SEC Charges Founder and His Two New Jersey-Based Companies in Alleged $16 Million…

What the source reports

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ernest Ossei Boateng and two New Jersey-based companies he controls, Intercontinental Wealth Network LLC and I Wealth Network LP, for allegedly raising approximately $16 million from more than 200 inexperienced investors through a Ponzi scheme he operated from at least January 2020 until at least March 2026.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Boateng, acting through his two companies, solicited, recommended, and sold interests in an alleged investment fund, primarily targeting Christians of Ghanaian heritage in New York and New Jersey, many of whom had no prior investing experience.

The complaint alleges that Boateng told investors that their investments would generate guaranteed fixed returns and that the investment fund would pursue a low-risk investment strategy.

Rather than investing the money as promised, however, Boateng allegedly misappropriated more than $5.

8 million for his personal expenses, including the purchase, renovation, and furnishing of his home.

Boateng also allegedly used approximately $6.

6 million to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors.

The complaint further alleges that, to the limited extent Boateng did invest the money, he failed to do so in low-risk investments with fixed returns.

Instead, according to the complaint, Boateng used investor money to engage in high-risk, speculative day trading, leading to more than $750,000 in trading losses.

“We allege that the defendants’ investors included retirees, taxi drivers, home health care providers, students, an ailing widow with young children, and at least two churches and one prayer group,” said Thomas P.

, Associate Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.

“The defendants’ sales pitch to victims included assuring them that their investments were safe and without risk—telling many their money was protected by so-called ‘financial, investment insurance.

’ That’s as big of a red flag as we see in these types of scams.

”

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charges Boateng, Intercontinental, and I Wealth with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Boateng and Intercontinental with violating the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties against all of the defendants, as well as conduct-based injunctions against Boateng and Intercontinental.

Last Reviewed or Updated: Sept.

How to read this update

This BasisPilot brief preserves the source's reported facts and publication context. The original publisher is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the linked source should remain the reference for the complete release, later corrections, tables, quotations, and any information that was not visible in the extracted page. The brief is organized around what was reported, when it was reported, and which details a reader can verify directly.

Timing and context

The source publication time is recorded separately from the time BasisPilot retrieved the page. That distinction matters because company announcements, economic releases, and regulatory notices can be updated after their first publication. A date, amount, percentage, named entity, or status statement in this brief is treated as a source fact only when it can be traced to the linked document.

What readers should verify

Readers should compare the headline with the original source, check the publication date, review the issuer or agency named in the document, and distinguish reported results from forward-looking statements. Where the source describes a transaction, financing, filing, policy action, or market status, the relevant official filing or notice may contain additional conditions.

How the details fit together

A source-linked brief should be read as a sequence rather than as a collection of isolated claims. First identify the publisher and the document type. Next confirm the date, entities, amounts, percentages, and status statements in the source. Only then consider what the event could mean for a sector or a planning assumption. This order keeps an observable fact separate from a later interpretation and makes the article easier to audit when the publisher issues a correction or follow-up notice.

What is not being inferred

The brief does not infer a stock-price reaction, a change in credit quality, or a future operating result from the announcement alone. A reported dividend, result, policy action, or filing can be material without being predictive. Readers should check the company filing, agency notice, exchange release, or other primary document identified by the publisher when a decision depends on a condition that is not fully reproduced here.

Scope of the document

Official notices often combine a narrow operative change with definitions, procedural dates, affected parties, and supporting authority. Those elements should not be collapsed into a single headline. Before applying the update to an investment or market view, identify whether the document is a proposal, final rule, request for comment, administrative notice, or correction; confirm the effective date separately from the publication date; and check whether the source limits the change to a particular entity, transaction type, reporting period, jurisdiction, or instrument.

A practical reading checklist

Record the source URL, actual publisher, publication timestamp, retrieval timestamp, and any reference period before using the information. Note which statements are historical, which are current status updates, and which are forward-looking language from the issuer or agency. Compare the source with related filings only after preserving the original wording and units. This process prevents a distribution platform from being mistaken for the issuer and reduces the chance that a headline is treated as a complete financial or regulatory record.

Recheck after publication

Company and regulatory pages can add exhibits, corrections, translations, or updated status notes after the first release. BasisPilot therefore keeps the primary link visible and records the source publication date separately from its own publication date. If the source changes materially, the article can be regenerated with a new retrieval timestamp and a new content hash while preserving the original source item identifier for deduplication.

Limits and responsible use

This is an educational news brief, not personalized investment, tax, legal, or trading advice. A reported event does not guarantee a price reaction or a future outcome. BasisPilot does not fill missing facts with estimates, and it does not treat the distribution platform as the actual publisher when the source identifies another issuer. Source-linked details should be rechecked before making a decision.