Do all EB-5 brokers need an SEC brokerage license, or only EB-5 brokers with a physical presence on U.S. territory? Thank you.

My understanding is that it is generally accepted that if any of the sales, marketing, solicitation or payment of fees occurs in the U.S. (even if the investor is offshore) then that needs to be handled by a registered Broker Dealer.  
 
People in the U.S. who are compensated in the sale of the offering (ie. paid after the I-526 is approved) need to be registered with the SEC or their State Securities Administrator. This is a very clear bright line ruling following Brumberg Mackey Wall (BMW) Denial of No-Action letter and is especially true if the person is an attorney, engineer, accountant, realtor or teacher (as they are deemed to be professional, knowledgeable persons).  
 
It used to be thought that a one time or "Paul Anka" exception was allowed for an introduction, but even that has been mostly disallowed following Dodd Frank and recent guidance from both the SEC and State Regulators. In any event, that was not what was apparently happening here with over 400 investors coming through Rapid Visas's U.S. office in Florida, nor to the immigration attorneys based here in the U.S.  
 
If all of the activity is conducted offshore, the offering is Reg. S, and there are no U.S. persons involved then payment to non-registered foreign persons may be ok. The problem is that many of these EB-5 "consultants" based here in the U.S. will conduct the seminars or marketing overseas and will have the issuer pay them either in Hong Kong, Jersey or the Cayman Islands but then repatriate the proceeds to fund their U.S. operations.  
 
That practice is not only illegal but what Federal agents are looking for when then are building their case against both the issuers and the non-registered persons who, as one DOJ agents told me, are not only acknowledging that the activity is a violation of U.S. securities laws but are compounding their potential fines and time by trying to conceal this fraudulent activity from U.S. authorities.  
 
To make matters worse, so many of the agents, Chinese, Mexican, Indian, European, etc. also have offices here in the U.S. and that would violate their ability to receive the compensation "finder fee" as their presence in the U.S. contradicts the provision that all Reg. S activity must be conducted offshore. 
 
The best practice is to only involve registered persons in the sale, solicitation, marketing, distribution and payments of fees with these securities offerings (Reg. D & S) and only pay persons who are registered or will never step foot in the States.  
 
Finder fee payments made to non-registered U.S. persons, no matter what they call themselves: attorneys, consultants, advisors, friends, etc. and especially to those whose bank instructions are located offshore but are physically based in the U.S. will catch the attention of the Dept. of Treasury, Justice, SEC and FBI and if you are in CA., TX., FL or NY, the State securities regulators.

That's a fantastic answer!  
 
 
 
But what if we're "...on a mission from God?"

Michael Gibson wrote: "The best practice is to only involve registered persons in the sale, solicitation, marketing, distribution and payments of fees with these securities offerings (Reg. D & S) and only pay persons who are registered or will never step foot in the States. "  
 
 
 
Question: A friend of mine in China tells me that the Chinese immigration agencies, in order to get an immigration agency license in China, have to enter into "cooperation agreements" with U.S. immigration law firms. Would these "cooperation agreements" with U.S. immigration lawyers mean that Chinese immigration agents in China must obtain a U.S. SEC broker license even though they may not have a U.S. office? Thanks.

 
Michael, 
 
Let me correct a few minor inaccuracies in your comments above, and then offer a brief word of caution regarding the Jay Peak / Rapid USA situation. 
 
First, Brumberg, Mackey & Wall is not a “clear bright line ruling.” It merely extended the trend in the SEC toward placing primary emphasis on the receipt of transaction-based compensation as indicating broker-dealer activity. There has been much debate among securities attorneys about whether Brumberg Mackey overruled the famous “Paul Anka exception,” but no one can say so definitively, since the issue isn’t addressed in the no-action letter. Also, SEC no-action letters are not precedential law. They provide guidance by showing how the SEC Staff is thinking about the issues presented at the moment the letter is issued, and that’s it. The Staff could issue a new no-action letter at anytime that could revive a more liberal interpretation of acceptable finder activity. 
 
Another point: Brumberg Mackey does not stand for any special warning for professionals. That’s reading too much into the fact that the party seeking the no-action letter was a law firm. 
 
Dodd Frank has nothing in it that changed the finder/broker analysis. 
 
The question of what constitutes overseas activity as defined by Regulation S is a very tricky question that even I as an immigration attorney who’s researched securities issues would be hesitant to comment upon. I suggest you get a securities attorney to weigh in on these questions. 
 
All this said, I agree, as you know, that, as regards firms or individual with a significant U.S. presence, only a broker-dealer or registered representative of a broker-dealer firm can accept finder’s fee. 
 
As regards Jay Peak’s current difficulties, I suggest we wait to get Jay Peak’s side of the story before jumping to conclusions. I have been in contact with all the principals in this drama over the last three days and I can assure you that more news will be coming from Jay Peak in the upcoming days. 

John, 
I do hear what you are saying but my comments are based on a tremendous volume of information on the subject (which you and I have discussed many times before) and were based on opinions and comments written by securities and litigation attorneys who have worked for the SEC and have prosecuted both issuers and "finders" for violations in the way the securities were marketed or fees were paid. On the subject of payment of finder’s fees: there are no regulators or litigators that we know of who do not consider the payment of fees to non-registered U.S. persons to be a violation of the offering’s exempt status.  
 
The question for the Regional Centers and issuers that I believe that you bring up is, as Dirty Harry would have said "How lucky do you feel"? Meaning how much do they feel like they can get away with without bringing on the the ire of the Federal and State authorities or their limited partner investors? In the case of the movie detective the perp is staring at the barrel of a .45 Magnum, in this case, they may be wondering how much they can push the boundaries established by regulators to secure the investors they need without facing a regulator or investor action.  
 
If they have a fairly lassiez-faire attitude and simply sell these offerings as though they were apartment condos (which is how we see most offerings being conducted) and pay commissions to anyone who sends them an investor, then I would suggest that they may encounter some scrutiny down the road for their actions, which as you have pointed out previously, could lead to rescission of the entire offering, definitely not a good thing for either the issuer or the LP's.  
 
Now, let's take an issuer who is concerned about their, and their investors, future well being, what guidance would you give them?  
 
My suggestion, based upon the research that we have conducted and comments made to our firm from both securities attorneys, Federal agents and prosecutors, is that they do not pay a commission or “finder’s fees” to anyone who is a U.S. person, or resident in the U.S. unless they are registered with either the SEC of their State Administrator. This is what many would call a “Safe Harbor” or best practice.  
 
