SEC Charges San Francisco Bay Area Private Fund Executives with Multimillion Dollar…

What the source reports

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Mark D.

Hanf, the former CEO of Novato, California-based Pacific Private Money Group LLC (PPMG), and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan, the former COO of a PPMG subsidiary, with orchestrating an offering fraud that raised more than $80 million from approximately 190 mostly retail investors, many of whom were retired senior citizens.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from approximately December 2021 to November 2025, Hanf and Phan, also known as Nam Phan, misrepresented to investors in two of PPMG’s private funds that investor capital would be used to originate or purchase loans secured by real estate, and that investors could expect to receive preferred or fixed rates of return from the funds’ real estate lending activities.

However, as alleged, Hanf and Phan regularly used new investor capital to make Ponzi-like payments to prior investors during this timeframe, and the returns that Hanf and Phan touted were sourced largely from new investor money rather than from any fund earnings connected with their real estate lending business.

The SEC further alleges that Hanf misappropriated more than $7 million of investor funds for his own personal benefit.

“This alleged scheme began to unravel in the fall of 2025 as numerous investors demanded to withdraw their money and the defendants did not have sufficient funds to satisfy those requests,” said Jason Lee, Associate Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.

“Despite total outstanding investments in the two private funds of almost $121 million, by February 2026 the total recoverable assets of those funds were estimated to be less than $17 million.

That amounts to devastating losses for so many investors.

”

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.

District Court for the Northern District of California, charges Hanf with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and charges Phan with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Without admitting the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Hanf and Phan each consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin them from violating the charged provisions of the federal securities laws and from directly or indirectly participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except for purchases or sales for their own personal accounts; and order that any disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties against Hanf as well as any civil penalties against Phan be determined by the Court at a later date upon motion by the Commission.

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California announced criminal charges against Hanf and Phan.

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.