In an era of increasing scrutiny on government agencies and their use of taxpayer dollars, a pressing question arises: why is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expending significant resources on matters seemingly tied to Chinese lenders, specifically those linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), who have been implicated in fraudulent financial activities?
The SEC, tasked with overseeing and regulating the U.S. financial markets, has long focused on protecting American investors from domestic financial malfeasance. However, in recent years, there has been an unsettling shift in the agency’s focus towards complex international financial dealings, including cases involving CCP-affiliated lenders accused of transferring fraudulent funds to the United States. This shift raises critical concerns about the use of U.S. tax dollars, especially when it appears that these efforts may serve foreign entities, many of which have a well-documented history of avoiding U.S. taxes and evading legal accountability. Some of the prominent such happenings are:
How China’s Shadow Banking System is Endangering the Global Economy” – The Wall Street Journal
- This article discusses China’s shadow banking system and how it affects the global financial markets, including issues of fraud and tax evasion linked to Chinese institutions.
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-chinas-shadow-banking-system-endangers-the-global-economy-11568963230
“China’s Fraud Problem Is Hitting U.S. Investors” – Bloomberg
- Bloomberg explores several instances where fraudulent practices by Chinese firms have led to U.S. market disruption and how regulators are caught in difficult positions involving foreign lenders.
- Read more here.
“Chinese Banks Sued in U.S. Courts Over Money Laundering Allegations” – Reuters
- This Reuters report covers various cases where Chinese banks have faced lawsuits in the U.S. for their involvement in laundering illicit funds, emphasizing the broader concerns about accountability and U.S. tax dollars.
- Read more here.
“Why Chinese Companies in U.S. Markets Have Faced Scrutiny” – The New York Times
- This article outlines the rising scrutiny Chinese companies have faced for not complying with U.S. regulatory frameworks, which includes fraud and evasion issues linked to SEC actions.
- Read more here.
This article explores why millions of U.S. tax dollars are being spent on cases involving CCP Chinese lenders—cases that have already been dismissed in federal courts due to a lack of evidence. Moreover, despite the dismissal, the SEC continues to funnel resources into investigations and actions that seem to disproportionately favor these foreign lenders, leaving many wondering if this is a misallocation of U.S. taxpayer money.
SEC and Foreign Affairs
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established to protect U.S. investors, ensure fair and efficient financial markets, and facilitate capital formation. Its mandate is firmly rooted in the domestic financial landscape, focusing on regulating U.S. markets and institutions. However, as global markets have become more intertwined, the SEC’s jurisdiction has extended into international dealings, particularly when foreign entities, such as Chinese lenders, interact with the U.S. financial system.
Historically, the SEC has worked to safeguard U.S. investors from fraudulent activities, including those perpetuated by foreign institutions. The SEC’s international activities are covered under its enforcement authority, which sometimes leads the agency to deal with cases involving foreign actors that impact U.S. markets. More information on the SEC’s enforcement strategy can be found on their official page: https://www.sec.gov/enforce.
When foreign lenders—especially those tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—transfer funds into the U.S. financial system, they sometimes do so without abiding by U.S. tax laws or financial regulations. These activities can have serious repercussions on the American economy and the integrity of its financial markets. For details on the SEC’s role in global cooperation, visit: https://www.sec.gov/
The concern, however, arises when the SEC dedicates millions of dollars in resources to cases involving these foreign entities, particularly in situations where fraudulent claims are made, or when the lenders themselves refuse to acknowledge or participate in U.S. legal proceedings. Critics argue that the SEC’s involvement in these international disputes often falls outside its core mandate and places an unnecessary burden on U.S. taxpayers, especially when these efforts seem to benefit foreign, non-compliant entities rather than protect domestic markets or investors.
For example, the SEC’s involvement in cross-border regulation and enforcement, particularly when dealing with fraud and financial misconduct originating outside the U.S., often creates complex legal questions. The SEC’s powers and limitations in these international cases can be explored further here: https://www.sec.gov/international.
The question of the SEC’s authority in dealing with foreign financial institutions, particularly those linked to fraud or illegal activities, becomes even more relevant when no clear legal framework authorizes their direct involvement in international cases, especially those originating from China. This raises a critical point: why are U.S. tax dollars being used to fund investigations into foreign (unknown) lenders who have refused to comply with U.S. court orders or financial regulations such as tax payments?
