2nd - Amend.third Party - Cmpt.kazenercom - Turan.03.15

Case 8:09-cv-00059-JVS-MLG Document 441 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 25 Page ID
#:9887

LJ..i-
>LA...
GJI-
!u
0
!LJ..J;;;;:::::
1-
=:.!
CQ
15 2012
C'V
-
('.,!
t()
-

J . SBN#l31947
OFFICES OF JOHN

Ridgewood Rd.
1 mo, 94507
(925) 831-1882
(925) 831-1899
}k ail:

omey tor P1aintiffs
Association ofKazakh lnvestors -and Eiltrepr n rs;
8
Public Foundation Our House Yerkin Bekta v;
Berik Bektay; Kan.et '
9

11
1.2
t4
IS
16
18
19
21
22
25
26
27
IN UN1TED STATES COURT
FOR mE OF CALIFORNIA
DMSION-SANTA
et al.
Piaintiffs
v.
.. et al.
Defendants
TURAN INC.
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO et al.
Third-Party Defendants
Docket No.08:09cv00059-JVS
Assigried fur furpQs.es to;
Hon. James V. SeJ.na, Dept: 1.
VERIFIED SECOND

AND
BYYERKIN AND

FOR RELIEF BASE.D ON:
1.
CORRUPT

2. OF SECUR111ES
LAWS;
3. CONVERSION;
4. BREACH OF
5. FRAUDAND
ATION;
6, UNJUST
7. CIVIL CONSPIRACY;
3115/2012 1:25:3()
#:9888
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Offioes
.925J 831-18'99

2

4
5
6
7
8
9
1{)

12
13

J5
16
J7
)8
1\)
20
2J
22
and KANET
ME1RMANOY,
CounterDefendants and 11tird-Party
Ptnintiffs
v.
ASIAN PACIFIC OIL & GAS
in the Seychelles
. slan s);
AI,DIGAN
YURI
ROBERT.VANbUREN;
ROBIN BISARY
FINANCIAL ALCJNA

. (all three
Beli:r.e);
PINE BROOK S.A.,
S.A. (both Panama);
ESSEX MANAGERS L1D.,
V ARRIAI .. FINANCIAL
L m. British Virgin .Islands );
COASTFINANCE

111
STOCK INC.
ThirdwParty Defendants
8. FRAUDULENT
CONVEYANCES;
9.
1 O.DECLARATORY REI..IEF;
FOR JURY TRIAL
1 .. NATURE OF
23 1.
Pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 14 and the Court Order da.ted
24
June 2009, Plaintiffs and Oefendants in Counterclaim Yerkin Bektayev and
25
Kanet Meirmanov respectfully file their Verified Amended
26
Complaint .for relief both in law and in for monetary damagest punitive
27
damages and injunctive reHel Third-Party Plaintiffs a11ege as foiJows.
3/15/2012 1:25:30
#:9889
Mer 15 2012 Schreiber Law Officeg 1 1 -
.IJ. AR'I]J.$. ,IN ..
2 2. Defendant in Counterc]aim and P1aintiff i.n this Amended
Complaint BEKTAYEV (hereinafter '"Bektayev,') is citizen of
4 en,gaging in bttsiness in and intemarionally; with the
s address: (hereinafter 33 Dostyk, #2, Almaty,
6 Kazakh.stan. At all tirnes :relevant Bektayev was the Director of as
1 well as the Pres)dent ofTuranEnerpetroleum
s 3. Defendant in. Counterclaim and P1aintiff in tbls Third-Party Amended
9 Complai.nt KANET (hereinafter is citizen of
1 engaging in bu.siness in Kazakhstan and internationally, with the
1.1 address: 33 Dostyk St . #2, Ahnaty, Kazakhstan. At all relevant timesj
12 Meirmanov was the employee of and stake holder therein; he also
1;; a.ssisted in setting seismic tests for the project at issue.
,., 4. Both Piaintiffs in this Third-Party Cross.--Claim were elected on Februa.ry
19, 2009 as the interim directors of INC.
16 corporation organized under the laws of the State of
17 pending restructuring of its a:ffairs as more particuJarly discussed
1s herein. distinction is m.ade that PJaintiffs have suing in tbls action an
19 associ.ation under similar corporate but consisting of
20 several indjvidua1s residing in. California" who have operated as Turan
21 Petroleum when it was eithcr not tegiste:red or later when its corpom1:e powers
22 were foxfeited in Califomia. Without corporate authority, those Califomia
residents continue to act in the of the corporation in the Sta.te of
24 CaHfomia, despite the forfeiture of its corpora.te status in California and in
violation. of the Desist and Refrain Order issued the State of California on
April 1 2009 an.d n10re particularly discussed herein. That unincorporated
2.1 association operating in California is identified he:rein as ''P'ort"eited.
Tl:tird Pmty 3
1:;!5:3(1
#:9890
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Offices a25J
5. Defendant in ASIAN PACIF.IC OIL & GAS L1D.
2 (hereinafter is she11 under the Jaws of the
3 SeycheHes Islands, IBC No. 050476, with registered address: Suite l:o
4 Complex, D'Arhoa, Providence, 1004, Mahe,
s Seychelles. APOG's and its real address is: 33 Skyridge, Newport
6 Coast, 92657, where it accepted service. APOG engages in business ix1 the
1 V.S. and in.temationally. APOG is subject to the jurisdicti011 of this Court
s because it was used for the unlawful transfer of 20% of the asaets represented
9 rights under the because it became invol.ved with assets
10 jn California) and APOG was transferee ot assets in violation of the
11 Califomia Unifonn Fraudulent Transfer Cai.Civ,Cod.e 3439.
12 6. ALDIZHAN (hereinafter also "Dzbakishev;')
is the principal of APOG, residing at: 33 Newport Coast, 92657;
!4 as weJf as 30 Rublnslttein St.
7
Almaty, Dzhakisbev is subject to the
1 s jurisdiction of this Courtt because is the principal of AIOG, who, whiJe being
resident of Califorriia, s.igned an agreement with certain other Defendants
11 regarding the transfer of the concession rights at issue. Dzhakishev was
involved in the unlawful transfer of Turan's assets, causing approxim.ately $5
19 million in procecds to &aud.ulently transferred in California in violation of
2t1 Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other law.
21 7. Defendant (hereinafter also "Amirgan") is
zz the oth.er principal of residing at; 33 Skyridge, Newport Coas'4
23 92657, as well as 30 St., Almaty, Kazakhstan. is subject
24 to the jurisdictio11 of tbls Court, because he is principal of APOG, is involved
25 in the unlawfu1 transfer of Turan$s stock, causing approximately $5 in
2(i proceeds to transfemd in California in vio]ation of
21 Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and taw.
Arncnd(:d Third Party O:l.rnplainl 4
#:9891
15 2012 Schreiber 825) 831-1899
8. .Defendant YURI v (hereina.fter also is an mdividual
2 residing at 18301 Von Karroan Avenue, Irvine, 92612, who engaged
in business in Califomia and wl1o was an original of Turan. Yu.ri is
4 subject to the jutisdiction of this Court because he has involved in the
s unJ.awful transfer of s as.sets". in processing the: receipt of certain. proceeds
6 through third pa.rty distributions and other acts that originated in
7 Califomia, and because he knowing1y violated CaJ.Civ.Code 3439 and other
law.
9 9. Defendant ROBERT VAN DUREN (hereinafter a1so ''Van is an
individ11al who} until of2008, un]awfully held himself out as Turan's
director) residing at; 3720 S. Susan St; Ana, 92704.-.6967, and at: 812
12 Monticello Dr. Naperville, IL 60563. Van Duren was an active participant in
the sccurities fraud schemes described herein; bls sign.ature can found on
14 most of the unlawfully issued stock certificatest including "duplicate
1.s certificates," and he facilitated &audulent offshore transters of corporate assets.
16 This Court has jurisdiction over Van Duren who acted knowingly contrary to
t7 Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other law.
1 Defendant ROBIN BISAR (h.ereinafter also "Bisarya!') is an
19 individuaJ; &om June of2008 to ApriJ of2009 unlawfully held blmselfout
w as Turan"'s secretary and treasurer, with the address: Deve1opment I ... CC,
21 940 South Coast Dr., 1 Costa Mesa, 92626. Bisarya was an active
22 participant in the securities fraud sch.em.es herejn.. Assisting
.he managed Turan's accounts and drafted the wire transfers
24 involved in wire fraud at WeiJs Fargo Bank. This Court has jurisdiction over
2s Bisarya who acted knowingly contrary to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other
26 la\v.
27
5
113M4!)20541'\26tif.
#:9892
Mar 15 2012
.325.1

I 1. Defendant F"INANCIAL, LTD. also is shell
2 o1:ga.nized under the laws ofBelize, No. 15768. Okke engages in
business in the U.S. and being, on infomation and
4 alter ego. the de facto address: Ibar Developme.nt LLC,
s 940 South Coast Dr., 100, Costa Mesa, 92626. Okke;s registered address
6 is: Morgan & Morgan Trust C...orp. (Belize) 35 Regent St., Belize,
7 Be1ize. Okke is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court it was used for
s ftaudulent contrary to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other
9 laws.
10 12. Defendant ALCINA CORP. (hereinafter also "Aicina'') is
11 shell under 1aws of Belize, lBC No. 52723. Alcina
12 engages in business in the U.S. and intemationaJly, on infonnation and
belief, Karabayev's alter ego, with thc de facto address: lbar Development
t4 LLC::- 940 South Coast Dr 100, Co$ta 92626. Alcina's registered
1s address is: Suc-re & Sucre Ltd., 6() M.arket Square, Belize.
Alcina is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it was used for
r.1 fraudulent transfers assets, contrary to Ca1.Civ.Code 3439 and other
18 laws.
t9 13. Defendant PINGTON L1D. (hereinafter aJso "Pington")
zo )$ shell compa.tly organized under the laws of Belize. Pington engages in
2t business in the U.S. and i.ntemationalJy, being, on infonnation and belief,
Karabayev"s alter ego, with the de facto address: lbar Devclopment
23 940 South Coast Dr., 1 Costa Mesa, 92626. registered
24 address is at: Morgan and Morgan Trust Corporation {Belize), of
Regent Street, Belize Belize (the same for Okke). Pington is subject to
26 the ju....-jsdiction of this Court because it vtas used for {r.audulent transfers of
27 Tumn's assets, contrary to Cai.Civ.Code 3439 andother laws.
1 Amr.-:ndcd Tbird Party Complait1t 6
#:9893
Nar 15 2012
325) 831-1888

14. Detendant V ARRlAL FINANCIAL I .. TD. (bereinafter also
2 is shell company organized under the laws of the British Virgi.n
Is.lands, at: Overseas Management Tt11st Ltd.) R.G. Hodge Plaza
4 2nd FJoor, 31152 Road Town
1
Torto1a, the BV1. IBC No. 425957.
s Vanial engages in business i.n the U.S. and intern.ationally, being, on
6 informatiot1 and s alter ego, with th.e de facto address: Ibar
'7 DeveJopment LLC, 940 South Coast Dr., 100, Costa 92626. V arri.al
(which has had stake in cert.ain realty in Califomia) is subject to the
9 jurisdiction of this Court it was used for ftaudulent tra.nsfers of the
assets of Turan, contrary to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other laws.
11 J 5. Defendant ESSEX L 1D. (here:inafter also "Essex") is
12 sheiJ company organized the laws of the British Virgin at the
J;) preseJJt registered agent's address: Blcnheim Trust Ltd., R.G. Hodge
1-1 PJaza Road Town, TortoJa, the BVIt IBC No. 5 I 7296. Initially,
11 it was inco:rporated on October 14t 2002 and operated while su.spended in the
16 BVI for nonpayment of the agent's fees before being reinstated effective
11 January 1, 2007. engag:es in business in the U.S. and
18 be.ing, on information and Anatoly Vanetik's alter egot wi.th the de facto
19 address: 3720 South Susan St.? Suite 100, Santa Ana, 92704. Essex is
20 subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it was used for fraudulent
21 transfers asscts, contra.ry to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other applicabl.e
:n Jaws.
16. Detendant HINES S.A. (hereina:fter also is
shell organized under the laws ofPanama on 14.2007, IBC
zs at the regi.stered address: El Cangreso 17,
26 Panama City, Panama. Hines engages in business in the tl.S. and intemationally,
21 011 information and Anatoly alter egc, with the de facto
Secnod Third .f"11rty Cumplait1t ?

#:9894
Mar 15 2012 12:56F
Schreiber Law Offiaes

address: 3720 South Susan Su.ite 100, Santa Ana, 92704. Hines is
2 subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it was used for ftaudulent
transfers ofTuran's to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and otl1er
4 laws,
s 17. Defendant PINE BROOK, S.A. (hereinafter also "Pine Brook") is shel1
organized under the laws of Panama_. registered on March 16; 2007,
1 #8491-274, 44607/4122, at the registered address: Plaza,
8 Panama City, agent Brigido Navarro. Pine Brook engages in business in the
9 tJ.S. and intemationa:Hy, on and beliet: Anatoly Vanetik's
10 alter ego, wi.th the defacto address: 3720 South Susan St., Suite Santa
11 92 704. Pine Brook is subject to the jurisdiction of because it was
12 used for ftaudulent transfers of Turan's contrary to Cal.Civ.Code 3439
and other laws.
1.t. 18. De.fen&nt COAST FINANCE; Lm. (hereinafter also is shel!
1.s organized, on information and be1ief, under the laws of an offshore
jurisdiction yet to identified. Coast engages i11 business in the U.S.
11 on infom1ation and beliet s alter ego, with the
18 de facto address: DeveJopment IJ .... C, 940 South Coast Dr., 1 Costa
19 Mesa, 92626. Coast is subject to the jurisdiction of tbls Court because it
:ro was used for fraudulent transfers of assets, contrat:y to CaJ.Civ.Code
21 3439 and other ]aws.
zz 19. Defendant 111 (hereinafter is company
()fganized under the laws on January 30, 2008, that engages
24 in bus:iness intema.tionally, being, on infonnation and belief, Karabayev's alter
.Z5 ego, with the de facto address: Ibar .Development LLC, 940 South Coast Dr+,
26 100, Costa Mesa, 92626. Karabayev's mother-inlaw purportedly
21 incorporated Karlan in Aktoby, and has its director. Kar1an is
Aroended Third Party CompJ11int
#:9895
Msr 15 2012
Schreiber Law Offices
925) 831-1899
10
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it was used tor frauduient
2 transfers assets! contrary to Cal.Civ.Code 3439 and other
]aws.
4 20. Detendant (hereinafter js
5 company organized under the laws of that engages in business
6 ittternationally with two different offices in Almaty, It was
7 incorporated in April of 2005 as wholly owned subsidiary. Bek1ayev
served as its Dire<.-1or until being removed from that position in
9 of2006. On February 19, 2009, the sharelto1ders' meeting elected new directors
of For purposes ot' tbls Plaintiffs sue only inasmuch it is
11 allegedly represented the prior head and director of who has not
J2 complied with bls removal and continues to claim to act under corpora.te
authority, is joined as Defendant herewith per request of Defendants.
t4 21. Paragraph omitted in Hght of settlement with FFS.
22. Defendant EMPIRE STOCK TRANSFER 1NC. (hereinafter is
16 Nevada corporation with an address at: 2470 St. Rose Pkwy. Suite 304,
11 89074. It was incorporated on Apri1 9, 2004, #
Js Patrick Mokros is its sole director, secretary and treasurer. On information and
19 Empire has Hcense to provide stock transfer and
20 Defendant Anatoly Vanetik: contracted with Empire to provide such
services to This Court has jurisdiction over Empire, because it conspired
22 with Vanetik and Van Duren to violate securities 1aws. That included Empire's
accepting improperly drafted treasury directi.ons from V an Duren, and cance1ing
24 and immediately issuing backdated dupli.cate certificates. Empire acted, at
zs minimum, witl1. damaging Plaintiffs assjsting Vanetik and
26 in securities end wire fraud. When Empire was fired the new
21
Second Amendcd Third Perty CompJRint
3t1S/2Q12
#:9896
Mar 15 2012 12:57F Sahreiber Law Office$
925) 831 -1899
11
1 Board for cause a.nd required to release Empire to compJy or
2 respond.
3
Ill.
4 23. This Courr ha5 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 133 7, 1367 and
s 21 of the Securities Exchange Act 15 U.S.C. as weH as 78i.
6 Defendants u.sed Notice of Sale of with the Securities and
1 Exchange Commission. Defendants further transacted business ma:rketing
8 securities and made offerings of securitiesf within the meaning of
9 proper venue pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 77v.
10 24. Each and every one of the in this Cross-Claim was invoJved
J .1 in violation of the :fi1ing requirements with the SEC and other duties undet the
J;); securities J.aws.
25. ln connection with the acts alleged in this Cross-Complaint,
14 all Third-Party Defendants, direcdy or indirectly, used the means and
a.s mstrumentalities of interstate commerce. amount in controversy, e:xclusive
16 of .interest and is in excess of$75)000.
i7 26. Venue is proper in ]Jght of aJJ Defendants violation of Califomia state
111 law. Por the first 18 Vanetik an.d otllers opera.ted Turan
J9 without corporate registration to do business in Califomia, failing to have it
20 registered until July 20, 2006. At all times and in violation of
California law, Vanetik and other engaged it1 unregistered an.d third party
za distributions in. Ca1ifornia. Tunm's corporate registration as foreign
corporation doing in Califomia was forfeited in this on March 6.
24 2009. Later it was reinstated, but was forfeited agai11.
zs 2 7. This venue is proper in light of the Pesist and Order;. issued
26 the Department of Corporations of California on April 1 OJ 2009. which cited the
21 vioJation Vanetik, former operators of and certain other
Second Alnc:nde;d 111ird Pany
113M492054825.1if- 3115/2012 1:25:3()
#:9897
Nar 15 2012 Sahreiber Law
9251 831-1899
F. 12
Defendants of 25401 of the Corporate Securities Act of Califomia
z (1968) and imposed an injunction pursuant to 25532 of said Act. This venue
allows resolution of the issues resulting frorn such. violation.13 of the State of
..; California securities laws, which invoJved tJte ftaudulent transfers of the
:; relevant securities to the offshore Defendants,
6
IV. FACTS .ALL COJJNTS
7 Und.erlying Concemjng OiJ in
s 28. Kazakhsta.n, country in Central has considerable reserves of
9 oil and gas. The Govemment of Kazakhstan l1as encouraged
investments for exptoration and development of and gas using
11 contractual concessions for certa.in selected plots, to explore and extrac1 an.d
12 gas, for up to 25 years.
29. ln 2001 the Kazakh Government entered Concession
14 (here.inafter with AraJ Petroleum (hereinafter "Araf"),
J5 company organized un.der the Jaws of The Concessions' subject
16 n1atter was the exploration and devetopment of the oil and gas deposits on
11 approxjm.ately 5 acres in Shymkent and in the regions in
Js
!ff 30. Geological surveys and seismic tests have provided reliable
indications that the estimated reserves of oil and gas in that Conces.sion may
21 2,250 million. barrels of crude oil.
3 1. Under that the vaJue of the untapped oil reserves within the
Concession may exceed $2 in crude pric:es, with relatively low
24 costs. The duration ofth.e Concession (25 years) aHows for the
25 extraction ofthat volume and the generation of profits ultimately exceeding $1
26 blllion.
27
Serond Third Compla.int
113M4[)205<1825.tif- 3115{2012 '1:25:30
#:9898
Har 15 2012 Schreiber Law
.3251
1
32. In about of created joint venture witl1 Plaintiff
1 Kazenerkom agreeing to TuranEnerpetrolewn
corporation organized under the la'Ws ot' Kazakhstan. was
4 vested the rights in the Conces5ion. Aral and agreed
s 51/49 interest apportionment between as to the rig}1ts under the
6 Concession. also paid AraJ for the remaining 51% on March 18, 2005.
1 FrauduJent .. cheme of Distribution and Conve.rsion
s 33. Elite Registry Inc. was dormant she11 entity, itlco:rporated in
? March of 2001 under the J.aws of the State of Nevada, with its registered age.nt
10 at: 502 North Division St., Carson City, NV) 89703.
11 34. corporate status was revoked on April J, 2002, and its. resident
12 agent resigned in August of 2002. The corporation's powers did not exist for 2
13 years and 7 months and it cou1d not conduct any business. Th.ere is evidence
14 that Elite's main or sole sf)areholder was Dean. who was i11di.cted on
Js November 2004 and convicted on February 2005 for 4wyear
16 which he to serve on 3, 2005 (Certifica.tes Nos. 49,
11 for 300,000 shares, No. 62 for 925,000 shares). Even though was
]S convicted under 18 u.s.c. 371' 2342, 2320 to smuggle
cigarettes into the "traffic in contraband'' etc.), he rem.ained involved in
10 Turan, later actlng throu.gh 888 Capital Marketing LLC Capital"); see
21
22 35. Despite Elite's corporate status being revoked and thereby non-ex.istcnt.,
n without power to engage in business, V anetik engaged in issuing "founders"
z4 stock in. Turan. even though. Elite"s purported Am.ended Artic1es had not even
registered. l shares were purportedly issued distributed
26 Vanetik to himself, Yuri and other insiders on or 4, 2004.
21 36. In an e .. mail on November 19, 2004, Yuri outlined Four-Phase Plan:
!2
311(;/2012 1:25::;10
#:9899
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Law OFfices
9?.5) 831-1899
14
2