It does not mean that they have no immunity from prosecution for other issues such as tax evasion or fraud, but that they should be fairly SAFE when it comes to Federal and State regulations concerning the payments of fees to agents, as they not only followed both the law as written and guidance as interpreted from rulings and no-action letters, but also the "spirit of the law" as it was intended to protect investors from unscrupulous activities by issuers and unregistered persons who may be committing fraud.  
 
The problem here is that there are many people in this industry who look the other way or come up with elaborate mechanisms to avoid compliance with the premise of these securities laws, ie. paying attorneys substantial commission fees but calling those fees "review and filling", “administrative review”, “due diligence” fees or other, when in fact they are obviously just finder's fees. Authorities would apply the reasonable man rule to these fees.  
 
The Dept. of Justice official that we spoke with who is investigating several of these cases said that they use a very simple "if it quacks like a duck" rule in which they see the payment made to the finder occurring after the I-526 petition is approved and the funds are released from escrow, then it is a commission. They are also looking into these issuers to see if they have reported these commissions on their Form D filling and to date we have not seen any Centers report these payments on their Form D reports to the SEC. If the attorney would like to collect fees for doing legal work, they should collect them from the client up front to avoid the appearance of it being a “success” based fee, which is the definition of a commission. If they would like to collect the finder’s fee, then they should become registered, like you did.  
 
The main point I believe one should take from the issues brought up in our article should be that for issuers, has everything possible been done to ensure that their offering is not rescinded and will not bring enforcement action?  
 
Our sense is that most issuers are very casual about the way that their offerings are marketed and who they, or their agents pay, so long as they get investors. Our concern for the issuer and their investors is that there is substantially more scrutiny on this industry from both Federal and State regulators (from many agencies) than there was just a few years ago, and that the old ways of offering everyone who called to "introduce" their clients to the issuer in exchange for a fee, especially if that person is in the U.S., and that activity not being caught are now over.  
 
As you point out, education is the best defense against actions by either the regulators and investors and I do agree with you that there is a substantial amount of information which is probably not understood by most EB-5 Regional Centers and issuers on this subject and I am looking forward to collaborating with you to bring this much needed information out to the public, thank you very much for your comments and I am looking forward to hearing more from you in the near future.

This is only the U.S. side of the story! 
 
 
 
On the China side, for the government to protect the interest of domestic investors, a foreign security product (EB-5 is actually a private placement, a security product) should register in China before it can be sold. In the States the related law called the Uniform law, it is a law that one state government to protect their residents from fraud security offering from another state. 
 
 
 
Basically, all RCs offering violate the China's SEC regulation!  
 
 
 
Did you do research on this side of the story?

The EB-5 sale really involves two different jurisdictions, the U.S. security law jurisdiction and the China's security law jurisdiction.  
 
 
 
This is a sale of U.S. security to the Chinese investors. The U.S. RC offering never get registered under the China's SEC nor exempted by the China's SEC law before they present in the China market! 
 
 
 
When they are promoting in China, they may already violate the China's security law or rule.

My view is that this discussion of finder's fees is inapposite as regards the current Jay Peak / Rapid USA controversy. Rapid USA may have been violating U.S. or Chinese securities laws (although, on the other hand, they would have a fairly strong argument that they were merely acting as Jay Peak's marketing agent, rather than as an independent broker, for purposes of U.S. securities laws), but, so what? The main thing we should all be concerned with is what in fact happened here. I spoke with Bill Stenger yesterday and he maintained that the current dispute is a personality conflict being played out in the public arena. And it probably does not belong in the public arena at all, IMHO.

This story illustrates a problem endemic in this industry in that most of the issuers feel that the ends justify the means. That is to say that a great many developers feel that it is ok to use any means possible to raise funds from overseas investors if it means that they get to build their property, even if those practices may violate the law.  
 
They are not concerned about violations of U.S. or foreign securities laws as they feel that: 
 
1. They won't get caught 
2. Their development is special  
3. The jobs created are good for the community 
 
Your nonchalance is typical, why write about this? What does it matter that this is brought out in the public, or that non-registered agents were used to broker the transaction?  
 
The disregard for U.S. securities laws leads to a number of issues: 
 
1. It creates an uneven playing field for those that do try to issue & market securities legally 
2. There is no one who can be held accountable by regulatory authorities should potential violations occur 
3. It leads to a disregard for investor interests, fraud & misrepresentation 
 
It is true that it is more expensive and labor intensive for issuers to comply with securities laws, that is why so few Centers do. This alone discourages those who try to market, solicit and sell their securities through lawful means when they see developers blatantly violating the laws by engaging these non-registered agents who do not have to worry about compliance with laws & regulations when seeking investors. These developers can simply offer the highest finder’s fee in the market to anyone who brings them an investor without having to worry about compliance issues which would only burden the transaction with additional cost and interfere with their free market approach. 
 
It is also true that there has been no enforcement action by any Federal or State agency that we are aware of so why should anyone comply? Until there is action taken by either the investors or regulators then developers will continue to adopt the easiest path to funding their projects. 
 
Ultimately, the decision of project developers to simply engage anyone to do their marketing, soliciting and investor acquisition in return for success based commissions is one that should have consequences. If we choose to disregard laws that are designed to protect investors from potential fraud, misrepresentation and abuse then who will protect their interests?  
 
The discussion of Jay Peak hiring a non-registered broker dealer to market their projects is absolutely germane in addressing this problem. Many Centers look to see the hugely successful amount of funds that were raised, over $200 Million dollars, an absolutely outstanding amount, and then look to the method and feel that if they were able to raise the funds without concern for abiding by securities laws then why shouldn’t they be able to do the same?  
 
My point is that Jay Peak was so tremendously successful precisely because, in my opinion, they had absolutely no concern about paying anyone who brought them an investor, whether or not they were a registered person, and had no issues about handing the marketing, promotion, solicitation and distribution of documents and fees to an unregistered broker. I don’t believe that this is a good model or example for other Centers to emulate as then it becomes an endemic practice in our industry which affects all of us who try to abide by the laws of our Nation.  
 
I have met with several dozen Regional Centers who were envious of Jay’s tremendous success and were discouraged from trying to raise funds legally especially when there did not seem to be any effort within our industry or from regulators to hold those accountable for potential violations of Federal or State securities laws.  
 
Many people do not agree with my position, but I strongly feel that if we ignore practices which may be potentially harmful to our industry then we are only asking for more onerous regulation or an end to the great job creation program. Centers who hire or pay unregistered U.S. persons to find them investors, I feel, are only contributing to a much higher level of scrutiny by Congress, State lawmakers, Federal and State regulators.  
 