Certainly, as in the SEC vs Barton et al, the alleged Chinese Lenders do not even exist based on the fact that when the bankruptcy court Judge issued an order of appearance in the US courts to prove their claims, not even a single alleged Chinese Lender appeared. And the Judge had to dismiss the case for no claims in place. Still SEC has taken the charge and for 2 years, has spent millions of US Dollars on investigation and failed to bring single evidence to support allegations against Mr. Barton, but still arrogant and not dismissing the complaint. Why would SEC expand resources on a matter of a civil loan that has been dismissed in a state court as well as at bankcrupcy court to be twisted into some interpretation of a securities oferring. It is a serious question
Who or what set of conditions, would cause SEC to dive into a simple loan transaction and cast it as the security and further disturbing is that not one US Citizen was involved as a lender?
What causes the SEC who decide to be the collection agency for CCP Chinese loans?
The CCP Chinese Lenders and Fraudulent Money Transfers
The financial world has long been wary of the increasing influence of Chinese lenders, particularly those tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Over the past decade, numerous cases have surfaced revealing fraudulent transfers of funds from Chinese entities to the U.S. This growing pattern of illegal money movement raises questions about both financial transparency and international regulation.
A significant case law reference comes from United States v. HSBC Bank USA, where the bank was accused of laundering billions of dollars in connection with fraudulent financial schemes, a case which exposed weaknesses in monitoring foreign transactions that are often linked to CCP-affiliated lenders. This case shed light on how large financial institutions, including Chinese banks, have facilitated the movement of illicit funds into the U.S. system.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted several high-profile cases involving Chinese financial institutions, such as Bank of China Ltd. v. NBM LLC, a case where the court found that the Bank of China facilitated fraudulent transactions linked to organized crime syndicates and money laundering. This case is a prime example of how Chinese financial entities, some with direct ties to the CCP, have been involved in illegal financial operations that disrupt the U.S. financial system.
One particular challenge lies in the enforcement of U.S. regulations on foreign institutions. While the SEC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have made strides in prosecuting fraud, cases involving Chinese lenders often hit roadblocks due to jurisdictional limitations. This issue is exacerbated when the entities in question refuse to comply with U.S. court orders, effectively obstructing justice.
A striking example can be seen in the failure of CCP-affiliated lenders to respond to U.S. legal summons. When Judge Hale requested valid lenders to come before the court and prove their claims, no CCP agent or lender appeared. This absence highlighted their disregard for U.S. legal proceedings and fueled concerns about the integrity of the claims being made. These lenders have shown a repeated pattern of sidestepping accountability while reaping the benefits of access to the U.S. financial system.
Despite this, the SEC has continued to invest significant resources into a case involving Chinese lenders, even when valid claims fail to materialize. This raises the question: why are U.S. tax dollars being used to pursue claims tied to fraudulent actors who refuse to face U.S. courts, prove their claims and pay the applicable taxes?
The ongoing pattern of fraudulent money transfers from CCP-affiliated lenders poses a significant challenge to U.S. regulatory bodies. The fact that the SEC continues to expend millions of U.S. tax dollars in a case involving these actors—despite their refusal to cooperate—has led to widespread criticism of both the lenders themselves and the government agencies overseeing these investigations. Making it even worst; to expend the US Tax dollars on investigation and at the cost of basic rights of a US Citizen.
Chinese lenders refused to get paid to the same accounts from where they came from and pay the tax – add a regulation to that
It was later uncovered that the Chinese agent manipulated the documents to require loan proceeds not to be paid to the alleged lender but to be paid to its agent. Mr. Michael Fu who has already admitted and is convicted of securities fraud. Further it was uncovered that many of the alleged lenders never sent funds but in fact were sent by a spider web of people and entities controlled by convicted felon Mr. Michael Fu. Clearly identifying that the alleged lenders were the co-conspirers and they intended to get their ill-gotten claims in China under his personal control.
Judicial Proceedings and Dismissal of Claims [ add Wall007 case which was dismissed as well]
In cases involving CCP-affiliated lenders and their fraudulent financial activities in the U.S., the legal process has often been stalled by the unwillingness of these lenders to participate in U.S. courts. One such example occurred when Judge Harlin Hale presided over a case that involved these lenders. In a pivotal moment during the proceedings, Judge Hale requested that any valid lender present their claims and evidence before the court. Despite the magnitude of the case and the implications for both sides, not a single CCP lender appeared in court to validate their claims.
Not only once but twice in which the civil case unfolds properly, the lawyer James Oh would not accept the courts ruling and in-fact on a recorded line that he acknowledged was being recorded stated that less Mr. Fu was aid the way he wanted to be paid, Mr. Barton will find himself in lawsuits, in newspaper, in Chapter 7, in SEC case and put in jail. All of this articulated in early 2019 prior to any of the unfolding of the very events that he forecasted. This raises serious questions of his association and control to the US Govt agencies especially the SEC.