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
1.6
11
1&
1!>
20
21
22
Z3
the discussions we had on Nov 19, below is list of
s.teps we would need to go through to prepare gray market for
the Kazakhsta.n. oil deal ...
Phase I - Merger Entity Created ( 1 2 weeks)
1. IdentifY Nevada or Delaware Entity that is: 0\'er 2 years old;
Clean; Has nt 1east several shareho1ders who have beett holding sha:res
for over 2 years and are not affiliated holding less than 100/(J; d. Has
business p}an ...
2. Reinstate in Nevada or Delaware and change name Turan
Inc. (Turan)
Open account and file SS4 (if never filed)
4. Obtain opinion letter re sh.ares
5. Obtain expedited CUSIP #
M.oodys or S&P
7. Transfer Agent
8. Broker
9.
Phase - Con1bination (2 weeks) ...
1. [Investor] acquires sh.ares in providing additional working
capital for audit and
2. Draw up merger agreement where acquires [the Concession) ...
3. Shares issued to side (49%) and to US group (Tony [Vanetik],
.. ., Miller, ... Trinh, etc.)
Phase III - Move to Pinks and Audit mon.ths)
4. info on pinks
5. Press relense (PR web. etc.)
6. Set the price on the pink:s high. (i.e. $1 with virtually no
The authorized capital of Turan was dec1ared in the Amended Articles to
25
50 million shares. Then, on December 14, even the
26
reinstatement of the corporation, Vanetik distributed 16.4 shares of
2
7
stock to 9 as follows: 2.8 shares to himseJf
2:4
37.
Amendcd Third
J3
1;2&:30
#:9900
15 2012 Schreiber 831-1899 15
1 (increasing bls holdings, based on purported EHte's stock, to 5.9 1.6
2 million shares to his son Yuri (increasing bls holdings to 2.7 million); 2.8
J million shares to V alueluck.c.omt Inc. ("Valueluck", Delaware corporation
4 dissolved at the time, increasing its to 3.9 0.4 shares
s to Defendant AJexandr Kushnerenko etc.
6 38. WhiJe Elite was revoked s.he11 company:o the 'isubscription
7 agreemenC' for the 26*plus shares did not for any
consideration for the shares. No record of subscription agreements has
9 found in Turan's reoo.rds. Most of the shares"' were distributed
V anetik to bimself and bls privies
7
having no connection with Turan 's business.
These insiders, however, sold these shares for mi11ions of dolJars i:n an
12 ThirdPttrty distribution, as cited Thus "founders; stock was
t3 issued among insiders without and while the corporation's powers
t4 were non-existent
15 39. On about 28, 2004, in accordance with the
16 whose mas.termind was Yuri) Vanetik's son, Elite was registered in the State of
11 Nevada as Turan. On January 4, 2005, Vanetik and Van Duren opened the
ts Turan acoount at WeJis f'argo Bank with deposit of showing that no
19 consideration was paid any of the "founders''.
Fraudulent Trading to Inflate Stock Price in Aprj1,qf
11 40. On 2005, Vanetik poswd public Notice of Sale of
22 Securities through the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) i11
23 D.C.; publishing its address at: 3720 South Susan Santa Ana,
92704. SEC granted Turan I.D, #0001317906. Notice of Sale of
Securities [Wlder Regulation D and Section 4(6) ofthe Act of l933]t
26 Item 06} provided little information.
Z7
#:9901
Mar 15 2012 l;OOPM Schreiber Law OFfices 3251 lG
41. February 28; 2005, and Turan entered into letter ofintent tmder
2 which received 51% of1EP's stock. As cited above, on 18,
pa.id Aral for this remaining 51 % in in. order that 100% ofTEP couid
4 transferred to Turan.
' 42. On March 14, 2005,. Aral transferred witb permissi.on, 51%
6 of stock in which had paid for. On March 26, 2005, second
1 agreement was made between and Turan. stating supplemental terms for
s in the U.S, as more fully described in paragrapbs 45-48.
9 43. In April of was listed Vanetik!> Yuri and other operato.rs
10 on the Pink Sheets, as directed Yuri in his e-mail the 4-phase plan. The
price was set at $1.2.50 per on and couple of
12 transa.ctions of only 100 shares on the Pink Sheets. Tbls manipulation was done
s3 to attract investors and inflate the apparent value of the stock sold to various
t4 investors.
44. Since its inception, has had no business revenues. From
J6 the start, Vanetik and certain other Defendants never intended to make Turan
n but as the vehic1e for an Ponzi scheme to divert the
proceeds of their tblrd party distributions to theii own including through the
19 accounts of ofl:Shore entities in Swit:r.erland, and to spend as Httle as on
20 business purposes.
(d) Iss.uing iq Order to Acquire Concession
45. purchase the 100% interest in the Concessiont Vanetik proposed to
Bektayev to compensate interest in transfening 27 million shares
24 in Turan (with 50 million authorized which represented 54% rnajority
2s stock). purohase contract also included an option on 10
26 shares in Turan that could exercised later. However, give11 the
27
!5
:J{1f,>l:/()1(' 1:2!;30 I'M
#:9902
15 2012 I:01PM Schreiber Law Offices
3251 831-1898
17
secret distribution of "founders;' stock a.nd the overissue, V anetik did not intetld
1 to meke that optio:n to Bektayev.
46. 24,381,862 of these shares were to held through Nevada holding
4 corporation (Trck Resources, Inc.; see be1ow) to set up specificaJ1y for that
5 purpose Vaneti.k: for Bektayev's benefit. Additionally, 2,618,138 shares in
6 Turan were to issued directly in Bektayev' s
1 4 7. That Maroh 26, 2005 agreemen.t represented to an.d YEv
that was authorized to issue 100 tnillion shares. However, both the
9 ficritious Janua:ry 25, 2005 increase in authorized shares and the
10 misrepresentation to and YEV in the 26, 2005 agreement
11 that TURAN was authorized to issue 100 million shares were fulse. On
12 February 7, with V signing as President of
prepared its Exchange Commission Information and Disclosure
14 Staternent pursuant to .Rule of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Js Item vi of this Statement stated that the number of total TURAN sha:res
16 authorized was 50 with shares outstanding. VANE11K and
11 with 50 authorized and almost 33 shares
J8 outstanding, therefore could not have validly co.mmitted as of that date to sell
19 27 shares in to BEKTAYEV and sa.le is void
20 un1awful and fraudulent .
.21 48. While the allegations in Parngraphs 47 through 48 of this Seco11d
:zz Amended Vetified Third Party CompJaint may vary in detaHs from the
23 allegations contained in Paragraphs 4 7 and 48 of the Amended Verified
2-1 Party Complaint, the variations de.rive &om addi.tiona1 information revealed
zs ftom discovery, including, not limited to the f'ebruary 7 2005 SEC Rule
26 Infonnation and Disclosure Statement, from obtained
21 between Iat.e September 2009 and January after the appeaJ in Ninth
16
11 - 12 1:25:30
#:9903
Mar 15 2012 l:OlPM
Circuit Court of Appeals No. 09-56329 and before the January 19. 2011
2 mandate issued the Ninth Circuit i.n this case. proceedings in whicb
and BEKTAYEV obtained this discovery were I.,ube}]ki
1
et. al. v. Turan
4 et aj., Carson City) First Judicial District, Case No.
5 submitted for decision following oraJ argument on January 11, 2012 in Nevada
6 Suprerne Court Case Nos. 55488t 56908. allegations are consistent.,
7 however, in that: the January 25, 2005 document that purported to increase the
s of authorized shares was bogus and w.ithout any authority, making the
9 representations to and YEV cont.ained therein false and mis1eading
an.d that the agreement would have given YEV and the 1argest
11 singl.e of shares in TORAN, giving these plaintiffs control over the
12 Concession. the statements on the 11JRAN share certificate
83, 93, and 95 show that 50 miJiion shures ofTURAN were a.uthorized
14 also represented to and TURAN that they owned 54%
ts interest in 11JRAN and thus over the Concession.
!6 49. According t<) written misrepresentations to Bek.1.ayev on April
11 1.4; 2005, and Vanetik's mis1eadin.g ornl statements, "true ofthe Turan
1 s stock couJd ascertained from such as and Zacks.
!9 That value was shown those sources a.s though the value of
20 shares was $12.50 consjstent with Yuri's 4-phase plan, cited above.
21 50. Oiven that Hsted stock quote price, tl1e Tumn stuck package
22 transferred to Bektayev and translated into an artificially inflated alleged
23 value of $337.500,000.
24 51. AdditionalJy, in June of Vanetik committed Turan to
2s $450,000. 11mt was never paid.
26 52. As mention.ed to set up Bektayev!s holdings in Turan,
21 on ApriJ 19, 2005, Trek Resources, Inc. was incorporated in Nevada,
Tblrd Party 17
311512012
#:9904
Mar 15 2012
Sahreiber OFfices
J25J 831-1899
19
with its registered agent at: 502 North Division St., Carson NV, 89703.
2 Bektayev was named sole director, secretary, and
und its sole shareho1der.
4 53. Vanetik purposefully used his contact wjth. the registered agent in Carson
s City, Nevada, to manipulate the Trek registration documents to to
6 remove Bektayev ftom.
7 54. On June 1525, 2005, when Bektayev and traveled to the U.S.)
s Yanetik gave Bektayev the Trek mco.r.pora.tion documents. V aneti.k declared
9 that Bektayev was the only incorporator
7
offlcer and so1e shareholder of T:r.ek.
10 Vanetjk also misrepresented that Bektayev, as the sole owner of h.eld the
1 1 title to the respective stake in
12 55. confirm that transaction, Vanetik gave Bektayev certificate for
100,000 shares ofTrek and told Bek:tayev to sign that ccrtificate as Trek's
14 president and as its secretary. did ref.ying on Vanetik's fiduciary
1s duty to him.
J6 56. Vanetik's :traud Bektayev and was preplanned Van.etik and
11 assisted Yuri, who was an attom.ey. Bektayev reJied on Yuri's Iega1 advice as
1& an attomey. Trek was organized as an entity in the categoty of business
19 corporation', in which Non-U.S. residents had no right to shareholders. lt1
20 particu.lart this prohibltion is cited in the IRS Instruction #2553, at ,4.
21 57. As result, Bektayev was of preplanned and calculated fraud.
22 Aware ofthe Vanetik asked Bektayev to sign stock certificaie in the
n.am.e of knowing that such certifi.ca.te was automaticaiJy void as
24 signed nonresideot alien. At the same time, Vanet:ik fraudulently caused
2:1 other stock of Trek to secretly issued to third parties. Instead of th.e promised
26 100% stake in Trek, Bektaye"(1 was given of interest in Trek; Vanetik and
21
J8
1 !3M492054825.1if- 3115/2012 1:2[):30
#:9905
15 2012 Snhreiber Law Offices J25] 831-1889
Yuri thereby fraudulently converted and Bektayev;s majority owt1ership
2 in
58. Based upon 1he .false representations Vanetik, Yuri and Van as
4 to the consideration being paid or to paid, on June 2005, Turan 100%
5 interest i:n. was registered with government of Kazakhstan.
6 59. On August 8, Vanetik and Van Duren, wrote letter to on
1 Tur.m restating their commitroent to issue the shares an.d citing the
& share Certificates tc issued to Bektayev and Trek.
fi 60. Van. Duren then. wrote to and Bektayev: "Yerk:in, As per
10 agreem.ent Turan ( .... ) is guaranteeing the issuance of total of 30,000;000
common shares ofTuran ( ... ) in return. the transfer of 100% ofthe stock of
12 Turan Enerpetroleum. date, we h.ave 138 shares in l certificatet
2,618,138 shares in certificatc and shares in tblrd. certificate.
t4 ll\e of 14,963,724 remains to transferred. We intend to issue that
1s number immediately upon receipt of the transfer of the remaining 49% of Turan
Enerpetroleum to Turan ( ... ) It takes 2 or days to have the certificated printed
11 our transfer agent and delivered to our office. If yo-u send me the names you
ts want on the certificates, 1 will order them immediate[y so there will not any
19 delays ... "
20 DuQlica.te Qerti:ficate Fraud
61. Trek acquired partiaJ ownership of when Trek was issued 9.8
shares represented Certiticate No. 93, dated July 12, 2005
23 The evidence shows that Vanetik and Van Duren directed Empire to cancel
24 #93 and to issue duplicate Certificate, No. 249, representing the same number
2s of backdated to the origin.al date of iss-ue of Certificate No. 93. Such
26 duplicate was reissued to Trek, and then used V anetik, V an Duret'l and Yuri
21 for conversion and frau.d.
Sccond. Third Pnrty CQtnplaint 19

#:9906
Mar 15 Law Officeg 831-1888
62. Also, on or about August 17, 2005, Trek received
2 repres.enred certificate No. 95. However, or1 ()f August lt 2007,
:; Van Duren and Yuri directed Empire to cancel Certifi.cate #95 au.d to
4 issue its dupJicate, Certificate No. 250 (Exhiblt representing the same
of sh.ares, backdated to the originaJ date of issue ofCertificates #95. On
6 information and belief, vanetik and!or Va.n Duren fa1sely declared under oath to
1 Empire that the Certilicates Nos. 93 and 95 (held Trek) were lost and needed
g to replaced.
9 63. duplica.te Certificatest Nos. 249 and issued almost 2 years later
as result of forge:ry and were, as th.eu: recovered copies
show, backdated three persons: Van Duren and signer for
12 Empire. Certificates were identified under CUSIP 89989J 1 6. These
&auds 'verc to in FFS Memora.ndum.; see D. These acts of
14 converting outstanding stock were used to deprive and Bektayev of their
ts ownership righ:ts in the Concession.
16 (t) !;issex Managers Ltd .. BVI.
J7 64. the unlawful third party distribution and other manipulative
JB techniques that Vanetik, Van Duren and other Defendants used, up to
19 shares in Turan were then transferred to Essex, BVI at the
20 ti.me and Bektayev were defrauded of their stock.
21 65. In July of 2005, 3.5 million shares of Turan stock were ttans.fem:d to
22 Essex, under unorthodox circumstances. On July 6, 2005:- Yuri received an
ma.il. annexing instmction letter and board resol.ution rega.rding the deal
24 wi.th The information'\ was Vanetik
7
s. own ceJJ phone number
2s in Califomia. The purported Board minutes described tra:nsaction in which
26 Essex wou1d purchase up to 1 shares at $6.00 per share. in
'2.7
Seotmd Comploint 20
311(}12012 1:2!i:30
#:9907
Mar 15 2012
Schreiber Offices
)25} 831-1899

comblnation of artd the provision of financial consulting services relating to
2 the raisjng of capital outside United States".
3 66. On July 2005!> Turan issued to Essex 3.5 pursuant to
4 purported deci5ion on July 11; 2005) signed Vanetik The stock price was
.s lowered from $6.00 per share to $1.75 per sha.re! rcsulting in Essex
6 receiving at least (for 3.5 miltion shares) in value among insMers,
7 without consideration. The 'comblnation of cash and fmancial
s in those purported minutes; unauthorized persons, was void
9 self-dealing transaction between insiders.
67. Also on July 12, 200St Vanetik and Van Duren sent an instruction letter to
11 Empire wblch included the same references to Vanetik's cell phone number and
12 di:rected that 3.5 million shares issued to Essex in 6 separate stock
1 J
14 68. From September of 2005 through of 2008, Essex. was given an
1s additional shares of Turan stock, from Hiep Trinh (1,120,000) and
J6 two other phantom
11 69. As set forth a.t the time when Essex received millions of sh.ares in
18 Turan, it was suspended (and eventually dissoJved) tor nonpaym.ent of the
19 fee for the registered age11t's services (Essex was not reinstated until
20 2007). Under the 1aws of the BVI, Essex had no power to transact
2! any business at the time it received the Es.sex was dissolved
22 shelJ entity, operated Yuri and Vanetik via for the so1e
purpose of the fra.udulent transfers of Turan stock and proceeds.
24 (g) ofTuran'$ S!&9k Market
2s 70. arrangements purportedly between Turan. were made
26 in reliance upon Yuri's Van Duren's mis..representations to
21 Bektayev, and to the public. Vanetik and Yuri caused to published
21
3/151:!012 1:25:30
#:9908
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Law Offices .325} 831-1898
1 Press Releases in the of that its stock was traded in tJ1e Over The
2 Counter market tl1e
71. In fact, onJy few trades in Turan stock, all between insiders, took place,
4 at $12.50 per share (!ach, for dcftauding the _public as to the alleged
.s rnarket value of Turan shares. There no open market for TURP securities.
N disclosure was as required the SEC.
1 72. In parallel to the steps to remove and Bektayev trom decision-
& m.aking at Turan, Defendants e11gaged in the distribution, i.e. not
9 but its whlch is to the mandatory registration
10 requirements ot' Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act under wblch such
11 distribution is treated as new offering.
12 73. Non,e of Cross-Claim Defendants registered federal or state agencics
1:t in connection with their ro1cs as underwriters and participants in the secondary
14 distribution.
ts 74. On January 7'!1' initial Director General holder of
16 3 million shares in Turan) died. In February of 2006, Bektayev traveled to Los
11 meeting Vanetik and several other Defendants.
t& 75. Bektayev accepted his appointment as the new President of rnP. Upon,
19 Bektayev's insistence that effort':i and funding for exploration and wells
:w new plans were made for the next series of necessary activities
21 on the Concess:ion territory.
22 76. In MarchwApril of 2006, Van an.d Alcx
23 to wbere they set up 'IEP' s new office in Snymkent
24 (Southern.
25
77. Apri1 2006, Vanetik: had secret1y Trek, ftaudulently
26
depriving Bektayev of controJ over Ttek. Vanetik caused Bektayev's name
21
fraudu1ently removed from Trek's list of officers. Vanetlk appointed
Seoond Third Party Cl)mplaint
22
11 - 311 fl/2:012 'l
#:9909
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Law Office5
.125) 031-1899

1 as Trek's president, director and and Asylkhan
.2 Brobayev as its secretary. The ensuing unauthori:l.ed appointments of
new officers included Vanetik himself as secretary and treasurer, Sergey
"' Lipatov as president and director, and Alexy Stojarov as another director.
s V anetik, who personally controlled Trek stock, presided over this thudulent
6 conversion ofthe st.ock issued to Bektayev.
7 78. On 25, 2006, filed comp1aint in Court in Almaty,
s Kazakhstan, claiming that uran was in bteach of contract. Jitigation
generated several other cases in Almaty, which continued, with mixed
10 throug.h tlte spring of2009.
11 79. On June Vanetik on behalf of Turan filed complaint,
12 Docket No. against and Bektayev in U.S. District Court.
a11eging breach of contract and other imp,roprieties. That complaint was brought
J4 in bad faith, as evidenced refusal to cooperate in discovery and his
lack of any effort to bring the to trial. V anetik dismissed the case
16 vo]untarily on MiU"ch 2007t the sa:me day that he was required to prod:uce
11 documents.
13 80. On 12, filed complaint in the 1nter-regional
19 Commercial Court in Almaty Ka1.akhstan, seeking to invalid the
20 agree.ment on the sale of' the 49% stake in The grounds for relief included
2.1 the fact tbat the agreemertt was not endorsed the authorities, as
22 required law.
81. On January 3 1, 2007, the Interwregiona] Commercial in
tendered dec.ision in favor of holding the transfer of s 49% stake in
zs invalid.
26 82. On March 2007, lhe Court of Appeals in Ka:.r.akhstan affirmed the
21 decision of the Iower Court on invaJidating the transfer of
Sec(}nd Comp1blnt 2J
#:9910
15 Schreiber Law Offices
.325)

49% stake in the Concession to ln AprH of was, accordingly,
2 re-registered in Kazakhsum, the 49<'.4 stake in being returned to
Upon that also fi]ed in lower Court in Kazakhstan claim
4 fbr the remaining 51% in on the bas:is that ltad the priority right
5 and had provided consideration for that 51% stake.
6 (h) V Qig Tmnsfern to BeHze Q,ffshore Companies
7 83. In Aprii of 2007, Vanetik met and h.ad discussions
s conceming) on informati.on and removing Bektayev from Turan 's
9 scheme. On information and belief, the parties agreed that Karabayev was to
10 organi?..c activities in Ka..zakhstan an.d in the U.S. at Bektayev and
1 1 with Koichumanov acting ()n bls otders.
11 84. As part of this unlawful agreement, persuaded Vanetik to
issue one shares to Okke, then incorporated ad hoc in Belize, on April
14 2007 (Certi:ficate No. 226) and 3 million shares to Alcina; also incorpora.ted
1' in Belize, on 2007 (Certificate No. 227). The Certi:ficate to Alcina was
16 issued 4 days before Alcina was incorporated in Belize.
11 85. In or June of2007, Ka.rabayev, Vanetik an.d Kushnerenko reached
ts new., three--way agreeme.nt. Pursuant to that Kuslmerenko,
19 purportedly acti.ng for Trek (instead ofBektayev) W<L4) to transfer Trek's stock to
20 three offshore entities identified representing that these tmtities
21 were controlled the required consu1tants and experts
22 86. Vanetik agreed to transfer 16 shares ofbls own shares to entities
tl1at was to identifY. Karabayev represe11ted to Vanetik and
24 Kushnerenko that these sh.ares would used to secure the consultantstJ and
zs ( on information and meaning those shares were to
26 transferred to the of influence" in Kaz.ak..hsta..11).
27
24
1:25:30
#:9911
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Offices
J 1 -1

