DREAMLOON; DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES

​ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTOR PROTECTION DEPARTMENT​ ​In the matter of:​ ​DREAMLOON​ ​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD Order No.​ ​2026 - 0018​ ​Promulgated:​ ​28 September 2026​ ​x-----------------------------x​ ​CEASE AND DESIST ORDER​ ​Pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​mandate​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Enforcement​ ​and​ ​Investor​​Protection​​Department​​("EIPD")​​to​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​investing​ ​public,​ ​and​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​prima​ ​facie​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Securities​​Regulation​​Code​​("SRC"),​​the​​Financial​​Products​​and​​Services​​Consumer​​Protection​ ​Act​ ​("FCPA"),​ ​and​ ​other​ ​laws,​ ​rules,​ ​and​ ​regulations​ ​enforced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Securities​ ​and​ ​Exchange​ ​Commission​​("Commission"),​​the​​EIPD​​hereby​​issues​​this​​Cease​​and​​Desist​​Order​​("CDO")​​against​ ​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​,​ ​and​ ​all​ ​persons​ ​acting​ ​for​ ​and​ ​on​ ​its​ ​behalf,​ ​for​ ​engaging​ ​in​ ​the​ ​unauthorized​ ​offer​ ​and​ ​sale​ ​of​ ​unregistered​ ​securities​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​investment​ ​contracts,​​soliciting​​investments​​from​​the​​public​​without​​the​​requisite​​registration​​and​​license​​from​ ​the Securities and Exchange Commission, and committing acts constituting investment fraud.​ ​THE RELEVANT FACTS​ ​Initial​ ​verification​ ​through​ ​the​ ​Commission's​ ​database​ ​revealed​​that​​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​​is​​NOT REGISTERED​​with the Commission​​as a corporation.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Department's​ ​online​ ​monitoring,​ ​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​ ​is​ ​offering​​investment​​opportunities​​to​​the​​public​​with​​investment​​amounts​​ranging​​from​​Php500.00​ ​to​ ​Php50,000.00​ ​through​ ​its​ ​purported​ ​AI​ ​bot​ ​trading​ ​platform.​ ​The​ ​entity​ ​claims​​that​​investors​ ​may​ ​earn​ ​daily​ ​returns​​ranging​​from​​2%​​to​​3%​.​​It​​also​​offers​​referral​​incentives,​​wherein​​verified​ ​members​​purportedly​​receive​​50%​​of​​the​​trading​​profits​​generated​​by​​their​​verified​​direct​​referrals,​ ​while unverified members receive​​20%​​of the trading​​profits generated by their direct referrals.​ ​To​ ​substantiate​ ​the​ ​allegation​ ​that​ ​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​​PHILIPPINES​”​​is​​engaged​​in​​the​ ​offer/sale​ ​of​ ​unregistered​ ​securities​ ​without​ ​the​ ​requisite​ ​license​ ​from​ ​the​​Commission,​​the​​EIPD​ ​obtained​ ​Certifications​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Commission’s​ ​Company​ ​Registration​ ​and​ ​Monitoring​ ​Department​ ​(CRMD),​ ​Markets​ ​and​ ​Securities​ ​Regulation​ ​Department​ ​(MSRD)​ ​and​ ​Corporate​ ​Governance​ ​and​ ​Finance​ ​Department​ ​(CGFD),​ ​which​ ​all​​certify​​that​​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​”​ ​is​ ​not​ ​registered​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Commission​ ​either​​as​​a​​corporation​​or​​as​​a​​partnership;​ ​has​​not​​registered​​any​​securities​​under​​Section​​8​​and​​12​​of​​the​​SRC;​​has​​not​​filed​​an​​application​​for​ ​the​ ​registration​ ​of,​ ​and/or​ ​a​ ​license​ ​to​ ​sell​ ​securities;​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​issued​ ​any​ ​license​ ​to​ ​sell​ ​securities;​ ​and​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​registered​ ​issuer​ ​of​ ​mutual​ ​funds,​ ​exchange​ ​traded​ ​funds​ ​and​ ​proprietary/non-proprietary​​shares​​or​​membership​​certificates​​and​​timeshares​​under​​Sections​​8​​and​ ​12 of the SRC.