加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - EB-5投资和美国债券法

在加拿大

http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/1033/ Possible Consequences of Non-Compliance in the EB-5 Visa Field Let’s look at how the dominoes might fall in an EB-5 context: 1。Investor uses unlicensed finder to choose regional center;2。Investor sells his overseas business in order to finance his regional center investment;3。Investor’s I-526 petition is approved and the unlicensed finder is paid a finder’s fee by the regional center;4。Investor moves himself, his wife, and two school-age children to the U.S.;5。Investor’s I-829 is denied because the regional center did not create the jobs promised, or made a material change in the project, or violated a CIS rule which doesn’t even exist today, or for any other reason;6。Regional center offers investor his money back, but investor refuses to sign waiver required by regional center as a condition of payment;7。Investor sues regional center in state and federal court seeking rescission of the subscription agreement, interest accrued on principal, attorney’s fees and, in addition, for millions of dollars of losses associated with being denied a green card;8。Investor’s attorney discovers that the regional center paid a finder’s fee to an unlicensed finder operating in the U.S; he adds a plaintiff’s securities attorney to the legal team;9。Investor’s attorneys sue regional center and its principal officers for securities violations, fraud, failure to disclose payments to finders on Form D as well as in the private placement memorandum;10。SEC revokes regional center’s Regulation D exemption, threatening all projects in progress by the regional center;11。Fearing loss of investment principal and I-829 denial, disgruntled investors form class action suit against regional center and its principals personally;12。Due to bad publicity, regional center can no longer raise funds for future projects; and13。Entire EB-5 field suffers due to negative publicity. Something More to Think about: The “Put” Problem Securities attorneys have observed that rescission rights arising from a securities violation provide the investor with the equivalent of a “put” option that stock market investors use to hedge risk. In a protective put strategy, if the stock goes up, the investor keeps the profit; if the stock falls below the put strike price, the investor does not lose (the buyer of the put has to purchase the security). Similarly, if an EB-5 investor has placed his funds in a regional center that has paid finder’s fee to unlicensed brokers, he wins if the project is profitable, but he can avoid any losses by going into state court (and perhaps also into federal court) to exercise his rescission rights and secure a return of principal plus interest and attorney’s fee. The regional center has thus placed the investor in an enviable financial situation that could impose serious financial losses on the center, and, in addition, it has provided the investor with a de facto redemption right. This unintended result has the peculiar effect in the EB-5 field of potentially undermining the 8 C.F.R. §204.6(j)(2) requirement that the EB-5 investment be “at risk”, and giving the CIS yet another, albeit outlandish, basis for denying an I-526 or I-829 petition. [26] Rescission rights create an additional problem for regional centers with a history of securities law violations. The right to rescind the contract, which, again, can exist for up to three years after the securities law violation has occurred, may give the investor an early exit option from the center’s project once the 10-year green card is in hand. The finder’s fee is typically paid after the I-526 has been approved. If the investor can receive her green card within three years of the I-526 approval a distinct possibility - she can run into state court and seek rescission and return of principal even if the planned project term has not been reached. Eventually, some investor with a 10-year card in hand, and in dire need of capital, will head into state court and exercise this option. If enough EB-5 investors learn of the option, the disruptive effect on the center’s projects could be enough to seriously hinder if not doom the center’s future operations. Many thanks to securities attorney Jennifer Moseley, Esq., for reviewing an earlier draft of this article and suggesting several useful revisions. A couple of quibbles remained as we "went to press", so any errors found in the article are no doubt instances where I failed to take her advice.

