==========================================START OF PAGE 1======

                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                      BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14804 / January 30, 1996

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GENE BLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A BLOCK CONSULTING SERVICES, RENATE HAAG, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A HAAG + PARTNER, AND ROBERT T. RILEY, JR., INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A THE ROBERTS GROUP (United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 95-11748RCL).

     The Commission announced that on January 30, 1996, the
Honorable Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the Commission's application
for a preliminary injunction against Renate Haag ("Haag") of
Langen, Germany and Malibu, California, doing business as Haag +
Partner.  The Court also scheduled a contempt hearing against
Haag on February 26, 1996 for failing to comply with a temporary
restraining order that was entered against her on October 26,
1995.
Specifically, she has failed to file a sworn accounting,
repatriate investor funds and identify all investors.

     Under the terms of the preliminary injunction, Haag is
preliminarily enjoined from continuing her fraudulent offering of
securities.  The Court's order also continues a freeze on Haag's
assets, requires Haag to file a sworn accounting, orders the
repatriation of investor funds and grants other relief.  The
relief was entered in connection with an enforcement action
alleging that Haag was engaging in an ongoing, fraudulent
securities offering of so-called "prime bank instruments" in
violation of the antifraud and registration provisions of the
federal securities laws.  

     Specifically, the Commission alleges that since at least
October 1994, Haag has been the central figure in a fraudulent
scheme that has induced members of the public to invest over $1
million in her programs by promising, in some cases, returns as
high as 200%-420% annually.  In addition to Haag, Gene Block of
Durham, North Carolina ("Block"), doing business as Block
Consulting Services, and Robert T. Riley, Jr. of St. Louis,
Missouri ("Riley"), doing business as The Roberts Group, were
offering and selling the unregistered and fraudulent Haag +
Partner programs through various methods, including
advertisements on the Internet.  Previously, on August 8, 1995,
the Court entered a temporary restraining order and asset freeze
on the Commission's ex parte motion against Block.  On September
14, 1995, Block consented to the entry of a preliminary
injunction.

     The Commission further alleges that as an inducement to
potential investors, the Defendants have represented that





investors' funds would be invested in risk-free, high-yield
investment programs.  The Defendants have falsely represented
that the initial investment is guaranteed against loss because a
"Prime Bank Guarantee" will be used as security for the
transaction.  In fact, there are no legitimate financial
instruments known as "Prime Bank Guarantees."  The Defendants
have also fraudulently represented that investors' funds are
doubled by buying and selling "Bank Instruments."  However, the
Defendants have failed to disclose the nature of the "Bank
Instruments," how the trading will generate such unrealistic
returns, or the risk that the returns will not be achieved.  None
of the Defendants or their businesses are registered with the
Commission as a broker-dealer, nor are they associated with any
broker-dealer registered with the Commission.

     The Commission alleges that the Defendants have violated the
antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities
laws.  The Commission seeks the following relief:  (i) a
permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from further
violations of the antifraud and broker-dealer registration
provisions of the federal securities laws; (ii) disgorgement of
the Defendants' ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest
thereon; and (iii) civil monetary penalties in an amount to be
determined by the Court.  

     For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 14598
and 14711.


























                   
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======