BACKGROUND OF JAN WIMPFHEIMER CASE
Jan Wimpfheimer is an American and Israeli citizen. He is a lawyer living in Bet Shemesh, Israel who took approximately 20 million dollars from close to 70 investors who live in the UK, Switzerland, America, and Israel. In order to convince them to part with their money, Wimpfheimer offered a fantastic 24% return to some and to others he offered his personal guarantees on their principal. He continues to try to raise money for 'investments.'
To date, Wimpfheimer has defaulted on tens of millions of dollars to his investors on different investments, refuses to show the bank statements and has not honored his personal guarantees. The company investors were supposedly investing in is doing just fine. The problem is part of the money given to Wimpfheimer never made it to the company.
Wimpfheimer claims he defaulted on payments only because his partners stole from him. But before you give Wimpfheimer the benefit of the doubt, read the facts below.
Nota Bene
- Wimpfheimer has been given ample opportunity to supply documentation disproving allegations on this website and he has been unable to do so.
- Wimpfheimer has been threatening to sue for libel for years but he hasn't done so because if he does he will have to open his bank account for the court to see what he did with the money.
[Image: Wimpfheimer coming out of a Jerusalem courthouse from one of the many lawsuits against him.]
EMBEZZLEMENT
1. Did Jan Wimpfheimer embezzle money? Wimpfheimer had investors wire their investment money to an account called Madison Gold LLC. He was then supposed to forward that money to be invested in GFE (aka East Hudson Capital).
But Wimpfheimer admitted to at least one investor - who was his long-time friend of 40 years - that he did not invest all of the funds given to him and he took some of it for himself. That is the definition of embezzlement.
Later on, Wimpfheimer tried to backtrack saying that all he meant was that he took a 3% management fee for himself and not that he had embezzled any money.
First, there was no such agreement that Wimpfheimer (Madison Gold LLC) would take any fee for management. He had told investors that GFE was taking a 3% management.
Second, let's say there was a misunderstanding and investors were indeed supposed to be paying a 6% fee for their money to be managed (an unheard of amount). When investors asked Wimpfheimer for the bank records of Madison Gold LLC to make sure Wimpfheimer had not taken more than 3%, he refused to show it to them basically implying by deed that he did indeed embezzle significant money.
If a lawyer embezzles client money even from a business account rather than from an escrow or IOLA account, it is a crime under many New York laws. The lawyer can be charged with: NY Penal Law (§§ 155.40, 155.42); (§ 190.65); (§§ 175.05, 175.10); (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343). Ethically, the lawyer violates RPC Rule 1.15(a), Rule 8.4(b), Rule 8.4(c), Rule 8.4(h).
[The image shows correspondence where Wimpfheimer is refusing to show the bank outflows to an investor.]
TRANSPARENCY
2. Jan Wimpfheimer refuses to be transparent. People who manage your money have a legal responsibility to send you regular reports showing you exactly where your money went and how it is performing.
You can see here, for example, a document that Bernie Madoff manufactured out of whole cloth to present to his investors. He did it because he knew he was obligated to report to his investors where their money went.
Wimpfheimer did not give his investors any financial reports other than to say - once in a while - in an email: 'Baruch Hashem [thank God] everything is going fine.'
There are multiple federal laws and SEC regulations that require transparency, truthful reporting, and access to financial records from a money manager. Not doing so is a crime.
WIMPFHEIMER GIVES FALSE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
3. Wimpfheimer tried to convince an investor to invest money with him by telling him the net worth of the company was $40,000,000. But when the investor investigated the documents and challenged that number, Wimpfheimer responded that the actual number was really $20,000,000. Wimpfheimer blames the CFO for the mistake because "he was working with a moving target."
First, what does that even mean?
Second, are we to believe Wimpfheimer that a Chief Financial Officer, the person responsible for the finance of the company, made a reporting mistake that was off by a whopping 100%? That instead of reporting $20m he accidentally reported it was $40m?
Lastly, Wimpfheimer (Madison Gold LLC) didn't have a CFO.
If Wimpfheimer knowingly sent false financial information - such as a false valuation of the company - via email in order to solicit an investment it is a crime. Even if the investment was not made it is is a crime considered a:
- a federal felony
- punishable by up to 25 years in prison
[Image: Wimpfheimer making a $20,000,000 misrepresentation in an email.]