In any case, these practices will be eventually exposed by litigators and the mainstream press to an American public who is still disgusted with the practices displayed by the mortgage banking industry and who might like to put an end to this program despite the fact that the EB-5 visa program has done a considerable amount of good to create much needed jobs in America. Ignoring potential issues brought up by this story and the practices of those involved, in my opinion, will not help the long term prospects of our industry.  
 
The EB-5 Regional Center “Pilot” Program program is itself a tremendously positive vehicle for bringing in much needed foreign equity (not debt) and is an incubator for creating tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. My point to all of our readers is that I feel that everything possible must be done to ensure that we as practitioners in this industry do what we can to encourage everyone to abide by our laws and those of the nations in which these securities are marketed to ensure that it, and we, are around for a long time to come. Ignoring problems and issues which could cause the program to be terminated I don’t feel is a constructive dialogue.

Michael, as you know, I am still the only attorney or business consultant in the EB-5 field to have gone to the very considerable trouble of taking the Series 7 exam and becoming a registered representative of a broker/dealer firm, entitling me to lawfully accept finder’s fees, and I have published serious articles about the finder’s fee issue as it relates to the EB-5 field, and I have advocated strict compliance with U.S. securities laws within IIUSA, the industry’s trade association. So, I find it odd to be accused of “nonchalance” on these issues. 
 
I don’t disagree with most of what you said above. My objection is that the discussion of unlicensed finders is being shoehorned into the Jay Peak / Rapid USA dispute where it really doesn’t belong. We don’t know exactly what Jay Peak’s contractual relationship was with Rapid USA, so we can’t know whether there were any violations of U.S. securities laws. You are more than welcome to say anything you want about the unlicensed finder problem anywhere you want to. I have written myself on my site about the dangers that unlicensed finders pose to investors at http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/1354/, and to the regional centers, to the EB-5 industry in general and even to the unlicensed finders themselves at http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/1033/. But the finder’s fee issue and its associated concerns are only tangentially related (at best) to the current controversy. The larger questions are: 
1. Did Jay Peak misrepresent its finances to investors? 
2. Do we have the right to draw conclusions at this early stage in the drama, particularly in the public arena? 
The answer to both questions, I maintain, is “no”, because we simply don’t yet know what the facts are. All we have is one rather nasty-minded email (does anyone think for the second that Nicholas Hulme sent out his email for the public good? on its face, its plainly an attempt to damage Jay Peak), with nothing but a general denial from Jay Peak (which I don’t yet see on your site; maybe I missed it). Everything Nicholas Hulme said might be true. Or it might not be. We simply don’t know yet. 
 
It’s time to take a break until we all have a better handle on what’s actually going on behind the scenes. That’s my position. 

 
 
 
 
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9210547.htm

Dear Michael and John, 
 
Thank you both for the very informative and interesting discussion. I have one question that I would like to see if either of you would further comment on, and it is regarding the proposition, which you both agree on, that "as regards firms or individuals with a significant U.S. presence, only a broker-dealer or registered representative of a broker-dealer firm can accept finder’s fee." 
 
Could either of you elaborate on exactly where this guidance comes from, as the question of whether an RC can pay finder's fees to an individual or entity with a U.S. presence, so long as all relevant activity occurs offshore, seems not to be reliant on the Brumberg-Mackey/Kramer/Maiden Lane finder issue.  
 
The question is: an individual with a significant US presence, working in conjunction with some offshore entity, wishes to accept finder's fees for individual investors that the individual/entity successfully introduce to an issuer of a Reg. S offering. Assuming no relevant activity took place while would-be finder was located in/on U.S. soil, what specifically would/could render this person an unlicensed broker-dealer? Is there something definitive to answer the question? 
 
Thanks to you both.

Adding an additional fact pattern to Adele KG's query: 
 
 
 
Does it make any difference that the Chinese immigration agents have signed "cooperation agreements" (i.e., partnership arrangements) with U.S. immigration lawyers and U.S. immigration law firms? (To get their licences in China, I heard from my friend in China that the Chinese immigration agents have to sign contracts with U.S. immigration lawyers.) Thank you.

Do these "cooperation agreements" that the Chinese immigration consultants have to sign with U.S. immigration lawyers, or U.S. immigration law firms, in order to get their licenses in China create joint ventures with the U.S. immigration lawyers?

Maybe the following is relevant to the "co-operation contracts" between Chinese immigration consultants in China and U.S. immigration lawyers? 
 
 
 
"Joint ventures are relationshsips between two business entities to collaborate on a particular venture. The collaboration could be motivated by strategic or financial reasons, to pool resources, divide risk, or exploit joint assets. Under California law, joint ventures are nearly identical to general partnerships. No filing with the secretary of state is required for their formation, nor are any written documents necessary. Similarly, the two arrangements, by themselves, are not typically subject to securities laws or franchise tax. These are all attractive aspects of these agreements, but the trade-off is liability." 
 
 
 
http://www.calstartuplawfirm.com/business-lawyer-blog/california-joint-venture-agreement.php 
 
 
 

Unfortunately, there are no bright line rules for the issues posed above regarding overseas agents. It's a facts and circumstances test, so anyone who wants to stay on the right side of U.S. securities law should get a written legal opinion from an experienced securities attorney. Some of the top ones that are knowledgeable about the EB-5 field are: 
Jennifer Moseley jmoseley@burr.com  
Peter Erly perly@gravelshea.com 
Jor Law jor@homeierlaw.com 
 
Good luck.

"Unfortunately, there are no bright line rules for the issues posed above regarding overseas agents. It's a facts and circumstances test,...." 
 
 
 
What a Rip Off!

"Unfortunately, there are no bright line rules for the issues posed above regarding overseas agents. It's a facts and circumstances test,...."  
 
 
 
Translation: Pay these expensive US securities lawyers for a padded, disclaimer-laden legal opinion and then your regional center can keep do'n what it's been do'n.

So you want the expert opinion of a highly trained and highly experienced attorney to solve your complex business problem, but you don't want to pay the attorney for it. 
 
"Rip off"? 
 
Note I was promoting my own services. I won't make a dime off the recommendation I gave.

Was Jay Peak doing anything illegally with the EB5 investors?

No one knows at this point. I am going up there on March 22-24 to talk with Bill Stenger and his CFO. Will file report.

Simply speaking the big question is where did the documentation fee and commission money go? Clearly if it did not go into Rapid USA's account this would be illegal according to all above statements about being a registered broker.

