

which held securities; and purchase precious metals through a SDIRA 

account established by Safeguard Metals on his behalf. The Safeguard 

Metals sales representative invested 98% of the investor’s available 

funds in 1.25-oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins. 

cc. Ohio Investor #1, age 66, was cold-called by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative and advised that his retirement accounts at Fidelity were 

not safe and that he needed to move his retirement out of the stock 

market. Ohio Investor #1 told the Safeguard Metals sales representative 

that the Fidelity accounts were all the retirement that he had, and the 

representative advised him to liquidate the whole account except for 

$4,000. The sales representative was on the phone with Fidelity and 

Ohio Investor #1 when the request to liquidate $111,000 was made. The 

sales representative used high pressure tactics and independently chose 

the coins which were purchased, and continuously told the investor that 

he was “getting a good deal” and that he would “make a lot of money.” 

The sales representative also assisted in setting up a SDIRA account 

with Equity Trust Company to maintain the investment in a tax-deferred 

account. 

dd.Ohio Investor #2, age 63, was cold-called by Safeguard Metals sales 

representative who told him that the markets were going up and down 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 39 of 71 Page ID #:2458
- 40 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and that precious metals are expected to only go up. The sales 

representative advised Ohio Investor #2 to liquidate his IRA account in 

full and invest the whole amount, $250,000.00 and roughly two-thirds of 

the investor’s entire net worth, into metals. The sales representative 

helped the investor set up a SDIRA account at Equity Trust and was also 

on a 3-way call with TD Ameritrade to liquidate the entire IRA account 

of Ohio Investor #2. Although the investment amount was $250,000.00, 

the value on the initial statement from Equity Trust was less than 

$140,000.00. Upon inquiry by the investor, the sales representative 

advised the investor that “it takes time to balance out.” 

ee. Safeguard Metals advised Oklahoma Investor #1, age 67, that she should 

transfer her 401(k) assets into a precious-metals SDIRA because, in part, 

the securities market was unstable and near collapse; that her assets 

would then be untouchable from the federal government’s alleged plan 

to implement policies allowing a government takeover of 401(k) plans; 

that Safeguard Metals would ensure she would not be charged any fees 

by her SDIRA custodian; and that her assets would increase in value. In 

actuality, the precious-metals SDIRA custodian valued Safeguard 

Metal’s recommended and executed purchases at 49% of Oklahoma 

Investor #1’s purchase price and she was, in fact, charged custodian fees 

by the SDIRA custodian. 

ff. South Carolina Investor #1 (“SC1”), at the age of 64, wanted to boost 

her savings by investing in precious metals. SC1’s experience regarding 

securities was limited to a guaranteed annuity and a 401(k) retirement 

account. SC1 contacted Safeguard Metals after seeing an advertisement 

on a politically conservative television program and reviewing the 

Safeguard Metals website. Subsequently, SC1 had several telephone 

conversations with Safeguard Metals sales representative “Alex Fisher” 

who talked with her about the conservative television program and their 

shared home state of New York. SC1 told the Safeguard Metals sales 

representative that she needed additional income in order to help defer 

costs associated with her cancer treatment, and her husband’s 

Alzheimer’s disease treatments. The Safeguard Metals sales 

representative advised SC1 to invest in gold and silver and promised 

(i) that SC1’s investments would reach $750,000 in value in five years; 

(ii) that there were IRS tax advantages to purchasing the precious metals; 

and (iii) that gold and silver were “recession proof.” The Safeguard 

Metals sales representatives wanted her to “hurry up” and asked her 

rhetorically whether she wanted to have her money in “better 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 40 of 71 Page ID #:2459
- 41 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investments” or whether she wanted to be a “burden to [her] family” in 

her retirement. In November 2019, a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative assisted SC1 in (i) liquidating $208,000, approximately 

$33,000 from a traditional IRA and $175,000 from a variable annuity; 

(ii) opening a SDIRA; and (iii) purchasing gold and silver coins. 