JAN WIMPFHEIMER COMMINGLES FUNDS
4. Jan Wimpfheimer commingled funds. Wimpfheimer is a lawyer and as such he knows it is unethical and illegal for a lawyer or a money manager to commingle funds.
Why? Because it destroys the clear separation that must exist between a client’s money and the manager’s own assets. Clients must be able to trust that their funds are used solely for their benefit, not mixed into operational accounts, personal expenses, or other clients’ money.
Commingled funds make it impossible to track transactions accurately. It creates opportunities for misuse or concealment of losses, and undermines transparency, accountability, and auditability. For these reasons, regulators such as the SEC, FINRA, and state investment-advisor laws strictly prohibit commingling, viewing it as a serious breach of trust that can lead to penalties, loss of law license, civil liability, and even criminal charges.
In this one exhibit, we see Wimpfheimer had an investor wire funds directly to his private account owned jointly with his wife Dr. Orit Wimpfheimer, Chief Medical Officer, for a public company called Nanox Vision. Even though his wife is now implicated in her husband's financial activities, she has yet to issue a statement distancing herself from it or declaring if she knew what he was doing with their bank account.
JAN WIMPFHEIMER DID NOT HAVE A LICENSE
5. Jan Wimpfheimer was offering securities and managing money without a license.
In both the United States and Israel, offering securities without a license is a crime. Anyone who solicits investors, gives individualized investment advice, structures deals, or handles investor funds must hold the appropriate license (such as a registered broker or investment adviser registration), and acting without one is itself a federal offense.
Wimpfheimer raised and managed $20 millions of dollars in pooled investments. He is not licensed as a broker-dealer or investment adviser. This violates the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6, 80b-17), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1)), and New York’s Martin Act (GBL §§ 352-c, 359-eee).
The Martin Act does not set thresholds by dollar amount or investor count regarding securities. That is to say, even if one investor bought one security solicited by someone without a license it is a felony.
Ask yourself why Wimpfheimer didn't get licensed. It would take one month of study, you get the license and you are done with it. The reason why he didn't get licensed is because that would mean there would be more oversight about what he was doing with other people's money.
Wimpfheimer, without a license, sold $20m of securities to over 70 people. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985), upheld sanctions against a New York attorney who, like Wimpfheimer, acted as an unlicensed investment adviser.
Israeli securities law is similar: offering securities to the public without an approved prospectus is a criminal violation and can expose the promoter to enforcement action, fines, and in severe cases imprisonment.
[Image: AI generated.]
JAN WIMPFHEIMER GAVE FALSE PROMISES OF PERSONAL GUARANTEES
6. In order to convince investors to invest huge amounts of money with him, Jan Wimpfheimer promised them personal guarantees. A personal guarantee means that even if his business fails - for any reason at all - Wimpfheimer is promising to sell his house and empty his bank accounts in order to return investor money.
Wimpfheimer lied. He has not honored his personal guarantees tricking many people out of their life's savings. All the while he lives in a multimillion dollar house, has multiple cars and walks around wearing a $10,000 Rolex watch. Rumors are that he used investor money to buy his children villas in Bet Shemesh.
Wimpfheimer reneged on his signed financial obligations which violates RPC 8.4(b), RPC 8.4(c), and RPC 8.4(h). Failure to honor financial commitments is not merely a private contractual breach but constitutes misconduct that strikes at the core of his integrity as an attorney and warrants severe disciplinary sanction.
[Image: One of the many Personal Guarantees that Wimpfheimer gave investors.]
JAN WIMPFHEIMER'S PARTNER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY
7. Jan Wimpfheimer's friend and business partner Simche Fulda has a less than impressive resume. Wimpfheimer vouched for Fulda as being an ethical and professional person.
Yet it was recently discovered that about 15 years ago Simche Fulda took people's money for investments in Manchester and then declared bankruptcy meaning he did not have to pay them back. He then fled to Israel.
Now that Fulda (and his partner Wimpfheimer) has defaulted on millions of dollars to investors, Fulda has once again taken flight and now lives in Dubai. Yes, an Orthodox Jewish man living in an Arab country. Draw your own conclusions.