​ ​FINDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT​ ​Section 3.1 of the SRC defines “securities” as follows:​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​2​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​“3.1.​​“​Securities​”​​are​​shares,​​participation​​or​​interests​​in​​a​​corporation​​or​ ​in​ ​a​ ​commercial​ ​enterprise​ ​or​ ​profit-making​ ​venture​ ​and​ ​evidenced​ ​by​ ​a​ ​certificate,​ ​contract,​ ​instrument,​ ​whether​ ​written​​or​​electronic​​in​​character.​​It​ ​includes​:​ ​xxx​ ​(b)​ ​Investment​ ​contracts​,​ ​certificates​ ​of​ ​interest​ ​or​ ​participation​ ​in​ ​a​ ​profit-sharing agreement, certificates of deposit for a future subscription; xxx”​ ​An​​investment​​contract​​is​​defined​​under​​Rule​​26.3.5​​of​​the​​2015​​Implementing​​Rules​​and​​Regulations​ ​of the SRC (the “SRC-IRR") as follows:​ ​“​An​ ​investment​ ​contract​ ​means​ ​a​ ​contract,​ ​transaction​ ​or​ ​scheme​ ​whereby​​a​​person​​invests​​his​​money​​in​​a​​common​​enterprise​​and​​is​​led​ ​to​ ​expect​ ​profits​ ​primarily​ ​from​ ​the​ ​efforts​ ​of​ ​others​.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​presumed​ ​to​ ​exist​ ​whenever​​a​​person​​seeks​​to​​use​​the​​money​​or​​property​​of​​others​​on​​the​ ​promise of profits.​ ​A​ ​common​ ​enterprise​ ​is​ ​deemed​ ​created​ ​when​ ​two​ ​(2)​ ​or​ ​more​ ​investors​ ​“pool”​ ​their​ ​resources,​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​common​​enterprise​,​​even​​if​ ​the​ ​promoter​ ​receives​​nothing​​more​​than​​a​​broker’s​​commission.”​​(Emphasis​ ​supplied)​ ​In​​the​​case​​of​​SEC​​v.​​Howey​​Co.​,​​the​​US​​Supreme​​Court​​defined​​an​​investment​​contract​​as​​a​​contract​​or​ ​scheme​​for​​the​​placing​​of​​capital​​or​​laying​​out​​of​​money​​in​​a​​way​​intended​​to​​secure​​income​​or​​profit​ ​from​​its​​employment.​​1​ ​Investment​​contracts​​have​​been​​used​​and​​adopted​​in​​various​​situations​​where​ ​individuals​​were​​led​​to​​invest​​money​​in​​a​​common​​enterprise​​with​​the​​expectation​​that​​they​​would​ ​earn​ ​a​ ​profit​ ​through​​the​​efforts​​of​​the​​promoter​​or​​of​​someone​​other​​than​​themselves.​​2​ ​It​​is​​in​​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​the​ ​foregoing​​that​​the​​U.S.​​Supreme​​Court​​came​​up​​with,​​and​​adopted​​the​​Howey​​Test​​3​ ​in​ ​determining​​if​​an​​investment​​scheme,​​regardless​​of​​the​​legal​​terminology​​used,​​partakes​​of​​the​​nature​ ​of an investment contract.​ ​Our​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​thereafter​​adopted​​and​​consistently​​applied​​the​​Howey​​Test​​in​​determining​​if​​a​ ​transaction​ ​or​ ​a​ ​scheme​ ​is​ ​a​ ​security​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​an​​investment​​contract,​​which​​requires​​prior​ ​registration from the Commission. The case of​​Virata​​v. Ng Wee​​4​ ​emphasized this, to wit:​ ​“​In​ ​this​ ​jurisdiction,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​employs​ ​the​ ​Howey​ ​test​,​ ​named​ ​after​ ​the​ ​landmark​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Securities​ ​and​ ​Exchange​ ​Commission​ ​v.​​W.J.​​Howey​​Co.,​​to​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​the​ ​security​ ​being​ ​offered​ ​takes​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​an​ ​investment​ ​contract.​ ​The​ ​case​ ​served​ ​as​ ​the​ ​foundation​ ​for​ ​the​ ​domestic​ ​definition of the said security​.​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​Howey​ ​test,​ ​the​ ​following​ ​must​ ​concur​ ​for​ ​an​ ​investment​ ​contract​ ​to​ ​exist:​ ​(1)​ ​a​ ​contract,​ ​transaction,​ ​or​ ​scheme;​ ​(2)​ ​an​ ​investment​​of​​money;​​(3)​​investment​​is​​made​​in​​a​​common​​enterprise;​ ​(4)​ ​expectation​ ​of​ ​profits;​ ​and​ ​(5)​ ​profits​ ​arising​ ​primarily​ ​from​ ​the​ ​efforts​ ​of​ ​others.