87. In Iate July of 2007, Karbayev communicated to Kushnerenko the names
2 of three entities to which Trek was to transfer shares of Turan. Those transfers
J were to made to Defendants Pington (iocorparated i11 Belize), Varria.l
4 (incorporated in the BVI) nnd Coast (incorporated in an offiihore jurisdiction yet
' to ide11tified).
6 88. Tha.t a.greement essential1y involved converting and the
1 Turan stock held Plaintiffs through Trek. That fraud was conunitted through
s the use Vanetik; Yuri and Van Duren ofthe dup)icate Certificates Nos. 249
9 and issued ()n August 1 2007. As cited above, those duplicates were
with the same dates and for the identicaJ of shares given to and
11 as Certificates 93 and 95, dated July 12 and August 22" 2005
1z respectively. The Certificates were backdated Van
Duren and Empire, setting the dates almost 2 years earHcr. See Exblblts
t4 89. On August 2007, purportedly ratified transfers, of
ts 5,333 .. 000 shares each" to Pingtont Vanial and Coast. A(..1ing as
purported secretary/treasurer/director, Van Duren executed these transfers of
11 shares from Trek to Pington, Vwrial and Coast, each in care of Karabayevjos
1s Development LLC".
J9 90. On information and belief, Van Dur.en was person to send
20 these instructions to the transfer agent in Nevada, upon
2i Vanetik's insttuctions to him. Both knew that that stock belonged to and
n Bektayev and yet made false representations to Empi.re, wblch colluded
23 backdating the replacement certificates Nos. 249 and 250.
24 91. caused those t:ransfers of certificates i.ssu.ed to these o:ffshore
zs entities marked of Ibar Development LLC'), s rea1 estate entity,
26 w.ithout consideration ..
21
Set1onct A:rnended Thitd P11rty Con1plltint 25
:,11:;1$:3{) i"M
Case 8:09-cv-00059-JVS-MLG Document 441-1 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 25 Page ID
#:9912
Mar 15 2012 l:OGPM
Schreiber Qffices

92. As the evidence Karabayev and Voioshin also offered to
2 contribute $1.3 in Turnn. Voloshin received one rnillion shares of
Turan stock and one options to purcbase more Turan stock
4 at price of$.1 per share.
s 93. However, Karabayev, using J1is newly acquired operadve contr<>1, then
6 paid himself $800,000 out of this purported cash contribution, without
1 the stock issued for that amount.
s (i) Murder.on July 11. ;?007
9 94. As cited above, the spring and summer of 2007, and
IO Vanetik were engaged in distributin.g the Trek stock hcld and Bekta.yev.
11 and Bektayev were winning the Court decisions in Ahnaty,
12 Kazakhstan, against Turan, at that time. At the tirne Certificates Nos. 93 and 95
were Bektayev an cxtremely person to Vanetik
14 and Karabayev, since he held the originai Certificates and was also witn.ess.
ts 95. On June 2007, the AppeHate Court in Almaty, m.ade
16 decision in accordallce with wblch obtained the 51% stake in On
17 July 2007t Court issued its written decjsion.
1s 96. coupte of hours later on that same day, July 11, 2007 murder attempt
19 was made on Bektayev's Hfe in Almaty. Ka.zakh.stan in front of the office of
20 at 33 wh.ere Bektayev was stabbed an unidentified blred
21 Bektayev was transported to hospital, treated in the room
22 after seveml of life-threatening condition) survived.
97. At th.e questioning of police investigators who a.rrived at the h()spital,
24 Bektayev decla:red that he suspected certain. competitors residing in
25 naming V anetik and among oth.ers. The police department in
Almaty began an investigation search ofthe S1Jspect using sketcl1 ofthe
27 attackers appea.rance as described Bektayev.
Seteilnd Amended '11\i:td Party C\tmplaint 26
bi 1:25:30
#:9913
Mar 15 2012 l:O?PM Schreiber Law Offices
831-1888

98. As rcsuJt ofthe stab wound and tl1e prolon,ged trea.tment during and after
2 his was under stress and was inactive for severa1
months. During that period of time, opera.ting out of the U.S.,
4 engaged in e.tforts to damage the reputation of and destroy its busine..c;s.
s ownership of temporari1y retumed to the rontrol of Vanetik and
6 K.arabayev.
1 (j)

Frauds
s 99. As mentioned the attempted elimination of Bektayev took place
9 concurrently wjth the transactions wherein his stock was transferred Turan's
10 pr.incipals to third parties. The circumstances a:fter the murder attempt appear to
11 have heightened Defendants' inclinations to usc offshore entities for further
12 ftaudu1ent transfers invo1ving and Bektayev's interest in 1\tran.
1 00+ As specified aboveJ in July through. August of Turan issued
14 shares to Trek.
15 101. On. Augu.st Vanetik
1
Van Duren and Empire issued "duplicate"
16 Certificates Nos. 249 and 250.
11 102. In addltion to the transfers to three of Karabayev's offshore nom.inee.s,
ts i.e. Pington, Varrial and for shares cited 8 of
.19 additio.nal shares passed through Hinest incorporated in out of which
20 42,000 shares were retained Hines. See also f'f'S) s Memorandum"
21 .D.
22 103. As result ofthese stock manipulations, stock was issued in the
a.mount of 6,382,000 shares to Private Equity Management Inc. ePrivate
2.4 Equity"), also Vanetik's affiliate Hiep Trinh {''Trinh"), and.
2.5 controlJ.ed V
26 1 04. .In October 2007 Vanetik caused Trek to transfer 8,382,862 shares to
11 Hines. On or Vanetik caused Hines to
Second Am.endl;i;\ Third Complaint 27
$/1$1;1()1:< 1;?.':\:'!0
#:9914
15 2012 Law Offices

4,240,000 sha.tes to Private Eq.uity, controlled Trinh, Va.netik's
2 conspirator. on or March 2008, Vanctik and others
3 caused Hines to transfei 2 million shares (Certificate 16) to 888
4 controlled another privy of V a.netik; Dem

who was then, on
information and beJieft servi.ng tiroe in cited
6 transactions were admitted in Complaint, with chart at 35.
1 105. Private Equity, acting through sold, as admitted in
of the 4
1
240;000 shares misappropriated from and
9 Bektayev, for about $4,888,333. Trinh shared these proceeds with Vanetik,
through an entity controlled Capital Marketing Systems.
106. Vanetik was personally invo]ved in unlawful transfers. For
12 on or February 15, 2008, Vanetik: directed an instruction letter to
13 Turen)s transfer agent to the tran.sfer of Turan shares &om
t4 to Private Equity. Private Equity t:ransferred these shares to
!5 13 investors.
!6 (k) With Controlling StoGk; Tran.sferred. 10 Insider Companies
11 107. In of 2008, Karabayev engineered new "consulting
18 tbls time with nominee inoorporated
19 only on January 3 2008, less than month earlier. Karabayev >
20 us.ing ruse to deceive Vanetik, represented that giving stock to was
21 for preserv:ing the control ove1 the Concession, and arranged for 35
n shares ttansferred to
108. However, the 'principaP' in Karlan happened to another insider,
24 Karabayev's e]derly mother-in-1aw Manat Tokbergenova in Kaz.akhsUtn. Those
2s purported of in who were supposedly to receive
26 that stock, were none other than Kanbayev himself, collecting
27
Seoond Amended Ihird Party Complatm 28
1:25:30
#:9915
Mar 15 2012 l:OBPr Schreiber Law
925) 831-1899

certificates of stock in differe11t names. Tokbergenova (or rn.ther Karabayev in
2 her pla.ce) instructed that 15 sharcs were to 1e:ft with
1 09. The remain.ing 20 shares were to transferred, 1 each.,
4 to Varrial and .Pinc Brook. Cont:roversy Vanetik and
s sub.sequently eropted as to whether the instructions ftom were
forged and wh.ether Pine Brook was added ftaud. In of 2008, Van
1 Duren) who instructed Empke to issu.e that Certificate to Pine resigned
3 from any purported positions at Turan.
9 11 However, witl1 or wi1hout 1 shares issued to Pine Brook and
10 bls newly acquircd voting 1everage. Karabayev arranged for three more
directors to nominated to Turan's Boardt i.e. Koichumanov, Kenjegaly
12 Kenjebaev and Aibol Bekmukham.betov
al1 without shareholders election or approvaJ. None of these new directors of
t4 the Board spoke Engiis.h, nor could read corporate documents, and were in fact
ts simply nominees. Such .. nominations" were invalid because no
\6 one was listed on thc official Secretary ofState ofNevada website.
11 111. On Maroh 24, 2008, Turan issued an additional shares to .Pine
Brook. Pana:ma controHed V anetik and others. Then on
19 or April 17) Pine Brook sold 750,000 of shares, receiving
20 hundreds ofthousands of doHars, which have oot been accounted for to date.
:!1 112. On or 9, 2008, Essex tmnsferred 1 million shares to investors
24 Sam Lee Capita] (525,000) and to Steve (158,333).
23 Agreement between Lee and Essex wa.s in the name ''Essex Ltd.,
Swiss corporation'\ instead of disclosing the troe name (Essex M.anagers) and
2' the BVI tts the incorporation jurisdiction, with the registered agent Euro
1!6 American Trust and Management Services that collected the loca! agents'
21 services through First Intemational Bank (Cayma.n) Ltd.
Amended Thitd Party Complaint 29
#:9916
Mar 16 2012 I:08PM Sohreiber Law Offiaes
325} 831-189!-1
113. Sam Lee) and Steve Hwa.ng on
2 6, 2008 $1 million, on 2008 another an.d on June 19, 2008
$1,550,000, at $3.80 pcr share, totaling $3.8 On information and.
4 these proceeds originated, in ftom SLE Metal,. Inc., managed Sam Lee.
s 114. That am.ount, $3.8 million, was routed to the account of Pine Brook,
s controlled Vanetik and/or Yuri and others, on information and
1 belief, in Switzerland.
s Q) Tak:eove.r Kflraooev Using_Qffshore Alter Egos
9 115. June of2008, using his offshore alter egos, Karabayev completed the
ousting of Va.netik within Turat1J now prcsident and thus
11 replacing Vanetik. K.arabayev also called himself
12 Karabayev's crony, was unlawfully named secretary and treasurer ofTuran, as
well as chief operating officer. Karabayev also nominated Bisarya,. who was
14 his assistant at Ibar Developrnent, to secretary and treasurer. None
1s of these were lawful ... if for no other reason than
16 withdrew his purported appointment of barely month. after
11 appointing him .. an.d was left with 11.0 corpora.te authority whatsoever.
111 116. On infonnation. and sometime no later than. in April of 2008,
I9 Karabayev, who had never been lawfully elected of Turan, and whose
:w stock was inva.Jid, involved. f'FS to assist in bls getting control over Turan.
21 undertook to draft plan to and "re ... directly the
Turan Certificates that were originally transferred Trek to Vanetik's offs.h.ore
entities.
24 117. Exhiblt to this Second Amended Party Complaint represents
ot the Memorandum, dated July 29, 2008 outlined the
26 posed tl1e cancellation of and YEV's shares, and the
21 distribution ofthose shares to Karabayev's and. proposed what steps to
3115/2012 1:25;30
#:9917
Har 15 2012 Law Offices
925 "1 .t
1 undertake to the securjties ftaud and to cm1tinue the unlawful claim of
2 interestin Turan.
118. Among other things, FFS's Memorandun1 admitted th.at invesnnents
4 Turan in its own _p1acentent, i.e. $2,635,000, constituted only ftaction
s of the revenues of insiders in the third party
Turan's pu:rported officers' 1.1ltimately exceeded $J0 .. 15 .. On
1 June 13, 2008 Karabayev added himself and VoJoshin to the signatories for
s Turan's accounts at Wells Fargo, and on JW1e 26, 2008
1
eliminated Vanetik a.nd
9 Van Duren ftom the authorized signatories' positionst atl on the basis of invalid
10 minutes.
119. As another example, Exhiblt F of Cbart, on
1:z infonnation and created at the direction of or for FFS. The chart contains
the recommendation, which can interpreted to renew ''the criminal atta.ck:s''
14 against Bektayev.
1s 120. As these records show, realized that he illegally obtained
control over Turan while misappropriating stock belonging to and
Bektayevt who represented for him huge obstacle in bls schern.e to deftaud,
11 and that bls stock could invalid.
19 (1) lnvitation tQ 1Q Come tQ Califomi,3
20 121. In early Jun{\ 2008, Karab.ayev invited Bektayev to have ta1ks in
21 Califomia and then consented to Bektay' s accompanying Bektayev. The subject
22 matter was a.n attempt to clarity the situation, but, a.s subsequent events show)
23 the meeting was planned Karabayev, to dissuade Bektayev .&om defending
24 s in the Concessio.n an.d to give up bls struggle to regain their title
2s to Arys Concession rights.
26 122. On July 10; 2008, the meeting between Bektayev and Bektay, on the one
21 with and on the other hand., took place in the
Seoond Amended Th!rd 1)f!rty Co:rnplnil11
#:9918
Mar 15 2012 1;09Pr Sohreiber

1 ofiice at 940 South Coast Drive, Suite 1 00; Costa Mesa) 92626, wblch was
2 used as the purported new head ofi1ce of Turan.
123. One of the main topics of the convetsation was the attack on Bektayev in
4 Ahnaty on July 11, 2007. and VoJoshin declared that this matter was
5 handled $aid thut if it were done
6 then automatic rifles wou1d have been used to guarantee the
7 Bektayev and Bektay understood this as veiled threat that next time this would
done "professionally". Karabayev said th.at the fonner president of
9 Tur.an, Vanetik, was no louger in charge and that he would eliminate Vanetik's
10 involvement in that altogether.
11 124. On the next day, July 11, 2008 (which was the anniversary of the knife
attack on came to the hotel where Bektayev and Bektay
13 stayed (Westin hotel in Costa Mesa, and the second meeting took place.
14 125. When Bektayev and Bektay defended KECts interests,
1s apparently no longer controlling his temper, said to the visitors: are sick
tfl and tjred to make war. to cut (opponents) and to
11 126. In the cootext of the conversation, observing
ts langua.ge facial expression, it became immediate1y clear to Bektayev and Bektay
19 that wa.s invo1ved in the murder attempt on Bektayev year before,
20 on July 11, 2007; an.d now made Jittle effort to hide it. It became clear that
21 had not used that trip for negotiation purposes.
22 127. Bektayev and Bektay reso]ved to qujetly cut short that meeting and their
2J trip to Los urgently ch.anging their air tickets and leaving the next day.
Both were under the impression. that they could followed and that they '\Vere
zs unsafe or in some danger.
Z6 128. ln the e-mail to Bektayev on July 29, 2008; at 09:30:05, Karabayev wrote:
11 answer! I want to discuss the situation that you were in Iast year when
Se:oo11d Third Complaint 32
11:JM49?.!JM1.125.til 1:25:3{)
#:9919
Mar 15 2012 Law Offices
925) 831-1899

1 you were the subject to the murder attempt. As .I understood, you
2 tloequivocally suspect Yuri (Vanetik) and his surroundiog
peopJe. I have also suspicious tbat he was invoJved that."
4 an.d Jast .names in brackets addcd).
5 129. On August 2008, this action was in part to secure the
6 protection of federaJ law to P1aintiffs under 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513. On
1 August 5, Turan's office was served.
8 130. On that day, August 5, 2008, 5 and hours after that service on the
9 office. e-mail stamped the time Karabayev wrote to Bektayev:
10 you idiot are I was sure you were that you were
victim, actually, as it turned out you, are (obscenity, slang,
n redacted out). Tony was right to have had you, as used ( obscenity, slang"
redacted out)." (I-Iigblighting addcd).
14 l. 3 1. Bektayev and others close to blm at realized that "finisblng''
ts was alluding to the Jast conversation wi.th. him and Bektay
about the murder attempt on July 11; 2007.
11 .(!n) on j 1, 2008
ts 132. Bektayev then spent some time wh.ile traveling on business, trying to stay
t9 in Kazakhstan, as little as and accomplishing most ofhis wotk
20 telephone and e-maHs. Bektayev's family sent their cblldren out of the
2J country for safety. on infonnation and beJief) came to Kazakhstan,
22 ftom a.bout September 15 to October 7, and, on information and belief,
23 rumors were circulating that was prone to outbursrs of rage. and
24 Bektayev's life was in
133. One of the few occasions when Bektayev needed to visit o:ffice
26 was on 31 2008. At about 1 0:40 on tl1at day" when Bektayev was
27
Second Thir(l P11rly 33
#:9920
15 2012 l:lOPt

S25J 831-1899
coming to the office, an unideoti:fied person Bektayev, puHed
2 out gui1 with si1encer and fired at least 5 shots at Bektayev.
134. Bektayev was conscious, but under the belief of bls jmpending
4 he was questioned investigators as to whom he suspected.
s Bektayev said he suspected Karabayev, Vanetik and to for
what was don.e to blrn. This interv.iew was videotaped.
1 !n} Fraudulent to APOG
1
Seychelles ls1ands
s 135. the fa11 of Karabayev intensified his efforts to ftaudulently
9 transfer part or all of Turau' s purported interest in the Concession! held
10 through to APOG, shell entity incorporated in the Seych.elles .
. 11 Notwithstanding his lack of authority and Jack of approval shareho1ders,
IZ Karahayev undertook, in secrecy further unlawful activities.
136. As evidence shows, Karabayev was looking for to sell the
J4 concess.ion rights and to pocket the proceeds as quickJy as possible. On
information and he got in touch with fonn.er judge in the Financial
Court in Almaty Defendant Dzhakishev. Dzhakishev an.d his
[7 brother Amirgan, on information and belief, own house at 33 Skyridge;
18 Newport Beach, (acquired for $10.5 The title was he1d first
19 in the na.me of Raushan Kabykenova, wh.o that property in of
:w 2008 to an undisclosed trust. Dzhakishev:o being judge, a.ppeared in Los
21 Angeles area for certain program of legal education in the spring of
zz 2008. was joined Amirgan.
137. On info1'11Uition and despite the prohibltions in. Kazakhstan of
24 certain activities the brothers Dzhakishevs acquired Asia Paciflc Oil
:l' & Gas Ltd. (hereinafter ''APOG"}, s.hell incorporated on June
26 2008 in Seyche11es Islands, i,e. No. registered address at: Suite 1,
21 Avenue Providence, Victoria, Mahe,
34 .
#:9921
J5 2012 Law Dffioes
1
1 142. At the general meeting, l 17 shares were out of
2 50 million, which represented 60.23% ofthe a.u.thorized capital and constituted
As per Exhiblts B-D, Turan's authorized capita1 was stat=d as 50
4 million, within the four comers "f the Under Nevada
s authorized capital may not increased without tl1e approval ofthe shareholders
interests would have been affected; such ''increases" were void
7 as prejudiciaJ. to the rights ofthe hotders oftl1ese majority shares.
s 143. Out of all shareholders present or proxy, (89. 7%) were
9 voted and 3,100,000 (1 0.3%) were voted the election of the
inter.im Board of directors.
11 144. At the general erkin Akkuzov Yerkin Bektayev. Kanet
12 Meirmanov, Sablrgan Dushaliev and lgor were elected the interim
1.3 directors. The directors then elected Yerkin Akk:u.zov to the chainnan of the
14 jnterim Board and its acting chief operating officer, .Dushaliev to
J.s the corporate secretary and Igor Maximov to treasurer.
16 145. Out of all sharehol.ders present or proxy, 27,017,032 (89.7%) were
11 voted iifor, a.nd 3,100,000 (10.3%) were voted ''Against;' the proposed 12
s Resolutions, including removal &om any and all positions of the individuals
19 wh() had held themse1ves out as Turan.'s ditectors, without being elected
211 shareholders ( 1-3); liquidation of Turan and creation of Court-appointed
2J receiversblp for restitution to bona fide shareholders ( 4-5); annulment of
fraudulent transfers insiders and Cross-Defendants in. Seychelles,
23 BVI, Belize and (6); restitution of the rights under the Arys
concession back to ( 7); voidance of the offshore transfers
2:1 conceming the rights under the Arys concession (8); and other decisions.
27
Patty Comp1afnt 36
3115/2012 1:46:19
#:9922
H8r 15 2012 I:14PM Schreiber Law Offices 825} 831-1888
1 146, The new Board convened its ow11 meeting that adopted the By ... Laws of
2 Turan (pending liquidation) and made decisions upon. the implementaticn of
ResoJutions the Board.
4 147, On March 2, 2009; the new Board directed letter to FFSt
s firing that finn and its purported representation of Turan. The Boord
required. FFS to return the fees obtained fi;om. Turan either directly to
1 or for deposit with the Court. Board also required FFS to d.eliver all
s received in connection with the purported rep1esentati<m. of Turan to
9 designated attomeys in Canada. See
10 148. After the notice of the generaJ. meeting was
immediately started to liquidate tha.t Wel1s Fargo account, wiring out $2.5
12 million. In the latest instance; attempted to wire transfer $490,000
13 out of that Turan a.ccount; on information and as part of the unlawful
14 transfers.
15 149. attempted wire transfer was Wells Fargo, per request of
t6 the newly elected directors. The remai.n.ing balance of the proceeds left in
11 accounts at Wells Fargo wa...:; oniy the last $1.5 out of about $5
1s on information and bel.ief. balance of $1 rnillion is still
19 missing and unaccounted fur.
20 150. On 6, Turan's corporate reg1stration a.s foreign corporation
.21 doing business in Califomia forfcited but has since restored.
22. 151. On March 9) 2009, pursuant to the sbareholders' m.eetings Resolutions,
n the new Board to the Secretary of State of Nevada website the new
24 the d.irectors, secretary and tteasurer, with offices in
25 KazaldlStan.
26 152. On. March 11. 2009 Volosbln md Bisarya.. ftom
21 Califomia even after Turan was forfeited in Califomia. wrongfully deleted the
Scoond. Amcnded Third Party Compl.nint
#:9923
15 2012 Schreiber Law Offices
':25)
online information about the 5 new directors in and, acting in
z Ca.lifom.ia despite the forfeiture, their own names on the corporate
records webpage ofthe Secreta.ry ofState of Nevada.
4 153. After that unlawfuJ. sub8titut:ion of names) the new fjve directors were
reinstaWd the official websire in Nevada. Karabayev then again wrongfully
6 interfered with the lawful entrjes on March 2009 aga.in de1eting the
1 corre<;ted records and replacing 5 directors with as the sole director
s and Voloshin as and treasurer.
1/1 154. As mentioned on April 1 2009, the Department of Corporations
10 of California issued Desist and Reftain Order, for fra.udulent
activities, aga.inst the old management of Turan, including
12 and their citing the vio1ation Vanetik and others of
25110, 25401 ofthe Corporate Securities Act ofCalifomia (1968) an.d issued
14 an injunction pursuant to 25532 of said Act (see Exh. G).
!S 155. On information and Bisarya resigned ftom purported positions in
16 Forfcited Turan on April 19t 2009. Despite all these fa.cts, and
11 Vo1oshin still continued continue to un1awfu1ly hold themselves out as
1s officers of Forfeited Turan operatin.g in Califom.ia. Despite the forfeiture and
1!} the Desist and Refrain Order; they corttinue to operate with the unla.wfully
20 issued securities out of Califomia, with the very same o:ffice a.ddress at: 940
ZJ South Coast Drive, #1 00, Costa Mesa.,; 92626, cited in the Order.
2;z 156. On 29, 2009, the new Board. of five directors made series ofnew
decisionst whicl1 i11cJuded an offer of $500,000 rewatd to anyone who
provided infonnation the organizer(s) and contracted kiJ.Jets in the
2.5 atternpted murder attempts against Bektayev .
.26 157. At the Board atso decided Lhat all eigl1t offshore entities
21 .Panama, Bri.tish Virgin Islands), in whose Vanetik and Karabayev
Seoond Arnended Third Complaint 38
3115/2012 1:46:19
#:9924
Mar 15 2012 Schreib&r Law DFfice
(,!5J 831-189.9

