FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                       2001-24

           SEC Charges 23 Companies and Individuals in Cases
         Involving Broad Spectrum of Internet Securities Fraud

      Nationwide Crackdown Continues with Fifth Internet "Sweep";
      Total Number of Internet Cases Filed Now Stands at Over 200

     Washington, DC, March 1, 2001  In its fifth nationwide Internet
fraud sweep, the Securities and Exchange Commission today announced 11
enforcement actions against 23 companies and individuals that used the
Internet to defraud investors.  The sweep consists of cases involving
both publicly-traded securities and privately-held companies.  The
alleged perpetrators used the Internet to "pump" the market
capitalization of the stocks involved by more than $300 million and
raise $2.5 million in proceeds from investors in the U.S. and abroad.
The frauds were accomplished by a variety of online means, including
"spam" emails, electronic newsletters, websites, hyperlinks, message
boards and other Internet media.

     SEC Director of Enforcement Richard H. Walker said, "Today's
cases are a sobering reminder for investors that, on the Internet,
there is no clearly defined border between reliable and unreliable
information.  Therefore, investors must exercise extreme caution when
they receive investment pitches online."  Mr. Walker added, "These
actions involve a virtual checklist of common securities fraud
techniques.  Perpetrators lured investors with promises of fast and
easy profits in thinly-traded, or even privately-held, development
stage companies that operate in `hot button' industries."

     The common securities fraud techniques in the cases brought today
involve:

    False Promises of Imminent IPO-including one private company that
used "spam" email and a website to announce that its upcoming, SEC-
approved IPO (at a price of $20 to $50 per share) was imminent and
that it would realize at least $1 billion through online eyewear
sales.  The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company never received
SEC approval for an IPO, the company had no offices, no inventory, and
no products or services; moreover, the SEC alleges that the company's
owner misappropriated investor funds for a variety of personal
expenses, including securities purchases through personal brokerage
accounts and expenses at restaurants, gambling casinos, and adult
entertainment clubs (SEC v. Chidwhite Enterprises, Inc. and Jerry L.
Chidester).  In another "pre-IPO" case, principals of a private
company used a large portion of the $2.4 million in investor funds for
unauthorized business and personal expenses, including automobile
purchases, trips to Cabo San Lucas, Florida, Hawaii and California,
and home mortgage payments (SEC v. Smart-Mart, Inc., Timothy A.
McMurray and Bradley D. Woy);

    Baseless Financial Projections-including one company that issued
a press release claiming it would "quickly reach a significant market
share in the $400+ million" study aids market.  The company's share
price nearly tripled an hour after the release, eventually increasing
more than 1000% within two days.  The SEC alleges that, in reality,
the company's internal projections anticipated a year's time to reach,
at most, a mere 5% market share of the $160 million study aids market,
and that, in support of their projections, the company had only $30 in
gross sales during the entire 14-month period prior to the issuance of
the press release  (SEC v. PinkMonkey.com, Inc. and Patrick R.
Greene);

    False Track Records and Resumes-including a former roofer turned
online expert stock analyst that claimed he had a proprietary computer
trading system, over 14 years of investing experience and an 85%
success rate. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the ex-roofer had
limited personal securities trading experience, never received any
securities training, never worked for a securities or investment firm,
and used a software program available for purchase by the public which
could be accessed over the Internet.  Gaspard has acknowledged that
his success rate claims were misleading or false and not supported by
his track record (In the Matter of WallStreet Prophet and Ricky Laine
Gaspard);

    Analyst Coverage "Bought and Paid For"-including one public
company that provided hyperlinks on its website to the reports of a
purportedly independent analyst who actually was paid 12,500 shares of
the company's stock in undisclosed compensation for publishing the
reports.  These reports, in essence, merely reprinted the company's
fraudulent, upbeat claims, including the company's assertion that it
had profitable business relationships with 14 "blue chip" companies.
The SEC alleges that, in reality, these alleged relationships were
outright lies or gross exaggerations (SEC v. Internet Solutions for
Business, Inc. and Lawrence Shaw; In the Matter of Imcadvisors, Inc.
and Stuart Bockler); and

    Inflated Performance Claims and Fake Testimonials-including a
group of three websites that boasted a stock-picking track record of
60% to 240% returns, published glowing testimonials, and supposedly
used a "team of experienced traders."  The SEC alleges that, in
reality, the returns were merely hypothetical, the so-called "team" of
experts was, in fact, a single individual, and the testimonials on two
of the sites were copied almost verbatim from the third site (SEC v.
Sunset Investment Group, Inc., James Brown, Pinnacle Capital Advisors,
and Austin Tanner).

     Today the SEC also released an online "Survivor Checklist" to
warn investors about stock fraud on the web.  The brochure is
available at sec.gov.