​ ​Indubitably,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​elements​ ​are​ ​present​ ​in​ ​the​ ​extant​ ​case.” (Emphasis supplied)​ ​1​ ​328 U.S. 293 (1946).​ ​2​ ​Ibid.​​Although​​the​​definition​​as​​stated​​in​​the​​Howey​​Case​​qualified​​that​​the​​earning​​of​​profit​​was​​expected​​to​​be​​solely​​through​​the​ ​efforts​ ​of​ ​another​ ​party,​ ​Rule​ ​26.3​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2015​ ​IRR​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SRC​ ​replaced​ ​the​ ​qualifier​ ​with​ ​“primarily”​,​ ​acknowledging​ ​that​ ​an​ ​investment​​contract​​may​​still​​be​​present​​where​​the​​individual​​who​​placed​​the​​money​​exerted​​a​​small​​amount​​of​​effort​​in​​an​​attempt​ ​to earn the profits.​ ​3​ ​Ibid.​ ​4​ ​G.R. Nos. 220926, 221058, 221109, 221135 & 221218, July 5, 2017.​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​3​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​Moreover,​​in​​the​​case​​of​​Power​​Homes​​Unlimited​​Corp.​​v.​​Securities​​and​​Exchange​​Commission​​5​ ​the​ ​Supreme​​Court​​ruled​​that​​in​​applying​​the​​Howey​​Test,​​the​​nature​​and​​the​​entirety​​of​​the​​transaction​ ​should be considered, consistent with the broad concept of “securities” in our jurisdiction, thus:​ ​“It​ ​behooves​ ​us​ ​to​ ​trace​ ​the​ ​history​ ​of​​the​​concept​​of​​an​​investment​​contract​ ​under​​R.A.​​No.​​8799​.​​Our​​definition​​of​​an​​investment​​contract​​traces​​its​​roots​ ​from​​the​​1946​​United​​States​​(US)​​case​​of​​SEC​​v.​​W.J.​​Howey​​Co.​ ​In​​this​​case,​​the​ ​US​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​was​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​of​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​Howey​ ​transaction​ ​constituted​ ​an​ ​"investment​ ​contract"​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Securities​ ​Act's​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​"security."​ ​The​ ​US​ ​Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​recognizing​ ​that​ ​the​ ​term​ ​"investment​ ​contract"​ ​was​ ​not​ ​defined​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​or​ ​illumined​ ​by​ ​any​ ​legislative​ ​report,​ ​held​ ​that​ ​"Congress​ ​was​ ​using​ ​a​ ​term​ ​whose​​meaning​​had​ ​been​ ​crystallized"​ ​under​ ​the​ ​state's​ ​"blue​ ​sky"​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​existence​​prior​​to​​the​ ​adoption​​of​​the​​Securities​​Act.​​Thus,​​it​​ruled​​that​​the​​use​​of​​the​​catch-all​​term​ ​"investment​​contract"​​indicated​​a​​congressional​​intent​​to​​cover​​a​​wide​​range​​of​ ​investment​ ​transactions.​ ​It​ ​established​ ​a​ ​test​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​a​ ​transaction​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​an​ ​"investment​ ​contract."​​Known​​as​​the​ ​Howey​ ​Test,​ ​it​ ​requires​ ​a​ ​transaction,​ ​contract,​ ​or​​scheme​​whereby​​a​​person​ ​(1)​ ​makes​ ​an​​investment​​of​​money,​​(2)​​in​​a​​common​​enterprise,​​(3)​​with​​the​ ​expectation​ ​of​ ​profits,​ ​(4)​ ​to​ ​be​ ​derived​ ​solely​ ​from​ ​the​ ​efforts​ ​of​ ​others.​ ​Although​ ​the​ ​proponents​ ​must​ ​establish​ ​all​ ​four​ ​elements,​ ​the​ ​US​ ​Supreme​​Court​​stressed​​that​​the​​Howey​​Test​​"embodies​​a​​flexible​​rather​ ​than​ ​a​ ​static​ ​principle,​ ​one​ ​that​ ​is​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​adaptation​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​countless​ ​and​ ​variable​ ​schemes​ ​devised​ ​by​ ​those​ ​who​ ​seek​​the​​use​​of​ ​the​ ​money​ ​of​ ​others​ ​on​ ​the​ ​promise​ ​of​ ​profits.