Bill 
 
 
 
Has had a great ride...Now maybe his friends at Green Mountain Power can bail him out with Vermonts Gov Shumlin

I have been an actice consultant to the industry for several Regional Centers, since 2007. I have always believed that one day, we would ALL have to secumb to following the SEC rules and have our Regional Centers sell their products exclusively through Broker Dealers. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon which side of the law you stand, the EB5 industry has glazed over the entire Series 7 registration issue," only because no one on Wall Street ever took notice. Now, with the industry's recent development and the eventually of raising the minimum investment bar to its original $1 million level this October, Wall Street is taking notice of this lucrative "commission based" business. I do, wholeheartedly, echo the belief in Mr. Gibson's recent article that a "U.S. Jobs Fund" is coming, but that Fund will come from the Goldman Sachs type Wall Street firms rather than directly from the U.S. Treasury. Soon, the big boys will come to play, and the tiny Mom & Pop RC's will not be able to compete any longer. All of us stand warned. Congrats go to everyone, including Rapid Visa USA, for doing a most professional job in selling the product, even if it was partially done from Naples, Florida. Doudlas Hulme did set up his sales office in London, under the scrutiny of the FSA (British Financial Services Authority). To chastise this man in a negastive way is a tradgedy. He DID sell the product the right way. That is not the case with most other RC's out there.

I await John's report after his meeting with Jay Peak.

Paul, 
 
I intend to file a report on my blog soon after I get back. I will send link here as well.

I don't think there is anythibng wrong with Jay Peak or other Regional Centers (except for some odd balls and real crooks - I have seen both!). One doesn't need a broker-dealer license if registered abroad, collects its fees abroad and only caters to foreign investors. The biggest problem all Regional Centers face is of another (unrelated to the subject!) : it is the local crooked Immigration Consultants (there is plenty of those there...) - mostly in China. Not only do they get a huge piece of "flesh" (at times, as much as US$15,000) from the Chinese investors in Chiona, they also get as much as $25,000 to $30,000 from Regional Centers! Further, under the disguice of "monitoring the Regional Centers' job creation process" take away the preferred return from the petitioners: 2% (+/-) per year x 5 years = US$50,000! So, if you add it all up: the "blood suckers" get nearly US$100,000 for each EB-5 investor! This makes the dream of getting a US residency card so expensive! Yet, the dream of getting a Green Card is so powerful, the investors pay for it through the nose! When are we going to stop this?

Also, the Chinese immigration consultants do not allow the U.S. immigration lawyers to communicate directly with the client investor. This is how the Chinese immigration agents control the client and the market. The dysfunctional relationship involving the U.S. immigration lawyers, the Chinese immigration agents, and the client investors is in violation of multiple lawyer ethics rules. Remember that the Chinese immigration agents in order to get their licences in China must enter into "co-operation agreements" with U.S. immigration lawyers and file these agreements with the local Chinese police departments issuing the licences. Many of these "co-operation agreements" are forged and fake. The AILA and the U.S. commercial service of the U.S. State Department need to raise this important issue with the Chinese government, otherwise, there's going to be a lot of egg on everyone's faces.

== THIS SMELLS LIKE ENRON == 
 
All parties deny allegations until caught. 
 
Some one needs to go to jail to make 
the others honest. 
 
== THIS SMELLS LIKE ENRON == 
 

== big question is == 
 
wit the ultra mild winter season and  
$4.00 gas - will Jay Peak Resort, Vermont "DEFAULT" on their $200 MILLION notes? 
 
Every one is watch this ski crash. 
 
 
== big question is == 
 
 

Does anyone know why Jay Peak used Limited Partnerships for all their projects instead of Limited Liability Companies?

"Does anyone know why Jay Peak used Limited Partnerships for all their projects instead of Limited Liability Companies?" 
 
 
 
I believe that if they use LLCs then the investors have to be actively involving in the management of the companies, but if limited partnerships are used then the sponsor can control the project as the investors are relegated to limited partner status.

"I believe that if they use LLCs then the investors have to be actively involving in the management of the companies, but if limited partnerships are used then the sponsor can control the project as the investors are relegated to limited partner status." 
 
 
 
Thanks for the response. If I understand LLCs correctly, the Operating Agreement defines the role of each person involved in the company, including the investors, so the Operating Agreement can state that the "Managing Members" are in control of the day-to-day management of the company, but "Memebers" are not and as far as I know, LLCs provide better protection than LPs.

I think that LLCs may be a creation of state law, so you'd have to confirm with the relevant state LLC legislation.

"it is the local crooked Immigration Consultants (there is plenty of those there...) - mostly in China. Not only do they get a huge piece of "flesh" (at times, as much as US$15,000) from the Chinese investors in Chiona, they also get as much as $25,000 to $30,000 from Regional Centers! Further, under the disguice of "monitoring the Regional Centers' job creation process" take away the preferred return from the petitioners: 2% (+/-) per year x 5 years = US$50,000! So, if you add it all up: the "blood suckers" get nearly US$100,000 for each EB-5 investor! This makes the dream of getting a US residency card so expensive! Yet, the dream of getting a Green Card is so powerful, the investors pay for it through the nose! When are we going to stop this?  
 
Posted @ Monday, March 12, 2012 11:57 AM by CK" 
 
 
 
CK, notice your post. I don't agree with you on your comments towards the commission that the Chinese agents can make, simply because it is purely a business topic. What you think the Chinese agents should earn? How do you define it? If a fund-alike RC can charge 7% a year to the cash hungry developer, why the Chinese agents as the key fundraiser can not keep 2%? Should the fundraiser do all the stuff at no cost? Did you know that they are the first ones being knocked down by the China's Exit & Entry department if some of their investors I-829 application go south? So clam down, China gets all the reason to blame since it is not a mutured capitalism yet. It's our SEC does not even pay attention to protect their citizens being flood by all these foreign eb-5 investment opportunities yet. What they should do is to ask every single RC to registered their new offering, fully release the risk which 99% RCs don't be willing to do when they tout their eb-5 projects to the China's eb-5 agents. In terms of money none is holly, my man. I've seen many of them telling different stories to the China's agents far from the truth. 
 
 
 
if someone did not eat apiece of flesh yet, do some investigation and see what he can do to add value and get paid for.

Chinaeb5 I noticed your comment. 
 
