UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15355 / April 29, 1997 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GENE BLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BLOCK CONSULTING SERVICES, RENATE HAAG, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A HAAG + PARTNER, AND ROBERT T. RILEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE ROBERTS GROUP (United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 95-11748RCL).

 The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 21, 1997 the Honorable Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgments against Gene Block ("Block") of Durham, North Carolina, who was doing business as Block Consulting Group, and Robert T. Riley ("Riley") of St. Louis, Missouri, who was doing business as The Roberts Group. The Court permanently enjoined Block and Riley from violating the antifraud and broker registration provisions of the federal securities laws. Additionally, the Court ordered Block to pay disgorgement of $500 plus prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $5,000. The Court ordered Riley to pay disgorgement of $500 plus prejudgment interest, but no civil penalty was imposed based upon his financial condition. Block and Riley consented to the entry of the final judgments without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint. Specifically, Block and Riley were enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

 The Complaint, which was filed on August 8, 1995, alleges that Block and Riley were offering and selling unregistered and fraudulent investment programs through advertisements on the Internet by promising, in some cases, returns as high as 200% to 420% annually. Block and Riley falsely represented that investors' funds would be invested in risk-free, high-yield programs and that the initial investment was guaranteed against loss because a "Prime Bank Guarantee" would be used as security for the transaction. In fact, there are no legitimate financial instruments known as "Prime Bank Guarantees." Block and Riley also falsely represented that the investors' funds would be doubled by buying and selling "Bank Instruments." However, they failed to disclose the nature of the "Bank Instrument," how the trading would generate such unrealistic returns or the risk that the returns would not be achieved.

 The action remains pending against defendant Renate Haag.

 For further information, see Lit Release Nos. 14598, 14711, and 14804.