​"​ ​Needless​ ​to​ ​state,​ ​any​ ​investment​ ​contract​ ​covered​ ​by​​the​​Howey​​Test​​must​​be​​registered​​under​​the​ ​Securities​ ​Act,​ ​regardless​ ​of​ ​whether​ ​its​ ​issuer​ ​was​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​fraudulent​ ​practices.” (Emphasis ours)​ ​Applying​​the​​foregoing​​parameters​​established​​in​​jurisprudence,​​the​​EIPD​​finds​​reasonable​​grounds​ ​to​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​the​ ​investment​ ​scheme​ ​of​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”​,​ ​where​ ​investments​ ​received​ ​from​ ​the​ ​public​ ​earns​ ​guaranteed​ ​profits​ ​constitutes​ ​an​ ​offer/sale​ ​of​ ​unregistered​​securities​​in​​the​​form​​of​​an​​Investment​​Contract​​as​ ​all​​the​​elements​​of​​the​​Howey​​Test​ ​are present, to wit:​ ​First​,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​an​ ​investment​ ​of​ ​money​ ​by​ ​the​ ​public​ ​in​ ​the​ ​investment​ ​scheme​ ​of​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​” who were enticed​​to invest in their scheme;​ ​Second​,​​there​​is​​a​​common​​enterprise​​in​​the​​sense​​that​​the​​investors​​monies​​were​​pooled​​in​ ​respondent​​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES”​​investment​​scheme;​ ​Third​,​ ​there​ ​was​ ​clearly​ ​an​ ​expectation​ ​of​ ​profits​ ​on​ ​the​ ​part​ ​of​ ​its​ ​investors​ ​who​ ​were​ ​promised that their money would earn guaranteed returns;​ ​Lastly​,​​the​​profits​​are​​derived​​primarily​​from​​the​​efforts​​of​​others.​​Here​​the​​investors​​had​​no​ ​hand​ ​in​ ​the​ ​management​ ​of​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”​ ​and​ ​earned​ ​profits by merely investing in said entity.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”​ ​in​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​its​ ​unauthorized​ ​investment-taking​ ​activities​ ​through​ ​social​ ​media,​ ​promoting​ ​its​ ​unauthorized​ ​investment​​schemes​​constitute​​as​​public​​offering​​as​​defined​​under​​Rule​​3.1.17​​of​​the 2015​​SRC​​IRR,​ ​to wit:​ ​“3.1.17.​ ​Public​ ​offering​ ​is​ ​any​ ​offering​ ​of​ ​securities​ ​to​ ​the​ ​public​ ​or​ ​to​ ​anyone,​​whether​​solicited​​or​​unsolicited.​​Any​​solicitation​​or​​presentation​​of​ ​5​ ​G.R. No. 164182, February 26, 2008.​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​4​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​securities​​for​​sale​​through​​any​​of​​the​​following​​modes​​shall​​be​​presumed​​to​​be​ ​a public offering:​ ​x x x​ ​3.1.17.2 Presentation in any​​public​​or commercial​​place​;​ ​3.1.17.3​ ​Advertisement​ ​or​ ​announcement​ ​in​ ​radio,​ ​television,​ ​telephone,​ ​electronic​ ​communications,​ ​information​ ​communication​ ​technology​ ​or​ ​any other forms of communication​;” (Emphasis supplied)​ ​Section​​8.1​​of​​the​​SRC​​categorically​​provides​​that​​securities​​cannot​​be​​sold​​or​​offered​​for​​sale​​within​ ​the​ ​Philippines​ ​if​ ​the​ ​same​ ​are​ ​not​ ​registered​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Commission​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​an​ ​approved​ ​Registration Statement and a Permit to Offer/Sell issued in favor of the applicant, to wit:​ ​“SEC.​ ​8.​ ​Requirement​​of​​Registration​​of​​Securities.​​–​​8.1​​Securities​​shall​​not​ ​be​ ​sold​ ​or​ ​offered​ ​for​ ​sale​ ​or​ ​distribution​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Philippines,​ ​without​ ​a​ ​registration​ ​statement​ ​duly​ ​filed​ ​with​ ​and​ ​approved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Commission​.​​Prior​​such​​sale,​​information​​on​​the​​securities,​​in​​such​​form​​and​ ​with​ ​such​ ​substance​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Commission​ ​may​ ​prescribe,​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​made​ ​available to each prospective purchaser.”