received stock in Turan, in seJf .. dea1ing transactions and without
2 were void initio. Bonrd further demanded tlJat the fonne.r operators of
Turan. transfer all records to tl1e :filing of and state
4 rctum.s o:t the corporation whicb, on information and had never :fi1ed
s thosc operators.
6 V.
1 A.PMISSIQNS
s 158. After this initially Docket No. OScv 1339 was fi]ed in the U.S.
9 District Court for the District of Columbla on August 4, the intemal
10 conflicts among various Defendants and they started litigation among
11 them:selves, admitting most of the alJegations Plaintiffs. Their pieadings
12 exposed multiple ftauds and that Defendants used for Ponzi schemej
whose operators started to sblft the for the corpora.te rnalfeasance to the
14 other members oftheir enterprise.
1s 159. On August 2008, Yanetik:, the organizer of the Ponzi sch.eme in the
t6 name of Tumn;, :filed an action against Turan, Karabayev, Bisarya at the District
11 Court for Clark. County in Las Vegas, Nevada. The a11egat:ions veri.fied
18 Vanetik in that .action, Docket are deemed admitted blm.
19 160. On 22t 2008, Defendant AJexandr Kushnerenko, W11awfully
20 acting as Trek filed in intervention and motion to join in Vanetik's
21 action in the same Court in Las Vegas. That complaint was verified
22 Kushnerenko and its operm:e as his admissions.
161.. On. October 23t 2008, Turan (acting without corporate authority, and
believed to initiated Karabayev) filed an action in this Court against Yuri;
zs Vanetik; Hiep Trinh.; Dean Judy Trinh, Larry Alan Du Vall, NRG
Z6 Inc. (Nevada); Inc. (Delaware); Essex; Capital
/ 2.1 Inc.; Private Equity Inc.; 888 Capita(.;
39
311512012 f'M
#:9925
Mar 15 2012 1:14Pr Schreiber Offices 1 1 -1sss
American Heritage Funding I .. LC; Arc.her Resources six Nevada
2 corporations ); Pine Brooks and Hmes, Docket 08cv0 1 707. The allegations
dcemed admitted altbough. made in the 11ame of Tura11.
"' 162. 16, 2009, Vanetik filed second action against Karabayev,
s Voloshin. Bisarya, Vanial, Alcina; Pington, Okke, Coa.st, f'FS and
6 others, in the Superior Court for the Orange County, Docket No. 30-2009-
' 120084-CU-BT -CJC, :making simi1ar allegations and claims as in the Nevada
s action.
? 163. Vanetik and several other Defendants have been also subject to three
10 more laws.uits Turan's shareho1ders, who claim they were defrauded
Turan's form.er operaton; and demand the retum of their investm.ents and
12 damages. allegations underscore that Turan was operated as Ponzi
scheme, in wbich investors were lured the promise of extraordinary profits
14 but ultimately lost their investm.ents.
1s 164. summarize these adm.issions, Cross-Defenda.nts sold andlor
t6 ftaudulently the bo]ding rights under Certificates.
11 Nos. 93 and 95, representing the nghts under the Concession.
ltl Defendants misappropriated in particuJar, through Essex and Varrial,
1.9 compani.es, Hines and Pine Brook. both Panamanian companies,
20 Okk.e,. Alcina and Pington, aJl three being Belize companies. The allegations
21 admit that more than $5 million were routed to those offshore
23
24
COUNT 1: INFLUENCED AND
ORGANIZATION (RICO)
(ag.ainst all Defendants)
Ent,emrise
165. Plaintiffs incorporate reference all of the allegations in

paragraphs 22 ... 28-60} 53-69, 83-139, 158-164 as if set
27
forth i.n. fuH herein.
3115/2()12
#:9926
Hsr 15 2012 Law Offices
251
166. of the enterprise included TURAN, T.REK,
2 YEV} V
and The Third Party
. .f Defendants, particu1arly VAN DUREN,. YURJ, and and
KARABA YEV' s Third Party entities and the APOG parties named herein were
6 also part ofthe enterprise.
7 167. V and YEV were the drivi:ng forces in the RICO
enterprise and conspiracy.
9 168. and KARABAYEV, along witb the other of the
10 enterprise, used corporate entities and as their vehictes to act
11 with the common, shared purpose of obtaining and to divert
12 or otherwise use investment funds in to enrich them.selves, rather than
13 pursue the and natural gas exploration authorized th.e Concession.
14 following individual Defendants held the following roles jn the
t.s enterprise:
J6 held himself out as President and
11 thougb .. he was never e1ected sha.rebolders" meeting;
1$ involvement in the enterprise began h.is
t9 involvement with T1JRAN started in or aoout April 2007. Sin.ce Jme 2008;
20 though never elected shareholders or otherwise, YEV held himself
21 out ns President, Board Ch.airmant Plaintiffs are intonned
22 and believe, and thereon allege, tb.at V ANEnK brought KARABA YEV into the
scheme to eliminate YEVts and involvement;
24 At relevant times mentioned above, and may :Still
KARABA assistan.t. June 2008 started presenting
26 himself as 11JRAN's chief operating andlor treasurer;
27
113M49206812fi.lif- 311512GI;:'! 1:46:19
#:9927
Mar 15 2012 I:15PM Schr&iber OPfices 3251 031-1
d) held blmself out as an offi.cer of and mP
2 director sh1ce 2007;
prepared misleading infonnation for website
4 and assisted in other enterprise activitles;
:; t) is crony of April 2006 he held
6 himself out as president, director!O and treasurer, appointed
1
s individuals conducted and/or participated in management of the
9 enterprise.
10 g) YtJRl was founding officer of 11JRAN, Elite, and discussed
with and prepared tbe 19, 2004 "4-Part P1an" email.
12 YURI also was also involved with V and V AN DUREN in creating the
duplicate TURAN Certificate Nos. 249, 250) and wrote YEV the April
14 14, 2005 enuill giving YEV the trading pursuant to the
15 March 26, 2005 contract.
16 170. Th.e fo1lowing entities also participated in the enterprise:
11 IBAR is Califomia I..I.C, real estate development controlied
ts YEV, and J.ocated in Costa Californiat where
19 YEV VOLOSION! and operated and
20 IBAR is Delaware LLC also operated out of
21 location '\Vhere KARABAYEV operated.
2.2 171. This acted ns continuing unit engaging
23 the pattern of racketeering activity over an. extended period,
24 2004 and February 2009, even after the initia1 and first amended
2s complaints were filed in this ca.se. The state the pattem of
26 racketeering activity.
'2.7 Pattern 2f Rl,\eketeering Aetivity
Sccond Third Pany 42
1 13M492068128.tif- 311512012 1:46:19
#:9928
Mar 15 2012 1chreiber Law Offices
(Wire and .Mail .Fraud)
i J 72. 'The RICO enterprise alleged carried out its pattem of racketeering
activity through over 30 instances of wirc and mail fraud, as defined in 18
4 1J.S.C. 1341, 1343, November 2004 and February 2009. Wire and
:> mail fraud oomprise predicate acts, or racketeering activity, pursuant to 18
6 U.S.C. 196l(1)(B).
1 173. Use of mail or wires, or radio to execute the ftaudulent scheme occurs if
11- the completi.on of the scheme or prevention of its detection is in some way
9 dependent on s-uch use. one does an act with the knowiedge that the use
to of the mails or other means of interstate commerce tollow in the orditwy
t 1 course of or where such use can even though not actually
12 then that perscn causes the mails or other means of interstate
commerce to used. U'se ofthe mails or other means of interstate commerce is
14 here. is Nevada. corporation. Its officers and
ts di.rectors reside and/or work in Califomi.a. Pla.intiffs all reside in
16 17 4. Plaintiffs incorporate reference the allegations contained in paragraphs
t7 through D . Exhiblt to this SA (FFS memo). The
111 allegations in the specific paragraphs listed in tbls paragrapb and the facts set
19 forth in the referenced Exhibl.ts to tbls Second Amended Third Party Complaint
20 specifically the over 30 instances of mai] and wire ftaud un.dertaken
21 the enterprise and its 2004 and February 2009. 18
22 U.S.C. 1961(5) defines pattern ofracketeering activity as two or more acts
23 of racketeering activity within ten year period. The Enterprises over thirty
24 (30) such instances ove:r four ( 4) p]us year period far exceeded the statutory
2s Repeating tl1ese allegations in full here would unduly make an
26 alr:eady lengthy complaint that much more lengthy.
21 (Money Iaundering)
Second Amendcd Th!rd hrty
1:46:19
#:9929
Mar 15 2012 1:1GPM Sahreiber Offices
J25J

175. The RICO e11terprise alleged herein also engaged in at least 14 instances of
2 money to 18 U.S.C. 1957, which comprised
racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. 196l(l)(B).
" 176. P1aintiffs incorpomte refe.rence herein the altegations contained in
paragraphs 64-69, 99-1081- 111-120, as ifsct forth in herein. These
6 allegations describe numerous instances ofmoney 1aundering as part ofthe
1 racketeering activity and far exceed the minimum number of
s racketeering acts to comprise pattem of rncketeering activity as defined in 18
9 U.S.C. 1961(5). Specifically:
10 177. On July 4,. 2005, V directed V AN DUREN to have Empire issue
11 1 1 .6 shares to ESSEX LTD. (hereafter
12 'ESSEX"). shell corporation formed in 2002, its nominee office
l.ocated iD the British Virgin lslands operated and. YURl
J4 via email to carry out fraudulent transfers of stoc:k sa1e proceeds;
Js 178. Once investor funds were received in accounts at Wells
16 V ANETIK commingled and converted funds through his other NRG
11 Resources) Inc.,. tota1ing $3,101,412. From that sum only about half,
as went to Kazakhstan, where m.oney was needed for seismic exploration
and wells for the Concessi.on;
:w 179. On Augu.st 7, 2007 V ANE11K and transferred the
21 15,999,.000 sha.res to three designated entities as. follows:
22 1) 5,333,.000 shares via 11JRAN stock Certificate 252 to Pington
I.td. ("PJNOTON"), Belize PINGTON is either
24 YEV alter ego) or controlled in some way YEV;
2s 2) 5,333!f000 shares via 11JRAN stock Certificate No. 253 to V arriai
26 Financial I.td. ('
1
V ARRIAL''), Brltish Virgit1 Islands corporation. V
27
Second Antende(\ Third PIU'1)' Coroplt.int
1A6;HJ
#:9930
Mar 15 2012 I:17PM Schreiber 0Ffice5 J 1- 1
1 is either a.Iter ego, or controlled in some way
2
3 3) shares via stock Certificate No. 254 to Coast
4 Finance, Ltd. e'COAST"), beiieved to inoorporated in an
1
jumdiction and, like PINGTON and VARRIAL; is either YEV's alter
6 ego, or controlledin some way and. VAN
1 DOREN sen.t these instructions to Empire, TURAN's transfer a.gent. VANEllK
s and V AN DUREN knew this stock belonged to and YEV,
9 proceeded anyway to is.sue the instroctions to Certificate Nos.
10 250.
11 180. Once the 15,999,00 shares in TURAN were issued to
12 three (3) offshore companies, the balance of the shares previously held
13 TREK for

8,382,882 shares, was reissued as Certi:ficate No. 25 1.
14 balance was transferred on 14, 2007, Certifioate No. 260, to
1s Investments, S.A. Panamanian shell believed to eith.er
16 V a1ter ego or controlled in some way V ANETIK.
11 181. On .15, 2007, 6t382,000 ofHINES shares in were
ts. transferred to V privy Private Equity Inc. (''PRIV
J9 Nevada corpor.ation. on or 2008.
w VANETIK directed 11JRAN's transfer agent transfer 4,240.000 sh.ares from
21 to
22 182. Joe Chuang paid $3 million for 1 million sl1ares. conceal the money
2) received ftom this transaction, the ptoceeds were received in n.am.e of
24 Capital Systems, Inc., Nevada corporation cont.ro11ed
25 .
. 26 183. V associate nean Elite's initia1 shareholder, convicted
v of conspiracy to commit offense or to defi'aud the United was on
Ammd\'Jd Third Party Complaint
-:1/15/20121:46:19
#:9931
Mar 15 2012 I:17PM Sohreiber Law Offices
,25) f'. 11
J wlien onMarch 24,2008 VANETIK gave entity, 888 Capita1, .
2 2 million shares in via Certificate 316} which also originated from
's stock. its remain.ing 2,142,000 shares. later
4 redistributed. that .stock among 14 different parties,
s 184. secret YEV's
6 mother-in-Iawt instructed that 15 shares issued to and the
1 re.roain.ing 20 on shares in transferred to offshore entities,.
s including 1 million to V AR.RIAL.
9 185. In each ofthe instances alleged incorporation reference in
paragraphs 176-l S4, inclusive, the d.efendant members of the enterprise
possessed the requjsite intent under 18 1956 they knew that the
12 property involved in the tmnsaction comprised some form of unlawful activity.
JJ The ofthe defen.dant members ofthe enterprise their actions as
14 specified in the incorporated reference allegations in paragraph 176 ofthis
1$ Second Amended Pa:rty Complaint also falls witbln 18 U.S.C. 195 7 in
16 that they engaged in monetary transa.ctions invo1ving property derived fi-om
11 specified unlawful activity,. and knew that the proceeds were the product of an
1s un:Jawfulact. V VAN a.nd
19 YEV, using TURAN as their veblcle, knew that the 24,381 ,862 shares
20 in TURAN in the nam.e of belonged to yet they still proceeded
21 with: the fra.udulent cancellation Stock Certificate Nos. 93 and
2.2 95; backdating and replacing those Share numbers 93 and 95 with 249 and
23 250; an.d distributing 15;999,000 ofthCJse shares
24 entities PINGTON, V ARRIAL, and with the balance going to
21
l Sooond Thiro Party CompJaint. 46
113M4!12Q6812f\.tif- 311512012 1:46:1!)
#:9932
Mar 15 2012 Offices
1 V entity HINES, as shown in .AwE to this Seoond A1Dended
2 Third Party Complaint.
1
12
3 Plaintiffs' Ecpnomic ws from tbe Mail Fraud, Wire,Fraud, and )lone,I
4 Aspeets of the RICO Egt,emnse
' 186. As resu11 of Defendants' viclation ofRICO their commission
6 and wire traud, weH as money laundering, Plaintiff..-, were injured in their
7 business and property, pursu.ant to 18 U.S.C. l964(c) in the following ways:
1. 87. held property rights in its interest in the and in. its
9 agreement with to hold the 27 shares swck in
exchange for transfer of its ownership of which held the Concession.
11 and YEV also holds tort claims for frnud and conversion as property
12 rights, owned all and therefote all ofthe Concession the fune
transferred all of its rights in to TURAN. As shown
bad no authority to issue that of shares as ofMarch 2005, meaning
1s that such was fraudulent and void. Altematively,. if it h.ad,
16 the staternents on the share certificates received and
11 showed that and BEKTAYEV owned 54% .and thus conttol of
11 TURAN and therefore the Concession, and further dilutiDg th.e shares in
19 without shareho1der consent. At the 26,2005 agreement
:.zo made and YEV far the single largest shareholder in
:zt and therefore nutde it in essence controlling
22 188. YEV and were further in their business
2J and property when Defendants d.eprived irtcluding of all
24 of its interest in two years later falsely cancelling stock
'Th,e ac:ts aHeged to money taundering could alternatively compri.se
further instances of mail and wire fraud.
Scoond Thlcl Complwnt 4-7
113M49206612/Hif- 3115/.2012 1:46:1!1
#:9933
Nar 15 2012 1:1SPM Schreiber Law 325J 831-1889 13
1 Certiticates 93 and 95, issued to which was to he1d to secure
2 its interest hl backdating rep1acement share Certificate Nos. 250;
then transferring 1hose Certificate Nos. 249, 250 to KARABA YEV's and
4 desig:nees.
s 189, YEV were further injured in their business and property when
6 V ANETIK induced YEV to sign small busin.ess ownership
1 documents tl1at under IRS regulations problblted foreign nationals from validly
s holding interests in such and altem.atively
9 removing BEKTAYEV from any position with in favor of V
Ju cr.ony no later than April 2006.
190. BEKTAYEV and were further injured in their business
12 and property in that via V and V AN DUREN; breached their
agreement $450,000.
14 Atte.mets BEKTAYEV
(July 11, 2007 attempt)
16 194. Any act or threat involving murder comprises predicate act under RICO.
t7 18 U.S.C. 196l(l)(A), and vio1ations of 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513, and 1958
18 likewise comprise racketeering activity under 18 tJ.S.C.
19 195. Plaintiffs incorporate reference th.e allegations set forth in paragraphs
20, 21, 94 .. 99 12 1 .. 134
10
Exhiblt to this Second Amended Party
21 as if set forth herein.
22 196. The event"> surrounding the July 2007 attem.pt on BEKTAYEV's life
expJ.ain why this murder attempt part of the scheme. was winning
24 legal challenges in Kazakbstan against TURAN in 2006, after
2s YEV received 1etter from stating without explanation that
16 was n.o !onger President of 0n Janu.ary 31, 200 7, t..l).e lnter-regional
21 Commercial Court in ruled in favor, that KEC's
1:46:19
#:9934
Mer 15 2012 l:lBPM Lsw Dffices 125) 831-1889 14
t transfer of its 49o/ct stake in. was invalid. On March 7 2007 the Court of
2 Appeals in upheld the lower court decision. Accordingly the
following month the 49% stake in was retumed to
4 197. re .. registered its stake in also filed suit in
s 1ower court in for the remaining 51% interest in on the ba$is of
6 priority right an.d it provided considera.tion for that 51%.
1 YEV, the head which held the original Certificate
s Nos. 93 and 95, oomprised threat and riva1 to V ANE'llK and KARABAYEV.
On June 29,2007. the Appellate Court in Almaty. Kazakhstan reached
decision awarding the S 1% stake in Court issued its written
J] decision on.July 11,2007. IfKEC regained its 51% stake in would
12 hold the Concession. significant (if not only) asset would
out and extension, VANE11K'::; a.nd YEV's.
14
15 198. Later that day, someone attempted to murder YEV outside
16 office i11 Almaty, As YEV anived; the suspect, dresscd in
J7 track suit wann weather, wearing r.an towards
18 YEV and blm in the kidneys area. An ambulance took
19' YEV to the h.ospital. condition after several days jn life-
2r1 thre.atening condition. When police questioned blm at the hospital,
21 YEV suspected V and several others.
police drew sketch of the attacker and began search.
(Inju.ry to Business or Property arising from July 1t, 2007 murder attempt)
24 199. Th.e attempt on life necessitated prolonged treatment and
2s recuperationj leaving him. inactive for several months. During that tim.e
26 V.A...NE11K an.d atnong other defendants, improperly influenced
21 Iocaljudges in to invalidnte prior court decisions in favor
Sccond Amended Tbl:rd l'.a.tty 4.9
1:46:19
#:9935
Mar 15 2012 1:I9PM Schreiber Law OFFices 1?.5 .1 1 -1899
1 and to obtain ruHngs against Though th.e time Iapsed 11JRAN to
z the award ofthe remaining 51o/(l owt1ership to BEKTAYEV,
1.5
YEV and n1othe1 in law), through
4 certain Ka.zakh conta.cts they obtained, lodged successful belated appeal and
rcgained. its 100% control over YEV's injuries meant he was
6 to take action to counter YEV's contacts. attack thus
' resulted tn the loss ofthe Concession in jnjuring business or
s property. 18 U.S.C.
9 200. Facts uncovered to date showthat each Defendant received income from
10 the enterprise in excess ofthe statutory minimum
11 201. APOG defendants were part of this RICO conspiracy. After June
12 2008t began discussing the saJe of all or part of the
11 TURAN's main corporate with. the one of
14 whom, ALDfGAN was aj1.J.dge in the Financial Coort in Ahnaty,
rs Negotiations for qui.ck transfer took place in late 2008, and
I6 culminated on January 7, 2009, in YEV's transrer of 20% of
interest in the Concession to with an option 10 shares in
ts for $5 mHHon. The contact continued into the next w.hen o:n.
19 Febtuary 3, 2009 $5 million to 1URAN's Wells
Fargo account. The duration of conversations, which begwt after June 2008, at
21 the same time as the FFS memorand.um, YEV's threats against
.zz YEV and and through the time period in which YEV
:n suffered the second attempt on his life in October and into earty 2009, and
24 the number of conversati.ons between the parties gives rise to an inference of
2.'1 awareness on th.e part as to the nature ofthe schem.e.
26
27
Second Amended Third Pmy C(lmpli!.i:nt. 50
:\/1512012 1:4(1;19
#:9936
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Law OFfiaes
)25J
lB
1 202. .Each Defendant received mon.ey in excess of th.e statutory minitnum ot"
2 knowing the same to h.ave stolen, unlawfuHy converted or in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314, 2315.
4 203. Furthermore, cach Defenda.ot trans_ferred or received money in excess of
5 $5,000t knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted or taken, in
6 violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957.
1 204. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count, inclu.ding the statutory
ofdamages according to to 18 O.S.C. as well
9 as divestiture of1he Concession pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
12
])