Safeguard Metals sales representatives never disclosed to SC1 the costs 

and fees associated with purchasing gold and silver through Safeguard 

Metal. When SC1 received her first account statement from the SDIRA 

custodian, SC1 learned that almost 90% of her account was invested in 

1.25-oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea coins and that she had 

instantaneously lost over $97,000 of her $208,000 investment. 

gg.South Carolina Investor #2 (SC2), at the age of 62, contacted Safeguard 

Metals in the fall of 2019, after seeing an advertisement on a politically 

conservative television program. Safeguard Metals sales representative 

“Alex Fisher” advised SC2 to act quickly to invest his retirement in gold 

and silver because of the uncertainty of the economy. The Safeguard 

Metals sales representative told SC2 that the value of gold was going to 

“go way up.” When SC2 expressed concern about the SDIRA account, 

Safeguard Metals sales representative “Adam Pressley” assured SC2 that 

Safeguard Metals was “going to take care of you.” SC2 was promised 

that he would only be “charged a 3% fee when there was a transaction,” 

and was not informed about other fees or commissions that might be 

charged. Despite SC2’s hesitance, Safeguard Metals continued its highpressure sales strategy, involving multiple calls with at least five 

different Safeguard Metals sales representatives. SC2 finally relented 

and liquidated his traditional IRA and rolled it into a SDIRA in order to 

invest in Safeguard Metal’s gold and silver. A Safeguard Metals sales 

representative joined the telephone call when SC2 liquidated his 

traditional IRA and moved his retirement money into a SDIRA. SC2 

and the Safeguard Metals sales representatives discussed diversifying his 

money by investing in both gold and silver. However, Safeguard Metals 

invested 97% of his $261,342.72 in 1.25-oz Silver Rose Crown Guinea 

coins. SC2 paid the alleged numismatic value of the coins. SC2’s first 

SDIRA account statement revealed that the value of his account was 

about $100,000 less than he invested. When he contacted Safeguard 

Metals about the discrepancy, SC2 was told that the “real value of [his] 

account [was] $300,000” and that “the IRA custodian used metal values 

and not the actual value of the coin.” SC2 states that he would not have 

invested with Safeguard Metals if he was informed that the fees and 

other casts purchasing the precious metals was higher than 3% or if he 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 41 of 71 Page ID #:2460
- 42 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was informed that the value calculated in the SDIRA account was 

different than the value Safeguard Metals assigned to the silver and gold 

coins. 

hh.Vermont Investor #1, age 73, was contacted by a Safeguard Metals sales 

representative and advised that he and Vermont Investor #2 should 

liquidate their IRA accounts, both of which contained securities, and buy 

precious metals, because the stock market was volatile and the metals 

market more stable, thus transferring their investment to precious metals 

would result in financial gain. The Safeguard Metals representative held 

out Safeguard Metals as an investment adviser. Vermont Investors #1 

and #2 were persuaded to liquidate their entire IRA accounts to buy 

precious metals. 

ii. Utah Investor #1 was contacted by Safeguard Metals sales 

representatives who told him that metals were a good hedge in 

the event the dollar decreased, that metals were a great place to 

store assets away from government overreach, that his silver 

would be held at Delaware Depository, and that the only money 

made by Safeguard Metals was a 1% sales fee when the investor 

later sold his silver. The Safeguard Metals sales representative 

assisted Utah Investor #1 in transferring his thrift savings plan 

retirement account which contained $200,000 in securities, to 

third-party administrator Equity Trust. 

79. Safeguard Metals has never been registered as an IA, nor have its agents 

or Ikahn been registered as IARs, as required under state and/or federal law. 

Defendants never submitted a notice filing with the appropriate state regulator as an 

IA or IAR, nor are they exempt from state registration as an IA or IAR. 

ii. As Investment Advisers or Investment Adviser Representatives, 

Defendants Engaged in Fraud. 

80. Defendants, either directly or by and through their sales representatives 

or other agents, in acting as IAs and IARs, employed a device, scheme, or artifice to 

defraud their clients and prospective clients, and/or engaged in transactions, practices, 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 42 of 71 Page ID #:2461
- 43 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or courses of business operating as a fraud or deceit upon those clients or prospective 

clients in providing investment advice to investors to transfer their Qualified 

Retirement Savings, including divesting themselves of securities, to purchase 

precious metals from Safeguard Metals, including making material 

misrepresentations and material omissions which included, but were not limited to, 

the following: 

a. Misrepresenting that Safeguard Metals is a full-service investment 

firm, rated number one among wealth protection firms, has $11 

billion in assets under management, with offices in London, 

England, and Beverly Hills, California, and used false and 

fictitious employee names, touting non-existent employees on 

LinkedIn, misrepresenting employee job titles, and exaggerating 

employee qualifications and years of industry experience—all are 

false; 