Israeli JUDGE CATCHES WIMPFHEIMER LYING
8. The Israeli courts granted one of Wimpfheimer's investors a lien on Wimpfheimer's house in Israel to make sure he gets his money back. In October 2025, Wimpfheimer went to court claiming that there is no need for the lien on his house because has the financial capacity to pay back the money. He claimed he has no financial difficulties… “just the opposite.”
First, if this is true, it of course begs the question that if Wimpfheimer has plenty of assets why i she not keeping his word and paying people the money that he personally guaranteed he would pay them.
Second, just two months earlier, in August 2025, in an effort to persuade the NY Grievance Committee not to disbar him, Wimpfheimer claimed to them he needs his law license because his financial situation is dire.
He wrote to them that he has “suffered devastating personal and financial losses” and he has “lost over 10 million dollars.” He also wrote he did not anticipate that his…." net worth…would be wiped out."
The Israeli judge read his testimony to the NY Grievance Committee and accused Wimpfheimer of "contradicting himself" which is the nice way of a judge to call someone a liar.
The only thing Wimpfheimer could say in his defense was that his testimony to the ethics committee in the United States was "...a confidential proceeding and was not supposed to be submitted” to the Israeli court. The judge laughed at this ridiculous argument and denied Wimpfheimer's request to remove the lien.
WIMPFHEIMER OBFUSCATES HIS BUSINESS
9. Jan Wimpfheimer has many interrelated corporate entities leaving most investors clueless as to where their money went. The adjacent diagram was made by one frustrated investor who was trying to figure out where Wimpfheimer moved his money to.
Complicated interrelated corporate structures are widely frowned upon because they create the perfect cover for misconduct: the more layers and entities a manager builds, the easier it becomes to obscure where investors’ money is flowing and to hide improper transfers.
When funds move through a maze of LLCs, partnerships, and affiliated companies, even diligent investors and regulators struggle to trace transactions, allowing unscrupulous actors to disguise self-dealing as “fees,” shuttle money between entities, and ultimately steal or misuse invested capital. This intentional complexity isn’t a sign of sophistication—it’s a red flag that enables commingling, concealment, and fraud.
For example, when Wimpfheimer was asked to explain why there was a $4m transfer of funds to a related corporate entity he said something about "operating expenses" but refused to reveal who who owned that entity or what those operating expenses were for.
NYSBA Op. 1256 (2023), NYSBA Op. 1231 (2021) and NYC Bar Formal Op. 2024-2 confirm that while complex corporate structures are not inherently unlawful, they are unethical or fraudulent when used to mislead investors, obscure control, or hide financial risks—misconduct for which New York has repeatedly imposed disbarment. It also violates RPC Rule 8.4(c) and Rule 1.8(a). A lawyer raising funds through confusing interlocking entities can violate these rules even absent investor losses.
WIMPFHEIMER'S DELAY TACTICS
10. If IRA money is touched before retirement age, the person has to pay a 10% penalty to the IRS plus pay income tax on the money. To avoid 'touching' the money, the investors open an account in a third party custodial entity and moves his IRA money there. From there he can direct the money to be invested without 'touching' and triggering penalties and taxes.
Many investors moved their money to a custodial entity and then invested with Wimpfheimer. In Israeli court, Wimpfheimer argued that an investor can't sue him for the money because it came from the third party entity and only it can sue him.
Yet custodial agreements clearly state, such as the one in the picture of Madison Trust, (Page 4, Article VIII, paragraph 7), :...the accountholder is responsible for ensuring receipt of amounts to which the custodial account is entitled and for taking action including the filing and prosecuting of legal action as may be in the interest of the custodial account."
The financial entity is simply a passive custodian and does not initiate legal proceedings. But Wimpfheimer keeps on pushing motion after motion to delay all proceedings.
JAN WIMPFHEIMER OWES A LOT OF MONEY to many different people for many different reasons
11. More and more people are suing Jan Wimpfheimer for different investments. The one presented here shows that the court ruled that Wimpfheimer has to pay this person $600,000 and he has yet to do it. Google Jan Wimpfheimer and see what is going on.
WIMPFHEIMER's deceptive behavior
12. The Israeli court granted an investor an order of attachment on Wimpfheimer’s family home, as a prejudgment security. Wimpfheimer claimed in legal proceedings that the lien has “sufficient value to cover" the claim.