15
16
17
18
Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter set forth.
2: OF LA WS
(AIIeged an.d YEVagainst all Defendants)
of of Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
"SEA ")(15 U.S.C. 78j(b)), SEC Rule 1 for obtaining ownership of
fraudulent or manipulative deviees ..
1. V VAN DUREN's, and T(JRAN's misrepresentations
to and YEV regarding control over and therefore over
tbe
19
205. Plafntif& incorporate reference all of the allegati()ns contained in
20
paragraphs 28-60, 75-77 ofthis Third Amended Complaint, as if set forth
21 h
m
2
:t 206. On 26, 2005, TURAN, V and V AN f)tJREN represented
23
to and YEV in an agreement entered into that da.te
24
TURAN, and YEV that in exchange for conveying 100%
25
interest in wblch controlled the Co.ncession) to and
26
YEV would receive 27 million shares in V signed
21
the 26, 2005 agreement as llJRAN's Chairman. and V AN DUREN
#:9937
Mar 15 2012 I:20PM Offices
125} 831-1898 17
1 as TURAN's President. Ofthose 27 miJlion shares we.re
1 issued directly ta th.e remaining to corporation,
in whicb AYEV was to President and so1e Director.
4 207. in connection with this transaction are as foJiows:
s President and its Secretary V AN
6 represented to BEKTAYEV on the face of the TURAN stock Cert.ificate No.
1 CUSIP 89989J 1.0 6, ft-,r shares to BEKTAYEV, dated 3; 2005,
3 that 11JRAN had 50 authorized shares. V and V AN DUREN
9 signed Certificate No. 83, as President and respectively.
to its President V and its Secretary VAN DUREN,
1.1 represented to BEKTAYEV and on the face of the stock
12 Certificate No. 93. CUSIP 899891 10 6, for 9,800t000 shares to dated
JJ July 12, that had 50 million authorized shares. and
14 VAN DUREN signed TURAN Certificate No. 93, as President and Secretary,
ss respectively. its President and its Secretary 'VAN
DUREN, represented to BEKTAYEV and on the face of the
11 stoc.k Certificate No. 95, CUSIP 89989J 10 for 14,.581,862 shares to 1REK,
1s dated August 2005, that TURAN had 50 authorized shares.
t9 V and VAN DUREN signed Certificate No. as President
20 and Secretaryt tespectively. (27) million CJUt of 50 is
21 54%. over majority ofthe authorized shares in
1.. Th.ese misrepresentations were material. Holding m.ajority
n interest in acquiring first 51% and the.n the rema.ining 49% of
24- company that controlled an oil and natural gas ex.plomtion and extraction
2s worth over $2 and $1 billion in profits over the next twenty
26 five (25) years cert.ainly matte.r to wblch m.an wouJ.d
2'1' a.ttach importance in determining bls choice of action in the transaction.
311&/2012 1:4G:19
#:9938
Har 15 2012 Schreiber Law Offices 831-1889 18
2. These misrepresentations were false. The November 2004
z email f!om YlJRI to V cont1rmed V aim to majority
interest in and control over the Concession. The email specified that
4 together; and YEV (''the Kazakh side'') wou1d on}y ho1d of
) witb holding the rest, .51%. VANETIK, and
6 V AN DIJREN claimed th.at they TURAN to increase the of
1 authorized shares 50 million to 100 million on Janu.ary 25,
s even issuing the shares to and YEV (however,
9 VANETIK and V AN DUREN acted without proper and valid authority in doing
10 so-see and acted at least twice more to increase th.e number of
JJ shares ftom 100 million to 150 on Febroary 20, 2007, and
12 again on March 2008, from 150 to 200 million, without disclosure to
and YEV, aftcr they received TURAN stock Certificate Nos. 83)
93, and 95. Twenty-seven (27) million i$ majority only of50 million, not 100,
as 150, nor 200
J6 3. VAN. DUREN, and acted with
11 or .recklessness comprises scienter. V ANETIK beld b.imse1f out as
ts TURAN's a.nd met wi1h. BEKTAYEV, who acted
19 on his own behalf and as on behalf devised
2.0 the scheme in November 2004 and negotiated the
21 deal with YEV and to acquire and the C'.-oncession.
22 V was involved in operations down to the smsllest
cornponents. For example, V ANE11K and V AN D'UREN opened
24 Fargo bank account on January 4, 2005. V V AN DUREN, and
2s therefore knew that the representa:tions on th.e face of 's and
26 YEV's stook certJficates were :false.
'17
S3
11$M4920t>6126.ttf. 1:41:\:HJ I>M
#:9939
15 2012 125) 831-1899 f'. 19
4. These misrepresentations were in connection with 1he purchase
2 or sa1e of security. Statements of 54% interest in dollar oil and
natural gas concession would reasonably calcuJated to affect the investment
4 decision of investor. YEV and were exchanging
s shares in for shares in T{]RAN.
<. A1tematively, i.n the March 26, 2005 agreement
7 V ANE11K and V AN DUREN, representcd to YEV and
s that was authorized to issue 100 million shares and
9 therefore. even though almost 33 million shares stock had previously
been issued, was authorized to issue the 27 million shares. to and
BEKTAYEV in exchange for 100% which owned the Concession.
12 1. This misrepresentation was material. Holding 27 rnillion shares,
near majority interest and what would appear to the la.rgest single of
14 shares in cQmpany acquiring first 51% and then the remaining 49% of
1s c:om.pan.y that controlled an oil and natural gas exploration and extraction
concession worth over $2 and $1 in pro:fits over the next twenty-
17 five (25) wou1d certai.n]y matter to wblch would
1s attach importance in. detennining his choice of action in the transaction.
!9 2. misrepresentation of authori.ty was false. may
20 point to putpOrted J.anuary 2005 authori.zation to increase the
21. number of authorized shares in TURAN ftom 50 million to 100 million.
22 However, the fictitious 25, 2005 increase in authorized shares and
23 th.e mis.representarion. to and YEV in the March 26, 2005
agreem.ent that was authorized to issue 100 roillion shares we:re false.
2s On February 7, 2005, TURAN. with signing as President of
26 prepared its Securities Exchange Commission Information
27 Disclosure Statement pursuant to .Rule 15C2-ll of the Securities Exchange Act
S4
#:9940
Mar 15 2012 I:22PM OfFices 831-1899
t of 1934. Item vi of this Statement stated that the number of'total shares
z authorized was 50 with. 32t766t667 sl1ares outstanding. and
3 with 50 million. autl1orized and alroost 33 m1llion shares
4 therefore could not have va!id.Jy committed as of that date to seH
s 27 million shares in TORAN to YEV and much less the 3
G shares to Kassymov and the option for thc additional 10 million shares of
1 TORAN to YEV or
3. 11JRAN and VANE11K acted with scienter. or
!> recklessness oomprises scienter. V ANETIK acted as Chainnan and
10 V met with YEV. who acted both on his cwn behalf and
1 t as President, on of V devised the schcme described in
12 YURI's 19. 2004 emaH. negotiated the deal with
BEKTAYEV and to acquire and thus the Concession. VANE11K
14 signed the 26, 2005 agree.ment for V ANETIK also signed
1s February 7, 2005 Securities Exchange Conuuission Information and
16 Disclosure Staremen.t pursuant to Rule 1 5C2-ll of the Securities Exchange Act
11 of 1934 as President. VANET.l.K was involved in
1s operations down. to the smalJest components. For example, V and
19 V AN DUREN opened 11JRAN's WetJs Fargo bank account on January 4
7
2005.
zo V ANE11K; V AN DUREN; and TURAN therefore knew tha.t the representations
z.1 tbat TURAN was authorized to issue 100 shares of TURAN and
zz therefore its authority to issu.e 27 shares ofits stock to was fal.se.
4. These misrepresentations were in connection with the purchase
or sale of sec.utity. Statements of the corporate authority to issue 27
25 s.hares in exchange for the 1 interest in dollar oil and
gas roncession would calculated to affect the investment
27
1 Second Amcnded Party CompJaint ss
113M49206812B.tif-
#:9941
Mar 15 2012 I:22PM Law Offices
125) 831-1899
1 decision of investor. YEV and were exchanging
2 shares in for shares in
3 5. These misrepresentations induced YEV to
4 enter into the transaction.. Based on the staternents made via
s V and V AN DUREN; that could issue 27 mH1ion authorized
shares to YBV and wi.th and YEV, entered into
1 the March 26, 2005 agreement conveying 100/0 ot' a.nd thus
s Concession, to
9 6. YEV suffered loss causatio:tt andlor economic Joss
to when were induced to seH the 100% in and thus the Concession, to
1 t in exchange for the 27 million shares. Concession was $2
12 in revenues. over its 25-year span, with exceeding $1 billion
duri.ng that time. Accordingly, and YEVt who owned substantial
J+ number stock, suffered hann.
1s 7. and YEV may seek rescission, i.e. retum of the
J6 shares i.n in exchange for of all of the consideration provided. to
11 i.e. ofthe shares as an altemative remedy to damages.
1s 2. V aod TURANts misrep:reseutations
19 regarding the val.ue of shares.
20 208. Plaintiffs rewallege herein the allegations contain.ed in paragraphs 120, 22w
21 23, 70-71, 1.12-1 Exh. to this Seoond Amendcd Party
:u Comp1aint, as if set forth in full berein.
209. The March 26
7
2005 agreement between
and BEKTAYEV, providing for the transfer of 100% in exchange for 27
:zs nlillion in to and YEV, in addition to the
:w represen.tations alleged also represented that the April 30, 2005
1.1 closing date specified in the agreement, TURAN would provide YEV
'113M49206B12B.lif- 1;46:19
#:9942
Har 15 2012 Offices
]25) 831-1898
1 and the share purchase price and the NASDAQ-issued trading symbol fo1
z On April 14, 2005, YURI, on behalf of sent YEV
an cmail pt-oviding BEKTAYEV and the trading for
., that date, the onJy trades ofTURAN shares had been made at $12.50
' per share, insiders V and/or Alex AHkbari.
6 210. representation was material. Holding $337,500,000 of based
1 on 27 shares ofthe represented $12.50 share price, ofa company
s that controlled an oil and na.tural gas exploration and extraction concession
9 worth over $2 and $1 blllion in profits over the next twenty-five (25)
years would certainly matter to which would attach
11 importance in bls choice of action the transaction.
12 211. The representation regard.ing share price was false. There was no
mark:et for s.hares in TURAN, an.d the among insiders were done
14 to create an artificially high market and de:&aud YEV and as well
as the as per Phasc 3 ofYURPs 2004 4-phase plan that
tt!i laid out V YURI's, and TURAN)s fraudulent scheme. Exhiblt to
11 this Amended Complaint is Zacks investrnent Research stock quote for
ti TURAN dated JuJy 31 2008, which shows TtJRAN;s tra.ding price at
19 $12.50 per sbare, but shows vo1ume of trading in check of
zo nasdaq and Za.cks.com shows using the trading symool directed YURI,
21 is no longer validJy traded.
z;z 212.

and YURI acted with scienter in doing so.
13 V ANE11K signed the March 2005 agreement with YEV and
negotiated the agreement, and devised the scbeme that YlJRI described in .bls
2' 19, 2004 email, which descrihed "set[ting] the price on th.e pinks high
(i.e. $10) with virtually no 'YtJRI out1ined the scheme in the
v November 19, 2004 email he wrote. YU.RI also emailed BEKTAYEV on April
Amooded Tb.ird Pmty Comp!$1nt 51
113M492068128.tlf- 3115/2012 1:46:19
#:9943
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber OfFices J25J 831-1899
1 J 2005 to inform him of the trading for YEV and
2 to determine the trading price, as required in the March 26, 2005
:J agreement. V engineered the insider trades that set the arti:ficia1Jy high
4 $12.50 trading price.
s 213. The$e misrepresentations were in. connection with the or sale ofa
6 security. Sta.tements that 27 shares would worth $12.50 per
7 in do11ar oil and gas concession would
s calcuJated to affect the investment decision of investor.
9 BEKTAYEV and were exchanging shares in for shares in
10 TURAN.
214. As result ofthe representation regarding share value, BEKTAYEV and
12 proceeding ro closing the transaction pursuant to the March 26J 2005
13 agreement. and transferred their 1 interest in and thus, the Concession,
J4 to YEV and therefore allege reliance/transaction
1:s causation.
16 215. YEV and suffered loss causation. later trades
J7 were not public and were for much lower per share price. issued 3.5
ts shares to ESSEX, on July12, 2005,
J9 decision dated July 1lt 2005 and signed

at $1.75 per share.
zo contrast the second of th.e stock Certificates issued to YEV
and in the for 9.8 million share.s, for wblch BEKTAYEV
22 and paid the equivalent of $12.50 per sh.are in the fi>nn of and
therefore the Concession, was signed V ANETlK and V AN DUREN same
24 day as the issuance ofthe 3.5 shares to ESSEX.
25 216. induced Anthony Nguyen to buy 80;000 shares on
or Janum:y 17, 2006, at $2.50 per sh.are, not from 11JRAN, but trom
21 TURAN shareholder V controlled YUR1. V
58
#:9944
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Offices
1 used ESSEX to se11 1 tnillion shares in to investors Sam Lee (316,667),
2 MJ Capital (525)000), and Steve Hwang (158)333) at $3.80 per share on or
9; 2008. PINE VANETIK-controlled offshore company,
4 received the $3.8 in stook sale proceeds.
s 217. YHRI, ESSEX, and PINE BROOK
for trades of sh.ares of stock at prices
1 $12.50 per share. and YEV are entitled to either rescission
s of the transaction and the retum of and/or the Concession to them, or the
9 difference in share prices as follows: $10.75 per share for the shares obtained
10 ESSEX at $1.75 per share; $10 per share for the shares purchased
1 t Antbony Nguyen; and $8.70 for the shares purchased Sam ,Lee, Capital,
12 and Steve H\vang. ESSEX shares represent of the sold so this
t3 court could apply that $10.75 per share price differential to 76% of the 27
shares .heJd YEV and The shares obtained Nguyen
t.s represent 1.75% of the sold shares, so tbls Court could apply the $1 per share
16 differential to 1.75% YEV's and shares. The shares
11 Sa.m Lee, .MJ and Steve Hwang represent 21.8% ofthe sold
so the $8.70 per share price differetltial couJd apply to 21.8% ofBEKTAYEV's
19 and shares.
20 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
21 3. Fraudulent caneeiJation of and duplieate
22 shares, and transferring those duplicate shares to their entities
23 VANETIK, VAN DUREN, PINE
24 YUR.I, ALCINA, PINGTON,
2S V ARRIAL, COAST, and (scheme or artifice to
26 defraud or act or praetice Vihich would opemte ss fraud to SEC
21 Rule
Seoond Thitd. Party Complaint 59
1:46:19
#:9945
Mar 15 2012 J2SJ
218. .Plaintiffs incotporate reference herein the allegations containoo in
2 Paragraphs 1-20, 22- 23, 28*60!> 99-111, 164) as wel1 as
through to this Second Amended Third Party ComplaJnt; as if set
4 forth herein.
5 219. In June and who named
6 to replace YEV as head ag.reed to transfer 15r999,00{) shares
7 in to th.ree entities KARABA YEV designated. YEV wa.s to
s use shares to secure and to h.elp TURAN i.n
9 Pursuant to tbls 1ate July 2007 YEV told
the names of the three entities that would receive the
11 shares.
12 220. The Defendants listed in immediately prior to 263 of this
Amended Complaint obta.ined these 15,999,000 sh.ares employing
14 scheme or a.rtifice to and/or an act or practice comprising fraud
J.s against BEKTAYEV and pursuant to SEA U.S.C. and
16 SEC Rule C.F.R. as follows:
11 221. On July 22=- on behal.t: signed an affidavit
11 statin.g that share Certifitiates 93, 95 were lost. VAN DUREN, on
19 TORAN's sen.t the affidavit and resolution that
:zo he signed, to stock agent EMPIRE. On or about August
21 VAN DUREN, and replaced 11JRAN stock Certificate
zz Nos. 93 and 95, previously issued to for and BEKTAYEV on July
13 12, 2005 and August 22) 2005 for 9.& million and 14,581
1
862 shares.
24 respectively) with newly-issued Certificate Nos. 249 250 in the
2s same and backdated them. to appear as if they were issued on July 12,
26 2005 and August 22, 2005. The and backdated shares signed
21 VANE11K and VAN DUREN via used ditferent form of stock
113M492008128.tif- 311612012 1:46:19
#:9946
15 2012 Schreiber Law Dffiees
J25) -1899

1 certi:ficate that, un1ike the origina.l Nos. 93 and 95, omitted the number
2 authorized shares on the tace of the certificates. See also Exhiblts 1, J to this
Third Amended Complaint.
4 222. Less. week later) on August 7; 2007, and
s transferred the shares in TREK's
transfening the newJ.y .. issued and back-dated 11JRAN stock Certificate Nos.
1 249 and 250 to designa.ted entities:
s 5;333,000 via stock Cerclficate No. 252 to PINGTON;
9 via stock Certificate No. 253 to V ARRIAL; and
5,333,000 via TtJRAN stook Certificate No. 254 to COAST.
[1 PINGTON, VARRIAL
1
and COAST are all either alter
12 or oo:ntrolled in some way YEV. V and V AN DUREN
13 were for sending th.ese to transfer
J4 agent.
1.s 223. After the 15,999,000 shares in TURAN were issued to YEV's
16 three (3) offshore companies. the remaining balance of the shares beld
11 for and were reissued as Certificate No. 251.
1s then transferred that share balance in 2007 to
t9 V ANETIK's alter ego or an entity controlled V ANE11K in s001e
20 via share Certificate No. 260. In turnt on 15, 2007,
ofthe remaining 8,382,862 shares in
22 held TREK to bls entity PRIVATE
:u 224. The cancelJation of the original share Nos. 93 and 95 and
24 reissuance and backdating ()f share Nos. 249 and 250 to V and
2s en.tity scheme or artifice to defraud, or
26 altematively comprised an act or practice ccmprising frdud against
21 YEV and stock Certificate Nos. 93 and 95 were never
113M492061J1:11).1\f, :3/15/2012
#:9947
Mar 15 2012 1:2SPM Schreiber Law
325] 831-1898
1 1ost. BEKTAYEV and still possess those originaJ slwe Certificates.
2 Exhiblts D to this Second Amended Third Party Comptaint. No one at
TURAN; not VANE11K, nor V AN DUREN, YEV, nor
4 ever discJosed to or BEKTAYEV what defendants
s were doing to and 24,381,862 sharcs in At the
6 time YEV was recovering from the wounds he sufiered in. the July 11,
1 2007 attempt on his life (see RICO claim, supra).
8 225. The cancellation, backdating, and 24,381,862
9 shares in &om to YEV or any tblrd party was
to information that person in shoes would find significant.
1 J(EC's agreement with and WRAN was that would own all of
12 As counsel pointed out July 2008:
14
lS
J6
17
1.8
20
2J
22.
The appointment ofTrek's officers/directors and the
removal may not legal Be1ctayev (Trek's
sole officer/director at the time of the appointme:nt/remova1) did not
authorize these actions. If the rem.oval ofBekta.yev was not legal.
the divestment ofTrek'"s stockholdings in Turan is not legal; nor are
the subsequent transfers to et al. if any
11JRAN officers or directors facilitated any Turan
will likely the subject of regulatory scrutiny and private
lawsuits .... , At this po-int Bektayev's attomeys do not know that all
ofthe shares ha.ve transferred out ofTrek. lawsuit is
certain if they aware ofthis fact (Exh. to this
Second Amended Third Party Complain.t, 1 1 ,3).
23
MateriaHty here is an understa.tement.
24
226. TtJRAN, V AN piNE BROOK,
2
, and ESSEX acted with scienter. VANE11K and VAN DUREN, on
26
s behalf and 1heir own, acted with scie:ntel'. ANEDK and VAN
27
DUREN .negotiated the 2005 deal to issue and the 27
#:9948
15 2012 I:25PM Offices
.3251
1 sh.ares in TURAN and for BEKTAYEV to co.ntrol in exchange
z for transfening KEC's Concession to and VAN DUREN
thcrefore knew that the stock issued to belonged to but
4 proceeded anyway to i.nstmct to Certificate Nos. 93, 95, re ...
j issue the as Certi:ficate Nos. 249 and 250, and transfcr them to
<i YEV' s designated entities. .Entities PINE and
7 ESSEX are all entities controlled V or V ANETIK's alter ego
s and therefore also acted with scien.ter. are all sbell companies
9 incorporated off-shore that also do business in the United States at the same
10 address as nJRAN wbcn V ran
1 J 227. This particular claim arises out of non-disclosure of material facts one
12 with duty to disclose those facts to BEKTAYEV and need not
show reliance in fhis particular instance.
t4 228. trans.actions were in connection with the purchase or sale of
1s security. BEKTAYEV's and entire investment in TURAN was
16 conve.rted and eli:minated, while V ANEUK, his entities PINE
11 and ESSEX, and YEV and bls entities PINGTON,
ts VARRIAI.,, and COAST all took the gains ofthese transactions. say this was
J9 akin ro furced sale would an un.derstatement. inve.c;tor would
20 certainly want to know and act deprived of their equity in the
z1 company.
:zz 229. VARRIAL, and COAST are affiliated with
:!.'+
principa1
7
Manat is KARABA YEV
2
s
24 lives in AN, AND DOES NOT SPEAK OR READ EngHsh.
2s issued the instructions directing the transfer of shares t.o
V .AR.R.IPJ.., PINGTON, and COAST. YEV directed that the TURAN
21 stock certifico.tes issued to these entities marked "care of
1!3M492068128-Iil 3115/?.0121:46:19
#:9949
15 2012 Offices
J25.1
1 LLC, KARABAYEV;s real estate entity. and
2 ALCINA are similarly YEV's alter ego or are otherwise controlled
Their U.S. address is at real estate
4 entity and address at tha.t time,
:s 230. The ftaudulent of stock Certificate Nos. 93 and 95
.s and re ... issuance and backdating of .stock Certificate Nos. 249 and 250
7 caused and YEV to suffer Ioss causation
s completely deprived of it.c; stake in 11JRAN and the economic
9 of the Concession. is therefore entitled to either rescission or
damages.
231. YURI is also subject to to and YEV as aiders and
12 abetters under Rule 1 and are alternatively subject to control person liability
1:1 '34 SEA 20(a)[l5 U.S.C. 78t(a.)]. As shown. there are several
14 violations offederal securities Iaws, and YURI exercised actual power or C()ntr()J
J$ over and TREK. son, has actively involved
in this scheme ftom the YURI drafted. the "4 Phase Plan" email.
11 was Secretary ftom April 2001 to 2004, and was
ts also involved with V ANE11K and V AN DUREN in creating the
19 TtJRAN Certificate Nos. 249, and wrote BEKTAYEV the Aprill4, 2005
email giving YEV the trading tn the
2J 26, 2005 contract, and directing BEKTAYEV to verify the 1isting on .. Hne,
22 showing the artificially blgh share price.
23
24
26
21
3. CONVERSION
All Detendants, Except En1pire)
232. 'Th:ird-Party Plaintiffs re-allege alJ ofthe allegations contained in
#:9950
15 2012 Schreiber Law
J25J
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
17
1&
19
.21
26
27
pamgraphs 1-20, 22 ... 23. 28 .. 60,. 85 .. 91, 116-120; 164, as well as
Exblblts throu.gh to this Second Amended Third Party Complaint, as
if set forth herein.
233.As stated Vanetik and Kushnerenko soid Trek's stock to
Bektayev representing that this would give Bektayev fuJl ownership of
Trek and, in interest in Turan.
234. Vanetik proposed that Bektayev sign the Trek stock Certificate
for I 00,000 shares twice, as president and secretary of and he gave
Bektayev Trek's corporate seal. However, Vanetik, Van Duren and then
Kushnerenko knew that Bektayev, as an h.ad no .right to
shareholder in corporation created under IRS 1244 and th.at sucb
Certificate was nu11 and void.
235. Vanetik, Van Duren., Yuri and others also coo.cealed the fact that
authorized capital was 50,000,000 shares and that these Shares could
issued at any time Trek's incorporator. Vanetik to1d Bektayev that
Bektayev had ilie power to any of shares in Trek
whicb was also wttrue. Yuri; as an attomey, involved as an i.mplied
guarant.or to Bektayev that such transa.ctions corresponded to the Iaw.
result,. Vanetik, van Duren, Kushnerenko and certain other
who all stood to fi:om such m.isappropriation of
converted an.d represented void
stock, and his title to those through the use of &aud.
237. Tblrd-Party Plaintiffs' interest in Turan's stock was :further converted
Defendants using Essex, :incorporated in BVI, 3 entities incorporated
in Belize Pington), 2 entities incorporated in Panama
and Pine Brook)f and other offshore entities. admitted
Sccond Third Party Comp!ai.nt 65
113M492058125.1i! 3115121)12 1:4!'5:19
#:9951
Mar 15 2012 law Offjces

