SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15960 / October 28, 1998 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. DANIEL T. TODT, et. al., 98 Civ. 3980 (JGK) (SDNY) Shmmuel Emmanuel Abijah Quijano Enjoined, Ordered to Pay $75,000 Penalty On October 15, 1998, following a hearing on October 9, the Honorable John G. Koeltl entered a default judgment against Shmmuel Emmanuel Abijah Quijano ("Abijah") in a Commission action involving the offer and attempt to sell forged and fictitious securities. The Commission alleged in a June 5, 1998 complaint that Abijah and eight other defendants engaged in a scheme to obtain money using fraudulent "bank certificates" in violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission alleged in its complaint that Abijah, along with eight other defendants, attempted to negotiate at least one such fraudulent bank certificate purportedly represented as issued by the "Mitsubishi B.J. Bank" ("Mitsubishi Certificate"). The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., the FBI, and the Federal Reserve Bank all have confirmed that the certificate is not genuine. The Commission alleged that Abijah and the other defendants were all part of the scheme, which would use the Mitsubishi Certificate to generate millions of dollars in payments for themselves, while invoking both "humanitarian" goals and the names of "official" entities, ranging from the Federal Reserve Bank to the United Nations Security Council, in an effort to make their scheme appear legitimate. The Commission also alleged that some defendants possess at least one additional fraudulent bank certificate which they intend to negotiate as part of their scheme, which also involves trading programs resembling classic prime bank schemes. The final judgment ordered Abijah to pay a $75,000 penalty, and permanently enjoined him from violating Section 10(b) of the Securites Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Abijah had previously consented to the entry of a preliminary injunction against him on June 29, 1998. The court's order found that the "penalty is appropriate given the fraudulent conduct in this case and the significant risk of substantial losses to other persons as a result of the fraud." For additional information, see litigation release numbers 15771 (June 5, 1998), 15775 (June 9, 1998), and 15797 (July 1, 1998).