​​(Emphasis​​supplied)​ ​In​ ​the​ ​instant​ ​case,​ ​the​ ​Certifications​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​MSRD,​ ​CGFD,​ ​and​ ​CRMD​ ​all​ ​confirm​ ​that​ ​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​”​​through​​their​​Leaders​​and/or​​agents​​have​​no​​license​ ​to​ ​sell,​​offer,​​or​​deal​​with​​securities;​​neither​​have​​they​​caused​​the​​registration​​of​​the​​securities​​that​ ​they​​are​​currently​​offering​​or​​selling.​​Accordingly,​​the​​offer​​and​​sale​​of​​unregistered​​securities​​in​​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​investment​ ​contracts,​ ​without​ ​the​ ​requisite​ ​license,​ ​constitute​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​and​ ​continuing​ ​violation​​of​​Sections​​8,​​26​​and​​28​​of​​the​​SRC.​​These​​circumstances​​warrant​​the​​immediate​​issuance​ ​of a Cease and Desist Order in order to protect the investing public.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​ ​appears​ ​to​ ​be​ ​operating​ ​an​ ​online​ ​platform​ ​purportedly​ ​utilizing​ ​an​ ​AI​ ​Bot​ ​Chain​,​ ​through​ ​which​ ​it​ ​offers​​investment​​opportunities​ ​involving​ ​crypto-assets​ ​to​ ​the​ ​public.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​information​ ​gathered​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Commission,​ ​the​ ​platform​ ​represents​ ​that​ ​investors​ ​may​ ​deposit​ ​funds​ ​and​ ​participate​ ​in​ ​purported​ ​crypto-asset​ ​trading​ ​activities​ ​by​ ​following​ ​trading​ ​signals​ ​or​ ​strategies​ ​allegedly​ ​generated​ ​through​​the​​AI​​Bot​ ​Chain.​ ​Such​ ​representations​ ​indicate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​platform​ ​facilitates​ ​or​ ​purports​ ​to​ ​facilitate​ ​crypto-asset-related​ ​transactions​ ​and​ ​operates​ ​a​​digital​​environment​​through​​which​​such​​activities​ ​are​ ​conducted,​ ​which​ ​may​ ​constitute​ ​the​ ​provision​​of​​crypto-asset​​services​​and​​the​​operation​​of​​a​ ​crypto-asset​ ​trading​ ​venue,​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​applicable​ ​laws,​ ​rules,​ ​and​ ​regulations​ ​enforced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Commission.​ ​Relative​​to​​the​​issuance​​of​​a​​CDO,​​Section​​64.1​​of​​the SRC provides​​that​​the​​Commission​​may​​issue​​a​ ​CDO​​without​​the​​need​​for​​a​​prior​​hearing,​​when​​by​​its​​judgment,​​the​​act​​or​​practice​​will​​operate​​as​​a​ ​fraud​ ​upon​ ​investors​ ​or​ ​is​ ​otherwise likely​ ​to​ ​cause​​grave​​or​​irreparable​​injury or​​prejudice​​to​​the​ ​investing public, thus:​ ​“​Section​ ​64.​​Cease​ ​and​ ​Desist​ ​Order.​—​ ​64.1. ​The​ ​Commission,​after​ ​proper​ ​investigation​ ​or​ ​verification,​motu​​proprio ​or​​upon​​verified​​complaint​​by​​any​ ​aggrieved​​party, ​may​​issue​​a​​cease​​and​​desist​​order​​without​​the​​necessity​ ​of​ ​a​ ​prior​ ​hearing​ ​if​ ​in​ ​its​ ​judgment​ ​the​ ​act​ ​or​ ​practice,​ ​unless​ ​restrained,​​will​​operate​​as​​a​​fraud​​on​​investors​​or​​is​​otherwise​​likely​​to​ ​cause​ ​grave​ ​or​ ​irreparable​ ​injury​​or​​prejudice​​to​​the​​investing​​public​.”​ ​(Emphasis supplied)​ ​Corollarily,​​pursuant​​to​​Section​​50,​​in​​relation​​to​​Section​​55,​​Rule​​XI​​of​​the​​2026​​Rules​​of​​Procedure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Securities​ ​and​ ​Exchange​ ​Commission,​ ​the​ ​Commission,​ ​through​ ​its​​Operating​​Departments,​ ​may​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​Cease​ ​and​ ​Desist​ ​Order,​ ​motu​ ​proprio​ ​or​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​verified​ ​complaint,​ ​without​ ​the​ ​necessity​​of​​a​​prior​​hearing,​​whenever​​there​​is​​reasonable​​basis​​to​​believe​​that​​a​​person​​has​​engaged​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​5​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​or​ ​is​ ​about​ ​to​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​any​ ​act​ ​or​ ​practice​ ​which,​ ​unless​ ​restrained,​ ​will​ ​operate​ ​as​ ​a​ ​fraud​ ​on​ ​investors or will likely cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public, to wit:​ ​“Section​​50.