Allow me to make it clear: as an immigration AGENT in China or anywhere else for that matter, you must disclose to all parties (EB-5 investors - most importantly!)involved that you get paid by both sides. I have been in that part of the world long enough (almost 20 years) to know that NONE of the AGENTs disclose to the investors that they get paid by Regional Centers. Moreover, the AGENTS' consultants or any other staff has no clue of such "arrangement" with RCs. Where is the transparency, Chinaeb5? The simple decency requires such openness! An AGENT cannot have two masters, unless both consented to such dual arrangement in advance and in writing. To become an RC, it is a complicated and a very costly process! RC's Principals spent a huge amount of capital (seven figures!) to get the USCIS' approval. In addition, the RCs spent additional capital getting ready to present their EB-5 projects: brochures, DVDs, Offering Documents, MTGE documents, etc, etc. What about travel expenses? All such additional expenditures amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars! I know this first hand... What right does an AGENT have to demand participation in RC's income? Many AGENTs already take away the investors' preferred returns under the pretext of "monitoring job creation"! Moreover, they demand a large portion of RC's income... What right does an AGENT have to charge each investor locally and the RC abroad without properly disclosing such arrangement? Do you want an answer or you do not get the meaning of my questions? I know it's the latter, having dealt with so many AGENTS over the years! TRANSPARENCY is a concept very few AGENTS understand in China. However, I can attest to a number that do! It is a real pleasure doing business with those - we all make a living and are happy to help the hundreds of investors that seek the light at the end of a very dark tunnel! 
 
CK

Allow me to make it clear: as an immigration AGENT in China or anywhere else for that matter, you must disclose to all parties (EB-5 investors - most importantly!) involved that you get paid by both sides. I have been in that part of the world long enough (almost 20 years) to know that NONE of the AGENTs disclose to the investors that they get paid by Regional Centers. Moreover, the AGENTS' consultants or any other staff has no clue of such "arrangement" with RCs. Where is the transparency, Chinaeb5?  
 
>>> Before I can give you an applause for promoting transparency and full release of all info, I remind you that you should do some research on the RC side. Did you know that most of them for the money sake did not willing to release the project full info to the China’s agents? Do some research on the NYCRC “NBA” and the East River waterfront project (congratulations NYCRC for your accomplishment through http://nycrc.com/pdf/NYCRC%20--%20PR7%20-%20United%20States%20Citizenship%20and%20Immigration%20Services%20Approves%20500th%20NYCRC%20EB-5%20Investor%20Petition.pdf ), South Dakota RC wind power plant project info, Times square hotel project info, and many more.  
 
 
 
 
 
The simple decency requires such openness! An AGENT cannot have two masters, unless both consented to such dual arrangement in advance and in writing.  
 
>>> What I want to reiterate is: Yes, China has everything for all of us to blame. The Chinese authority did not enforce any regulation yet to force the agents to release commission to investors. Yeah, I agree, what they really should do is to switch the oversight body from the clueless police department to the Chinese SEC and ask every agents to have a security license to do eb-5 and hire only brokers with a security license. They should also ask you guys to register the offering under the Chinese SEC to make it legally recruiting the Chinese investors for a U.S. private equity, since RCs are basically the U.S. businesses and the Chinese SEC has no right to go across the border to go after a RC is it cheats, so they should ask RC to put down security significant amount of money as deposit before a RC can start to recruit investors in Mainland. They should ban eb-5 from being promote to the general public since it is basically a PE. They should set certain standard for RCs to follow in terms of what kind of info must be released to the Chinese investors. Believe me, I am 100% with you on openness but I ask on both sides! Believe me, they are discussing to set up a board with experienced members to screen RCs projects before those projects can be allowed to present in Mainland. 
 
 
 
 
 
To become an RC, it is a complicated and a very costly process! RC's Principals spent a huge amount of capital (seven figures!) to get the USCIS' approval. In addition, the RCs spent additional capital getting ready to present their EB-5 projects: brochures, DVDs, Offering Documents, MTGE documents, etc, etc. What about travel expenses? All such additional expenditures amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars! I know this first hand... What right does an AGENT have to demand participation in RC's income?  
 
>>> CK, again, eb-5 is a business. Newcomers jump into this business spent some dollars to set up a RC bearing in his mind of making more (BTW, seven figures to get a RC approval is not very very uncommon!), I saw many dreamers driving by greed hoping that by simply creating an empty RC that they can make easy money. It looks like the last field in today’s economy that you can make more by finding so many unsophisticated investors with very limited financial cost (again, can you do some research on the agents side of the cost and their cash flow? )  
 
 
 
Many AGENTs already take away the investors' preferred returns under the pretext of "monitoring job creation"! Moreover, they demand a large portion of RC's income... What right does an AGENT have to charge each investor locally and the RC abroad without properly disclosing such arrangement? Do you want an answer or you do not get the meaning of my questions? I know it's the latter, having dealt with so many AGENTS over the years! TRANSPARENCY is a concept very few AGENTS understand in China. However, I can attest to a number that do! It is a real pleasure doing business with those - we all make a living and are happy to help the hundreds of investors that seek the light at the end of a very dark tunnel!  
 
>>> Somehow I agree with you that the China market needs transparency, but CK, again, do you know many RCs already take away the investors’ preferred returns? Many fund-alike RCs do nothing but a middle man. I know most China’s agents also blame that RCs are holding off important financial info of the project or info between the RCs and the projects principals.  
 

Surprisingly to see a public debate on a RC project without presenting any solid facts here! This is not a "Best Practice"!  
 
I noticed that the article mentioning Chinese emigration companies with offices in the US, first of all you need to know their offices' function before accusing them or misinforming the readership. First of all, very few Chinese emigration companies set up registered branch offices here, if they do, I know that their functions mainly include: 1) identifying low risk good EB-5 projects rather than the ones that are dangerous and risky to their clients; 2) working with their US immigration attorneys and tax professionals and others on taking care of investors interest; 3) providing "Greeting" service to EB-5 investors that are landing in the US, typically assisting their clients in settling in the country by offering culture orientation, contacting realtors, bankers, insurance agents, auto dealers, etc., to ensure clients have a smooth landing! 
 
To learn more about how things should be correctly done on both China and the US, join elite experts in New York April 27, see details http://www.EB5NewYorkSummit.org

All Chinese immigration consultants in order to obtain their immigration licences in China from the local Chinese police departments have to file "co-operation agreements" signed with U.S. immigration lawyers or U.S. immigration law firms. In other words, the Chinese immigration agents are doing business in the U.S. in the form of joint ventures or partnerships with U.S. immigration lawyers.

Nice way to plug a worthless, money grubbing meeting Brian Su.

For a nice look at the man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, here is Mr. Su denouncing some of Maslink's practices in late December 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/22/us-usa-immigration-business-idUSTRE6BL2KJ20101222 
 
 
Then, here is the venerable Mr. Su posing with the CEO of Maslink in January of 2011.  
 
Anything for money, eh Mr. Su!