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法看了一天有关EB-5和美国证券法的规定，发现大部分EB-5项目的推广方式都是违反美国证券法的，为将来埋下祸根。 真要好好做项目，不然，投资人拿到永久绿卡，就可以起诉项目方了。投资人拿不到绿卡，更要被起诉了。 美国的证券法，好厉害呀。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法Beware of Unlicensed Finders in the EB-5 Field If you see an unlicensed “due diligence” or “regional center selection” firm on the internet promising to help you select the best regional center for free, or for a fee they will later rebate to you after they receive a referral fee from the regional center you select, you can be virtually certain that the firm can not fall within the “finder’s exception” to broker/dealer registration, and therefore the firm is violating U.S. securities laws. There may be some disagreement among securities attorneys about the size of the finder’s exception in securities law, but you won’t find a securities attorney in the entire U.S. who’d say that a firm 1) soliciting EB-5 clients in the U.S., and 2) providing investment advice about which center to select, and 3) accepting finder’s fees from the issuer (regional centers) may do so lawfully without first obtaining a Series 7 or Series 79 license and becoming registered as a broker-dealer, or representative of a broker-dealer firm. So what does it mean your advisor is not licensed? Simply, the multiple protections of the securities laws to ensure that brokers are both competent and honest are not in place to protect you. The first thing to understand about the securities law of the U.S. is that they are designed to protect the investor. Recognizing that investors may be misled by incompetent of dishonest sellers of securities, U.S. securities laws, combined with the rules of the financial industry’s self-governing organization FINRA, ensure that sellers of securities (including investments such as those offered by EB-5 regional centers) have been tested and are periodically re-tested to demonstrate the appropriate competency in financial matters, that they have disclosed relevant background information such as the seller’s employment history, criminal history, history of investment related complaints, fines, and sanctions, that they have submitted to strict oversight of their professional activities and that they must conform with FINRA and securities law rules which include, among many others, prohibitions against -Engaging in any manipulative, deceptive or fraudulent behaviorMaking an untrue statement of a material fact, or even fail to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made not misleadingGuaranteeing a resultEngaging in behavior that constitutes a conflict of interest with the client/customerIf your advisor is unlicensed, you basically just have to trust the advisor to do the right thing.You can easily check to see if a finder is registered on FINRA’s BrokerCheck. The EB-5 Pilot Program is particularly susceptible to abuse because the referral fees that regional centers pay to finders vary from center to center, with some centers refusing categorically to pay finder’s fees to unlicensed consultants, while other centers paying fees that are far higher than the standard. Given the powerful incentive for the advisor to steer the client to the center offering the advisor the highest financial reward, unregulated advisors can be a source of abuse in the EB-5 field. Another problem is that unlicensed finders naturally send their clients only to regional centers that are willing to pay them, despite the securities law violation. This subjects the center to the risk of an SEC enforcements action or rescission action in state court by an investor that can have dire consequences for the center’s ability to carry its projects forward. When you consider that it’s not just you money at stake in one of these projects, but also the future of your family, you can see why a cautious approach with such firms is strongly recommended. http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/1354/

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法看了一天有关EB-5和美国证券法的规定，发现大部分EB-5项目的推广方式都是违反美国证券法的，为将来埋下祸根。 真要好好做项目，不然，投资人拿到永久绿卡，就可以起诉项目方了。投资人拿不到绿卡，更要被起诉了。 美国的证券法，好厉害呀。点击展开... 很有意思。美国的证券法是保护投资人的。而这EB-5的法律规则是让投资人冒风险的。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法很有意思。美国的证券法是保护投资人的。而这EB-5的法律规则是让投资人冒风险的。点击展开... 肯定不是同一个人制定的！！这样的话，左手拿一个矛右手一个盾，会出现啥情况那？

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法很有意思。美国的证券法是保护投资人的。而这EB-5的法律规则是让投资人冒风险的。点击展开... 美国证券法从对商业行为规则的监督和规范来保护投资者；并不是保护投资者不冒商业风险。 EB-5法律是要求投资必须具有商业风险；如果投资连风险都没有了，理论上一个投资人能借多少钱，就该去借多少钱做投资。没有商业风险意味着损失是封口的，而收益是敞口的。这样的话不需要巴菲特了，一个人做的投资越多会越安全。 移民法不完善，包括10个就业机会的创造都有很大拍脑门的嫌疑，另外，很大程度上EB-5移民法试图在定义商业行为。是很人为化的。而商业更多是自然发展。比如大家都以5年投资为限，如果有区域中心试着把5年降低为4年零364天是否可以呢？那么4年零363天是否合理呢？。。。以此类推。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法5年投资不在移民法上，也不在EB5的备忘录上，而是区域中心自己想出来的，USCIS只管到829批准之前没有撤资即可。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法5年投资不在移民法上，也不在EB5的备忘录上，而是区域中心自己想出来的，USCIS只管到829批准之前没有撤资即可。点击展开... 对。5年的期限不在移民法里。是约定俗成的。我这里在讨论移民法的时候引用不当。 忘记是来源于哪里了，5年投资源于一次stakeholder meeting上USCIS对于律师提问的答复。当时的问题是，倒底一个企业维持多长时间才不算为了EB-5目的而成立，维持多长时间才不算为了EB-5而EB-5，得到的口头回答是至少5年吧。 用10个就业讲比较合适。这10个就业数量是否科学是问题。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法看你们说话真让人着急。5年是投资的潜规则，即一项合理的投资应该不低于5年收回成本。10个就业是通过产值和就业数据得出50万美元可能创造的就业数量的平均值。这都是有出处的，但我懒得找。我去帮外星人发电去了，你们玩吧。