     The SEC has now brought more than 200 Internet-related
enforcement actions, nearly half of which have been brought in the
last 14 months.  These actions have involved a total of over 750 named
individuals and entities.  Previous sweeps targeted online frauds
involving the touting of publicly-traded companies (October 1998 and
February 1999), the sale of bogus investment opportunities (May 1999)
and the perpetration of "pump-and-dump" stock schemes (September
2000).

     For more information about Internet fraud, visit
sec.gov.  For more 
advice on saving, investing, and avoiding fraud online, visit
sec.gov.  To report suspicious activity
involving possible Internet fraud, visit the SEC's Enforcement
Complaint Center at sec.gov.

Case Summaries & SEC Contact List:

1.   SEC v. Sunset Investment Group, Inc., James Brown,
     Pinnacle Capital Advisors and Austin Tanner
     (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado)
     (SEC Contact: Katherine S. Addleman, 303-844-1070)

    The SEC alleges that Sunset Investment Group, Inc., James Brown,
Pinnacle Capital Advisors, and Austin Tanner made false and misleading
performance claims and testimonials that appeared on three different
websites - OptionInvestor.com, SplitTrader.com, and NetBulls.com - and
in press releases.  All three sites provide stock and market analysis
and publish a stock advisory newsletter offering stock analysis,
trading strategies, and trading recommendations.  All are operated by
Sunset Investment Group and its president and sole shareholder, Brown,
a resident of Littleton, Colorado.  Tanner, from Westchester,
Illinois, and his company, Pinnacle Capital, were hired by Brown to
create the homepages of the websites.  According to the complaint,
OptionInvestor.com claimed actual returns ranging from 60% to 240% for
subscribers who followed its trading philosophy and trading
recommendations.  The SEC alleges that all of the performance claims
were hypothetical, not actual, and that it was impossible for
subscribers to achieve similar results.  The SEC also alleges that
SplitTrader.com and NetBulls.com posted on their homepages false and
misleading testimonials that praised the performance of the sites.
The SEC claims that the testimonials were copied almost verbatim from
the OptionInvestor.com homepage and had nothing to do with the
performance of either SplitTrader.com or NetBulls.com.  Without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Sunset
Investment Group and Brown consented to the entry of an order that
enjoins them from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, and
agreed together to pay a civil money penalty of $70,000.  The SEC also
seeks permanent injunctive relief and civil money penalties against
Pinnacle Capital and Tanner.

2.   In the Matter of Log Point Technologies, Inc. and
     Samuel P. Shanks
     (SEC Contacts: Helane L. Morrison 415-705-2450 and
     Marc J. Fagel 415-705-2449)

     The SEC alleges that Log Point Technologies, Inc. of Mountain
View, California, and its president, Samuel P. Shanks, misled
investors about financing arrangements and revenue projections in a
series of press releases and in an SEC filing.  Between March and
September 2000, Log Point issued four press releases claiming that it
had received a $20 million financing commitment from a venture capital
firm.  According to the SEC, these press releases were misleading
because they failed to disclose that the financing was contingent on
Log Point first raising $5 million to secure the financing.  At the
time, Log Point had approximately $67 in cash and no other sources for
raising the $5 million.  The first of these press releases - which was
disseminated over news wires and discussed on Internet stock
discussion boards - caused an 1800% increase in trading volume,
driving Log Point's stock price up 50%, from $2.00 to $3.00 per share.
Log Point repeated the misleading statements about the financing in a
quarterly SEC report.  Log Point also issued a press release in
September 2000 in which it projected revenue of $75 million to $90
million over the next two years.  The SEC found that the projection
was false and misleading - at the time of the press release, Log Point
was still in the development stage, had no product sales, and had no
realistic ability to generate the projected revenue.  The press
release caused a 2300% hike in trading volume, driving Log Point's
stock price up 29%.  In its order, the SEC found that Log Point and
Shanks violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5, and that Log Point violated, and Shanks aided and abetted
and caused a violation of, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-13 and 12b-20.  The SEC ordered Log Point and
Shanks to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of
those provisions.  The SEC accepted an offer of settlement in which
Log Point and Shanks, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings,
agreed to the entry of the SEC's order.