However when Wimpfheimer began defaulting on investors in 2023, he and his wife Dr. Orit Wimpfheimer (Chief Medical Officer for a public company called Nanox Vision) quickly took out two large mortgages on their house totaling 4,350,000 shekels which is about $1.3 million [See image]. They took the equity out of their house so if the investor forces the sale of Wimfpheimer's house the money will go to the banks and not to the investor.
Also, Wimpfheimer gave out personal guarantees for millions and millions of dollars, way more than the value of his house.
Jan Wimpfheimer' attempt to mislead the courts demonstrate a pattern of fraudulent and deceptive behavior.
WIMPFHEIMER SOLD UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
13. It seems that the instruments sold by Jan Wimpfheimer—LLC membership units, promissory notes, and pooled fund interests—are considered securities under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). Their sale required registration with the SEC under § 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77e) or a valid exemption.
The sale of securities without registration or qualification is a crime and it violates both federal and state law unless a valid exemption applies. Under the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC unless exempt (15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77l).
The exemption, Regulation D (rule 506 (b)) allows sales to up to 35 non-accredited Investors and they must be "sophisticated," having sufficient knowledge and experience in financial matters to evaluate the merits and risks of the investment. Wimpfheimer sold these securities to more than 70 people, most of them non-accredited and most not legally considered "sophisticated."
By failing to register or qualify securities and by omitting the legal status of the offering, Mr. Wimpfheimer deceived investors and engaged in conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law. Such behavior is proscribed by RPC 8.4(b) and (c), and demonstrates a serious breach of professional integrity. Under New York’s Martin Act (GBL Art. 23-A) it is a felony.
JAN WIMPFHEIMER Failed to Restrict Investors to Accredited Status
14. Under Regulation D, Rule 501 (17 C.F.R. § 230.501), only accredited investors may participate in certain private offerings. Many investors did not qualify as an accredited investor. Nor would many be legally considered ‘sophisticated’ investors. Wimpfheimer failed to verify investor eligibility, voiding any exemption and rendering the offering unlawful.
Reg D allows up to 35 non-accredited investors in certain offerings (Rule 506(b)) if they receive detailed disclosures. Wimpfheimer had about 70 investors (twice the allowed number) most not accredited investors and most all did not receive detailed disclosures.
Wimpfheimer violated the Securities Act of 1933 (§§ 5, 12, and 17(a)), the Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and state blue sky laws, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. He violated RPC Rule 1.8(a), Rule 8.4(b), Rule 8.4(c), and Rule 1.15.
WIMPFHEIMER fails to disclose information he is required to disclose
15. Jan Wimpfheimer took more than $20m in investor capital and under rule Rule 502(b)(2)(B) of Regulation D raising an amount greater than $7.5 million requires full audited financials complying with SEC Regulation S-X (same as public company standard).
Investors did not get full audited financials. (Even raising $2–7.5 million requires audited financial statements + 2 years of income, cash flows, equity changes.)
By soliciting investment funds without providing the audited financial statements required under Regulation D for offerings to non-accredited investors, Wimpfheimer violated Sections 5, 12, and 17(a)of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77l, 77q), Rule 10b-5of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5), and the New York Martin Act (GBL Art. 23-A), each of which prohibit the sale of unregistered or fraudulent securities and treat material omissions as securities fraud punishable as a felony. Also it violates RPC Rule 1.8(a), Rule 8.4(b), and Rule 8.4(c).
WIMPFHEIMER FAILS TO COMMUNICATE
16. As a money manager, Wimpfheimer is required by law to regularly update his investor about the status of their investments. He doesn't.
When Wimpfheimer's partners suspected him of fraud they asked the investors to share with them the notes and guarantees that Jan drafted and had them sign. Frantic not to be discovered, Wimpfheimer demanded they not do so. And to punish those that did, he stopped updating them about their money. He removed those investors from the investor email distribution list and refused to answer their calls and emails.
The refusal by a money manager to update investors on the status of their investments constitutes a fundamental violation of U.S. federal securities law, primarily the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act). The most severe infraction is the breach of Fiduciary Duty.
As fiduciaries, money managers must, at all times, serve the best interests of their clients, which includes the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The SEC views the deliberate withholding of material information—such as the status, performance, or location of client assets—as an act that places the adviser's interest ahead of the client's.
This directly violates the fiduciary standard and can trigger the Anti-Fraud Provisions of Section 206 of the Advisers Act, which prohibits any "act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative."
