
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Oct. 29 that two entities—BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd—have been charged for a fraud scheme that raised more than $130 million from tens of thousands of retail investors.
The complaint says the companies, incorporated in Colorado but operated abroad, promised risk‑free, high returns from a so‑called “wealth‑sharing program” that relied on alleged crypto‑trading signals. They claimed to be a massive hedge fund and a licensed crypto exchange, but the SEC says those claims were false.
According to the SEC, the defendants filed false Form ADV and Form D documents with the agency. Those filings were publicly viewable and were shown to investors as proof of SEC registration. The fraudsters also used social media, encrypted messaging, weekly video conferences and a mobile app to keep investors engaged. They displayed counterfeit SEC certificates and even made periodic payments to a few investors to create a Ponzi‑like appearance while siphoning the rest of the money.
Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses both companies of violating the anti‑fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BG Wealth is also charged with violating Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and conduct‑based injunctions against BG Wealth.
Investors who were contacted by BG Wealth or DSJ Exchange should verify any investment adviser’s registration on Investor.gov. The SEC warns that scammers often misuse exempt reporting adviser filings to appear legitimate. If you suspect you were solicited, keep all communications, payment records, and screenshots of the false filings. You may also report the fraud to the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance.
The SEC has removed the false Form ADV and Form D filings from its website. While the companies are only charged at this stage, the allegations are serious. If you invested money or received communications from these entities, consider consulting a securities‑law attorney to assess your options, including possible recovery actions.
The SEC’s action signals tighter enforcement of registration rules for crypto‑related advisers, which could protect investors from similar scams.
Retail investors remain vulnerable to sophisticated online schemes that mimic official filings, highlighting the need for vigilance.
The SEC may pursue additional cases against entities that misuse exempt adviser filings, so watch for future alerts.
Anyone considering a crypto investment should confirm the adviser’s registration on Investor.gov before committing funds.
Affected investors may have civil remedies, but outcomes depend on court rulings and the defendants’ assets.
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 30, 2026.
Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
A federal judge refused Sony Electronics' attempt to send a class action over its smart TVs' data tracking to private arbitration, allowing the case to continue in court.
General Motors will pay $220 million to resolve a multistate suit accusing the automaker of selling location and driving‑behavior data collected through its Smart Driver program without driver consent.
A U.S. District Judge ruled that plaintiffs lacked proof of non‑consent in their claims that Google recorded Home Depot calls for AI training, sending some claims to arbitration.
The en banc Sixth Circuit examined whether the FCC can require internet providers to report personal data breaches, a dispute centered on the Congressional Review Act.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a 1988 video privacy law applies to online subscribers whose viewing data is sent to Facebook for targeted ads.