On March 31, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey against Jon G. Fullenkamp, 71, of Long Beach, Washington, and Scott R. Sand, 68, of Rough and Ready, California, charging them with perpetrating a securities fraud scheme to misappropriate millions of dollars from two publicly traded penny stock companies they secretly controlled. The same day, Fullenkamp, without admitting the SEC’s allegations, consented to a judgment that will permanently enjoin him from future securities violations, impose permanent officer, director, and penny stock bars, require him to surrender all fraudulently acquired shares for cancellation, and order disgorgement and civil penalties in amounts the court will determine on SEC motion. Fullenkamp has also been indicted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey in a parallel criminal action for related conduct. Sand has not consented and the civil case against him proceeds. The scheme, which ran from at least October 2020 through 2023, involved forged signatures, email impersonation of company officers, a sham IP licensing agreement, a backdated contract, and a phantom vendor whose purported CEO was a personal trainer and massage therapist with no passport, no marketing experience, and no contacts in the brewing industry.
A Personal Trainer Was Named CEO of a Shell Vendor While Fullenkamp Controlled Every Account and Communication
At the center of the scheme was a California company formed in October 2020 by Fullenkamp, using the name of a personal trainer he knew from his gym. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the District of New Jersey, the trainer was told the entity would be used to make private investments on behalf of Fullenkamp and Sand. What he did not know was that he had been installed as the nominal CEO of a vehicle designed to execute a securities fraud scheme.
Fullenkamp maintained access to the vendor’s bank accounts, established its email domain, created an email address in the trainer’s name that Fullenkamp controlled, opened an electronic signature account in his name to forge his signature on corporate documents, and registered a cell phone in his wife’s name that he used to impersonate the trainer on calls with prospective investors and media outlets. The trainer was a personal trainer and massage therapist who had never traveled internationally, did not own a passport, had no experience in marketing or the brewing industry, and had no contacts there. He was sent to visit one of the target companies in August 2021 to perform legitimacy, with Fullenkamp coaching him by text beforehand on how to appear knowledgeable about marketing and the craft beer industry.
Two Craft Beer Companies Were Secretly Managed by Men Who Were Never Disclosed as Officers
Fullenkamp and Sand exercised effective control over two publicly traded companies identified in the complaint as Company 1 and Company 2, neither of which formally listed them in management. Company 1 was a Florida-incorporated manufacturer of custom equipment for craft brewers, organized in 2014 with its principal place of business in California, whose stock traded on the OTC Expert Market. Company 2, formed in 2021, shared many officers and directors with Company 1 and continued to operate a brewery before deregistering its securities with the SEC in September 2024.
The complaint alleges that Fullenkamp and Sand drafted and reviewed the companies’ public SEC filings, press releases, and board resolutions; managed regulatory compliance and investor relations; accessed the companies’ bank accounts; orchestrated stock splits and new share issuances; and directed the issuance of preferred shares and convertible debt. They used group chats to direct management, and used technology to impersonate named officers. Sand used email addresses in the name of a director to forge that director’s signatures on company documents through an electronic signature service. The formally named officers, including the company founder identified as a welder with experience in the craft brewing industry but with no background in corporate governance or finance, ceded control of those functions to Fullenkamp and Sand.
A Sham IP Agreement, Forged Signatures, and a Backdated Contract That Predated the Company’s Own Formation
On or about February 14, 2021, Sand prepared and both defendants executed a sham Intellectual Property Purchase and License Agreement between Company 1 and the Fullenkamp-controlled vendor. The agreement provided that the vendor would license unspecified intellectual property and technology to Company 1, launch an advertising campaign, establish distribution partnerships across Europe, Asia, South America, and Canada, and negotiate a sub-manufacturing contract with a large internationally known beer company. In exchange, Company 1 would pay 500,000 convertible preferred shares. No intellectual property existed. No distribution partnerships were established. No negotiations with a beer company ever occurred. Fullenkamp forged the vendor CEO’s signature on the agreement and forged the director’s signature on the board resolution authorizing the share issuance.
To facilitate the sale of those shares to third-party buyers in April 2021, Sand backdated the agreement from its actual February 14, 2021 execution date to October 15, 2020 — six days before the vendor entity even existed. The backdating shortened the mandatory six-month holding period to two months, making the shares convertible and saleable four months earlier than they should have been. Fullenkamp and Sand sold approximately 400,000 preferred shares to two third parties for approximately $2.6M. The third parties converted and sold the shares on the open market. Fullenkamp moved the proceeds through accounts controlled by himself and Sand and split the money between them. In June 2022, they repeated the scheme using a modified agreement to extract an additional 200,000 Company 1 convertible preferred shares. They ran a parallel version of the scheme against Company 2 beginning in late 2021, forging the same vendor CEO’s signature on a second sham agreement.
Sand Had Already Pleaded Guilty to Wire Fraud and Served Prison Time Before the Scheme Began
Sand is not a first-time offender. The complaint states that in 2010, Sand pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent kickback scheme involving a penny stock issuer for which he served as CEO — identified in a related SEC enforcement action as Ingen Technologies, Inc. — and that he served more than one year in federal prison as a result. In the SEC’s parallel civil action arising from the same conduct, a district court entered a consent judgment against Sand in 2011 imposing permanent officer and director bars and a permanent penny stock bar. Sand was prohibited by those 2011 bars from serving as an officer or director of a public company and from participating in penny stock offerings. The complaint’s allegations, if proven, would mean Sand violated both of those permanent bars in everything he did with Company 1 and Company 2 from 2019 through 2023.
Conclusion
The Fullenkamp and Sand case is a layered fraud: undisclosed control, forged identities, a phantom vendor, a backdated contract, and two companies whose real management was never disclosed to investors, auditors, or regulators. Company 1 ceased operations in 2023, its stock reduced to near zero value. The complaint states that the scheme contributed to that failure. Fullenkamp has consented to permanent bars and faces criminal charges from the District of New Jersey; Sand, already carrying permanent bars from a prior fraud conviction, is contesting the civil case. The personal trainer installed as the face of the phantom vendor knew almost nothing about what was done in his name.