4
6
10
more than $5.8 was diverted to Hines' and Pine
Brook's accounts in Switzerland.
other thingst havirtg received value ftom Turan was
to t:ransfer $450,000 to Turan, under various
to do so. As resu1t, Turan converted and other
Party Plaintiff:o;' assets.
239.Among other things, FFS got involved with Karabayev acting witbout
duly eJected Turan's sbareholders, and obtained its fees from
Turan's essets without lawful right to do so. FFS should ordered to
return such fees either directly to Turan or to deposit them with this
Court.
12 Tblrd-.Party Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on Count.

14-
1.5
16
17
18
19
2()
21
22
23
26
27
COUNT 3. OF CONTRACT
(against Va.n Duren, Yuri,
240. Plaintiffs re-aHege all of the aHegations contained in
paragraphs 1-91, and 147-148 and 157-164 above.
241. approximateJy 3 occasions, .incl1.1dmg in April of 2005 a.nd
Defendants concluded Agreements with and in the
of

but each time b.reached. all ofthose Agreements.
242.In pnrticular examp1e, Defendants bteached the contract with and
Bektayev, when. they first gave to Bektayev two Nos. 93
a.nd 9S, for 9.8 and 14,581 . 862 as consideration for the
interest in the Concession (which were sent certified mail from the
U.S. to and Bektayev in as it appears;
Defendants "canceled" the outstanding in breach of contract.
Yuri, an. acted as guarantor before Bektayev. tha.t agreements
coufd relied on, knowing Yanetik"s intent to deftaud Bektayev.
66
11$M49i00131:?.13.flf. 3/15/;)012
#:9952
15 2012 Schreiber Law OFFices
J25J 831-1889

2
3
6
1
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2()
21
24
2.7
243.As result of Van and certain other Defendantst
system.atic breaching these contracts, Defendants were injured.
244. Therefore, all agreem.ents with these Defendants should held void or
and 11tird-Party Plaintiffs should obtain or confirm the
restitution oftheir rights to and controJ over the
245. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this C.ount.
4. FRAUD AND
(Against Van and Empire)
246. Plaintiffs re---allege all of the allegations contained in
1 .. 91, 97-119, and 134-164 and 216-.229
247.At. aJJ relevant times,. certain Van and certa.in other
Defendants planned to deftaud Third .. Party Plaintiffs, means of
false misrepresentations, essentially in. the entire COUl'Se of
contact with Third-Party Plaintiffs.
248. In representative example" V in concert with V an Duren
and Yuri, gave to Bektayev Certificate in Trek, with the false
proposiuon that tbls represented all of Trek's stock and th.at it
the ho}ding of 24,381,862 shares .in Vanetik aJso
misrepresented that Bektayev could issue blmself any of shares
in Trek; up to its authorized capital. Vanetik. acting in concert with Van
Duren and Yuri, aJs() represented that giving Bektayev Trekts corporate
seal constituted delivery of title to the shares.
249.Howevert in reality, as an alien, had no right to ho1d stock in
Tre.k since it was registered smaJl business oompany, in wblc.h only
U.S. residents ca.n hold stock. As resu1t, in.stead of 100% control,
Bekta.yev was defi-auded into accepting control in Trek and
consequently in the stock that these representcd in Turan.
Seoon.d Amooded Third Pm't)' Comp!tt.int
113M492008128.tif- 3/15!2012 1:46:19
#:9953
15 2012
Schreiber Offices
831-1999

Vanetik took advantage ofBektayev's Jack ot .. experience and abused h.is
2
way of p.romoting their ftauds. Defe:ndants used at Jeast 3 offshore
4 entities in Be1ize, 2 entities in the BV1J 2 entities in with;
s infonnation and s other accounts in to
6 tra.nsfer out the proceeds to their own accounts, in Ponzi scheme.
7 Defendants never had an.y intention of fulfilling their to
s ThirdwParty Plaintiffs or their under the Concession, or to
9 drill any of the 4 mandatory oil wells.
10 25l.After the initial frauds invoiving offshore Essex. second flurry of
1 fi-a.uduJent transfers to offshore entities in the BVI and Pattama
12 occurred when joined Turan. and took efforts. to
13 eliminate Vanetik's managerial control.
14 252. KaraiY..tyev was the of the sopblsticated ftauds of using
1s offshore shell entities in Belize and the represent:ing that the shares
16 proceeds would certain ofinfluence""' in
11 but actually using tbese entities to increase his rontroJ over the
as amassing 46 million $hares with, 41% of the voting power, all at
t9 Bekta.yev's expense.
2.0 253. Defendants used this pa.ttetn of complicated offshore schemes, including
21 duplicate Certificates. in otder to deftaud Thir<f..Party Plaintiffs, with the
22 overall scale of such ftaud'ulent activities translating, upon the Pink
Sheets stock quotation of $.12.50 per share, into damages of
24
2s 254. In. order to a.cbleve their objectives; Defendants engaged in the
systerna:.tic wisrepresentation of facts, es well as conceaJment of materia1
21 facts. These incJuded the misrepresentations the vaJue of stock in
ec;:.(md Amended hrty
113M492008128.!1f- \:46:19
#:9954
15 2012 Offices
325} 831-1889

the issuance of the securities, the control Trek of Tur-an, and
2 others, as herein ..
.255. PJaintiffs are enti.tled to on tbls count.
4
8
10
11
t.z
13
14
15
J6
17
18
19
.21
22
23
2S
26
27
5. UNJUST
(Against All Defendants)
256. Third-Party Plaintiffs re-allege all of the allegations conmined m
paragraphs 1-164
257. Using of violence
1
threats of violence and ftaudulent
misrepresentations and omissions} in combina.tion with the violations of
the securities .statu.tes cited Defendants were unjustly enriched at
the expense P1aintiffs.
258.For example. the purported transfer of Treks st:ock:,
trans]ating to $304,773,275 value, was ftaudule.ntly made and thus void.
t use of of the sa.me dates and
representing the same numbers of shares) unjustly enriched these
Defendants.
259.Defendants col1ected assets &om investors in tht U.S. to
exploit the Concession project without any intention to effect the
exploration of at the expense of Third .. Party Plaintiffs who were
un1awfully deprived ftom their fair share of and rolc: in the Concession .
While using investors Defendants infl.ated the actual
incurred in so that they could siphon cash tlow for their
own enrichment. Van Duren an.d Yuri were in illegal
increases of Turans authorized capital, four times, which diluted
Bektayev's and stock, and enrich.ed himseJf as shareholder and
other ofthe conspiracy.
Amended Tblt'\1 Part;y Complllint
69

#:9955
Mar 15 2012 Schreiber Law Offices
325) 831-1899

260. Instead of any to 1blrd-Party Plaintiffs under
2 the Concession, Defendants diverted over $1()...15 million of proceeds,
one entity in Seychelles 3 entities in 2 e.ntities in
.., Panama and 2 entities in the BVI.
s 261. Third.,;Party Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count.
6
'i
8
9
10
12
13
14
lS
11
19
21
24
25
26
COUNT 6. CIVJL CONSPIRACY
(Against All Defendants)
262. Pl.aintiff.s re-allege all of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1-164
263. At all relevant Defendants. and all of them, formed civil
conspiracy against Plaintiffs to deprive them oftheir rightfuJ
consideration through acts of violence, threats of md
fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions.
264.As partiouJar examp]e, in JW1e of 2007, Vanetilc and
Kushnerenko am.nged in three-party arrangement for 16 million shares
in to tmnsferred frorn Trek to thtee offshore
purportedly for achieving their goa]s in Kazakhstan illegal
means. 1n February of 2008, obtained another 35
shares in the of inter alia, immediately ttansfening 1
sha.res to V a.rrial.
265. civil consp.iracy described in this action. was particular:1y
sophisticated in terms of money laundering, the use of fraud against
Third-Party Plaintiffs and the use of off'Shore accounts.
166. Third .. Party P1aintiffs are L-ntitled to relief on tbls Count.

(Against AJI Defendants)
1 Ame:nded Pnny C'.omplllint
70
#:9956
Mar 15 2012 I:29PM Schreiber Law
.925.1 831-1899

267. Third-Party PJaintiffs re--allege of the allegations conta.ined in
2 paragraphs 23, 8591, 116 .. 120, 164, as well as
through to this Seoond Am.endcd Third Party Complaint, as
'* if set forth herein.
s 268.Defendants engaged in an unauthorized issuance of stock,. marketing
6 securities and other conduct, without disclosure to ThirdwParty Plaintiffs
7 who were entitled to that infonnation. Thiid-Party Plaintiffs believe that
Defendants used duplicate accounting methods: one to show to
9 invest.ors, and the other for their true accounting. Defendants engaged in
to ftaudu1ent conveyances. For example;o Vanetik caused $880,000 wire
transferred ftom the Turan acCQunt to unidentified beneficiaries in Hong
12 and 750 to Swiss accounts to an undisclosed
13 N abrotex Trading, or rather, based on indirect to himself or
14 "1lli.
1s 269.Among fraudulent transfers, the holdings rights belonging to
16 Plaintiffs, memoria.Iized Certi.fic.ates Nos. 93 and were
11 those holdings rights we.re &audulently
18 transferred to offshore entities Wlder Defendants' control. These
tc> '"'cancellations" and fiaudu1ent transfers should undone.
270.In particular,. on inforrnation an.d belief. caused commingling
21 of assets and caused Turan' s assets to siphoned fbar and Ibar
Ventures under bls full control.
23 271. In particularly egregious Defendants engaged in fraudulentl.y
24 transferring assets to APOG (Seychelles Islands ), Varrial and Essex
2S incorporated in the BVJ), and Pine Brook (both in Panama);
Okke and ( t.ltree in BeJize).
Thes&> ftaudu1 ent
""
21 transfers were designed to effectuate the Ponzi scheme a.nd make over
11:?.M4920681261if :;115/2012 1;46:19 F'M
#:9957
Mar 15 2012 Law Offiaes
831-1899

I $1 1 S amassed through misrepresentations and pfaced out of
2 th.e reach Plaintiffs and other claimants.
272. With respect to the transfers to the APOG
4 sold 20% of the Concession to the APOG defendants any
s authorization to do so. APOG is transferee under California Civil
6 Code 3439.
1 the time the APOG defendants obtained the 20%, Janua.ry 7, 2009 for
g the agreement February 2009 for $5 payment
9 on APOG's to can attach this a.sset pursuant to
California Civil Code YEV has c1aim to these
11 funds pursuant to C' .. alifomia Civi1 Code 3439.01 ).
12 274. AfOG defendants paid less than equivalent value for
13 consideration. They paid $5 million fur 206.4 of Concession worth up
,_. to $2 "With $1 in profits. YEV dealt with the
ts brothersJ wh() acted on APOG's
16 275.Fraudulent intent arises fmm YEV's control, purportedly on
s beba.I.t: over the Concession. YEV acted in
18 complete secrecy. Cal. Civ. YEV an.d
!9 had sued as of the time of th.e transaction. Cal. Civ.
.zo YEV removed or concealed as shown
11 with resp:t to ovcrseas entities. Cal. Civ. )(7).
Belize ( offshore unlawful stock trn.nsfer void)
23 276.,0kke Finance Ltd. 1,000,000 shares, Certificate #226, dated
24 April 26. 2007., holds no interest and .no rights, because, as the eviden.ce
:zs shows, it resulted from sn insider transaction with no consideration
26 for unlawful as well as in. excess of the at.rthorized
21 capital. That certificate should confinned to null and void.
1:4619
#:9958
15 2012 Schreiber OfficP.s
32!5) 1 -1

277. Alcina Cg., Inc., shares,. represented Certificate
2 #227, dated 2007, holds n.o interest and no rights, as itresulted;
as the evidence from an in.sider transaction with no consideration
4 as we11 as in excess of thc authori.zed capim1. That certificate
5 should confirmed to nuH and void.
6 278. Ltd, 5,333,000 shares, represented
1 purported Certificate #252. dated August 7, 2007. holds no it1terest and
JJ no rights. That Certificate was issued immediately upon the
9 cancellation of the origina1 Certificates #93 and #95 and derived ftom
10 the invalid issue of the backdated Certificates #249 and #250, as well as
1 t in excess of the authorized capital. That certificate should
12 oonfirmed to nuJ1 and void.
British Virgin Islands (offshore unlawful stock transfer void)
14 279.E..ssex Managers l,.td. Q3ritish Virgin Islands}, 5,000,.000 shares,
t.s represented purported Certificates dated July 12 200.5, hold
J6 no interest and no because that entity was dissolved i.n the BVI at
11 that time. As the evidence shows,. this constituted self...dealing
t8 insiders Vanetik and Yuri) no consideration was paid to the corpomtion,
t9 and the evidence that such stock was issued for the sole purpose
20 of th.e unlawful seco.ndary certificates should
.21 confumed to null and void.
22 280. Vanial. Irading, Lld. {]kitish Yimin 15,333,000
21 shares. purported Certificate #253 dated August 2007 and. #295 dated
24 February 2008; holds no jnterest and no rights. Both Certificates
:zs were issued upon the cancellation of the original Certifi.cates #93
26 and #95 and represented 011 invalid transfer between insiders .
21 from the Certificates #249 and #250. No was
73
311512:012 1:46:19
#:9959
15 2012 I:31PM Bohreiber Law Offices
325) 831-1898

paid, and such ce:rtificates were in excess of the authorized capital.
2 These two certificates should confirmed to null and void.
Panama ( offshore unlawfuJ stock transfer void)
4 281. Investments, 8,.382,862 shares, represented
s purported Certificate dated 15, 2007, holds no interest
6 and no rights. That stock was issu.ed foHowing the
1 of the original Certificates #93 and #95 and derived fi'om the illegal
s rep1arement ofthose the Certificates #249 and #250. That
9 stoc14 the balance of the subsequent three unlawful transfers converted
Jo into Certificate #251 was inva1id. in excess of the authorized
11 capita.l, and as transactio:ns involving insiders Vanetik an.d Yuri.
12 certificates should con:finned to null and void.
282.;ejne Brook, S.A. 10,300,000 represented. purported
t4 Certificates #296 and #318t dated F ebru.ary 25 and March 24t 2008, hold
1' no interest and no rights, as the evidence showed, they derived
J6 ftom offShore insider transactions with no consideration i.e.,. the.
11 cance11ation of the original Certif1cates #93 and #95 and the
1s: invalid repla.cement of those Certificates #249 and #250, in excess of
the authorized .invo1ving insiders Vanetik and Yuri. two
2G certificates s.h.ould confirmed to null and void.
21 D) Undotennined Otfshore Jurisdictiott (stock vo.id)
22 283. Finpce Lt9. ( offshore entity of jurisdiction),
23 shares, represented purported Certificate #254, dated June
z4 7, holds no interest and no rights. That Certificnte was issued
2s immediately upon the illegai cancellation ofthe origina1 Certificates #93
26 and #95 and the invalid replacement of those the backdated
1,7
St""Con.d Third Pnrty Compllililt 74
113M49206612G.til, 3115120121:46:19
#:9960
Mar 15 2012 Law Dffices

Certificates #249 and #250:t as well in excess of the authori:r..ed
2 capital. certi:ficate shouJd to nu11 and void.
3 284. As the evidence some or a.ll of above offshore entities are
4 heJd shares, to oonceal identifies of their owners, which the
s Board determ.ined to an aggrdvati.ng circumstance rompoundin.g the
6 need for an investigation of the compliance with all applicable laws.
7 used for wblch he
8 obtained 15 shares, Cerificate 297. on February 25,. 2009,
9 essentially for the same
285. Third-Party Pl.aintiff.s are entitled to relief on this an.d the
11 f.rauduJent conveyances should unwound or continned as having been
12 the new Board, under law.
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Z6
Z1
COUNT 8.
(Against Defendants, Except Dzhakishev Amirgan)
286 .. Party Plaintiffs re-aHege the allegations contained in paragraphs
1-20, 22- 23, 28-60, 85-91,99-111, 164, as well as Exblblts
through to this Second Amended Party Complaint, as if set forth
herein.
287.0n occasions, and Bektayev made requests to Vanetik.
Van Yuri and others to account for their shareholding
being entitled to those rights ooder Certifi.cares Nos. 83, 93 and 95
which purportedly represented the controlling holdings in both Turan
andTrek.
288. Van Duren, Yuri, Bisarya and certain other Defendants refused to
account for any of the issues conceming the cash flow and most of thcir
other import.ant managerial decisions. As result of denying Plaintiffs'
requcsts for an Defendants were to confiscate s
,,
1:46:19
#:9961
15 2012 Offices
831-1899

irtterest and oontrol, to set up Ponzi and to siphon off the
2 proceeds to the offshore accounts.
289. ... Party Plamtiffs are entitled to reliefunder tbls Count.
4
6
7
10
t1
12
13
14
l$
16
l7
1&
19-
20
21

2S
21
C01JNT 9. DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Against Except Empire)
Plaintiffs incorporate reference paragraphs IR20, 22- 23,
28-60, 85-91 99111, 164, as well as Exhiblt5 through to
this Seoond Amended Third Party as if sct forth herein.
291. Based on the cited the acqui.sition Turan of control over
should confirmed as. null and void for pre.m.ised on the
fraudulent conduct of as resolved so the shareholders
meeting and the new Boa.rd.
292.More specifica11y, at no time did the parties reac.h 'meeting of the
m.inds'" whereas Van.etik, Van Duren, Yuri and other oper.ators in the
of Turan acted at all times with the inherent intent to deftaud and
not to comply with any contractual terms, systematica1ly acting
frauduJently and in faith.
293. Consequently, given the pervasive :fraud committed Turan and its
principals in entering into the agreements with and Bektayev, aU
such .attempted agreeme.nts should confirmed as being null and vojd,
and should declared the sole law.ful title holder ofthe rights to
th.e Co11cession. V an Duren, Yuri, Bisarya should declared unfit fo:r
transactions with securities in the U.S. within the jurisdiction of the
SEC, and, upon the conc1usion of this case, their oonduct shou1d
referred to SEC.
76
3!1512012 1:4<'1:19
#:9962
15 2012 Schreiber Law
9251 831-1889

294. cited Certificates Nos. 249 and 250 of fur an over 40%
2 of interest to heJd Trek, were reissued and backdated in pl.ace of
Certificates Nos. 93 and fot the same numbe.r of shares.
4 295. .. Party Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration tha.t the "cancellation'
' of the outstanding Jawful Certifica.tes was null and and reinstate
6 the rights under the original stock held Third--Party
7 Plaintiffs to this date. Among other remedies> Plaintiffs are
s entit1ed to the liquidatio.n and/o.r reform.atlon of the venture on an
9 and transpa.rent and to determine investors' prorated
Jo interests in whatever is recovered, along with all appropriate securities
11 1aw filings.
12 296. Third-Party Plaintiffs are further entitled to declaration annulling the
transfer of 20% interest in to APOG, acquired in
,,. unlawfui and secretive manner bypassing meeting
1$ approval.
16 297. Third .. Party Plaintiffs are entitled to reJief on this Count.
11 Plaintiffs in the present .. party Amended CompJaint
IJ pray for the following relief:
111 includhlg da:tnages in private right of action for
w securities law violations;
z1 declaration that the ftaudulent transfets from Tutan to APOG
22 (Seychetles Islands) are void;
pennanent injunction against any attempted
Defendants of the rights under the Concession;
2s ( d) - an order compelling the retum Defundants of the missing $2.5
26 :milliot\ to the account in the name ofTuran at WeHs Fargo Bank:;
27
\ Third {>atty
77
1:46:19
#:9963
Mar 15 2012 I:32PM
325)

FOR
z Plaintifls demand jury trial.
Dated: 14,2012
4
s Respectfully submitted:
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
17
18
)9
21
25
26
21
Thim
80
?.O.Iil- ;111512017 1:46:19
#:9964
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
TURAN PETROLEUM, et al.
EXHIBIT
Title for Exhiblt:
Plaintiffs' Chart,
Conversion of Plaintiffs' Stock
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

4

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
6
5
Chart: Conversion of Plaintiffs' Stock in Turan Petroleum, Inc.,
Kazenercom et al. v. Turan et al.,
Docket 09cv00059-JVS, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Califomia
Per Defts' quoting
$12.50 per share,
$304,773,275 value
of converted stock
..... ,..11> ..... 11 ..........
, ................ ------
IPington lnvestment Ltd., . : Board
(oontrolled byDef ..
1
Decision
Karabayev) : 05.29.09
1
. . .. . 1 resolved
1Certificate No. 252, : certificate
7, 2007 : being void 1
,. ----- -------.... -... --- - - - - - -
:Ltd., BVI .
:oef. Askar Karabayev)
1
5,333,000
:certifk:ate No. 253,
7 ,. 2007

:offshor:e, (controlled :
:oef. Askar Karabayev),

:certificate No. 254,
. . 7,.2007
.Hineslr'lvesfments - -
:Panama, (controlled : 1Decision
;oef. Anatoly Vanetik)
1
05.29.09
1 1
:2,142,000 1
1
resolved
Certificate No. 315, : 1
l9Qf! _____
#:9966
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT
Title for Exhibit:
Certificate of Stock No. 83 in Turan Petroleum, lnc.
Given Defendants to Plaintiffs
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

6

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
6
7
ott

rit:;rttt:J.J
TLIRA1"
7
PETROLE[IAf,
.")'-"-'''-''"'
1 i} 1
Lfl1.\i\tS G',t: OF
NE\IAfJA
FIJLLY AND OF STOCK OF
INC,
RJJD

COMMON STOCK
89969.1 10 6
:"=!'