评论
You and I have memories Longer than the road That stretches out ahead.5年投资不在移民法上，也不在EB5的备忘录上，而是区域中心自己想出来的，USCIS只管到829批准之前没有撤资即可。点击展开... 实际上移民局不愿看到“5年”这个字出现在投资人的申请文件上的。 理论上投资人可以随时撤资，等永久绿卡到手后，就可以要回钱的。永久绿卡没拿到手，投资人戴着移民局的紧箍咒。拿到永久绿卡后就是证券法的天下了。 如果投资人在与区域中心（及其中介公司）签项目文件有不公的地方，这是美国证券法的范围，有3年追诉期。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法有空投资人可以研究美国证券法的Regulation D。这些都是私募的范围。美国证券法有明确的规则来保护投资人的利益的。 目前有几个区域中心的项目，都有违反美国证券法之嫌呢。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法Michael Gibson在其文章说了这句话，有点耐人寻味！ http://info.eb5info.com//bid/125726/ongoing-lawsuit-stalls-maryland-eb-5-visa-project-promotion-persists?source=Blog_Email_%5bOngoing%20Lawsuit%20Stal%5d The above screenshot was captured on February 22, 2012. Since XXX International is not a registered broker-dealer in the United States, it also seems curious that the company would promote the State Center project on its U.S. Website. 那些在美国注册的公司，受美国证券法制约。按美国的证券法的规定，是不可以在各种媒体上宣传私募项目的。 只有registered broker-dealer才可以做。 看来我们要恶补美国证券法的知识啊，不然，不小心，又踩上了证券法的地雷。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法Michael Gibson在其文章说了这句话，有点耐人寻味！ http://info.eb5info.com//bid/125726/ongoing-lawsuit-stalls-maryland-eb-5-visa-project-promotion-persists?source=Blog_Email_%5bOngoing%20Lawsuit%20Stal%5d The above screenshot was captured on February 22, 2012. Since XXX International is not a registered broker-dealer in the United States, it also seems curious that the company would promote the State Center project on its U.S. Website. 那些在美国注册的公司，受美国证券法制约。按美国的证券法的规定，是不可以在各种媒体上宣传私募项目的。 只有registered broker-dealer才可以做。 看来我们要恶补美国证券法的知识啊，不然，不小心，又踩上了证券法的地雷。点击展开... 事实上，你作为人在美国的项目方，在网站上已经公开针对可能在美国本土的潜在投资者具体讲解你的项目，这本身就违背了证券法对私募招募投资者的规定，实际上已经踩到雷了。把曾经的项目信息尽量删掉吧！留在版面上如果有人多事，那都是证据，对你不利的。 私募招募必须明确针对已经确定是“合格投资者”的人。项目方任何针对公众的私募招募行为（这包括通过公开方式散布私募项目信息）都是非法的。 这就是为什么Jay Peak要求潜在投资者先填写表格，让投资者自己claim自己属于“合格投资者”，再完全针对这个人发出PPM（私募招股说明书）的做法的原因。这也是为什么他们不在公开论坛回答任何关于他们项目的疑问的原因。任何的这种针对公众的在公开场合里回答项目信息的行为都违背证券法关于私募招募行为规定。 华人律师敢于在自己的网站上公开登载EB-5项目，实际上都是非法的。因为他们没有证券从业资质。只不过华人社区都糊涂，也没有人爱多事。否则他们的律师执照都得被取消。加州有些律师公开推荐项目给他们的客户（雇佣该律师递交I-526申请的投资者），这是非法的。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法事实上，你作为人在美国的项目方，在网站上已经公开针对可能在美国本土的潜在投资者具体讲解你的项目，这本身就违背了证券法对私募招募投资者的规定，实际上已经踩到雷了。把曾经的项目信息尽量删掉吧！留在版面上如果有人多事，那都是证据，对你不利的。 ----谢谢提醒。我补了证券法的课后，能删的贴子，也删了。现在在此声明，本论坛上有关我的某个养老院项目的具体资料已过时了，不可以用做分析项目风险所用。仅可作为虚拟项目参考。 私募招募必须明确针对已经确定是“合格投资者”的人。项目方任何针对公众的私募招募行为（这包括通过公开方式散布私募项目信息）都是非法的。--每个私募都该是这样了。同样我不借中介合作推广项目也是同样道理。在国内做广告推介会本身就违反美国的证券法的要求。因为移民中介没有买卖证券的资质。 这就是为什么Jay Peak要求潜在投资者先填写表格，让投资者自己claim自己属于“合格投资者”，再完全针对这个人发出PPM（私募招股说明书）的做法的原因。这也是为什么他们不在公开论坛回答任何关于他们项目的疑问的原因。任何的这种针对公众的在公开场合里回答项目信息的行为都违背证券法关于私募招募行为规定。-- 这点他们做的对。 华人律师敢于在自己的网站上公开登载EB-5项目，实际上都是非法的。因为他们没有证券从业资质。只不过华人社区都糊涂，也没有人爱多事。否则他们的律师执照都得被取消。加州有些律师公开推荐项目给他们的客户（雇佣该律师递交I-526申请的投资者），这是非法的 --完全同意 [/quote]点击展开...

