the investment adviser enhancement. 2 Miller next argues that he was not an “investment adviser” because he did not provide securities advice “for compensation” as required by the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(ll). Again, this analysis requires two steps. First, we must determine whether Miller provided secu ica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979). Miller provided securities advice to Carr Miller investors “for compensation.” Based upon Miller’s securities advice, investors bought Carr Miller promissory notes. The principal they provided became Miller’s compensation — his “economic benefit”— when he commingled investors’ accounts and spent the money for his own purposes. SEC Release, 52 Fed. Reg. at 38403; see also Elliott, 62 F.3d at 1311 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Miller siphoned money from Carr
holding that tracing proceeds of illegal funds is unnecessary and where tainted funds have been commingled with potentially legitimate funds the sec is entitled to obtain disgorgement from the entire pool of funds recognizing in context of fraudulent nondisclosure cases that a defendant may reasonably expect the plaintiff to make his own investigation draw his own conclusions and protect himself holding that a defendant compensated himself by spending investors funds for his own expenses holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense holding that even in cases where the accused is harming himself by insisting on conducting his own defense respect for individual autonomy requires that he be allowed to go to jail under his own banner if he so desires if he makes the choice with eyes open