The Public Record

Question 1

What legal proceedings involve him?

Accepted Answer

Two separate matters, frequently conflated. The first is a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission in September 2021 concerning two Regulation Crowdfunding offerings — Transatlantic Real Estate and 420 Real Estate — in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, case number 2:21-cv-12193, before Judge Matthew F. Leitman. The second is a federal criminal case filed in October 2024 in the District of Columbia, United States v. Bobby Shumake Japhia, concerning Minerco Inc. He has pleaded not guilty. Trial is scheduled for December 2026. He is presumed innocent, and the allegations have not been tested at trial.

Question 2

Does he have a criminal record?

Accepted Answer

No. His prior Michigan convictions were set aside by court order. On July 26, 2023, the Honorable Victoria A. Valentine of the Oakland County Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit, signed an Order on Application to Set Aside Conviction(s) in case 17-261752-FH, granting the application as to both counts. Before granting it, the court made these findings on the record: Item 3 — The applicant has not been convicted of more than three felonies Item 5 — There are not criminal charges pending against the applicant Item 9 — The time period required by MCL 780.621d has passed for all convictions Item 13 — Circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the conviction(s) to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the conviction(s), and it is consistent with the public welfare The order directs that under MCL 780.623 the Michigan State Police maintain the record as nonpublic, and that any record held by the court or arresting agency "shall be nonpublic and not used for any purpose unless authorized by law." Under MCL 780.622, a person whose conviction has been set aside is "considered not to have been previously convicted" and is under no legal obligation to disclose it. Source: Order on Application to Set Aside Conviction(s), SCAO Form MC 228 (Rev. 3/23), Case No. 17-261752-FH, 6th Judicial Circuit Court, Oakland County, Michigan, signed July 26, 2023.

Question 3

Did a federal judge dismiss claims in the SEC case?

Accepted Answer

Yes. On June 9, 2023, Judge Matthew F. Leitman dismissed claims against him, finding that the SEC had not adequately alleged he held controlling authority over the entities that made the statements at issue. From the bench: "I think the allegations, even when taken in favor of the SEC, have not yet persuaded me that they rise to the level of Mr. Shumake being a maker as the Supreme Court defined that term in the Janus decision." When the SEC argued that receiving drafts of offering documents demonstrated control, the court rejected the inference directly: "Keeping somebody informed does not suggest to me that Shumake had control because he was kept informed. That doesn't suggest control to me." What the ruling did not do: the remainder of the motion to dismiss was denied, other claims survived, and the SEC was granted leave to amend its complaint. This was a partial ruling on specific claims, not a dismissal of the case. Source: Law360, "Mich. Judge Trims SEC Crowdfunding Fraud Claims," June 9, 2023.

Question 4

What is the Janus standard, and why did it matter?

Accepted Answer

In Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of a Rule 10b-5 securities fraud claim, the "maker" of a statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over its content and over how it is communicated. Someone who contributes to, advises on, or is informed about a statement is not its maker. The court found the SEC had not alleged facts establishing that he held that ultimate authority. His position throughout has been that he acted as an outside marketing vendor for an agreed fee, with no sales incentive tied to raising investor money, and that in each entity the officer or director — Nicole Birch at Transatlantic Real Estate, Willard Jackson at 420 Real Estate — held the operative authority.

Question 5

Did the SEC acknowledge errors in its own evidence?