b. Misrepresenting the safety and liquidity of investors’ securities 

holdings and Qualified Retirement Accounts and employing scare 

tactics to induce investors to sell their existing securities holdings; 

c. Misrepresenting to investors that the United States stock market is 

headed for an economic recession or crash, that would result in 

significant losses to existing Qualified Retirement Accounts; 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 43 of 71 Page ID #:2462
- 44 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. Misrepresenting that investors’ Qualified Retirement Accounts 

were at risk because financial institutions could freeze investors 

out of their retirement accounts if a market crash or correction 

were to occur, and that the financial institution could confiscate or 

freeze all of the holdings in the retirement or investment 

accounts—this is false; 

e. Misrepresenting the effect of certain laws, such as stating that the 

Money Market Fund Reform would allow the government to 

freeze the liquidity in Qualified Retirement Accounts, confiscate 

funds, and never pay participants back if the market fails; 

f. Misrepresenting that the government, not the investor, owns the 

certificates on securities and funds held in a Qualified Retirement 

Savings account—it does not; 

g. Misrepresenting that Qualified Retirement Savings are uninsured, 

when in reality investor protections and insurance are offered 

through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the 

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; 

h. Misrepresenting how Safeguard Metals and its sales 

representatives and agents were compensated by misrepresenting 

to investors that the only compensation received by Safeguard 

Metals was by taking a small commission when customers sold 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 44 of 71 Page ID #:2463
- 45 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their coins, when in fact Safeguard Metals charged high markups 

on the coins it sold to investors; 

i. Failing to disclose the actual markup to investors—more 

specifically, stating in Customer Agreements a maximum 

“operating margin” of 23% prior to 2021, and more recently up to 

42% during 2021, when in fact Safeguard Metals charged an 

average markup of 71% prior to 2021, and about 51% during 

2021; 

j. Misrepresenting to certain investors that Safeguard Metals would 

invest funds only in gold coins when in fact Safeguard Metals 

invested most of the victims’ funds in Silver Rose Crown Guinea 

coins, and then misrepresented to these victims that this was a 

better investment for them than gold; 

k. Misrepresenting and/or omitting that Safeguard Metals charged 

fees and/or commissions at every stage of the investment process 

when setting up the SDIRA, when purchasing gold and silver 

coins, when processing the precious metals, and when selling 

and/or liquidating the precious metals held in the SDIRA 

accounts. 

 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 45 of 71 Page ID #:2464
- 46 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Conclusions of Law 

1. Jurisdiction and Venue 

81. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, which provides that whenever it shall appear to the 

Commission/CFTC that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in 

any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, 

regulation, or order promulgated thereunder, the Commission/CFTC may bring an 

action in the proper district court of the United States against such person to enjoin 

such act or practice, or to enforce compliance with the Act, or any rule, regulation or 

order thereunder. 

82. Section 6d(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2(1), authorizes the States to 

bring a suit in the district courts of the United States to seek injunctive and other 

relief against any person whenever it appears to the Attorneys General and/or 

Securities Administrator of a State, or such other official that a State may designate, 

that the interests of the residents of the State have been, are being, or may be 

threatened or adversely affected because of violations of the Act or CFTC 

Regulations. 

83. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), because the Defendants reside in this jurisdiction and the acts 

and practices in violation of the Act occurred within this District. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 46 of 71 Page ID #:2465
- 47 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and 

CFTC Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) 

(2022) 

 

84. By the conduct described above, Defendants in connection with a 

contract of sale of commodities in interstate commerce, intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, manipulative devices, schemes, 

or artifices to defraud; (2) made, or attempted to make, any untrue or misleading 

statements of material fact or omissions of material fact; or (3) engaged, or attempted 

to engage, in acts, practices, or courses of business, which operated or would have 

operated as a fraud or deceit upon their customers in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 

17 C.F.R. 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022). 

85. Ikahn controlled Safeguard Metals, directly or indirectly, and did not act 

in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant Safeguard 

Metals’ act or acts in violation of the Act and/or Regulations; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Ikahn is liable for Defendant Safeguard 

Metals’ violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022). 

86. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures of Ikahn occurred within the 

scope of his employment, office, or agency with Defendant Safeguard Metals; 

therefore, pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B), and 

Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022), Defendant Safeguard Metals is liable for 

Ikahn’s acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 

180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022). 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 47 of 71 Page ID #:2466
- 48 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. State Law Violations 

87. By the conduct described above, Defendants violated various State laws 

prohibiting: (1) unlicensed investment advice; (2) investment advisers from 

employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud or engaging in an act, practice, or 

course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit; (3) making 

material misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the offer, purchase, or 

sale of securities; (4) making material misrepresentations or omissions in connection 

with the offer, purchase, or sale of commodities; (5) employing any artifice, or 

scheme to defraud in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of commodities; and 

(6) financial exploitation of the elderly in violation of the following: 

a. Ala. Code §§ 8-6-3(b) and (c), 8-6-17(b)(2), 8-6-17(a)(2), and 

13A-6-195 (1975); 

b. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 23-42-301 and 23-42-307(a)(2); 

c. Cal. Corp. Code §§ 25230, 25235, and 29536; 

d. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 36b-6(c)(1), 36b-6(c)(2), 36b-5(a), 36b-5(f), 

and 36b-4(a); 

e. Fla. Stat. §§ 517.275 and 517.12(4); 

f. Idaho Code §§ 30-14-403, 30-14-502, and 30-1506; 

g. 815 ILCS 5, § 8.A, 12.C and 12.D, 815 ILCS 5, § 12.J; 

h. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 292.330(8); 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 48 of 71 Page ID #:2467
- 49 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i. Md. Code, Corps. & Assn’s §§ 11-401(b)(1), 11-402(b)(1), 11-

301, 11-302 and COMAR 02.02.05.03; 

j. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-71-403 to 75-71-404, 75-71-501(1)-(3) 

and § 75-71-502(a), and 75-89-13; 

k. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 409.4-403 and 409.810; 

l. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 58-13C-502(A)(2) (1978), NMAC Rules 

12.11.7.13(A)(L)(Q) & (R); 

m. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 78A-8, 78C-16, and 78C-8; 

n. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1707.44(A)(1), 1707.44(G), 

1707.44(B)(4), 1707.44(B)(4); 

o. Okla. Stat. tit. Sess. 71, §§ 1-403(A), 1-403(D), 1-501, and 1-

502(A); 

p. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 35-1-403 to 35-1-404, 35-1-501(1)-(3) and 

§ 35-1-502(a), 39-73-20, 39-73-60(1)-(4); 

q. Utah Code Ann. §§ 61-1-1 and 61-1-2, and 61-1-3(3); and 

r. 9 V.S.A. §§ 5403, 5404, 5501(1), 5501(2), and 5603(b)(2)(C) 

(collectively, the “State Laws and Regulations”)

88. The facts, misrepresentations, and omissions described above are 

material because there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would 

consider them important in deciding whether to sell securities and/or invest in the 

coins sold by Safeguard Metals. 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 49 of 71 Page ID #:2468
- 50 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89. By the conduct described above, Ikahn controlled Safeguard Metals, 

directly or indirectly, and substantially assisted Safeguard Metals’ act or acts in 

violation of the various State Laws and Regulations; this conduct was not undertaken 

in good faith or was willful, or was knowing. Therefore, Ikahn is liable for Safeguard 

Metals’ violations of the State Laws and Regulations. 

90. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable 

likelihood that Defendants will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in 

the Complaint and in similar acts and practices in violation of the Act and 

Regulations and the State Laws and Regulations. 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

91. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Defendants are permanently restrained, 

enjoined and prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

a. in connection with any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate 

commerce, intentionally or recklessly: (1) using or employing, or 

attempting to use or employ, manipulative devices, schemes, or artifices 

to defraud; (2) making, or attempting to make, any untrue or misleading 

statements of material fact or omissions of material fact; or (3) engaging, 

or attempting to engage, in acts, practices, or courses of business, which 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 50 of 71 Page ID #:2469
- 51 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

operate or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022). 

92. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to 

the laws of the States, Defendants are also permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly engaging in any conduct in violation of the 

State Laws and Regulations described in paragraph 87. 