Furthermore, this failure to be transparent also breaches specific regulatory mandates. SEC rules require investment advisers to maintain and provide access to accurate financial records and communications. Specifically, Rule 204-2 mandates the keeping of books and records relating to the advisory business, and the refusal to provide these documents, such as bank statements or client ledgers, violates these recordkeeping and client access requirements.
Wimpfheimer’s refusal to provide investors with ongoing updates about Madison Gold Ltd. violated his fiduciary and professional obligations of communication and disclosure. As a money manager, under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180 (1963), he is obligated to furnish full and fair disclosure of material facts, including the use of investor funds, risks, and performance. The Martin Act (GBL § 352-c) independently requires disclosure of material information to investors in New York, treating nondisclosure as securities fraud even absent proof of intent. As an attorney, Wimpfheimer also violated RPC 1.4,, RPC 8.4(c) and (h).
Collectively, the intentional failure to report to investors is treated by the SEC as a fraudulent scheme designed to conceal incompetence or, worse, misappropriation, exposing the adviser to enforcement actions, civil liability, and potentially criminal prosecution.
WIMPFHEIMER threatens his investors
17. Wimpfheimer’s partners offered investors the opportunity to buy their notes from them at a 50% discount. In order to begin negotiations, they needed to see investor notes. Wimpfheimer had kept his partners in the dark by using a coded investor list so even they did not know who the investors were or the amount each one invested or the interest rates they were promised. (We investors have heard that Wimpfheimer sold illegal usurious notes and $5,000,000 of his notes were nullified by an arbitration panel).
When Wimpfheimer caught wind of this offer by his ex-partners – a legal offer to buy investors’ notes - he warned everyone that if they show their notes to his partners they are breaking their NDA with him and he will take legal action against them. (Wimpfheimer likes to scare everyone into silence by claiming they are breaking their NDAs every which way but Wednesday.)
On January 20, 2025 he wrote:
“Our cooperation, sharing of information, etc., however, does depend on a confluence of interests.”; “Our continuing efforts will be for the benefit of those who are patient with us as we fix this debacle.” And then he wrote in bold font in case it wasn’t clear that he was making a threat “If anyone attempts to sell a promissory note or other rights to our adversary [he is referring to his partners as adversaries], we have no further obligations [to] that person. If your actions cause damage or loss for other investors, then this might lead to additional consequences. All rights reserved.”
Signing an NDA does not give the money manager legal cover to threaten an investor into silence about possible misconduct nor to prevent them from doing a legal act - such as selling their notes. This conduct by Wimpfheimer violates NY Penal Law § 135.60), NY Penal Law § 155.05(2)(e)), NY Penal Law § 195.05; and 18 U.S.C. § 1503), as well as violates RPC Rule 8.4(b), (c), and (d).
WIMPFHEIMER FRAUDENTLY PRESENTED CHECKS & BALANCES
18. Wimpfheimer convinced a lot of friends and family to invest with him. While they trusted him they did not know if they could trust his partners. Wimpfheimer tried to assuage fears by saying "... East Hudson Capital LLC, the operating business, of which I control half if the interests and the managers. We also have extensive control over East Hudson via restrictive covenants.”
He was saying he can prevent his partners in East Hudson from moving money around without his permission. But evidently this wasn’t true because when his partners accused Wimpfheimer of fraud, they simply shut down his access to the accounts. He had no control over the money.
By misrepresenting material facts (his ability to control the money) about the investment he was raising money for, Wimpfheimer violated federal securities laws, including Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77q) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and the Martin Act (GBL Art. 23-A). It violates RPC Rule 8.4(b), Rule 8.4(c), and Rule 1.8(a).
REAL ESTATE PONZI SCHEME?
19. Wimpfheimer had people invest with him in a real estate deal in Tiberius. It is reported that some investors claim they were told by Wimpfheimer that they lost their money in this investment and other investors were told they made money in this investment. If this is true, this would be a ponzi scheme. The Israeli police are currently investigating these accusations.
wimpfheimer's slaughterhouse
20. Wimpfheimer is now trying to get people to invest their money in his latest project to build an abattoir in Lithuania. He told one potential investor he was trying to solicit that the project will be worth 100 million Euro in just one year. He is also promised him.... you guessed it... a personal guarantee.
[Image: AI generated]