3.   SEC v. Chidwhite Enterprises, Inc. and Jerry L. Chidester
     (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
     (Austin Division))
     (SEC Contact: Spencer C. Barasch, 817-978-6425)

     The SEC alleges that Chidwhite Enterprises, Inc. and its sole
shareholder and chief executive officer, Jerry L. Chidester, age 26,
of Austin, Texas, used "spam" e-mail and a web page to defraud over
6,000 investors throughout the United States and abroad.  The company
raised nearly $96,000 in the fraudulent offering of so-called "free"
stock credits to those who paid an "administrative fee" of $10.
Defendants claimed that investors could redeem their stock credits for
common stock when Chidwhite Enterprises completed a purportedly
imminent IPO.  The SEC's complaint alleges that the defendants made
numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in
connection with the offering, including that the SEC had approved the
offering, that Chidwhite Enterprises would conduct an IPO upon
completion of the offering, and that Chidwhite Enterprises stock would
be valued at $20 to $50 per share at the time of its IPO.  In fact,
the SEC never approved the offering and Chidwhite Enterprises never
undertook any meaningful steps to conduct an IPO.  Moreover, Chidwhite
Enterprises never established offices, never acquired any inventory,
and never offered any products or services.  The SEC also claims that
Chidester misappropriated all of the administrative fees generated in
the promotional offering and converted the fees to his own use.  The
SEC seeks permanent injunctions against future violations of the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
as well as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest,
against Chidester and Chidwhite Enterprises.

4.   SEC v. Smart-Mart, Inc., Timothy A. McMurray and Bradley D. Woy
     (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
     (Dallas Division))
     (SEC Contact: Spencer C. Barasch, 817-978-6425)

     The SEC alleges that Smart-Mart, Inc., an Internet company based
in Dallas, Texas, its founder, Timothy A. McMurray, and its president,
Bradley D. Woy, conducted a fraudulent securities offering in which
they raised approximately $2.4 million from approximately 720
investors located nationwide and in Canada through the sale of common
stock.  The SEC alleges that Smart-Mart, McMurray and Woy knowingly
made false and misleading statements to investors regarding a
purportedly imminent IPO, the business prospects of the company, the
use of investor funds, the liquidity of the investment and projected
returns on investment.  Despite these representations, Smart-Mart
never took any significant steps to conduct an IPO and the company had
only minimal business operations.  Moreover, Smart-Mart's financial
and other business records reveal that McMurray and Woy used a large
portion of investor funds for unauthorized business and personal
expenses.  In addition, McMurray failed to disclose critical
information regarding his background, including his conviction on bank
fraud charges for a check-kiting scheme in January 1993, for which he
was sentenced to five years probation.  The complaint charges the
defendants with violating the securities registration and antifraud
provisions of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-
5.  The SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief against Smart-Mart,
McMurray and Woy, as well as disgorgement with prejudgment interest,
an accounting and civil money penalties.

5.   SEC v. PinkMonkey.com, Inc. and Patrick R. Greene
     (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
     (Houston Division))
     (SEC Contact: Spencer C. Barasch, 817-978-6425)

     The SEC alleges that PinkMonkey.com, Inc., an online publisher
located in Houston, Texas, and Patrick R. Greene, its founder and
controlling shareholder, issued a fraudulent press release that caused
a 950% increase in the price of PinkMonkey's common stock.  The
release announced the "launch" of a new website service that could
"quickly reach a significant market share in the $400+ million" study
aids market; however, according to the SEC's complaint, the website
was neither newly-launched nor likely to realize any significant
market share.  As of the date of the release, PinkMonkey had operated
the website for 14 months and generated only $30 in sales.
Furthermore, PinkMonkey and Greene actually anticipated needing one
year to capture up to 5% of a market totaling only $160 million.
Before the release, PinkMonkey's stock was thinly-traded, at a price
of $1.50 or less.  Within an hour after the release, PinkMonkey shares
traded for as much as $4.375 per share, on heavy volume.  The price
peaked two days later at $17 per share, a more than 1000% increase
from just two days earlier, before closing at $13.50 per share.  At
its zenith, PinkMonkey's market capitalization exceeded $200 million,
although the company had only four full time employees and nominal
sales.  After PinkMonkey and Greene issued a clarifying press release,
the company's stock price fell to $7.25 per share by the close of
trading that day.  PinkMonkey has never realized significant revenues,
and its stock now trades for about $0.20 per share.  Without admitting
or denying the SEC's allegations, the defendants consented to the
entry of permanent anti-fraud injunctions, and Greene has agreed to
pay a $20,000 civil penalty.

6.   In the Matter of WallStreet Prophet and Ricky Laine Gaspard
     (SEC Contact: Spencer C. Barasch, 817-978-6425)

     The SEC alleges that Ricky Laine Gaspard, a former roofing
contractor and sole owner and operator of WallStreet Prophet, a stock
recommendation website, disseminated false and misleading statements
on the website concerning WallStreet Prophet's stock selection system,
Gaspard's investing experience, and his performance history in making
successful stock recommendations.  Gaspard claimed WallStreet
Prophet's system had "an 85% success rate" and that testimonials
claimed returns of up to 860%.  Gaspard has since acknowledged that
his success rate claims were misleading or false and not supported by
his track record.  Gaspard also portrayed himself as an experienced
trader with over 14 years of investing expertise, when he actually has
very limited personal securities trading experience and has never
received any formal securities training or license, and has never
worked for a securities or investment firm.  Without admitting or
denying the SEC's allegations, WallStreet Prophet and Gaspard have
agreed to the entry of an order requiring them to cease and desist
from any future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 and to provide a copy of the SEC's order to
all current and prospective WallStreet Prophet subscribers for a
period of one year from the date of the entry of the order.