Appendix to First Amended Complaint, 08cv1339, D.C.D.C, Kazenercom et al. v. Turan Petroleum lnc., et al., Page 2 of 14
#:9968
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT
Title for Exhiblt:
Certificate of Stock N 93 in Turan Petroleum, Inc.
Original Set Held Plaintiffs
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

8

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
6
9
TLIRA1V
1 Hl. 1/IIJ
S,:,,m
C',i==

"''.JI_L\' OF CfF
TOR.AN
COMMON
CUS!P 89989J 1 6
)f_i C'EP!.i,'\

''Jr'
-
JUI\f 1 J!. 2005

.i' c;-;;-::iit.:::
1$M"II'IE STOC:K INC.
"''"'"'
Appendix to First Amended Complaint. 08cv1339, D.C.D.C, Kazenercom et al. v. Turan Petroleum lnc., et al., Page 4 of 14
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

9

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
7
0
:\::tiC
PETROLELI.Ai

COMMON STOCK
CUSJP 89989J 1
l!iJ!,,II>II'\'E TI'1AN$FER
--
,:":TH\'>"1/HJ:
\.' .(11
10. On or about Junc 30, 2005, Tre:k acquired p!.U'tia:l ofTuran the forn
of common stock. du!y mc:moriali:r..c.d bv the issuanc:t
stock or July J2, 2005_ On abou! 17, 2{1
Trek acquired furlher ownership inlerest in the form of slwes of conrn
stock. That ''"'!.S duly memoriali.zed the: issuance stock certi1icate' 25(
SHAPES OF STOCK
Tli.RAN l.:'I>C
Un_r.
Urf:;: r1f ..

,". )."11

C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
0

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
7
1
:1'!1''

STOCI<

.. "'"""' ''"''""' ............................. ,
. .,,., ... '"""' .._, t*-'.."'IU1"" 1
.... "'t-.""1 ..... ,. ..... ... ... ,
INC
- "' ....
. .

NE\IIOA

.. 'i"S
;:.:;
t--

lo4C.-
Q
SM.I,_f$
.... , 'l!ltJI:I, 000"',,
COMMON
CVSIP
tt ___ ...... moo.o
""' - Nine E\ght HIJ!Idred 'Thousand-
llliS1MIIID
I'U\.LV ANO SIW!ES 0F COiol!oiON OF
1'tiii.AN
""' tli. 6tii>l:;; tf tk C"'7"""tlmo 0, 111< bl4et "-'f, ;,. pttmt"' fJ /.,. -! ."". --u, of ,,..,.,;
'11iis w:!il tk 't'.-ftr!41W..V t.,t:J-sS, lh:
tlii< foutodlt. 'U1i( uf 10// w ,.,..._ tifillr

<' ................
..................
..
. ,_

\\.._.!- -
- ' '- ' '""
#:9972
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT D
Title for Exhibit:
Certificate of Stock N 95 in Turan Petroleum, Inc.
Original Set Held Plaintiffs
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
2

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
7
3
STOCK
---------
TURAN PETROLE[1J'{ I1VC.
''J,C'-'"-"'''
!',\R
CF=
FIJLLV N'ON-.o\SSESS.I\BLt:. SHARES OF (;OMMON OF
.INC.
tipClt't

"

COMMON STOCK
899S9J 106

Appendix to First Amended Complaint, 08cv1339, D.C.D.C, Kazenercom et al. v. Turan Petroleum lnc., et Page 7 of 14
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
3

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
7
4
STOCK
INC.
- -- '\R.rs .\1..m
--i'M? \' \t 1
""*" .. .. ..-..
COMMON STOCK
C.USIP 89989J 10 6
-- -. _10. On or about 30, 20QS, Trek acqwred partial in. !.he
................

NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON
INC
' POR
.. _,

-

::::-
Ul:t>

C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
3

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
4

o
f

2
5

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
9
9
7
5
'
;
;
!
:
------- -
(
r;nr
', N!IJo\1!!!.111
:Z$0 "'
... .., ........ .......... 1_ .. ._._ .. ____ ._..,_ .,.. ...
, ......... -_ .. _ ....______ -----
........ "__......,....,.. .... __ .._. ...... _____ _
--J!< ... _ _,.._ ____ ..... ..... -
$fiAIIIE$

..
:. INC

c...-:.=:J
'"', : . .. -
v:;;>
....
COMMON
COMMON STOCK
CUS!P 1!8989J10G
--.. -CI!fl ..... -""""'
"tiiAT

- FoUI"tsen Hu:dl1!d Elgttty.One Elght
FUU.Y PAIO NC 11014-ASSESSA&E 01' COINON 01'
I"E'J'ROU:U!'t(. 'INC.
itf fk i:J lh /'wlfW ,.,-,.. hliJ llilm.ltd ",CW: i1f tlilr CN'/ifit1N.
"11it.t tJ .., 111< 'l"nvftr """"'' tk
jiiVifffitt -r fr,U tl,...OilJ'I!S 16{1!1

00""'' 21!115
lle
.. .......,._ .. ,....
..
..... -
#:9976
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT
Title for Exhibit:
Memorandum of Defendant
Freeman Freeman Smiley LLP,
Dated July 29, 2008
#:9977
freeman freeman
Memorandum
ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Turan Petro!eum, lnc. ('Turan" or the company")
Sylvia Scott
July 29, 2008
Analysis of lnformation Gathered Ouring Turan's lnternal Audit; Oue
Diligence for Revised Private Placement Memorandum; and
Proposed Solutions
This memorandum provides an analysis of factual findings resulting from an
internal audit performed Turan's Robln Bisarya. This
memorandum also serves as due diligence for needed revisions to Turan's private
placement memorandum and anticipated capital raise.
The purpose of this memorandum, outlined in the of contents below, is to
simultaneously identify and solutions so that the can move forward
in positive direction and decisively address the issues described herein. At the end of
each section of this memorandum there is summary that includes: 1} concise
statement of the (2) why the is signiftcant; and (3) proposed solutions
to the
#:9978
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background of the Company
11. lssue: Whether Certain Stock Transfers Relating to Trek 4
Resources, the Bektayev Group, Karlan 111 and Pine Brook Were
Authorized/Legal
Facts Relevant to the lssue 4
and Solutions 9
1. Concise Statement of the 9
2. Why the is Significant 9
3. ltems and Proposed Solutions 11
111. lssue: of Disclosure to lnvestors; Uses of 12
Turan's Funds
12
Facts Relevant to the lssue
14
and Solutions
14
1. Concise Statement of the
14
2. Why the is Significant
14
Action ltems and Proposed Solutions
IV. lssue: Commingling; lnternal Controls and Recordkeeping 15
Facts Relevant to the lssue 15
and Solutions 16
1. Concise Statement of the 16
2. Why the is Significant 16
3. Action ltems and Proposed Solutions 16
2
#:9979
-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
1. Background of the Company
Turan was incorporated in Nevada in March 2001 under the name, Elite
Registry, lnc. ("Eiite") and is currently based in Costa Mesa, California. Elite's name
was changed to Turan in December 2004 and. in January 2005, the Company's Articles
were amended to designate as its "initia! directors" Vanetik and Robert Van Duren.
The January 2005 Amended Articles also authorized Turan to issue 100 Million shares.
On 2/22/07, the Articles were amended to authorize the issuance of 150 Million shares.
the Articles were amended to authorize the issuance of 200 Million shares.
Currentry, there are approximately 113 Million shares of Turan stock and
outstanding. Additionally, there are approximately 40 Million shares of stock options
issued and outstanding.
Mr. Vanetik was Turan's President from the Company's inception through about
2008. Mr. Van Duren was Turan's Secretary and Treasurer from about November
2004 to 2008. (Yuri Vanetik was the Secretary from April2001 to about December
2004 and Vanetik was the Treasurer to about November 2004.)
Mr. Vanetik is the Chairman of the Board of Turan. ln or about June 2008, the
following new officers were appointed:
1. President and Askar Karaba_yev
2. Chief Exploration Officer S,guyres
3. VP of Business Development Jacky
4. VP of Operations Naum Voloshin
5. Secretary & Treasurer Robln Bisarya
6. VP of Administration and Alex Striganov
echnical Support
The had virtually no operations until2004, when it entered into the oil
and gas industry recruiting new management and acquiring Turan EnerPetroleum,
LLP organized and domiciled in the of Kazakhstan. is the holder
of license granted the Kazakhstan government (the "Concession") to explore and
extract hydrocarbons in territory consisting of over 5,000,000 acres located in South
Kazakhstan (close to China and Uzbekistan).
ln June 2006, Turan entered into certain agreements with
Resources, lnc. ('TRI"). TRI is privately held, institutionally controlled, international oil
and gas exploration and technology company. lt utiJizes what it claims to advanced

#:9980
technology to increase the efficiency of the exploration efforts in oll and gas. ln July
2008, the Turan-TRI agreements were renegotiated and the companies look forward to
productive relationship.
Since its inception, Turan has had no revenues, other than the receipt of
proceeds from the sale of piece of another concession for $300,000 to Russian Angel
Acquisition, LLP. The Company's financial statements have been audited since the
end of 2005. Additionally, the Company has never filed tax returns with federal or state
authorities. However, recently the has undertaken an internal audit of the
Company's books ar1d records.
11. lssue: Whether Certain Stock Transfers Relating to Trek Resources, the
Bektayev Group, Karlan 111 and Pine Brook Were Authorized/Legal
facts Relevant to the lssue
The "Trek" Transactions
way of background, March 26, 2005, Turan entered into contract with
Kazenercom Kazakhstan LLC) and Yerkin Bektayev (collectively, the ''Bektayev
Group") entitled. Enerpetroteum Confidential Asset Purchase Agreement"
(hereinafter, Agreement"). Under the agreed to purchase
100% of TEP's assets in exchange for the payment of 26,181,372 Turan shares to the
Bektayev Group.
Turan paid the Bektayev Group under Agreement forming Trek
Resources, lnc. ("Trek") to house most of the shares. Trek, formed in April 2005, is
Nevada corporation. Bektayev was initially the President, Secretary, Treasurer and sole
director. Turan paid the Bektayev Group under effecting the
following Turan stock transfers:
Bektayev:
Trek:
TOTAL:
2,618,138
24,381,862
27,000,000
1
ln about 2006, the Bektayev Group (through LLC) filed
lawsuit against Turan in Kazakhstan alleging that pursuant to Nominal Purchase
Agreement between the Bektayev Group and Turan, dated 25, 2005 (two months
after the Agreement), was to Kazenercom for its 49% interest in
1
letter dated June 2. 2006, the transfer agent (Empire) confirmed that Bektayev
his shares 2005 (certificate 83); and Trek received its shares
July 12, 2005 (9,800,000 shares/certificate 93) and August 22, 2005 (14,581 ,862
shares/certificate no. 95).
4
#:9981
TEP's nominal capital total of 49,000 (roughly $400 USD), plus $450,000 USD in
accordance with additional terms mentioned in the Purchase Agreement. ln July
2006, the Court issued Decision (the "July 2006 Court Order") ruling in favor ofTuran
finding that the Nominal Purchase Agreement was ancillary to the Purchase
Agreement.
Significantly, the July 2006 Court Order also found that the Bektayev Group had
received adequate and fair compensation for the asset sale because they had
received 27 Turan shares as represented Turan's President in letter dated
July 1 3, 2006 which was submitted to the Court. [The July 2006 Court Order and July
13, 2006 Letter (both translated into English) are attached hereto as Attachment
An appeal and two more lawsuits were filed the Bektayev Group against
Turan. The second lawsuit resulted in the Bektayev Group getting back the 49%
stock ownership interest in about March 2007. The third lawsuit the Bektayev Group
was an attempt them to get the remaining 51% stock ownership interest. The
initial court decision resulted in an award ofthe remaining 51% to the Bektayev Group.
Although the time to appeal this award had expired, through certain Kazakh contacts
oblained the current President of Turan and Karlan 111 (hereinafter, "Karlan"),
belated appeal was successfully lodged and Turan got back its 100% ownership interest
in

This was an important victory for Turan because (along with its
exploration and drilling license), was (and is} Turan's only significant asset.
The net result of the events is that Turan is to the Bektayev Group
total of 27 Million shares and to Karlan 111 total of 35 Million shares. However,
review of Turan's transfer agent records and other documents show that the
24,381,862 Turan shares held in Trek's name for the benefit of the Bektayev Group
were transferred to persons not for the benefit of the Bektayev Group and in apparent
violation of the July 2006 Court Order. Unbeknownst to the Bektayev Group and
through certain activities that are not currently known Turan's senior management
staff, Bektayev was somehow removed as President, Secretary, Treasurer and sole
director of Trek in April 2006 and the following replacement officers and directors were
appointed:
President: Sergey lipatov (replacing Bektayev)
Secretary: Anatoly Vanetik (replacing Bektayev)
Treasurer: Anatoly Vanetik (replacing Bektayev)
Directors: Sergey Lipatov and Alexy Stojarov (replacing Bektayev)
2
Karlan has significant contacts in Kazakhstan which are also important to the retention
of the licenses held For these services and as further detailed in the
"Confidential Turan Petroleum Consulting Subscription Agreement for Karlan 111 ,"
dated February 15, 2008, Turan was required to Karlan 35 Million shares of Turan.
5
#:9982
ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTJAL
Thereafter, in October 2006, Alexander Kushnirenko became the new president,
treasurer and director of the and Asylkhan Burbayev became the nev11
secretary of Trek. According to emails dated October 26 and 31, 2006, these changes
were assisted Mr. Vanetik. The emails are attached as Attachment
Pursuant to undated Stock Powers that are signed Mr.
Kushnirenko, Trek was divested of all of its Turan stockholdings and the shares were
transferred to three entities controlled Karlan as payment for the contract between
Turan and Karlan (referenced above) and to Hines lnvestments, SA ("Hines").
According to Articles of lncorporation for Hines that Mr. Karabayev received from Mr.
Vanetik, Hines is Panama corporation.
The Karlan companies received approximately 16 Million shares and Hines
received approximately 8.4 Million shares. Hines transferred approximately 6.24 Million
of its shares to two companies. which were further distributed to various investors.
These transfers are apparently invalid because the shares should have remained
with Trek (i.e., the Bektayev Group) according to the Jufy 2006 Court Order.
Additionally, the legality of the new Trek officer/director appointments is an open
question given that Bektayev (the original and sole officer/director of Trek) has no
knowledge of these appointments and would strenuously oppose them. Additionally,
even assuming Bektayev was legally removed without his knowledge (if for example
100% of Trek's shares were owned another person), Bektayev is likely to claim that
he was fraudulently induced to transfer his shares to Trek as result of false or
misleading representations made agents of Turan that the Turan shares would
remain in Trek for the benefit of the Bektayev Group. Bektayev's attorneys have
already threatened lawsuits as they have recently learned that something is amiss, as
discussed below.
Below is flow chart detailing the Turan stock transfers away from Trek to
various persons:
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALL LEFT
6
#:9983
Stock Transfers From Trek (Bektayev) to Various Persons
Pington lnv. (Karlan)
5,333,000 shs (8/07)
Private Equity Mgt