93. Defendants are also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly: 

a. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40)); 

b. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that 

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022), or Precious 

Metals that are commodities (as that term is defined herein), for accounts 

held in the name of any Defendant or for any account in which any 

Defendant has a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests, or Precious Metals that are 

commodities, traded on any Defendant’s behalf; 

d. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person 

or entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account 

involving commodity interests or Precious Metals that are commodities; 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 51 of 71 Page ID #:2470
- 52 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests or Precious 

Metals that are commodities; 

f. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with 

the CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC, except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2022); 

and/or 

g. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2022)), agent or any other officer or employee of any 

person (as that term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38)), registered, 

exempted from registration or required to be registered with the CFTC 

except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9). 

STATE BAR ORDERS 

94. Defendants consent, without admitting or denying the allegations to be 

contained therein, to the publication of this Consent Order or to the entry of an 

administrative order by the States that ban or bar Defendants from participation in the 

commodities or securities industries, including, but not limited to, any position of 

employment, management, or control of any broker dealer, investment advisor, or 

commodity advisor. 

95. With respect to the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 52 of 71 Page ID #:2471
- 53 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont, the Defendants consent and agree to the 

issuance of administrative bar orders in the form set forth in Attachment 1 to this 

Order. 

96. With respect to the States of Arkansas, New York, and South Carolina: 

a. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT in the State of Arkansas, pursuant to Ark. 

Code Ann. § 23-42-209(c), cease and desist from further violations of the 

Arkansas Securities Act and Rules of the Arkansas Securities Commissioner; 

waive rights to apply and, consequently, agree to never apply for registration 

in Arkansas with the Arkansas Securities Department in any capacity, 

including, but not limited to, as an investment adviser, investment adviser 

representative, broker-dealer, broker-dealer agent, or agent of an issuer, and 

to never serve in a position of employment, management, or control with or 

for any investment adviser, broker-dealer, issuer, or commodity adviser 

pursuant to the Act. 

b. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT in the State of New York, Defendants are 

permanently enjoined from engaging in any business related to the offer, 

issuance, exchange, purchase, sale, promotion, negotiation, advertisement, 

investment advice or distribution of securities or commodities, including any 

cryptocurrencies or digital assets, within or from New York State; and that 

Defendant Ikahn is permanently enjoined from serving as an officer or 

director of any company doing business in New York State. 

c. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT in the State of South Carolina, 

Defendants are barred from acting as an IA, and IAR, broker dealer, or agent 

in the connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or 

indirectly; and barred from selling commodities when not registered with the 

CFTC as a futures commission merchant or as a leverage transaction 

merchant, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as a brokerdealer, or as an otherwise exempt entity. 

97. Defendants consent to waive the right to any notice or hearings, and to 

any reconsideration, appeal, or other right to review which may be afforded by the 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 53 of 71 Page ID #:2472
- 54 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable laws of the States, with full knowledge of their rights, voluntarily waive 

the right to an adjudicative hearing in accordance with applicable state laws, as well 

as any other appeal rights found therein. Defendants waive the issuance, lawful 

service and receipt of any notice of allegations and charges against Defendants and 

stipulate to the jurisdiction of the state securities regulators in Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Utah, and Vermont. 

98. After being fully and adequately apprised of the right to appeal as set 

forth in applicable state laws, Defendants knowingly and voluntarily consent to waive 

the right to any notice or hearings, and to any reconsideration, appeal, or other right 

to review which may be afforded by the applicable laws of Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Utah, and/or Vermont. Defendants expressly waive any requirement for the filing of a 

pleading or accusation. By waiving such rights, Defendants consent to the 

administrative orders filed by the States that are states referenced in this and the 

preceding paragraph becoming final. 

STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

99. The Defendants, CFTC, and the States do not currently seek other 

specific statutory and equitable relief herein aside from the Permanent Injunctive 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 54 of 71 Page ID #:2473
- 55 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Relief and State Bar Orders described above. Rather, the Defendants, CFTC, and the 

States consent to the following future procedures regarding the calculation of such 

other statutory and equitable relief. 

100. Upon motion by the CFTC or the States to either: (1) confirm an 

agreement reached between the Defendants, the CFTC, and the States regarding 

restitution, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalty to be paid by Defendants; or 

(2) request the Court to determine the restitution, disgorgement, and civil monetary 

penalty to be paid by Defendants, the Court shall set a hearing to determine the 

amount of restitution, disgorgement, and/or civil monetary penalties as well as set 

forth the procedures for payment and distribution of these monetary sanctions by 

further order. 