My guess is that Jay Peak no longer wanted to pay Rapid Visa's enormous fees. As according to: http://vtdigger.org/2012/03/19/margolis-in-the-eb-5-subculture-jay-peaks-finances-questioned/ 
 
Douglas Hulme was not willing to defend his statements.

I traveled to Jay Peak on the weekend of March 23 to 25 along with my wife and 7-year-old son to inspect the resort and to meet with long-time Jay Peak Resort President Bill Stenger. I had an in-depth discussion with Mr. Stenger of Jay Peak’s EB-5 projects on Saturday, March 24, 2012 that lasted two hours. On Sunday morning, I met with James Candido, Economic Development Specialist, Vermont Department of Economic Development, and a principal overseer of EB-5 projects for the State of Vermont. Mr. Candido and I met separately from Mr. Stenger, and our discussion lasted approximately one and one-half hours. Both Mr. Stenger and Mr. Candido spoke freely, with only two items discussed off the record, which were asked and offered for background purposes, and were not essential to an understanding of the current controversy. Mr. Stenger complied with every document and data request I made while at Jay Peak and later while preparing this blog article. 
 
Read more at http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/2232/Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee/.

Here is a link to my blog article that should work: <a>http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/2232/Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee/<a>

The links to my blog article don't seem to be working, so I post the text below: 
REPORT FROM JAY PEAK 
 
Rapid USA Visas, the former marketing agent for Jay Peak Resort’s EB-5 visa projects (offered through the Vermont Regional Center), announced on February 28, 2012 that it was severing ties to Jay Peak Resort, because it "no longer has confidence in the accuracy of representations made by Jay Peak, Inc. or in the financial status of and disclosures made by the various limited partnership [sic]...". The startling news was sent as an email to over 100 immigration attorneys who had previously filed I-526 petitions for immigrant clients investing in one of Jay Peak Resort's projects. The text of the email appeared almost immediately on a popular EB-5 news blog, and spread throughout the EB-5 community, worrying immigration attorneys, investors, and virtually everyone else in the EB-5 industry since Jay Peak President Bill Stenger has been an eloquent champion of the EB-5 program before Congress and the public generally (see, for example, Jay Peak Resort CEO Bill Stenger Testifying Before Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) on December 8, 2011). 
 
My initial position in this controversy was that Rapid USA's email announcement on its face was too broad and too vague to draw any firm conclusions. Further, Rapid USA Visas’ CEO, Douglas Hulme, has consistently refused to specify just what the questionable Jay Peak financial representations were, or what his claimed concerns were (I called him twice, and he didn’t reply to my voice mail messages). 
 
Still, there was cause for concern given the fact that Rapid USA was willing to sever what had been a very profitable relationship with Jay Peak Resort. Why did they do it? Was there fire under the smoke? 
 
I traveled to Jay Peak on the weekend of March 23 to 25 along with my wife and 7-year-old son to inspect the resort and to meet with long-time Jay Peak Resort President Bill Stenger. I had an in-depth discussion with Mr. Stenger of Jay Peak’s EB-5 projects on Saturday, March 24, 2012 that lasted two hours. On Sunday morning, I met with James Candido, Economic Development Specialist, Vermont Department of Economic Development, and a principal overseer of EB-5 projects for the State of Vermont. Mr. Candido and I met separately from Mr. Stenger, and our discussion lasted approximately one and one-half hours. Both Mr. Stenger and Mr. Candido spoke freely, with only two items discussed off the record, which were asked and offered for background purposes, and were not essential to an understanding of the current controversy. Mr. Stenger complied with every document and data request I made while at Jay Peak and later while preparing this blog article. 
 
My trip to Jay Peak had been planned before the current controversy began. Indeed, one reason I was skeptical about reports that Jay Peak might be in financial trouble was that I had originally asked to visit Jay Peak in February, but had been advised that there were no vacancies at the resort until late March. 
 
Driving up to Jay Peak I was reminded of one EB-5 project issue that has bedeviled some EB-5 projects, and which is most certainly not a problem with Jay Peak projects, and that is targeted designated area (”TEA”) status. Some projects have had their TEA designations challenged by the USCIS when they have relied on census tract aggregation (or “gerrymandering,” as the CIS has more pejoratively describes it) or questionable TEA designations by state officials eager to create jobs anywhere and everywhere in their state, leading to controversy both within and without the EB-5 community (see, for example, December 2011 NY Times article and editorial). Jay Peak is located in one of the poorest and least densely populated parts of Vermont, and there is no suggestion (and particularly not from a New York boy like me) that it is anything but a RURAL area. 
 
The first thing one notices upon entering the Jay Peak Resort is the build quality of the construction. My wife observed several times that the facilities reminded her of Disneyland: everything inside and out was sturdy and of high quality, but with no traces of waste or extravagance (her words, I’m not that eloquent). The Tram Haus Lodge, where I stayed with my family, is equivalent in quality of accommodations to a four star hotel. 
 
Another thing my wife noticed right away was that practically everything in our room was marked “Made in Vermont.” This included the wood table in the living room (as well as virtually all the furniture), the wool blanket on the bed (we had passed the manufacturer, the Johnson Mill Company, on the way up), the soap in the bathroom, the steel vases, the concrete inlays of tabletops, etc. 
 
Job creation is, of course, one of the central concerns in any due diligence evaluation of an EB-5 regional center project. Every EB-5 Pilot Program investor’s principal ($500,000, or $1,000,00 for non-TEA projects) must generate at least 10 direct or indirect full-time jobs (to persons lawfully in the U.S., by the way). Persons hired by Jay Peak Resort as a result of the EB-5 project, whether they be receptionists or maids or ski instructors, are examples of “direct” jobs. Persons hired by Johnson's Mill Company as a result of Jay Peak’s increased demand for wool blankets are “indirect” jobs. The conventional wisdom among immigration attorneys has been that it is better for an EB-5 project to rely entirely or predominantly on indirect jobs, because this allows the regional center to avoid the legal and administrative burden of identifying actual workers with W-2 forms or pay stubs at the time of I-829 filing. Because indirect jobs depend on an economist’s projections of jobs created using a government approved (or, at least, tolerated) input-output model such as RIMS II or IMPLAN, the regional center can claim to investors “all we have to do is spend the money according to the economist’s assumptions, and the USCIS will agree that your jobs have been created.” As we have seen recently with the “tenant occupancy” dispute, however, the government may change the rules in the middle of the game, and announce that it will no longer count certain jobs based on an economist’s projections, even though it had done so in the past. Relying on direct jobs in whole or in part certainly carries an extra administrative burden for the project managers, as well as the risk that the jobs do not materialize in sufficient numbers when I-829s are being filed, but a project that successfully creates large numbers of its own (not tenants’) jobs is bound to have fewer job creation questions at the I-829 stage of USCIS review, thus increasing the likelihood that its investors’ I-829 petitions will be approved. 
 
