United Currency Group, Inc. and Adam Swickle

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 19411 / October 4, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission v. United Currency Group, Inc. and Adam Swickle, No. 03 CV 9161 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y)

SEC OBTAINS FINAL JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS UNITED CURRENCY GROUP, INC. AND ADAM SWICKLE

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on September 23, 2005 and August 3, 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgments by default against defendants United Currency Group, Inc. ("UCG") and Adam Swickle. The final judgments permanently enjoin defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the final judgment entered against Swickle orders him to pay disgorgement of $483,989 plus prejudgment interest of $107,841.84, and imposes a civil monetary penalty of $120,000.

The Commission's complaint alleged that defendants Swickle and UCG conducted a fraudulent offering of UCG securities. Specifically, beginning in May 2001 and continuing through December 2002, Swickle solicited investments in UCG through an unregistered offering of securities. In connection with the offering, Swickle circulated private placement memoranda to prospective investors that contained material misrepresentations, and omitted material facts, about the identity of UCG's officers and directors, Swickle's background, and UCG's and Swickle's use of corporate funds. In addition, Swickle made oral misrepresentations to potential investors about UCG's plans to conduct an initial public offering and about the price levels that UCG stock would achieve once it became publicly traded.

Defendant UCG failed to respond to the Commission's complaint, and defendant Swickle failed to defend the action. Accordingly, the Commission sought the entry of the final judgments against the defendants based on their default.

For information about earlier developments in this matter, see Litigation Release no. 18471 (Nov. 19, 2003).