7.   SEC v. Internet Solutions for Business, Inc. and Lawrence Shaw
     (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Nevada
     (Las Vegas Division))
     In the Matter of Stuart Bockler and Imcadvisors, Inc.
     (SEC Contact: Spencer C. Barasch, 817-978-6425)

     The SEC alleges that Internet Solutions For Business, Inc.
(ISFB), a publicly traded Internet company located in Coventry,
England, and its founder and CEO, Lawrence Shaw, fraudulently promoted
ISFB.  ISFB held itself out as a sophisticated, high-tech Internet
company with new, cutting-edge products and profitable business
relationships with established "blue chip" companies.  ISFB hyped
these products and relationships on its website, in press releases and
through reports it paid to have published, all of which were
authorized by Shaw.  The SEC alleges that ISFB's supposed cutting-edge
products never reached the point of commercial viability.  For
example, a "$4.1 billion website audit service," repeatedly hyped by
the company, was nothing more than a concept which was never
developed.  Similarly, announcements of business relationships with
"blue chip" companies were either outright lies or gross
exaggerations.  Further, ISFB's stock price projections (300% increase
over the mid-term) were without any reasonable basis and were made at
a time during which the company was in a precarious financial
position.  Notwithstanding dire financial problems, ISFB's stock price
and trading volume substantially increased contemporaneously with the
company's fraudulent promotional activities.  The SEC seeks permanent
injunctions against future violations of the antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws, against ISFB and Shaw.  The SEC also
seeks a civil monetary penalty against Shaw.  In a related matter, the
SEC found that Imcadvisors, a New Jersey corporation, and its owner,
Stuart Bockler, violated the anti-touting provisions of the Securities
Act of 1933 in the promotion of ISFB stock.  Without admitting or
denying the SEC's findings, Imcadvisors and Bockler consented to the
entry of an order requiring them to cease and desist from committing
or causing any violation and any future violation of Section 17(b) of
the Securities Act.

8.   SEC v. Kenneth W. Schilling
     (U.S. District Court, District of Arizona)
     In the Matter of iBIZ Technology Corp.
     (SEC Contact: Katherine S. Addleman, 303-844-1070)

     The SEC alleges that Kenneth W. Schilling disseminated false
revenue and stock price projections on the Internet for iBIZ
Technology Corp., a computer company headquartered in Phoenix,
Arizona.  The complaint alleges that Schilling, president of iBIZ,
provided false financial projections to a purported analyst for use in
research reports recommending the purchase of iBIZ stock, and that
Schilling approved and placed 17 press releases on iBIZ's website
which contained direct hyperlinks to the analyst reports.  The SEC
further alleged that, in a press release, iBIZ characterized the
analyst as "independent" even though iBIZ, through its investor
relations firm, had agreed to pay the analyst 200,000 shares of iBIZ
common stock for the report.  The SEC alleged that the false financial
projections, which appeared on the Internet, fueled a rise in both the
price and the trading volume of iBIZ's common stock.  Without
admitting or denying the SEC's allegations against him, Schilling
consented to the entry of an order enjoining him from violating
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 and
ordering him to pay a civil penalty of $20,000.  In a related action,
the SEC issued an order requiring iBIZ to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violation or any future violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.  iBIZ consented
to the cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying any of the
SEC's findings.

9.   SEC v. RumorSearch.com, Inc. and Jeremy Johnson
     (U.S. District Court, District of Utah)
     (SEC Contact: Kelly Bowers, 323-965-3924)

     The SEC alleges that RumorSearch.com, a St. George, Utah company,
that purportedly researches stock rumors for paying subscribers, and
its principal, Jeremy Johnson, age 25, made false statements about,
and touted the stock of, Far East Ventures, Inc. (FEVI).  According to
the complaint, Johnson profiled FEVI as RumorSearch's "Stock Pick of
the Month," sent several emails to RumorSearch subscribers and others
praising FEVI, and received a total of 95,000 FEVI shares in payment
for the touting.  In these touts, Johnson and RumorSearch
misrepresented, or omitted to disclose, material information regarding
FEVI, the reliability of reported information and Johnson's receipt of
compensation for the touting.  While touting FEVI through his false
and misleading releases, Johnson sold 66,500 FEVI shares at a profit
of $315,848.  The defendants consented, without admitting or denying
the SEC's allegations, to the entry of final judgments permanently
enjoining them from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 17(b), the anti-touting
provision of the Securities Act of 1933, with the amounts of
disgorgement and civil penalties to be determined.

                                #  #  #