SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15469 / September 3, 1997

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ELLIS L. DEYON, BRADLEY T. GULLETT
     (INDIVIDUALLY, AND D.B.A. "GULLETT & ASSOCIATES"), WILLIAM HANKE, DOVE
     INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AND SHERWOOD H. CRAIG (United States District Court
     for the District of Maine, Civ. Action No. 95-0164-B).
              
          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on August 27,
     1997, the Honorable Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge for the District
     of Maine, entered Judgment following a five-day trial against BRADLEY T.
     GULLETT of Maitland, Florida and SHERWOOD H. CRAIG of Orono, Maine.  The
     Court found Gullett and Craig liable for securities fraud and acting as
     unlicensed brokers in an investment scheme involving deposits into a
     Mexican bank.  The Court permanently enjoined Gullett and Craig from
     violating the antifraud and broker-dealer registration provisions of the
     federal securities laws and ordered Gullett to disgorge $41,646 of ill-
     gotten gains.  The court also imposed a civil penalty of $75,000 against
     Gullett and $25,000 against Craig.  The Court ordered a third defendant,
     WILLIAM W. HANKE of Orlando, Florida, to pay a civil penalty of $75,000. 
     The Court imposed a separate $75,000 penalty against Hanke's Florida
     corporation, Dove Investment Group, Inc.  A final judgment granting a
     permanent injunction had entered previously against Hanke and Dove.  A
     final judgment granting a permanent injunction and disgorgement of over
     $407,000 was entered by consent against the remaining defendant, Ellis L.
     Deyon, on January 14, 1997.

          The Court issued detailed findings in support of the Judgment. 
     According to the Findings, in May and June, 1995, the defendants obtained
     money from investors by promising to pay them virtually risk-free returns
     of 15% to 25% per month.  Defendants misrepresented to investors that these
     extraordinary rates of return would come from placing their investments in
     a special Mexican bank account not available to the general public that
     paid 85% per month.  To explain how the bank could generate such a return,
     the defendants misrepresented that it was "supported by 25 top Prime
     Banks."  Defendants also misrepresented that other investors already had or
     were about to place $500 million or $1 billion in the account.

          The Court found, in fact, that the Mexican bank account earned only
     standard rates of interest and there were no investors depositing $500
     million or $1 billion; and that the "Prime Bank" programs promoted by the
     defendants are nothing more than fraudulent schemes.
       




                                        - 2 -

          According to the Court, Gullett's and Craig's fraud was particularly
     egregious because both defendants exploited investors' sincere religious

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






     beliefs.  Defendants told investors that the Mexican program had been
     started by Christian men and would help church-related programs.  The Court
     stated that Craig "exploited his position as president and minister of the
     Door of Faith Church to convince unsuspecting people to give their money to
     a program that he recklessly endorsed."  

          David Marder, Senior Trial Counsel, who tried the case with Celia
     Moore, Senior Enforcement Counsel, in the Commission's Boston office, said
     the uncontradicted evidence at trial showed that defendants obtained over
     $400,000 from ten investors in Maine, Pennsylvania, California and Florida. 
     The bank account in which their funds were placed was controlled by
     defendant Deyon, who used investors' funds to pay personal expenses and to
     make distributions to his partners in the scheme, including defendant
     Gullett. 

          The Commission will submit for Court approval a plan for distribution
     of recovered funds to injured investors.

     See also prior Litigation Release Nos. 14586, 14610 and 15222.


































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