​​How​​Commenced​.​​An​​Operating​​Department,​​Extension​​Office​​or​ ​SHP,​​motu​​proprio​​or​​upon​​a​​complaint,​​may​​issue​​a​​CDO​​without​​the​​necessity​ ​of​​a​​prior​​hearing,​​upon​​a​​finding​​that​​the​​grounds​​for​​the​​issuance​​of​​the​​CDO​ ​provided​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​53.3​ ​and​ ​64​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SRC,​ ​Section​ ​156​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCC,​​or​ ​Section 6(d)(4) of the FCPA are present.​ ​xxx​ ​Section​ ​55.​ ​Grounds​ ​for​ ​a​ ​CDO​ ​under​ ​the​ ​SRC​.​ ​Whenever​ ​the​ ​Operating​ ​Department,​ ​Extension​ ​Office​ ​or​ ​SHP,​ ​motu​ ​proprio​ ​or​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​verified​ ​complaint,​ ​has​ ​reasonable​ ​basis​ ​to​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​a​ ​person​ ​has​ ​engaged​ ​or​ ​is​ ​about​​to​​engage​​in​​any​​act​​or​​practice​​which,​​unless​​restrained,​​will​​operate​​as​ ​a​ ​fraud​ ​on​ ​investors,​ ​or​ ​will​ ​likely​ ​cause​ ​grave​ ​or​ ​irreparable​ ​injury​ ​or​ ​prejudice​​to​​the​​investing​​public,​​it​​may​​issue​​a​​CDO​​without​​the​​necessity​​of​​a​ ​prior hearing.​ ​A​ ​CDO​ ​issued​ ​under​ ​this​ ​Section​ ​shall​ ​contain​ ​a​ ​directive​ ​to​ ​the​ ​person/s​ ​against​ ​whom​ ​it​ ​is​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​submit​​a​​verified​​Motion​​to​​Lift​​the​​CDO​​within​ ​five (5) days.”​ ​The​​Supreme​​Court,​​in​​Primanila​​Plans,​​Inc.​​v.​​Securities​​and​​Exchange​​Commission​​6​​,​​emphasized​​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​the​​duty​​of​​the​​Commission​​to​​promptly​​issue​​a​​cease​​and​​desist​​order​​whenever​​necessary​​to​ ​immediately​​stop​​acts​​that​​may​​cause​​fraud,​​grave​​injury,​​or​​irreparable​​prejudice​​to​​investors​​and​​the​ ​investing public, to​​wit:​ ​“The​​law​​is​​clear​​on​​the​​point​​that​​a​​cease​​and​​desist​​order​​may​​be​​issued​​by​​the​​SEC​​motu​​proprio​,​​it​ ​being​​unnecessary​​that​​it​​results​​from​​a​​verified​​complaint​​from​​an​​aggrieved​​party.​​A​​prior​​hearing​ ​is​ ​also​ ​not​ ​required​ ​whenever​ ​the​ ​Commission​ ​finds​ ​it​ ​appropriate​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​cease​ ​and​ ​desist​ ​order​ ​that​ ​aims​ ​to​ ​curtail​ ​fraud​ ​or​ ​grave​​or​​irreparable​​injury​​to​​investors.​​There​​is​ ​good​​reason​​for​​this​​provision,​​as​​any​​delay​​in​​the​​restraint​​of​​acts​​that​​yield​​such​​results​​can​ ​only​ ​generate​ ​further​ ​injury​ ​to​ ​the​ ​public​ ​that​ ​the​ ​SEC​ ​is​ ​obliged​ ​to​ ​protect.”​ ​(Emphasis​ ​supplied)​ ​The​ ​unauthorized​ ​investment​ ​scheme​ ​of​ ​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​”​ ​likewise​ ​constitutes​ ​financial​ ​fraud​ ​as​ ​defined​ ​under​ ​the​​Republic​​Act.​​No.​​11765​​of​​the​​Financial​​Products​ ​and​​Services​​Consumer​​Protection​​Act​​(FCPA),​​which​​provide​​that​​any​​form​​of​​deceptive​​solicitation​ ​of​ ​investments​ ​from​ ​the​ ​public,​ ​which​ ​includes​​Ponzi​​schemes​​and​​such​​other​​schemes​​involving​ ​the​​promise​​or​​offer​​of​​profits​​or​​returns​​sourced​​from​​the​​investments​​or​​contributions​​made​​by​​the​ ​investors​ ​themselves,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​offering​ ​or​ ​selling​ ​of​ ​investment​ ​schemes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​public​ ​without​ ​a​ ​license,​​Considering​​that​​financial​​fraud​​is​​punishable​​under​​the​​FCPA,​​any​​act​​constituting​​the​​same​ ​should​ ​immediately​ ​be​ ​cease​ ​and​ ​desist​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Commission​ ​for​ ​the​ ​protection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​investing​ ​public.