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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14883 / April 17, 1996 

SEC v. WEYMAN B. SINYARD, THOMAS P. POULAKIDAS, RANDY DEPOISTER,
FINANCIAL RESOURCES ADVISORY, INC. AND JARCO, INC.
(N.D. Ill., Civil Action File No. 94C-5856)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced
that on April 17, 1996, the Honorable John Grady of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered an Order Striking Answer and Issuing a Permanent
Injunction by Default (Order) Against Defendant Weyman B. Sinyard
(Sinyard).  The Order permanently enjoins Sinyard from violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The Order specifically asserts that the Court
shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to, among other things,
permit the Commission to conduct discovery to determine the
specific amount of Sinyard's ill-gotten gains arising from its
violations, determine whether Sinyard shall be required to pay
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties and
determine the liability of the remaining defendants:  Thomas G.
Poulakidas (Poulakidas); Randy Depoister (Depoister); and
Depoister's registered investment adviser, Financial Resources
Advisory, Inc. (FRA).

The Court's Order was based on Sinyard's willful failure to
comply with the Court's orders compelling discovery and to
respond to any discovery properly served upon him.  Specifically,
Sinyard failed to obey two Court orders relating to discovery. 
Additionally, Sinyard also failed, after being properly served,
to appear for his deposition on two occasions, to serve answers
or objections to interrogatories and to serve a written response
to a document request.

The Amended Complaint alleged that between December 1987 and
March 1991, Defendants Sinyard, Poulakidas, Depoister, Jarco,
Inc. (Jarco) and FRA offered and sold securities in the form of
Jarco promissory notes to the public.  As a result, over $1
million was raised from at least twenty-three investors residing
in Illinois and Indiana.  In connection therewith, Sinyard,
Poulakidas, Depoister, Jarco and FRA misrepresented and omitted
to state material facts regarding the investment.  Specifically,
investors were told that their funds would be used to help
finance Jarco's costs associated with obtaining a several billion
dollar loan for a trust purportedly located in Mexico (Trust). 
The defendants further represented that investors would quickly
recoup their principal investment funds and receive returns of up
to 200%.  However, the loan has never closed and investors have
neither recouped their investments nor received their promised
returns.  As a result, Sinyard and the other defendants
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

misrepresented and omitted to state material facts regarding,
among other things:  the risks, returns and duration of the 

                               -2-

investment, the true nature of the investment and the use of
investor funds.

For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 14259
(September 27, 1994), 14308 (October 28, 1994), 14512 (May 26,
1995) and 14603 (August 15, 1995).