UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15650 / February 23, 1998


     SEC v. WEYMAN B. SINYARD, THOMAS G. POULAKIDAS, RANDY DEPOISTER, AND JARCO,
     INC. (N.D. Ill., Civil Action File No. 94C-5856)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that on
     February 2, 1998, the Honorable John Grady of the United States District
     Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an Order of Permanent
     Injunction (Order) Against Defendant Randy Depoister (Depoister).  The
     Court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment and permanently
     enjoined Depoister from violating the securities registration and antifraud
     provisions of the federal securities laws.

     In the Order, the Court makes detailed findings against Depoister. 
     According to the findings, between October 1989 and June 1991, Depoister,
     at times through his registered investment adviser, Financial Resources
     Advisory, Inc. (FRA), offered an investment in Jarco, Inc. (Jarco) to
     prospective investors.  As a result of Depoister's offers and resulting
     sales of this Jarco investment, Depoister raised $461,750 from eighteen
     investors.  To evidence the funds Depoister raised for Jarco, unsecured
     promissory notes were issued to each investor.

     The Court also makes findings that, in the offer and sale of the Jarco
     investment to the public, Depoister knowingly misrepresented and omitted to
     state numerous material facts pertaining to the investment.  Specifically,
     Depoister promised investors that the investment was short-term, ranging
     from one week to one year, and that they would receive returns ranging from
     20% to 100% when he knew that he could not promise such short-term returns. 
     In fact, the Court makes findings that, despite Depoister's promises, the
     investors have never received back their principal investment or any of
     their promised returns.  The Court further makes findings that Depoister
     assured investors that the Jarco investment was safe, guaranteed and
     involved little or no risk when he knew that he could not promise such
     safety.  Depoister also told some investors, prior to the time they
     invested, that he had invested his own money in the Jarco investment when,
     in fact, Depoister never invested his own money.  Further, Depoister
     fraudulently converted investors' funds for his own use, misappropriating
     $90,200 of the monies he raised from investors for uses unrelated to the
     Jarco investment and without disclosing such uses to investors.  Depoister
     also misrepresented to some investors the true nature of the Jarco
     investment.  Moreover, Depoister falsely and fraudulently assured certain
     of his clients that delays in returning their monies were only temporary
     and that the money would be forthcoming in days, even though Depoister knew
     he could not promise such prompt return of investors' money.

     Finally, in the Order, the Court makes several conclusions of law. 
     Specifically, the Court concludes that:  (1) the Jarco investment
     constituted a security; (2) in connection with his offer and sale of the
     Jarco securities to investors, which included certain of his investment

                              ======END OF PAGE 1======







     advisory clients, Depoister knowingly misrepresented and omitted to state
     material facts pertaining to the investment and thereby violated Section
     17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
     aided and abetted violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
     Investment Advisers Act of 1940; 
     (3) Depoister's offer and sale of the unregistered Jarco securities
     violated the securities registration requirements of Sections 5(a) and 5(c)
     of the Securities Act; and (4) due to the reasonable likelihood that
     Depoister will engage in future violations of the securities laws,
     injunctive relief is appropriate against Depoister.

     Previously, on January 7, 1998, the Court, pursuant to a Commission motion
     for such relief, dismissed the Commission s claim for disgorgement and
     civil penalties against Depoister and the Commission s entire action
     against Depoister s registered investment adviser, FRA.

     For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 14259 (September 27,
     1994), 14308 (October 28, 1994), 14512 (May 26, 1995), 14603 (August 15,
     1995), 14863 (April 5, 1996), 14883 (April 17, 1996).

































                              ======END OF PAGE 2======