Shari Mattingly Bevan is a disgraced financial broker who was stripped of her license as a result of defrauding clients out of more than one hundred million dollars.
Since then, she has earned her degrees in law and financial planning. Shari Mattingly Bevan, Attorney at Law, ChFC, CLU is the name of her current business enterprise.
Previously, she was the CEO of TLC Investments & Trade Co., which she left to pursue this opportunity.
This corporation once operated under a number of different names, including TLC Real Properties RLLP-1, TLC Brokerage Inc., TLC America Inc., and TLC Development Inc.
After Shari’s company committed fraud on a nationwide scale, the judge ordered it to pay restitution in the amount of $106.6 million.
The final judgment enjoined the corporations from future violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Rule 10b-5, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the statement made by the SEC.
In addition, the final decision stated that any funds collected by the court-appointed receiver for Shari Mattingly Bevan’s firms in excess of $106.6 million will be considered a civil penalty and will be paid out of those funds.
Along with the other companies in the TLC family, TLC Investments & Trade Co. gave their assent to the final judgment of permanent injunction.
SEC’s Complaint Against Shari Mattingly Bevan and TLC Investments & Trade Co.
According to the SEC, the TLC companies committed securities fraud between 1998 and October 2000.
They ran a real estate Ponzi scheme and raised more than $150 million from 1800+ investors.
The majority of these investors were people in their elderly years.
These businesses assured clients that they could make a secure and liquid investment that would bring them returns of up to 15%.
According to the complaint filed by the SEC, the proprietors of these organizations misappropriated at least $28.3 million in investor monies to make payments to other investors, purchase racehorses, send funds overseas, and invest in bank frauds.
Desist and Refrain Orders By the California Corporations Commissioner Against Shari Mattingly Bevan:
After the SEC took the necessary action, the California Corporations Commissioner took regulatory action against Shari as well.
It says the TLC entities issued investment instruments as real estate investment agreements and promissory notes. Also, it used investment contracts in some cases.
The CSL applies to each and every one of these different types of securities. TLC was engaged in the marketing and sale of these investment products through the following two investment programs:
Certificates of Tax Liens and Opportunities in Real Estate
According to TLC, the maturity date of these securities is one year from now. When the securities reached their maturity age, it was explained to the investors that the interest rate would be between 8% and 15%, and that they would receive their main investment back.
According to TLC, the maturity date of these securities is one year from now. When the securities reached their maturity age, it was explained to the investors that the interest rate would be between 8% and 15%, and that they would receive their main investment back. Each year, at the conclusion of the fiscal period, the investor had the option to “roll over” (continue) their investment into the following year.
It has been brought to the attention of the watchdog that each and every offer made by Shary Mattingly Bevan and/or TLC to “roll over” the investment was a distinct offer.
In addition, each “rollover” constitutes a distinct sale of securities, which is illegal according to the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, which can be found in Corporations Code 25000 et seq.
TLC was successful in selling these securities thanks to its extensive sales agent network.
In the end, it was able to secure about $156 million in funding from over 1800 investors.
However, the conditions for purchasing these securities in the state of California were not met by them. Additionally, Shari became an agent for TLC and offered the company’s products to investors in the state of California.
According to the complaint, Shari was paid a commission on the investments that ranged from around 4.5 percent to 6 percent. In addition, she would receive an additional commission if an investor would reinvest the money they had first invested.
Additional Details On the Case:
The order emphasizes that Shari did not possess any sort of license that would have allowed her to sell the securities in question.
In addition, in order to promote themselves, these TLC securities were making misleading representations, which is a violation of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, which may be found in the Corporations Code 25000 et seq.
She advertised and marketed them by using materials and brochures that had several incorrect statements on their respective pages. In addition to this, she deceived potential investors by giving them incorrect information and failing to conduct any independent research to verify whether or not the claims contained in the brochures were accurate.
Shari Mattingly Bevan never informed potential investors about SEC’s case against TLC entities
This information would have helped the investors make better decisions but Shari Mattingly Bevan withheld them.
Furthermore, she told the investors that the Tax Lien Certificates would pay them a fixed interest rate ranging from 8% to 15%. In reality, TLC never made any profit. Particularly, between the duration Shari had made these claims.
Instead, the company had lost around $15 million.
TLC had used the funds it received from new investors to make the interest payments of its old investors. Hence, it was operating like a Ponzi scheme.
“Shari Mattingly Bevan Failed to Disclose Vital Facts to Potential Investors – California Corporations Commissioner”
Again, Shari Mattingly Bevan did not provide the investors with this critical piece of information when they requested it.
She neglected to advise prospective investors that they were eligible for a commission of up to 6% on both the initial investment and any rollovers that were made to the account.
Additionally, she failed to let them know that they were eligible to get ‘override’ commissions on the sales made by the agents that they recruited.
It’s me, Shari Mattingly Even after being told that there were others above him who collected commissions, Bevan did not disclose this information to the investors.
Shari did not inform the investors about the SEC’s complaint that TLC had committed securities fraud when the SEC lodged its lawsuit against the company.
Shari offered unlawful securities totaling over $1.3 million to 18 people in California under such false pretenses. The victims are all located in California. As a result of these sales, she earned more than $82,000 in commissions.
As a result, the Commissioner issued a cease and desist order, which prohibits Shari from selling any securities in the state of California for the reason that she has violated section 25110 of the CSL.
Where is Shari Mattingly Bevan Now?
Now, Shari has become a lawyer. She focuses on estate planning, estate, and trust litigation, and estate and trust administration.
Shari is the sole proprietor of the law firm of Shari Mattingly Bevan, which is located in Santa Ana, California.
In addition to this, she holds certifications as both a Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and a Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC).
She asserts that she has a wealth of knowledge in areas such as financial advising services, long-term planning, and retirement planning.
Her workplace may be found at 330 East Coffee Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29601. In a similar vein, you can reach her at this number: 864-283-6906.
In addition to that, she states that she is the CEO of Bevan Wealth and Tax Strategies.
Conclusion
Regardless of the credentials she may or may not possess, there is no denying the fact that Shari Mattingly Bevan committed financial fraud.
She sold a Ponzi scheme to elderly people in the state of California, which resulted in her making more than $80,000.
Regulatory action was taken against her by the California Corporations Commissioner, and she was prohibited from selling any investments in the state of California.
There is no way you can put your faith in the services she provides for financial planning.