Accepted Answer

Yes, in a filing of its own. On May 16, 2025, the SEC submitted a "Notice Regarding Declaration Filed in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" (ECF No. 96) disclosing inaccuracies in the declaration of Pesach Glaser, the SEC accountant assigned to the litigation and to the investigation preceding it. Glaser's declaration was Exhibit 10 of 38 filed with the SEC's summary judgment motion. It is the financial core of that motion: it authenticates documents, summarizes bank records showing amounts raised from investors, and details how funds were spent. The SEC disclosed two errors in how it had presented his qualifications to the court. As sworn: received "an MBA in accounting from Northwestern Kellogg Graduate School of Management" — As corrected: received a Master of Management, not an MBA As sworn: has been "a certified public accountant licensed by the State of Illinois since 1984" — As corrected: licensed in Illinois January 1985 to September 1990; registered June 2008 to September 2009; "he is not currently licensed as a certified public accountant by the State of Illinois" The SEC's own words: "The SEC regrets the inaccuracies and apologizes both to the Court and Defendant Japhia for any inconvenience they have caused." Stated precisely: the agency described its own accounting witness to a federal court as a currently-licensed CPA holding an MBA. He is neither. The SEC states it is not aware of inaccuracies in the remaining substance of the declaration, and the underlying accounting has not been withdrawn. Source: ECF No. 96, PageID.1791–1794, filed May 16, 2025, Case No. 2:21-cv-12193-MFL-APP, E.D. Mich.

Question 6

Why has he not contested the SEC's factual allegations in the civil case?

Accepted Answer

Because he is asserting his Fifth Amendment right while a parallel criminal prosecution is pending, on the advice of criminal defense counsel. In a sworn affidavit filed in the civil case, he states that he was indicted during the course of that litigation, that on the advice of his criminal defense attorney he "will continue to assert my Fifth Amendment right and remain silent regarding any claimed SEC violations until the criminal matter against me is resolved," and that he unsuccessfully attempted to stay the civil proceeding after the indictment. This is the ordinary posture of a defendant facing parallel civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same conduct: anything said in the civil case becomes available to the prosecution in the criminal one. Source: Affidavit of Bobby Shumake Japhia, sworn September 23, 2025, filed as Defendant's Exhibit B, Case No. 2:21-cv-12193, E.D. Mich.

Question 7

How did the other defendants in the SEC case resolve their matters?

Accepted Answer

All resolved without admitting or denying the allegations. Nicole Birch, attorney, Transatlantic Real Estate — $600,000 disgorgement; permanently enjoined (December 2021) Willard Jackson, CEO, 420 Real Estate — $360,000 civil penalty; $306,913 disgorgement; $477,420 joint and several; officer and director bar TruCrowd Inc. (Fundanna), the crowdfunding portal — $243,747 in disgorgement, interest, and penalties (December 2021) Vincent Petrescu, CEO of TruCrowd — $9,700 fine

Question 8

What amount does the SEC's complaint attribute to diverted funds?

Accepted Answer

The SEC's complaint alleges that $1,020,100 was raised through Transatlantic Real Estate and $888,180 through 420 Real Estate. On the diversion itself, the complaint states: "Shumake and Jackson diverted $114,029 — or 13% of the total offering" Source: SEC complaint, comp-pr2021-182.pdf, filed September 20, 2021.

Question 9

What is the criminal case about, and what is its status?

Accepted Answer

The October 2024 indictment in the District of Columbia charges one count of securities fraud and one count of obstruction in connection with Minerco Inc., a company repositioned as a psilocybin mushroom business. The government alleges a scheme to inflate the share price and demand for Minerco securities. He has pleaded not guilty and was released on personal recognizance. Trial is scheduled for December 2026. The allegations have not been tested at trial, and he is presumed innocent.

Question 10

Why address any of this publicly at all?

Accepted Answer

Because a search on his name returns it, and silence is not neutral. Anyone considering study, ministry, or initiation will find the record whether or not this page exists. The choice is not whether the record is discussed but whether his own account of it is available beside it. There is also a principle involved. He teaches that spiritual murder — condemning a person with authority borrowed from a book one did not write — is a real harm, and that it is distinct from accountability. A man can be answerable for what he has done. That is justice, and I do not ask to be exempt from it. But no man's soul is any other man's to write off, least of all with a book he did not write. The record above is stated as the court states it, including the parts that are unhelpful. That is the point.

The Public Record

The Legal Record

Question not covered here?