Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty in $402 Million Investment Fraud Scheme
Daryl F. Heller entered a guilty plea to securities fraud in federal court following a multi-year fraudulent scheme.
According to official records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Daryl F. Heller, 56, of Lititz, Pennsylvania, entered a guilty plea on August 10, 2026, to securities fraud. U.S. Attorney David Metcalf announced the plea, which was entered before U.S. District Judge Catherine Henry.
Official records state that Heller controlled and was the majority owner of Paramount Management Group, LLC, Heller Capital Group LLC, and Prestige Investment Group, LLC. Court filings show that from about January 2017 to December 2024, Heller solicited and caused others to solicit approximately $770 million from investors in the Prestige and WF Velocity ATM Funds. Official documents state that the fraudulent scheme resulted in investor losses of approximately $402 million in unpaid principal after funds promised for purchasing and operating automated teller machines and cryptocurrency teller machines were used instead for prior investors, personal expenses, and business debts.
Sentencing for Heller is scheduled for December 1. He faces a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $5 million fine, alongside restitution and forfeiture in amounts to be determined by the court. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with investigative assistance from local police departments and the district attorney's office. Parallel civil charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission last September remain pending and undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 12:59current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.