101. In connection with any motion filed by the CFTC and/or the States for 

restitution, disgorgement and/or civil monetary penalties, and at any hearing held on 

such a motion: (a) Defendants will be precluded from arguing that they did not 

violate the federal and state laws as alleged in the Complaint; (b) Defendants may not 

challenge the validity of their consents and agreements herein or this Consent Order; 

(c) for the purposes of such motion, the allegations of the Complaint and the Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order shall be accepted as and 

deemed true by the Court; and (d) the Court may determine the issues raised in the 

motion on the basis of affidavits, declarations, excerpts of sworn deposition or 

investigative testimony, witness testimony, and documentary evidence, without 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 55 of 71 Page ID #:2474
- 56 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regard to the standards for summary judgment contained in Rule 56(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. In connection with a motion filed by the CFTC and/or the 

States for restitution, disgorgement and/or civil monetary penalties, the parties may 

take discovery, including discovery from appropriate non-parties. 

102. Defendants shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with the CFTC 

and/or the States, including the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, in this action, and 

in any current or future investigation by the CFTC or the States related to the subject 

matter of this action. As part of such cooperation, Defendants shall comply, to the 

full extent of their abilities, promptly and truthfully with any inquiries or requests for 

information including but not limited to, requests for production of documents and 

authentication of documents; and shall provide assistance at any trial, proceeding, or 

investigation related to the subject matter of this action, including but not limited to, 

requests for testimony, depositions, and/or interviews. Should the CFTC or the States 

file any additional action(s) related to the subject matter of this action, Defendants are 

directed to appear in the judicial district in which such action(s) is pending, or in a 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 56 of 71 Page ID #:2475
- 57 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

suitable judicial district agreed to by the parties, to provide deposition testimony and 

trial testimony should such testimony be necessary. 

103. Defendants shall also cooperate in any investigation, civil litigation, or 

administrative matter related to, or arising from, this action. 

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

104. Until such time as Defendants satisfy in full their restitution, 

disgorgement, and/or civil monetary penalty obligations that may be imposed in this 

action, upon the commencement by or against Defendants of insolvency, receivership 

or bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of Defendants’ 

debts, all notices to creditors required to be furnished to the CFTC under Title 11 of 

the United States Code or other applicable law with respect to such insolvency, 

receivership, bankruptcy or other proceedings, shall be sent to the address below: 

Secretary of the Commission 

Legal Division 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

All notices required to be sent to the States shall be sent to their counsel of 

record in these proceedings. 

105. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Consent 

Order, except as set forth in the preceding paragraph, shall be sent certified mail, return 

receipt requested, as follows: 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 57 of 71 Page ID #:2476
- 58 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. Notice to CFTC, which shall reference the name and docket 

number of this action: 

 Charles Marvine 

 Deputy Director 

 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

 Kansas City, MO 64108 

b. Notice to States is required to be sent to the respective counsel of 

record for the States in these proceedings. 

c. Notice to Defendants Safeguard Metals and Ikahn: 

Paul A. Rigali 

Larson LLP 

555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

106. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This 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 this 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. 

107. Invalidation: If any provision of this Consent Order or if the application 

of any provision or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this Consent 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 58 of 71 Page ID #:2477
- 59 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall 

not be affected by the holding. 

108. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any 

customer at any time to require performance of any provision of this Consent Order 

shall in no manner affect the right of the party or customer at a later time to enforce 

the same or any other provision of this Consent Order. No waiver in one or more 

instances of the breach of any provision contained in this 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 this Consent Order. 

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

of this action in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees, 

including orders setting the appropriate amounts of restitution, disgorgement, and 

civil monetary penalty, that may be entered herein, to entertain any suitable 

application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of the Court, to 

assure compliance with this Consent Order and for all other purposes relevant to this 

action, including any motion by Defendants to modify or for relief from the terms of 

this Consent Order. 

110. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable 

relief provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon the following persons 

who receive actual notice of this Consent Order, by personal service or otherwise: 

(1) Defendants; (2) any officer, agent, servant, employee, or attorney of the 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 59 of 71 Page ID #:2478
- 60 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants; and (3) any other persons who are in active concert or participation with 

any persons described in subsections (1) and (2) above. 

111. Authority: Defendant Ikahn hereby warrants that he is the owner of 

Defendant Safeguard Metals, that this Consent Order has been duly authorized by 

Defendant Safeguard Metals, and he has been duly empowered to sign and submit 

this Consent Order on behalf of Defendant Safeguard Metals. 

112. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This 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 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 Consent Order. 

113. Enforceability: This Consent Order shall be binding upon Defendants, 

their parents and affiliates, and their respective successors and assigns with respect to 

the provisions above and all future obligations, responsibilities, undertakings, 

commitments, limitations, restrictions, events, and conditions. 

114. Defendants agree that, for the purposes of exceptions to discharge set 

forth in Sections 523, 1141(d)(6), and 1192 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 523; 1141(d)(6); 1192, the findings in this Consent Order are true and admitted 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 60 of 71 Page ID #:2479
- 61 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty, or any other 

amounts due by Defendants under this Consent Order or any other judgment, order, 

consent order, decree, or settlement agreement entered in connection with this 

proceeding, is a debt for violation of state securities laws, including but not limited to 

securities fraud, as set forth in Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C 

§523(a)(19), and Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2), 

and incorporated by reference under Section 1192 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C 

§ 1192. 

115. Defendants understand that the terms of the Consent Order are 

enforceable through contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings, they 

may not challenge the validity of this Consent Order. 

116. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendants shall comply with all of the 

undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

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

to enter this Consent Order of Permanent Injunction and Other Statutory and 

Equitable Relief Against Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 20th day of October 2023. 

 

 John F. Walter, 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 61 of 71 Page ID #:2480
- 62 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

______________________________ 

Safeguard Metals LLC 

By: Jeffrey Ikahn 

Date: _7/25/2023 

__/s/ Paul M. Flucke________________ 

Jeffrey Le Riche – Chief Trial Attorney 

Paul M. Flucke – Trial Attorney 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: (816)960-7728 

Facsimile: (816) 960-7751 

jleriche@cftc.gov 

pflucke@cftc.gov 

Date: _10/16/2023________________ 

______________________________ 

Jeffrey Ikahn (a/k/a Jeffrey S. Santulan 

and Jeff Hill), individually 

Date: _7/25/2023 

Approved as to form: 

Larson LLP 

Paul A. Rigali 

 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 62 of 71 Page ID #:2481
- 63 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jerry A. Behnke 

Catherine S. Owens 

Chloe N. Coleman 

Date: 7/26/2023 

Attorneys for Defendants Safeguard 

Metals LLC and Jeffrey Ikahn 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 63 of 71 Page ID #:2482
- 64 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/s/ Kelly Suk 

Kelly Suk 

Date: 8/14/2023 

Attorney for Plaintiff California Department 

of Financial Protection & of Innovation 

AND Local Counsel for Counsel appearing 

Pro Hac Vice for:

State of Alabama 

State of Arizona 

State of Florida 

State of Idaho 

State of Indiana 

State of Iowa 

Commonwealth of Kentucky 

State of Missouri 

State of New Mexico 

State of Oklahoma 

State of South Carolina 

State of South Dakota 

State of Tennessee 

State of Utah 

State of Vermont 

State of Washington 

State of Wisconsin 

FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

By: /s/ Joseph Joslin 

JOSEPH JOSLIN, admitted pro hac vice 

Arkansas Bar No. 2014190 

Joseph.Joslin@arkansas.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ARKANSAS SECURITIES DEPARTMENT 

1 Commerce Way, Suite 402 

Little Rock, AR 72202 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 64 of 71 Page ID #:2483
- 65 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE STATE OF HAWAII 

By: /s/ Rayni M. Nakamura-Watanabe 

RAYNI M. NAKAMURA-WATANABE, 

admitted pro hac vice

Supervising Attorney 

Hawaii Bar No. 9032-0 

rnakamur@dcca.hawaii.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS 

335 Merchant Street, Room 205 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Telephone: (808) 586-2740 

Facsimile: (808) 586-3977 

Telephone: (501) 683-0806 

Facsimile: (501) 324-9268

FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

By: /s/ James W. Caley 

JAMES W. CALEY, admitted pro hac vice 

Assistant Attorney General 

Connecticut Bar No. 430246 

james.caley@ct.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT 

OF BANKING 

260 Constitution Plaza 

Hartford, CT 06103-1800 

Telephone: (860) 808-5461 

Facsimile: (860) 808-5387

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 65 of 71 Page ID #:2484
- 66 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