This absence raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the claims being pursued. With no valid evidence brought forward, Judge Hale had no choice but to dismiss the case. This dismissal was a clear indication that the claims made by the CCP-affiliated lenders lacked substance or legitimacy in the eyes of U.S. law. The refusal of these lenders to appear in court further highlighted their strategy of evading accountability, even while benefiting from access to the U.S. financial system.
The legal precedent set by this case was significant, as it reinforced the principle that claims made in U.S. courts must be substantiated with valid evidence and representation. However, despite this dismissal, the SEC has continued to pursue cases involving these lenders, raising concerns about the proper allocation of U.S. tax dollars in ongoing investigations and litigation. The SEC’s persistent involvement despite the absence of valid claims has drawn criticism from various quarters, with many questioning the necessity of expending millions of dollars on cases that have already been dismissed by U.S. courts and ruled on the matter of law that these were loans as the jurisdiction of the court was a Chapter 7 action clearly identified as an alleged lender failure to pay loan. With that ruling one has to wonder why would the SEC pick up a case that was dismissed on the ruling of its own, which this clearly was not after being dismissed on a matter of law in a Chapter 7 loan proceedings.
- Villa v. Cole, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (1992): This case set an important precedent by ruling that claims in court must be supported by valid, tangible evidence. The dismissal in this case mirrors the lack of evidence seen in the claims made by the CCP lenders, as their failure to appear in court led to the dismissal of their claims.
Judge Harlin Hale’s decision to dismiss the case due to the absence of CCP lenders aligned with other key rulings in U.S. law, such as Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1997). This ruling underscored the necessity of probable cause and the requirement for sufficient proof in any judicial proceeding.
Judicial Dismissal and Ongoing SEC Involvement: Despite the fact that U.S. courts, have dismissed these claims due to a lack of valid evidence, the SEC has invested considerable resources into pursuing further investigations and legal actions. The question that arises is: why are U.S. taxpayers being forced to fund ongoing efforts for claims that have already been dismissed?
The decision to continue these investigations is particularly perplexing given the clear legal precedent for dismissing cases that lack valid claims. As Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1997) established, cases must be grounded in probable cause, and claims without sufficient proof should not warrant further judicial action. The continued pursuit of these cases, even in the absence of evidence or valid claims, highlights potential mismanagement of resources and calls for greater accountability in the allocation of taxpayer funds.
The dismissal of these case highlights a crucial point: when CCP-affiliated lenders fail to appear in court, they not only undermine the legitimacy of their claims but also waste valuable U.S. judicial resources. The SEC’s ongoing involvement in these matters, even after legal dismissals, has led many to question the effectiveness and motivations of the agency in protecting U.S. interests and that of its citizens.
A Call to Protect U.S. Tax Dollars and Defend Justice
At the heart of our justice system lies the principle that U.S. taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly and transparently, protecting the rights and interests of American citizens. However, in the case of Mr. Barton and the unjust pursuit of claims by CCP-affiliated lenders, we are witnessing a gross misuse of federal resources. These Chinese lenders, tied to fraudulent financial activities, have refused to comply with U.S. courts, yet the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to expend millions of taxpayer dollars to advance their interests.
Judge Harlin Hale rightfully dismissed these claims when no valid evidence was presented, and not a single CCP lender appeared to substantiate their case. Despite this, the SEC has persisted in using public resources to fund further investigations that not only lack legal merit but also undermine U.S. businesses and citizens like Mr. Barton. This raises a vital question: why are U.S. tax dollars being used to protect foreign lenders who have shown contempt for our legal system?
This is where we, the Legal Defense Fund, step in. Our mission is to defend individuals like Mr. Barton from unjust and unnecessary government overreach, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used appropriately. We stand by the belief that the SEC’s continued involvement in these cases is not only a waste of federal resources but also a threat to the integrity of our financial system and the livelihoods of those targeted by unfounded claims.
Stand with Us in Defending Justice
As we fight for accountability and the protection of U.S. taxpayers, we need your help. Here’s how you can support this critical cause:
- Stay Informed Signup for our Newsletter
- Spread Awareness Share this link on your media platforms
- Donate to the Cause Donate via defense-fund.com
Legal battles like this are costly, and your support can make a difference. Help us continue to defend Mr. Barton and others like him by donating to the Legal Defense Fund. Every contribution strengthens our fight for justice and the correct use of your tax dollars.
Together, we can hold government agencies accountable, ensure that public funds are used to protect U.S. citizens—not foreign lenders—and fight for a legal system that prioritizes truth and justice. Visit our website, stay informed, and contribute to the cause that protects us all.
Any other cases or any other people that are subject to unjust attacks – send info to us
