DOB: Yohman, Clancey - Fine

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


IN THE MATTER OF:

CLANCEY BRAXTON YOHMAN

("Respondent")



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
 

ORDER IMPOSING FINE

DOCKET NO. CF-13-8051-B

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Chapter 672c of the General Statutes of Connecticut, the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act (“Act”), pursuant to Section 36b-70 of the Act;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division of the Department of Banking (“Department”), conducted an investigation into the activities of Respondent, pursuant to Section 36b-71(a) of the Act, to determine if Respondent had violated, was violating or was about to violate provisions of the Act (“Investigation”);

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2013, based on the Investigation, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Section 36b-72(a) of the Act and Section 36b-72(b) of the Act, issued an Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”), Notice of Intent to Fine, and Notice of Right to Hearing against Respondent (collectively “Notice”), which Notice is incorporated by reference herein;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice, with respect to the activity described therein, that Respondent’s offer and sale of a business opportunity absent registration constituted a violation of Section 36b-67(1) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-72(a) of the Act, and for the imposition of a fine upon Respondent under Section 36b-72(b) of the Act;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice, with respect to the activity described therein, that Respondent failed to provide prospective purchaser-investors with documented data substantiating Respondent’s claims of income or earnings potential.  Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-67(2) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-72(a) of the Act and/or the imposition of a fine upon Respondent under Section 36b-72(b) of the Act;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice, with respect to the activity described therein, that the conduct of Respondent constituted, in connection with the offer or sale of a business opportunity, directly or indirectly employing any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or engaging in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.  Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-67(6) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-72(a) of the Act and/or the imposition of a fine upon Respondent under Section 36b-72(b) of the Act;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated, inter alia, that the Commissioner intended to impose a fine upon Respondent, that Respondent would be afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the allegations set forth in the Notice if a written request for a hearing was received by the Department within fourteen (14) days following Respondent’s receipt of the Notice, and that if Respondent did not request a hearing within the prescribed time period, the Commissioner may order that a maximum fine be imposed upon Respondent;

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2013, the Notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent at Respondent’s last known addresses;

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, March 28, 2013, May 7, 2013, May 14, 2013, and June 7, 2013, the Notice was returned to the Department of Banking marked “Return to Sender – Not Deliverable as Addressed – Unable to Forward”; “Return to Sender – Attempted – Not Known – Unable to Forward”; “Return to Sender – Unclaimed – Unable to Forward”, “Return to Sender – Unclaimed – Unable to Forward”, “Return to Sender – Refused – Unable to Forward”, respectively;

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2013, the Notice was served on the Commissioner, and on April 15, 2013, in accordance with Section 36b-62(f) of the General Statutes of Connecticut, Notice of Service on the Banking Commissioner In the Matter of:  Clancey Braxton Yohman, dated April 15, 2013 (“Notice of Service”), was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent;

WHEREAS, Respondent has failed to request a hearing on the allegations set forth in the Notice within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Notice of Service;

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2013, a Certification was issued rendering the Order permanent as of April 30, 2013, which Certification is incorporated by reference herein;

AND WHEREAS, Section 36a-1-31(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides, in pertinent part, that:

When a party fails to request a hearing within the time specified in the notice, the allegations against the party may be deemed admitted.  Without further proceedings or notice to the party, the commissioner shall issue a final decision in accordance with section 4-180 of the Connecticut General Statutes and section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, provided the commissioner may, if deemed necessary, receive evidence from the department, as part of the record, concerning the appropriateness of the amount of any . . . fine . . . sought in the notice.”

II.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Commissioner finds that the facts as set forth in paragraphs 6 through 16, inclusive, of the Notice, shall constitute findings of fact within the meaning of Section 4-180(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, and that the Statutory Basis for Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Fine set forth in paragraphs 17 through 28, inclusive, of the Notice shall constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Section 4-180(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
2. The Commissioner finds that Respondent committed one violation of Section 36b-67(1) of the Act, one violation of Section 36b-67(2) of the Act and one violation of Section 36b-67(6) of the Act.
3. The Commissioner finds that the facts require the imposition of a fine against Respondent.
4.
The Commissioner finds that the Notice complied with the requirements of Section 36b-72 of the Act and Section 4-177 of the General Statutes of Connecticut.

III.  ORDER

Having read the record, I hereby ORDER, pursuant to Sections [sic] 36b-72 of the Act, that:

1. A fine of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) be imposed upon Clancey Braxton Yohman to be remitted to the Department by cashier’s check, certified check or money order, made payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”, no later than 45 days from the date this Order Imposing Fine is mailed; and
2.
This Order Imposing Fine shall become final when mailed.


So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut,        ______/s/__________ 
this 16th day of July 2013.      Howard F. Pitkin 
      Banking Commissioner 


This Order was sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to
Respondent on July 17, 2013.

Clancey Braxton Yohman
P.O. Box 667
Boise, ID 83701
Certified mail no. 7012 3050 0002 1692 6026

Clancey Braxton Yohman
3910 Hill Road, Suite 102-103
Boise, ID 83703
Certified mail no. 7012 3050 0002 1692 6033

Clancey Braxton Yohman
2050 North Lake Harbor Lane, Suite 254B
Boise, ID 83703-6906
Certified mail no. 7012 3050 0002 1692 6040

Clancey Braxton Yohman
5276 North Quail Summit Way
Boise, ID 83703
Certified mail no. 7012 3050 0002 1692 6057

Clancey Braxton Yohman
305 Iowa
Boise, ID 83706
Certified mail no. 7012 3050 0002 1692 6064
 
                              


Administrative Orders and Settlements