By: /s/ Paula K. Bouldon 

PAULA K. BOULDON, admitted pro hac vice

pbouldon@ilsos.gov 

Illinois Bar No. 6198150 

DAVID F. BUYSSE, admitted pro hac vice

David.Buysse@ilag.gov 

Illinois Bar No. 3126915 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IL SECRETARY OF STATE 

SECURITIES DEPARTMENT 

69 West Washington 

Suite 1220 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 793-3164 

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

By: /s/ Max F. Brauer 

MAX F. BRAUER, admitted pro hac vice

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Maryland State Does Not Use Bar Numbers 

mbrauer@oag.state.md.us 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

STATE OF MARYLAND EX REL MARYLAND 

SECURITIES COMMISSIONER 

200 Saint Paul Place, 25th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Telephone: (410) 576-6950 

Facsimile: (410) 576-6532 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 66 of 71 Page ID #:2485
- 67 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

By: /s/ Michael S. Hill 

MICHAEL S. HILL, admitted pro hac vice 

Assistant Attorney General 

Michigan Bar No. P73084 

HillM19@michigan.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON 

BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 

OF MICHIGAN 

P.O. Box 30736 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Telephone: (517) 335-7632 

Facsimile: (517) 335-6755 

FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

By: /s/ James M. Rankin 

JAMES M. RANKIN, admitted pro hac vice 

Mississippi Bar No. 102322 

James.Rankin@ago.ms.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE 

Post Office Box 220 

Jackson, MS 39205 

Telephone: (601) 359-4258 

Facsimile: (601) 359-3947 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 67 of 71 Page ID #:2486
- 68 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

By: /s/ Joshua Shasserre 

JOSHUA SHASSERRE, admitted pro hac vice 

Assistant Attorney General

Nebraska Bar No. 23885 

Joshua.Shasserre@nebraska.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & 

FINANCE 

2115 State Capitol 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

Telephone: (402) 471-2682 

Facsimile: (402) 471-3297 

FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

LETITIA JAMES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

By: /s/ Tatyana Trakht 

TATYANA “TANYA” TRAKHT, admitted 

pro hac vice 

Senior Enforcement Counsel 

New York State Does Not Use Bar Numbers 

Tanya.Trakht@ag.ny.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK

28 Liberty Street, 21st Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

Telephone: (212) 416-8457 

Facsimile: (212) 416-8816 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 68 of 71 Page ID #:2487
- 69 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

 

By: /s/ J. Anthony Penry 

 

J. ANTHONY PENRY 

California Bar No. 310929 

apenry@sosnc.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF THE 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

P.O. Box 29622 

Raleigh, NC 27626 

Telephone: 919-244-3921 

Facsimile: (919) 814-5596 

FOR THE STATE OF OHIO 

DAVE YOST (0056290) 

Attorney General of Ohio 

By: /s/ Chad M. Kohler 

Chad M. Kohler (0074179), admitted pro hac 

vice 

Principal Assistant Attorney General 

Executive Agencies Section 

30 E. Broad St., 26th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Telephone: (614) 466-5861 

Fax: (866) 514-0279 

Chad.Kohler@OhioAGO.gov 

Counsel for Ohio Department of Commerce, 

Division of Securities 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 69 of 71 Page ID #:2488
- 70 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOR THE STATE OF OREGON 

By: /s/ Daniel J. Rice 

Daniel J. Rice, admitted pro hac vice

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Oregon Bar No. 084536 

Daniel.Rice@doj.state.or.us 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

STATE OF OREGON, by and through its 

Department of Consumer and Business 

Services and Attorney General Ellen 

Rosenblum 

1162 Court Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

Telephone: (503) 934-4400 

Facsimile: (503) 373-7067 

STATE OF OREGON, by and through its 

Department of Consumer and Business 

Services 

By: /s/ TK Keen_______________________ 

 TK Keen, Administrator 

 Division of Financial Regulation 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 70 of 71 Page ID #:2489
- 71 - 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(i)

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(i), signatories hereby do attest that all 

signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s 

content and have authorized the filing. 

Dated: October 16, 2023 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

 COMMISSION 

 By: /s/ Paul M. Flucke 

 Paul M. Flucke 

 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

 COMMISSION 

Case 2:22-cv-00691-JFW-SK Document 201 Filed 10/20/23 Page 71 of 71 Page ID #:2490