In this regard, Jay Peak is on solid ground, since its Phase I project did not seek to include indirect jobs in the job creation calculation, and all its Phase I investors whose cases have been adjudicated thus far (35 of 36) have been approved based entirely on direct jobs created by the project. Later projects have relied on both direct and indirect jobs. 
 
I have in the past noticed vulnerability in Jay Peak’s job-creation strategy, however: the job creation plan rarely includes a substantial buffer of excess jobs to be created above the number of jobs needed for all investors in the project. This is not a problem as long as the project proceeds apace, but if the project runs into substantial delays there might not be enough total jobs to go around for all investors at the I-829 stage. The financial and legal issues are inherently connected here (as is often the case in EB-5 project due diligence analyses), as even the best legal strategy can be undermined if financial or management problems result in failure to meet milestones upon which the economist’s job creation projections were predicated. So far, Jay Peak Resort has a very good record of meeting or exceeding project plans, and has often added the Resort’s own funds to exceed project goals. The decision by the Resort to spend an additional one million dollars of its own money on a retractable roof for the waterpark is just one example. 
 
Bill Stenger admitted to a “small problem” in current project development, however, as environment permits for construction planned for this summer were taking longer than expected. With only a three to four month construction window in northern Vermont, an entire year could be lost if permit problems extend into the summer. Mr. Stenger noted that Vermont state leadership had “engaged with the problem lately,” and Stenger was optimistic, if still concerned, that construction will start on time in the early part of summer 2012. It’s definitely an issue to watch. 
 
The weekend we were in Jay Peak Resort the weather was unseasonably warm, with temperatures hovering in the 50s (this past week, though, temperatures were in the 30s again). The 2011/2012-winter season was short, with temperatures higher and snowfall down around 35% (although Jay Peak compensated somewhat by anticipating the warmer weather and producing 20% more manufactured snow), which led some to speculate that Jay Peak Resort was experiencing financial difficulties due to the warm winter, and this was what led Rapid USA Visas to jump ship. 
 
I regard it as fortuitous that I visited Jay Peak Resort during such a warm weekend, because it would be a test of Jay Peak’s primary strategic goal of using EB-5 money to create an all-season resort that did not depend entirely on skiing. On the weekend I was at Jay Peak, only 17 of the Jay Peak’s total of 76 ski trails were open. On a good “powder day”, March 10 of this year, for example, Jay Peak’s records show 4750 skiers and 2200 people in the waterpark, with 100% room occupancy. There were only 2140 skiers at the resort on March 24, a Saturday, when I was there, but the rest of the place – the waterpark, the ice rink, the restaurants, the bar, the arcade, etc. were jumping with activity. The waterpark is particularly impressive.  
 
It has features and attractions geared to various age groups, and a retractable roof – on one day it was so warm, we saw it in action – and was packed or nearly packed all three times I visited it (so much so, that I didn’t elect to try it in the flesh, although my wife and son spent several hours in the pool, slides, simulated surf wave, and the AquaLoop). I was struck by the number of families, including families with young children, that were at the resort. My 7-year-old son learned both to ski and to ice skate for the first time while at Jay Peak, and he was one of the older children taking instruction. There were also, many, many Canadians at the resort (an advantage Jay Peak has when compared to it’s more southerly competitors in Vermont such as Stowe and Sugarbush). Montreal is just 90 miles away, and its residents are big users of Jay Peak Resort and are expected to be important consumers of fractional shares in residences created with EB-5 money once these go to market later this year. 
 
Other examples of diversification include birthday parties (there were several in evidence when we were there), weddings (44 booked already for this year), the new conference room and the Jay Peak Championship Gold Course (twice voted the best public course in Vermont by Golf Week magazine). This week the Women’s National Hockey Teams of Canada, Sweden and Slovakia will be training at Jay Peak Resort’s Ice Haus for the Women's World Hockey Championships to be held in Burlington in April. 
 
Jay Peak Resorts Sales and Labor report for 1Q2012 compared with 1Q2011 shows Jay Peak Resort’s Skier Visits up 14.25%, Rental Room Occupancy up 12.5%. It also shows 110,916 paid visits to the waterpark, which was not yet open in 1Q2011. 
 
Total Resort Sales for the 1st Quarter increased from $9,689,484 to $14,651,589.05 in 1Q2012, for an increase of 51.21%. Labor costs increased from $1,847,201.32 to $2,712,499.83, due primarily to new hiring. Total Expenses in 1Q2012 were $3,377,416.63. For the comparable period in 2011, expenses were $2,330,109.03. 
 
The data also show sales of $890,540 for the week of March 18 through 24 compared to $589,335 in revenue a year ago, when Jay Peak had far more snow but fewer “beds” and no waterpark.  
 
Jay Peak Resort’s internal documents predict for the current fiscal year, the first with the Hotel Jay phase amenities and suites open, that revenue will exceed $30 million. 
 
Bill Stenger stated during his interview that the Resort is currently in the planning stage of an audit of the Resort’s finances by an independent accounting firm. A likely completion and release date was not available at the time of our discussion. 
 
It was very clear during my stay at Jay Peak Resort that Bill Stenger is a very hands-on owner/operator. I spotted him before our first meeting darting into the kitchen of one of the Resort’s restaurants to solve a problem. While touring the facilities, he would address every worker by first name (he apparently interviews every new hire, from what a ski instructor told my wife), check operations, issue orders or suggestions, and even pause at one point to gather and throw out empty plastic cups that a bartender hadn’t yet cleared. It’s plain from conversations with the Resort’s staff that morale is high and that Mr. Stenger is held in high esteem. Worker attrition is not a problem. 
 
One concern I had now that Rapid USA has left the picture is whether Jay Peak, Inc. will be able to effectively market EB-5 projects and manage investor relations. Stenger’s response was that the Resort already has a nucleus of “good people who are well experienced in the EB-5 program” and that the Resort will be hiring additional in-house help. I was surprised to find out that there was little in the way of an overseas network of agents that Rapid USA Visas might take away with it. Most referrals to Jay Peak projects apparently come from U.S. immigration attorneys, according to Stenger. 
 