4,240,000 shs (2/08)
24,381,862
shares received Trek Varrial Fin. (Karlan)
(July/Aug 2005) 5,333,000 shs (8/07)
HJnes
t-----t>i 888 Capital LLC
as required Transfrs/Sel/s
July 2006 Cour1
Order
Coast Fin. (Karlan)
5,333.000 shs (8/07)
Transfrs!Sel/s 2,000,000 shs (3/08)
Hines lnv. SA
8,382,862 shs (10/07)
1. Nhung Thi Nguyen
Hines
2,142,000 shs (bal.)
ransfrs!Sells
35,000 shs transfr req'd NRG
2. Bui Nevada LLC
Vivian Nguyen
4. Chrlstlan Llsing
20,000 shs (3/08); transfr req'd NRG
5. Le 888 Dynasty
6. Kevln Jones Brightstone
250,000 shs {3/08); transfr req'd NRG
7. Judv Trinh
20,000 shs (3/08); transfr req'd NRG
Delta Fine Chemicals
1 Mil shs (3/08); transfr req'd NRG
9. Partners
2 Mil shs (3108); transfr req'd NRG
10. 3 Polnt lnvestment
20,000 shs (4108); transfr req'd Turan
11. FamiLee lnvestment
46,000 shs (4108); transfr req'd Turan
12. Tlffany
14,290 shs (4/08); transfr req'd Turan
1 Minh Tran
2000 shs (4/08); transfr req'd Turan
14.
569,337 shs (balance as of 4/08)
7
#:9984
The "Pine Brook" Transactions
With regard to Turan's Agreement to Karlan 35 Million shares ofTuran, 10
Million of those shares were transferred to Pine Brook (or Brooke) as evidenced
transfer agent records and various documents. Pine Brook is unrelated to Karlan. This
transfer was facilitated letter to Turan, dated February 22, 2008, and allegedly
signed Manat Torbergenova, principal of Kar!an (the "alleged Torbergenova Letter"
or "Letter"). The al/eged Torbergenova Letter is in English; however, Ms. Torbergenova
does not speak or read EngHsh (she speaks Russian). Turan's current President (Askar
Karabayev) questioned Ms. Torbergenova about the Letter and she stated that the
signature was not hers and that it is forgery. The Letter instructs Turan to issue 35
Million shares as follows:
1. Pine Brook, SA (Panama City, Balboa Plaza. Panama: 1 Million
shares);
2. Varrial Financial Trading (affiliated with Karlan): 10 Million shares;
3. Karlan 111 : 15 shares.
The alleged Terbergenova Letter was from Van Duren, attached to
an email from Mr. Van Duren to Turan's senior management, dated July 8, 2008 (''Van
Duren Email"). The Letter and Van Duren Email are attached to this memorandum as
Attachment "D". ln the Van Duren Email, Mr. Van Duren states, among other things
the following:
"On February 15, 2008 we passed Board resolution regarding entering into
contract with Karlan 111 obligatlng Turan to issue 35,000,000 shares in return for
services provided Karlan 111 . . ..
ony (Vanetik] asked me to prepare resolution to issue the shares in the name
of 3 separate companies. Since this was change from the name of the entity
that we had executed the contract with (Karlan 111) 1 asked to get an
instruction letter from Karlan 111 instructing Turan to issue the shares in the
names Tony had provided. provided me with the attached instruction letter on
February 22 (the alleged Tobergenova Letter] ....
lf mistake was made in the issuance of the shares it needs to resolved ....
ln reviewing the records from the transfer agent 1 see 3 separate certificates were
issued as result of the board action regarding the 35,000.000 share
transaction. One of the certificates was # 296 issued in the name of Pine Brooke
SA in the amount of 10,000,000 shares. 417-08 the transfer agent broke
certificate # 296 into several different certificates. 1,000,000 shares were issued
into new names represented 4 separate certificates numbered 334, 335, 336,
8
#:9985
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
and 337. The balance of 9,000.000 shares were reissued into the name of Pine
Brooke SA represented certificate # 333. On the transfer agent cancelled
certificate number 333 and reissued certificate # 340 in the name of Pine Brook
SA in the amount of 9,000,000 shares. As you may notice this is slightly
different spelling.
Mr. Van Duren goes on to advise that freeze placed the shares relating
to the Pine Brook transfer.
As referenced in the Van Duren Email, and reflected in transfer agent records,
the 1 Million shares issued to Pine Brook were broken up and 1 Million of the shares
was issued to four (4) recipients. all of whom have the same address in Switzerland.
The recipients of the 1 Million shares apparently have no affiliation with Karlan. Three
of the certificates are in the name of UArticle Second Trust" and one of the
certificates is in the name of "Eiizabeth Fago Trust."
Turan. in consultation with corporate counsel. has placed freeze on the
certificates relating to the Pine Brook transfers. pending Turan's continuing inguiry into
this matter. Additionally, in light of the other transfers, Turan has
instructed the transfer agent to get all stock transfer reguests pre-approved Turan's
Secretarv (Robln Bisarva) until further notice. This was done to prevent the
continuation of activities that might in contravention of federal and state securities
laws, among other things.
As regards the identity of Pine Brook, the Terbergenova Letter indicates that it is
Panama corporation (like Hines). Mr. Van Duren also stated that Pine Brook is
Panama Corporation. agent records report that Pine Brook's address is the
United States is the same as NRG's (which is Turan's former address), i.e., 3720 South
Susan St., Santa Ana, According to bank wire transfers relating to the Lee"
transaction, discussed below, Pine Brook has bank account in Switzerland.
and Solutions
Substantial shares of Turan (24,381 ,862 ) have been transferred out of Trek in
apparent violation ofthe July 2006 Court Order. Most ofthose shares (15,999,0000)
were transferred to entities controlled Karlan pursuant to contract between it and
Turan. lf the transfers of Turan stock away from Trek are illegal, then the stock
transfers to Karlan are invalid. This further results in failure Turan to the
consideration it owes to Kar/an under the contract, potentially threatening to undermine
an important relationship and trigger lawsuit.
Additionally, assuming that Bektayev or Trek never had right to the 24,381,862
shares, why were they not returned to Turan and cancelled?
9
#:9986
2. W/ry the is Significant
1, The appointment of Trek's current officers/directors and the removal of Bektayev
may not legal because Bektayev {Trek's sole officer/director at the time of the
appointments/removal) did not authorize these actions. lf the removal of Bektayev
was not legal, the divestment of Trek's stockholdings in Turan is not legal; nor are
the subsequent transfers to Karlan, et al. Additionally, if any Turan officers or
directors facilitated any illicit activities, Turan willlikely the subject of regulatory
scrutiny and private lawsuits,
2. Karlan is an important partner for Turan as it has key contacts in Kazakhstan, which
are essential for TEP's retention of its license. Additionally, Karlan provided
services for Turan with regard to the lawsuits the Bektayev Group and
TEP's renewal of its license with the Kazakh government. lf Turan's relationship
with Karlan is compromised, lawsuits are likely and TEP's license (Turan's only
significant asset at this time) would in peril.
Attorneys for the Bektayev Group have contacted Turan threatening lawsuit
because they have received information that Bektayev no longer has any interest in
Trek.
3
At this point, Bektayev's attorneys do not know that all of the Turan shares
have been transferred out of Trek. lawsuit is practically certain if they become
aware of this fact.
4. Registration lssues: The sales Private Equity Management, lnc. (which
is apparently not broker-dealer) to 14 persons raises issues of whether acted
as an unregistered broker-dealer and/or sales agent in violation of state and/or
federallaws.
4
Additionally, if purchased the shares with view towards
3
Specifically, one of Trek's current officers, Mr. lipatov, sent letter to attorneys for
the Bektayev Group (Rutan Tucker in New York) that Mr. Bektayev has
interest in Trek.
4
Brokers and dealers in securities are required register with the SEC. Similarly, each
state has its own requirements for broker/dealer registration. Under federallaw,
"broker" is any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for
the account of others, but does not include bank. "dealer" is person engaged in
the business of buying and selling securities for his own account, through broker or
otherwise.
lssuers {i.e., companies) generally are not "brokers" because they sell securities for
their own accounts and not for the accounts of others. lssuers generaliy are not
"dealers" because they do not buy and sell their securities for their own accounts.
Persons associated with issuers could brokers is they receive transaction based
compensation.
10
#:9987
ATTORNEV-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
distribution and there is no exemption this raises issues of compliance
with securities registration requirements.
5
3. Action ltems and Proposed Solutions
Action /tem(s)
1. answers to the following questions as soon as
How was the removal of Bektayev and of new officers and directors
for Trek accomp/ished and whom (i.e., confirm whether legal; get of
Trek's By/aws)?
With regard to the recipient of the Trek shares (other then the Karlan companies,
who are known), ascertain: (1) general information regarding the identity of the
persons (i.e., who controls the entities, are the individuals affiliated in any way
with Turan or any of its control persons); and (2) what consideration if any was
paid the recipients of the shares.
Who controls Pine Brook and why did Pine Brook receive shares earmarked for
Karlan?
6
Who controls Hines and what consideration, if any, did Hines for the Turan
shares it received.
Proposed Solution(s):
With regard to Finders, the SEC's interpretation of the finder's exemption is predicated
on the finder merely making to the issuer, introduction or otherwise, the
identity of interested investors, and the absence of certain factors (i.e., participation
in negotiations, counseling investors of the merits of investing, recommending the
investment to investors, receiving compensation based on percentage of the offering
proceeds, holding or cash, conducting sales efforts).
5
is not to confused with Private Equity Management Group (hereinafter,
"PEMGROUP"). PEMGROUP is global private equity investment firm located in North
America and Asia, with over US$4 blllion in assets under management and over 100
investment professionals worldwide. Turan has leamed from PEMGROUP that it
believes it has cause of action against for improper use of its corporate name.
PEMGROUP has apparently received calls from Turan sharehotders who have stated
that is essentially posing as PEMGROUP, triggering the possibllity of further
lawsuits in which Turan could get looped in (even if Turan engaged in no wrongdoing).
6
The Company's Secretary has put forth substantial efforts to get these and related
questions answered and has encountered Consequently, in the absence of
legal action, it may not to get these questions answered.
11
#:9988
-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND
1 Cancel all of the shares (24,381,862) that were issued as result of the divestment
of al! of Trek's stockholdings in Turan (unless immediate responses received as
to the above-listed questions indicating that different action is appropriate).
2. Re-issue to Trek new shares of Turan totaling 24,381,862 (unless immediate
responses are received as to the questions indicating that different
action is appropriate).
3. Cancel the 10 Million shares that were issued to Pine Brook (and re-issued to
various Swiss accounts) and issue 10 Million shares to Karlan or its designee(s)
(unless immediate responses are received as to the above-listed questions
indicating that different action is appropriate).
4. Re-issue to Karlan (or its beneficial designees) new shares of Turan to1aling
15,999,000.
5. Send letters to each of the recipients of Turan shares apparently belonging to Trek
notifying them that: 1) their Turan certificates have been cancelled pending an
internal audit; 2) their shares will immediately re-issued to them pending receipt
and evaluation of certain requested information, as appropriate.
6. Return all of the Turan shares (24,381,862) back to Trek and re-issue new Turan
shares (15,999,000) to the three entities controlled Karlan. Additionally, re-issue
Turan shares to those who are legally entitled to them (i.e., recipients who have
"fully paid for" the Turan shares they received).
7. Adopt corporate governance documents (i.e., Corporate Governance Guidelines,
etc.) and establish Finance and Audit Committee as soon as to evaluate
these and other issues referenced in this memorandum.
8. Continue to require Turan's transfer agent to oblain pre-approval Turan's
Secretary for all stock transfer requests, until Turan completes its investigation into
the stock transfers.
111. lssue: Adequacy of Disclosure to lnvestorsj Uses of Turan's
Funds
Turan's does not disclose the risks and uncertainties relating to Turan's
primary asset as result of the Bektayev and use of investor proceeds.
While the makes general reference to the Bektayev litigation,
7
it goes on to
state,
7
The dated February 2007 states, initiated litigation in the United
States against Kazakhstan national and Kazakhstan based company. ln addition.
12
#:9989
PRIVILEGEO ANO CONFIDENTIAL
'The does not believe that the Legal Proceedings it is currently
involved in have material impact on its business.''
During the tirne Turan was in litigation with the Bektayev Group (frorn about
2006 to September 2007), Turan was at risk of Josing its sole asset Further,
various court orders (that were subject to appeal and eventually overturned) found that
Turan did not have right to all or part of its claimed ownership interest in (from
about March 2007 to September 2007).
Turan's only asset apparently remains at risk because the Bektayev Group
has not received the 24,381,862 shares of Turan required the July 2006 Court Order.
lf the Bektayev Group learns that all of these shares have been transferred out of Trek
and into the hands of other persons, lawsuit is highly likely. This could, again,
jeopardize Turan's only asset. Specifically, lf Kazakh Court finds that Turan violated
the July 2006 Court Order, there is substantial risk that the Court could issue rulings
negatively impacting Turan's interest in or otherwise penalizing Turan.
During the pending litigation with the Bektayev Group, substantial number of
Turan shares (8,382,862) were sold to various institutions and individuals, as detailed
in the chart above. Additional shares were sold to other investors. There are no
versions of Turan's private placement identified to date that disclose the
Bektayev litigation. the substantial threat that Turan lose its only asset and the
fact of court rulings that found against Turan as to all or part of its ownership
interest in Failure to disclose these facts willlikely viewed as
omission of fact under federal and state securlties laws.
8
Turan's internal audit (the details of which are addressed in the next section of
this memorandum) found that shareholder proceeds were used to expenses
incurred other persons and not for the Company's Concession. lnformation is still
being gathered the Company on this issue: however, the has oblained
historical document indicating that significant of funds Turan's checking
account were distributed for uses inconsistent with disclosures regarding use of
the has been the defendant against litigation initiated in Kazakhstan the
individual and entity. The parties recently reached an agreernent to end all of the
outstanding litigation .... "
8
Facts are if investor would consider them important in
an investment decision and would view disclosure of them as significantly altering the
total of made The of relating to
financial condition, solvency and profitabllity is not subject to serious
challenge." SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 653 (9th Cir. 1980), cited us in Charles
French, 52 S.E.C. 858, 863 n.19 (1996). See also, Leandro Emerg. Med. Group Proflt
Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos., 75 F.3d 801,809 (2d Cir. 1996) ("Material facts
include ... those facts which affect the future of the company.") (quoting SEC
v. Texas Gulf Sulphur 401 P.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 1968)).
13
#:9990
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
proceeds. The states that all net proceeds will used to develop the
Concesslon.
According to historical ledgers and the Company's former accountant
Taylor), Turan paid expenses to NRG Resources Corp. ("NRG")
totaling $413,330.00. Additionally, an employee of Turan for several years specifically
identified number of expense items paid for Turan tha1 were not for the benefit of
Turan. Such items included, among other things, the fo/lowing payment:
1 $50,000.00 payment to Gintautas Vileita (apparently related to ''aluminum
deal" having nothing to do with Turan);
2. $98,000.00 in payments to law firm representing NRG;
3. $150,000.00 payment to Judy Trinh (the wife of former Turan Secretary, Hiep
Trinh); and
4. $7,000.00 payment to Len Futaba, an employee of NRG.
9
and Solutions
Whether Turan shareholders received adequate disclosure regarding: (1) the
Bektayev litigation and the threat it posed (and continues to pose) as to Turan's
sole asset and (2) use of proceeds.
2. Why the is Significant
F ailure to disclose material information to investors and/or making materially
misleading statements constitutes fraud under federal (SEC) and state securities laws.
Even if this did not actually occur, red flags or highly suspicious activities indicating that
it has occurred expose Turan to private lawsuits and investigation (or
prosecution) the regulators (i.e., the SEC and/or state regulators).
3. Action ltems and Proposed Solutions
Action Jtem(s)
answers to the questions outlined in Section 11.8.3, above, and
below.
9
Most recently, in June 2008, an improper expense was charged to Turan
(i.e .. Victoria's Secret). Though the amount was small and reimbursement was received
after the incident was called to the attention of NRG, this occurrence underscores the
need for immediate implementation of internal controls and corporate governance
policies and procedures.
14
#:9991

ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Proposed Solution(s):
Revise Turan's as soon as
Send out shareholder letter with an update of current and past events, if
appropriate and as additional information is
lf an investor complains and depending upon the basis for the complaint,
consider settling the matter offering to rescind the transaction, if appropriate
and in consideration of the merits, litigation risk, cost of litigation, and negative

Adopt strong corporate governance policies/procedures and internal controls
addressing shareholder disclosure issues.
IV. lssue: Comminglingj lnternal Controls and Recordkeeping
As noted above, Turan's ongoing internal audit has identified significant
expenses paid the Company via checks and wire transfer that may not have been
appropriate.
11
Additionally, with regard to the total amount of money raised Turan,
corporate records received to date state that total total of $15,237.082 worth of Turan
shares were sold for comblnation of cash and services. Total cash received Turan
amounts to $2.635,610, according to records received to date. Additionally, the internal
audit has been to identify only $5.193,466 worth of services received. Additionally,
sales third parties of their Turan stock have resulted in the receipt of far more cash
than Turan has ever raised to date (for example, see Sam lee Transaction, below).
Turan's Secretary is continuing to seek answers to these issues working with NRG
employees and others. This task is complicated the fact that segregated bank
accounts were apparently not kept for Turan and NRG.
Additionally, records were apparently not kept of whether given expense was
to Turan only, NRG only or joint Turan/NRG expense. Turan's former
accountant stated that she attempted to oblain this information from the companies but
was to get responses from them. Consequently, the ledgers that she did keep
do not have the requisite detail. That said, separate historicalledgers were kept of
expenses submitted NRG and expenses submitted Mr. Vanetik for disbursements
from Turan checking account. As noted above, the NRG ledger shows expenses for the
10
Turan has received complaints from certain investors through their attorneys who
have questioned, among other things, Turan's recordkeeping and stock transfer. Those
matters being handled corporate counsel.
11
The checks were apparently signed Mr. Vanetick and the wires were apparently
sent an NRG employee (Haneczka Czernaichowski).
15
#:9992
period $413,330.00 for the period February 2005 to 2008. The Vanetik ledger
shows expenses of $1,781.962.00 for the period February 2005 to 2008. Turan's
Secretary has not yet successful in his continuing efforts to details for these
ledgers.
During Turan's internal audit, Turan's Secretaryrrreasurer further requested
copies of the Company's historical minutes of all meetings of the board of directors in
order to reconstruct the purpose of various significant expenditures and understand the
basis for Turan's of substantial amounts of shares (including the stock
transfers discussed above). As noted above, to date, Turan has issued total of
approximately 11 Million shares. The received the Secretary
summarized document Board of Directors Summary." This
document is attached hereto as Attachment Some of the actual are
do not identify the and do not details, it difficult
to events. For example, 12/14/04, states oean Miller
1, 600,000 shares." 1t is clear from the corresponding minutes the nature of the
benefit received (or to received) Consequently, it is unclear whether these
many other Turan stock issuances were fully paid, as required.
of stock options were to persons apparently
involved with Turan or with apparent benefit to Turan. Many of these stock options
are referenced Turan's board of directors minutes or board
The Sam Lee Transaction
high net worth with whom Mr. Karabayev had done business, Sam
Lee, told Mr. Karabayev that he was in Turan. Mr. Karabayev,
who was pre-occupied with various business matters, introduced Lee to Mr. Vanetik
and Hiep to raise money for Turan. Subsequently, Lee purchased 1 Million
shares of Turan for purchase price of $3.80 per share, for total purchase price of
$3.8 Million. However, Mr. Lee apparently purchased his shares from Essex
Management, Turan (which has and to in of capital). (The
effect at the time had purchase price of $5.00 per share.)
Records include Private Stock Sale Agreement
Essex Management and Mr. Lee ("Essex/Lee dated February 1,
2008, attached hereto as Attachment F. The signor the Essex/Lee Agreement is
Sergey Polyanichkin. to Alex Striganov consultant who also worked
in NRG's offices), Mr. is involved an aluminum deal in which
Vanetick is involved. According to emails and other documents during
internal audit, Attachment G, Mr. Yuri Vanetik is affiliated with Essex.
These documents also reflect Turan Board Action (with Mr. Vanetik and Mr. Van
Duren as signors), dated July 5, 2005, the issuance of 10 Million shares to
Essex at $6.00 per share in of cash and financial consu!ting
services relating to the raising of capital for [Turan] outside of the United States .... "
16
#:9993
CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Lee paid for his shares via three wires dated February, and June
2008. totaling $3.8 Million (substantially more than total cash apparently ever raised
Turan through its sale of shares- i.e., $2.6 Million). The money ($3.8 Million) was
wired to Swiss bank account in the name of "Pine Brook." The wire transfer requests
are included in Attachment F. referenced above.
As result of these transactions, Turan missed the opportunity to raise millions
of dollars. Mr. Karabayev stated that he was unaware of these transactions until Mr.
Lee happened to them to his attention. Mr. Karabayev further stated that he was
deeply concerned about the Sam Lee transactions because Turan really needed these
funds to fulfill its under the contract for exploration on ARYS with the
government of Kazakhstan.
Continuing lnternal Audit of the lssues
uran recently sent out questionnaires to shareholders in an attempt to ascertain
the identity of certain shareholders and whether consideration had been paid the
shareholder. One of tfle responses states that the shareholder did not for the
shares he received. The questionnaire response is attached hereto as Attachment
The continues to collect and analyze information it has received to
provide further answers. However, substantial facts have already been verified the
as detailed herein.
and Solutions
Turan's recordkeeping and internal controls have raised serious questions
regarding proper use of Turan's funds and whether other activities were proper and/or
authorized.
2. W/1y the is Significant
Misuse of investor funds constitutes fraud under federal (SEC) and state
securities laws. Even if this did not actually occur, red fiags or highly suspicious
activities indicating that it has occurred expose Turan to private lawsuits and
investigation (or prosecution) the regulators (i.e., the SEC and/or state regulators).
The recordkeeping and internal controls at Turan place the
Company at risk for corporate abuse, which in turn trigger lawsuits and regulatory
scrutiny.
3. Actlon ltems and Proposed Solutions
Additional information is needed for Turan to further assess the of
the issues detailed above. However, what is known to date demonstrates that Turan
17
#:9994
APPENDIX
VERIFIED AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT F
Title for Exhibit:
Chart Admitted Turan Petroleum, Inc. in V erified Complaint
Against its Board Chairman Anatoly Vanetik
Showing Misappropriation of Plaintiffs' Stock
through Panama offshore
#:9995
r

Escrow
For 24.6
snares
NewShares

NewShares /

/
-- - -- -- -- -------- ----- --
---- --- - --- -
Attacks
in Kazakhstan
Have to restarted
Criminal. legal
#:9996
r

i
Escrow
For 24.61\11
shares
New Shares
2461\11
r -------------.----------------------

Attack&, based on
"racketeenng
and alit:n s tatus
:Redacted :
.
.
Lw'
,.
rt.a
1
Attacks on Bektayev
in Kazakh$tan
Have to restarted
Cnminal, legal
Augmented extract,
on information and belief,
pierces attorney-client
privilege
#:9997
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT G
Title for Exhiblt:
Letter of Demand to Defendant
Freeman Freeman Smiley LLP, dated March 2, 2009
#:9998
\ k i \
#:9999
\
#:10000
#:10001
APPENDIX
et al.
v.
EXHIBIT
Title for Exhiblt:
Banking Records of
$5 million Transfer Defendant Adilzhan Dzhakishev
on February 3, 2009
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
4

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
6

o
f

1
7

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
1
0
0
0
2
I.JEt.LS FI\RGO BA!IK II.A.
FULl TRANSACTION REPORT
>>>
*F
2F

2
****
---
*** MESSAGE ***
MESSAGE HISTORY SEQUENCE
Page 49122
FOR 03-FEB-2009
- - - - - - - - ~
SND DATE: 09/02/03
CUR:USD TRDR#
C
a
s
e

8
:
0
9
-
c
v
-
0
0
0
5
9
-
J
V
S
-
M
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
4
1
-
4

F
i
l
e
d

0
3
/
1
5
/
1
2

P
a
g
e

1
7

o
f

1
7

P
a
g
e

I
D

#
:
1
0
0
0
3
\JELLS FARGO BAI4K
FUI.L REPORT
;;::;;-:.; TRIJ: 090203069058 >
****
Page 30870
FOR 03-FEB-2009
SNO DATE: 09/02/03
CUR:USD TRDR#
________ FTRL ___ FNDS :S C.!LCi;DB: R Cll;_l\ . :JL .. ------------------------------------------------------
*** MESSAGE ***
NRF 0000006DOOOO.OOSFTR
2FTR 0015000150

01iH=Accordi ng to 2 .1. of attachment
- 2 to the Turan Entergetroleum LLP
-share Sale d""td""."'""'"'J""a""'n""?=-',""i:z""o-----------
Pacific Oil and Gas LTD)
SRF=FW00150034469671

DZHAKISHEV
-33 SKYR!DGE

BNF=D/5738215283
-TURAN PETROLEUM INC
:.9,40 S COAST DR STE 100
-COSTA MESA 92626-7851
MESSAGE HISTORY SEQUENCE
121 -------
R
114114
-------------

2nd - Amend.third Party - Cmpt.kazenercom - Turan.03.15

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2nd - Amend.third Party - Cmpt.kazenercom - Turan.03.15

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 8:09-cv-00059-JVS-MLG Document 441 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 25 Page ID

S-ar putea să vă placă și