​ ​The​​EIPD​​finds​ ​that​​the​​act​​of​​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​​PHILIPPINES”​​through​​their​​Leaders​ ​and/or​​its​​Agents​​in​​selling/offering​​unregistered​​securities​​operates​​as​​a​​fraud​​to​​the​​public​​which,​ ​if unrestrained, will likely cause grave injury or prejudice to the investing public.​​7​ ​Further,​ ​unless​ ​restrained,​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​“​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”​ ​through​ ​their​ ​Leaders​ ​and/or​ ​its​ ​Agents​ ​in​ ​selling/offering​ ​unregistered​ ​securities​ ​constitutes​ ​a​ ​continuing​ ​violation of the provisions of the SRC and the FCPA.​ ​6​ ​G.R. No. 193791, August 6, 2014​ ​7​ ​Section 64 of the Securities Regulation Code.​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​6​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​In​​SEC​​vs.​​CJH​​Development​​Corporation​​(G.R.​​No.​​210316,​​28​​November​​2016),​​the​​Supreme​​Court​ ​ruled​​that​​the​​act​​of​​selling​​unregistered​​securities​​without​​the​​requisite​​license​​necessarily​​operates​ ​as a fraud on investors, thus:​ ​“​The​ ​law​ ​is​ ​clear​ ​on​ ​the​ ​point​ ​that​ ​a​ ​cease​ ​and​ ​desist​ ​order​ ​may​ ​be​ ​issued​​by​​the​​SEC​​motu​​proprio​,​​it​​being​​unnecessary​​that​​it​​results​​from​​a​ ​verified​ ​complaint​ ​from​ ​an​ ​aggrieved​ ​party.​ ​A​ ​prior​ ​hearing​ ​is​ ​also​ ​not​ ​required​​whenever​​the​​Commission​​finds​​it​​appropriate​​to​​issue​​a​​cease​ ​and​​desist​​order​​that​​aims​​to​​curtail​​fraud​​or​​grave​​or​​irreparable​​injury​ ​to​​investors.​​There​​is​​good​​reason​​for​​this​​provision,​​as​​any​​delay​​in​​the​ ​restraint​​of​​acts​​that​​yield​​such​​results​​can​​only​​generate​​further​​injury​ ​to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect​.​ ​The​​act​​of​​selling​​unregistered​​securities​​would​​necessarily​​operate​​as​​a​ ​fraud​ ​on​ ​investors​ ​as​ ​it​ ​deceives​ ​the​ ​investing​ ​public​ ​by​ ​making​ ​it​ ​appear​ ​that​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​deal​ ​on​ ​such​ ​securities​.​ ​Section​​8.1​​of​​the​​SRC​​clearly​​states​​that​​securities​​shall​​not​​be​​sold​​or​​offered​ ​for​​sale​​or​​distribution​​within​​the​​Philippines​​without​​a​​registration​​statement​ ​duly​ ​filed​ ​with​ ​and​ ​approved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​SEC​ ​and​ ​that​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​such​ ​sale,​ ​information​​on​​the​​securities,​​in​​such​​form​​and​​with​​such​​substance​​as​​the​​SEC​ ​may​​prescribe,​​shall​​be​​made​​available​​to​​each​​prospective​​buyer.”​​(Emphasis​ ​supplied)​ ​WHEREFORE​,​ ​premises​ ​considered,​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”,​ ​through​ ​their​ ​Leaders​​and/or​​its​​Agents​​and​​their​​respective​​officers,​​directors,​​representatives,​​salesmen,​​agents,​ ​brokers,​ ​dealers,​ ​promoters,​ ​recruiters,​ ​uplines,​ ​influencers,​​endorsers,​​abettors,​​and​​enablers​​and​ ​any​ ​and​ ​all​ ​persons​ ​claiming​ ​and/or​ ​acting​ ​for​ ​and​ ​in​ ​their​ ​behalf,​ ​are​ ​hereby​ ​ordered​ ​to​ ​IMMEDIATELY​​CEASE​​AND​​DESIST​​from​​further​​engaging​​in​​activities​​of​​selling​​and/or​​offering​​for​ ​sale​ ​of​ ​unregistered​ ​securities​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​investment​ ​contracts​ ​and/or​ ​other​ ​activities/transaction​ ​relative​ ​thereto,​ ​until​ ​requisite​ ​registration​ ​and​ ​registration​ ​statements​ ​are​ ​duly​ ​filed​ ​with​ ​and​ ​approved​ ​by​ ​the​​Commission,​​and​​the​​corresponding​​license​​and/or​​permit​​to​ ​offer/sell securities are issued.