I’ve always been concerned about Jay Peak’s exit strategy. Loan-based EB-5 investments have a clear exit point when the loan is repaid by the borrower, whereupon the general partner returns investment principal to the immigrant investors. Equity-based investments don’t have the same fixed point for exit, but in virtually every project the general partner enters the project with the intention to sell the project equity in its entirety once the property becomes profitable and a market develops for resale. Jay Peak is different. The plan is for investors to sell fractional shares in the part of the resort that was developed with their money. Bill Stenger predicts that Phase I investors will be able to sell shares and secure return of their investment principal starting in September of this year. I asked Mr. Stenger if he could point to any fractional shares of comparable properties on the market now to give investors a sense that there will in fact be a market for fractional sales in Jay Peak residences, and, if so, what the market value will likely be. Stenger had to admit that there were no good comparables on the market now, mostly because, in his opinion, other ski resorts in Vermont are not readily compared to Jay Peak due to the differences in location and facilities and the fact that the other resorts do not have Jay Peak’s sizable Canada market to draw from. Jay Peak currently has only 4 properties for sale. I spoke to a Jay Peak Real Estate agent who quoted me a purchase price of $365,000 for a 3 bedroom lodge, but this residence, along with the others for sale, are older residences of lower quality than the properties built with EB-5 money. Stenger claims that there is a waiting list for fractional sales for the new properties (fractional shares have not been previously offered by Jay Peak). He also claimed that local banks will provide mortgages for fractional shares for Jay Peak residences, a vital component of any future sales effort. I called two banks in northern Vermont, Union Bank and TD Bank, and both said that they offered mortgages on fractional shares in Vermont ski resorts such as the Trapp Family Lodge at Stowe, Vermont, and at Smuggler’s Notch in Lamoille, Vermont. 
 
As it happens, the exit strategy issue may be a moot point as regards Phase I investors. Stenger volunteered during our discussions that the revenue trends on Phase I residences are looking so good “that we are seriously considering buying out the Phase I investors ourselves.” It remains to be seen whether Jay Peak Resort will have the funds and desire to purchase back properties funded by later phases of the development project. 
 
The State of Vermont Regional Center functions differently from most other regional centers in one sense. Although the Regional Center controls and supervises each individual project, the projects themselves are managed by different teams of owners and managers. Jay Peak, as with all projects under Vermont’s supervision, is a standalone EB-5 project, not the Regional Center itself, and is not associated with Sugarbush Resort, Seldon Technologies Clean Water Products, or any other EB-5 project in Vermont. 
 
James Candido, the principal overseer of State of Vermont EB-5 projects, stated to me that he inspects Jay Peak’s financial records at least four times per year and that he has not seen any financial irregularities or problems in Jay Peak’s finances. He noted that Jay Peak Resort was selected as the first Vermont EB-5 project because of Bill Stenger’s “30 years of demonstrated business acumen.” He emphasized that the State of Vermont is particularly careful in overseeing Jay Peak projects because it is hoping to leverage Jay Peak Resort’s success with development and job creation into promoting additional EB-5 projects in Vermont, several of which are in development or already online. Candido noted that the State turns down or discourages 95% of Vermont businessmen pitching projects to the Vermont Regional Center. 
 
---end of article text---- 
 
I welcome any and all comments, critiques and additional information from the EB-5 community and readers of this blog. 
 
PLEASE NOTE: Although I perform due diligence evaluations for EB-5 projects for my clients and for other immigration attorney’s clients, this article is not to be regarded as a comprehensive due diligence project review, or equivalent, and should not be relied upon for investment decisions.

These postings have created some personal concern that my partner and myself may have jumped into what I call the EB5 investor brokering business before we had all the information we may have needed. So now I am soliciting advice. We have two different types of investor contacts that we are trying to provide projects for EB5 investment with the criteria being they have to have approved 526's on the current project to be invested in. This is relevant for 2 reasons. One is that we have a contact with approximately 50 EB5 investors who already have their money in escrow and the project got de-approved so they either need their money back or need to be moved to a project that has 526's in order to avoid hopping from project to project and losing credibility. The other is that we have a group of investors in China and we don't want to send them anywhere where we can't show them there are approvals in the pipeline. Now on top of this, it appears from reading this that providing a service in good faith and being compensated for it while doing good may not be good enough to be compensated without some sort of additional licensing in ordwer to stay out of trouble. Would anybody want to comment on what the path of least resistance may be for me to continue the process of finding good EB5 investments for people and being compensated for doing so and provide a perspective on how I am or should handle my current potential customers. By the way, I am a licensed real estate broker.

Shane, are you seeking compensation from the investors or from the Regional Centers? It makes a huge difference. If you want to collect fees from the RCs, you will have to become a registered representative of a broker-dealer firm, and this is a path of MAJOR resistance: find BD firm to sponsor you for the Series 7 or Series 79 exam AND the Series 63 or Series 65 exam AND pass the exams AND get fingerprints AND fill out U-4 AND pay licensing fees and insurance, etc. There's more. Want to hear it? 
 
Charging the investors is a lot easier, but if you do it too often, you'll have to register in your state as an investment advisor (although this is much easier than becoming an RR of a BD firm). 
 
I'm sure I've ruined your day. Sorry. The U.S. financial world is very, very strict, if you play by the rules.

I have been trying to find an answer for my simple question but still could not get it. My question is that if one invest in a regional center - 500,000 us $ and gets his conditional green card. After the end of the 2nd year if that regional center has not created enough jobs and loses some or all of the investors money , does he/she is still entitled for the Green card OR that everything lost - NO MONEY - NO GREEN CARD. Please can someone clarify me on that. Plus it would be nice that what is a rough percentage of that happening ? Would be very grateful - Regards , Shery.

Hi John,  
 
 
 
I just posted a question , please see above this one. Would really appreciate if you can give a short answer. Kind Regards , Shehryar Iqbal from Dubai U.A.E

Shery, 
These are rather complicated question for an email answer. Try calling me next week (I'm fully booked for the rest of this week) for a free initial consultation by going to http://www.eb5fullservice.com/contact-us/consultation-scheduler/. 
 
Regards, 
John Roth

I have a question regarding job creation which I hope someone can answer. If an investor makes a $1M investment in a company and becomes a minority equity partner as part of a larger 
 
capital raise, can the investor claim the jobs that are created in the future by the company to qualify for an EB-5 visa in a direct application (not going through a regional center)?

I want to make it clear that the SEC will be investigating all agents that propagate eb5 projects without a license including marketers like Artisan (Brian Su). These experts are inherently comflicted since they are paid by the developers a retainer or success fee. Investors should be warned of their conflict of interest. Most investors are not given proper disclosure. Look at the news lately of all ski resorts suffering from global warming. Where is this disclosed in any offering docs. Be forewarned.

Yes, I completely agree with the above discussed points. It is a healthy discussion here for learners 
http://sunenterprises.ca/