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法“同样我不借中介合作推广项目也是同样道理。在国内做广告推介会本身就违反美国的证券法的要求。” 第一，在国内不借助中介公司的话，只有不针对公众，仅凭口口相传的私募行为才算是合法的。国内证券法对此也有规定。在国内的规定里，只有出入境中介才是合法提供与移民相关咨询服务的合法机构。其他任何个人和机构都属违背中国法律和规定。 第二，国内做什么谈不上违反美国证券法要求。每个法律都有“司法管辖权（Jurisdiction）范围”。如果美国的证券法管辖权包括了中国大陆的投资者，就意味着中国要成为美利坚的一部分了。 也正是因为第二条，才有美国的部分区域中心可以肆无忌惮地在中国市场上做虚假宣传。他们在美国本土是完全不敢那么做的。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法“同样我不借中介合作推广项目也是同样道理。在国内做广告推介会本身就违反美国的证券法的要求。” 第一，在国内不借助中介公司的话，只有不针对公众，仅凭口口相传的私募行为才算是合法的。国内证券法对此也有规定。在国内的规定里，只有出入境中介才是合法提供与移民相关咨询服务的合法机构。其他任何个人和机构都属违背中国法律和规定。 第二，国内做什么谈不上违反美国证券法要求。每个法律都有“司法管辖权（Jurisdiction）范围”。如果美国的证券法管辖权包括了中国大陆的投资者，就意味着中国要成为美利坚的一部分了。 也正是因为第二条，才有美国的部分区域中心可以肆无忌惮地在中国市场上做虚假宣传。他们在美国本土是完全不敢那么做的。点击展开... 这一点是人者见人，智者见智了。有人提醒我，在国内推介会也是不可以的。别的区域中心愿意怎样做，是他们的事。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法这一点是人者见人，智者见智了。有人提醒我，在国内推介会也是不可以的。别的区域中心愿意怎样做，是他们的事。点击展开... 这是中国法律或规章如何规定，和美国法律如何规定的问题。是司法管辖权范围的问题。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法看看尤他州区域中心对EB-5consultant 的约法三章，就知道中介的合法活动是什么了。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法一句话，不要得罪投资人，答应办到绿卡，一定要办到。不然，就有官司之苦，甚至牢狱之灾。大家自勉吧。

评论
回复: EB-5投资和美国债券法看看尤他州区域中心对EB-5consultant 的约法三章，就知道中介的合法活动是什么了。点击展开... 把一件事说完再说下一件好吗？ 中介是唯一合法的可以在中国提供移民相关服务的机构，这句话有异议吗？ 只有中介公司可以在中国合法地提供移民相关服务，与“每个中介所做的推广活动都是合法的”这两句话是等同的吗？ 暂时别把什么犹太州区域中心的什么约法三章这么个“公司级合约”拿出来与对中国和美国的法律和管辖权的讨论搅到一起好不好。 拿你删除涉及招募投资者的贴子来说，法律上如果再继续较真的话，即使你删除了，即使你发现并声明了，实际行为已经发生。法律上只要有证人照样可以追究责任。并不代表事情就可以简单了结了。我的意思是法律就是法律，不管我们喜欢不喜欢。 说到你说的中介违法的事情，这与中介被定义为唯一可以合法提供移民相关咨询服务的机构有什么关系呢？没有人能保证任何一个合法存在的中介都不越格做非法的推广行为。

  ·中文新闻 以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡在健康恐慌后数小时内接受重大
·中文新闻 彼得·希钦斯：一位英国视频博主因批评乌克兰而失去了人权。