​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES​ ​DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”,​ ​its​ ​leaders,​ ​agents,​ ​officers,​ ​operators,​ ​administrators,​ ​promoters,​ ​representatives,​ ​salesmen,​ ​agents,​ ​investment​ ​team​ ​planners,​ ​mentors,​ ​enablers,​ ​influencers,​ ​assigns,​ ​conduit​ ​entities,​ ​subsidiaries,​ ​and​ ​any​ ​and​ ​all​ ​persons​ ​claiming​ ​and/or​ ​acting​ ​for​ ​and​ ​in​ ​their​ ​behalf​ ​are​ ​likewise​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​immediately​ ​CEASE​ ​their​ ​internet​ ​presence​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​transactions​ ​and​ ​investment​ ​scheme​ ​covered by this​​Cease and Desist Order.​ ​Finally,​ ​,​ ​“DREAMLOON/DREAMLOON​ ​PHILIPPINES”,​ ​its​ ​leaders,​ ​agents,​ ​and​ ​their​ ​respective​ ​officers,​ ​operators,​ ​administrators,​ ​promoters,​ ​representatives,​ ​salesmen,​ ​agents,​ ​investment​​team​ ​planners,​ ​mentors,​ ​enablers,​ ​influencers,​ ​assigns,​ ​conduit​ ​entities,​ ​subsidiaries,​ ​and​ ​any​ ​and​ ​all​ ​persons​​claiming​​and/or​​acting​​for​​and​​in​​their​​behalf​​are​​PROHIBITED​​from​​transacting​​any​​and​​all​ ​business​​involving​​funds​​in​​its​​depository​​banks,​​and​​from​​transferring,​​disposing,​​or​​conveying​​in​ ​any​​manner,​​any​​and​​all​​assets,​​properties,​​real​​or​​personal,​​including​​bank​​deposits,​​if​​any,​​of​​which​ ​the​ ​named​ ​persons​​herein​​may​​have​​interest,​​claim​​or​​participation,​​whether​​directly​​or​​indirectly,​ ​under​ ​their​ ​custody,​ ​immediately​ ​to​ ​forestall​ ​grave​ ​damage​ ​and​ ​prejudice​ ​to​ ​all​ ​concerned​ ​and​​to​ ​ensure​ ​the​ ​preservation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assets​ ​for​ ​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​investors​ ​without​ ​authority​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Commission.​ ​Let​ ​a​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Order​ ​be​ ​furnished​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Company​ ​Registration​ ​and​ ​Monitoring​ ​Department,​ ​Markets​ ​and​​Securities​​Regulation​​Department,​​Corporate​​Governance​​and​​Finance​​Department​​and​ ​the​ ​Information​ ​and​ ​Communications​ ​Technology​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Commission,​ ​the​ ​Bangko​ ​Sentral​ ​ng​ ​Pilipinas,​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Trade​​and​​Industry,​​the​​National​​Privacy​​Commission,​ ​the​

​In the Matter of:​​DREAMLOON PHILIPPINES​ ​EIPD​​Order No.​​2026-0018​ ​CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER​ ​Page​​7​​of​​7​ ​x----------------------------------------------------------------------x​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Information​ ​and​ ​Communications​ ​Technology,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​local​ ​government​ ​unit(s) for their information and appropriate action.​ ​Further,​​let​​a​​copy​​of​​this​​Order​​be​​published​​on​​the​​official​​website​​of​​the​​Commission​​for​​general​ ​circulation.​ ​Pursuant​​to​​Section​​64.3​​of​​the​​Securities​​Regulation​​Code​​(SRC)​​and​​the​​2026​​Rules​​of​​Procedure​​of​ ​the​ ​Securities​ ​and​ ​Exchange​ ​Commission​ ​(SEC),​ ​the​​Respondent​​may​​file​​a​​verified​​Motion​​to​​Lift​ ​the​ ​CDO​ ​with​ ​the​ ​EIPD​ ​within​ ​five​ ​(5)​ ​days​ ​from​​receipt​​of​​this​​Order​​or​​the​​posting​​of​​the​ ​same on the Commission’s website whichever is earlier.​ ​FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.​​ ​SO ORDERED.​ Digitally signed by Lupango- Tamayo Sheara Laurio Date: 2026.10.01 22:33:35 +08'00' ​SHEARA L. LUPANGO-TAMAYO​ ​Officer-in-Charge, Enforcement and Investor​ ​ rotection Department (S.O. No. 117, s. 2026)​ P ​C/E37​