The public record surrounding Quang-Vu Dang is no longer limited to a five-year-old California civil lawsuit. A 2026 Wisconsin regulatory order has placed Dang, Melinda Woolf, also known as Melinda Skipworth, and William “Billy” Kesselring at the center of a securities enforcement action involving investor funds, unregistered offerings, misleading financial representations and a total restitution-and-interest obligation of $240,890.41. The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions’ Division of Securities entered the final order by consent on May 12, 2026, after the respondents waived their right to a hearing and review and consented to the order.
Dang is identified in the Wisconsin order as an adult male resident of Ojai, California. Woolf is identified as an adult female resident of Milton, Wisconsin and as doing business under the name Future for Humanity Foundation. The same order identifies Dang and Woolf as the original principals and founders of Regenerative Impact, while Kesselring joined in 2019 as a control person responsible for operations management. None of the three was registered with the Wisconsin Division of Securities at the time of the investment solicitations.
The central issue was Regenerative Impact, a collection of entities including SDG Futures Regenerative Impact Ventures LLC, Regenerative Impact Partners LLC, Regenerative Impact LLC and Ethos Botanics LLC. According to the Wisconsin regulator, the businesses presented themselves as operating in agriculture, particularly the cultivation, harvesting and commercial use of industrial hemp, together with textile and CBD-product development. Beginning at least by August 2019, the respondents solicited Wisconsin investors and obtained more than $200,000 from at least seven people. The regulator’s records ultimately put the identified Wisconsin investor principal at $204,000.
The representations described in the regulator’s findings were unusually ambitious. Investment materials promised annual returns of at least 30 percent, with some materials and representations going as high as 500 percent on an adjusted annual basis or offering comparable returns over a single growing season. Investors were also told that 78 percent of the money — listed in one prospectus as $365,000 — would be directed toward farming, while 22 percent, or $100,000, would cover management services such as legal, accounting, sales, marketing and expert services.
Wisconsin’s findings went far beyond a dispute over whether projections were too optimistic. The regulator concluded that the vast majority of investor money went directly to the individual respondents or was routed through other accounts, including Ethos Botanics, for their benefit. The order says funds represented to investors as being earmarked for legitimate business purposes were instead converted for personal use or redirected toward undisclosed business purposes. It also says investors were given false or deceptive information concerning financial performance and, in some instances, false financial documents and account statements.
The regulator also found that investors were promised quarterly financial reports and annual audited financial statements. According to the order, only a few quarterly updates were ever provided and no audited financial statements were supplied. Requests for additional financial information were also refused. The Division concluded that the respondents had made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning their financial condition, operations, affiliations and use of investor money.
The securities issue was equally significant. Wisconsin determined that the interests sold to investors constituted securities and that neither the respondents nor the offering had been registered with the Wisconsin Division of Securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission or FINRA. The regulator concluded that the respondents violated Wisconsin’s securities laws by selling securities that were neither registered nor exempt and by engaging in conduct that operated as fraud or deceit.
The final 2026 order matters because this is no longer simply an allegation contained in an investigator’s complaint. Dang, Woolf, Kesselring and the named entities consented to the final administrative order. They waived their rights to a hearing and review and stated their intent not to contest issuance of the order. The final order adopts the factual findings and legal conclusions from the earlier summary order. It is an administrative securities proceeding, not a criminal conviction, and the record reviewed for this article does not establish that any of the respondents pleaded guilty to or were convicted of a criminal offense.
The financial consequences are substantial but need to be described precisely. The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $204,000 in restitution and $36,890.41 in interest. A further $50,000 civil penalty was imposed but suspended on the condition that the respondents comply with the repayment terms. If they fail to meet those terms, the suspended penalty can become due. The payment schedule runs through July 2027.
This was not the first legal problem linking Dang and Woolf. In October 2019, Banyan Trees Limited, a Hong Kong company, sued Woolf, also identified as Melinda Skipworth, Dang and UHAI Blockchain in Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint concerned accommodation rented in Davos, Switzerland, during the 2019 World Economic Forum. Banyan Trees alleged that the defendants agreed to pay €67,960 for the housing, made an initial €6,490 deposit using Dang’s credit card account, and then failed to pay the remaining €61,470.
The complaint made a further allegation that the defendants benefited from the property and charged other people for its use, with some payments allegedly going directly to Dang’s bank account. Banyan Trees sought $67,463.32 in compensatory damages, a 10 percent late fee, interest and legal costs. The causes of action were breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. OffshoreAlert separately published the complaint and identified the defendants and the €61,470 claim.
There is an important distinction between that 2019 case and the Wisconsin proceeding. The Banyan Trees document is a civil complaint containing allegations by the plaintiff; the material reviewed here does not establish the ultimate disposition of that lawsuit. By contrast, the Wisconsin matter culminated in a final consent order. The Wisconsin regulator itself later referenced the 2019 Banyan dispute when describing information that had not been disclosed to prospective investors.
Dang also became aware that the California lawsuit was being publicly reported. In October 2023, he submitted a request to OffshoreAlert asking that information about him be deleted under the California Consumer Privacy Act. The request specifically identified the OffshoreAlert page concerning Quang Vu Dang and the Banyan Trees lawsuit. The available request does not contain a substantive denial of Banyan Trees’ allegations or an explanation of the underlying dispute.
Woolf’s public professional profile describes her as founder of SDG Futures and Future For Humanity Foundation and emphasizes work involving sustainability, blockchain, artificial intelligence and social-impact initiatives. Earlier public material also identifies her as founder and executive director of Future For Humanity Foundation, including a 2019 UNECE participant list. The Wisconsin order, however, identifies her as one of the founders and control persons of Regenerative Impact. It is that regulatory finding, rather than promotional descriptions of the ventures, that provides the clearest current official account of the investment operation.
Dang’s publicly documented background is less straightforward. A 2022 Sanehood AI whitepaper lists “Quang-Vu Dang” and Nicholas Gray as its authors and describes an AI- and cryptocurrency-based meditation platform. There are also academic publications under the name Quang Vu Dang dating to the 2000s involving software and collaborative-platform research, but the sources reviewed do not independently establish that the academic author and the Wisconsin respondent are the same individual. That distinction matters when reconstructing someone’s biography from common-name records.
The latest official regulatory record places Dang in Ojai, California and Woolf in Milton, Wisconsin, although Woolf’s public professional profile continues to list Los Angeles County, California. No reliable public source reviewed here establishes Dang’s age, and there is no sufficiently reliable evidence to state a current age for either individual without speculation. The most recent documented activity involving Dang is his May 2026 consent to the Wisconsin securities order; the order’s repayment schedule remains active into 2027.
The record therefore presents a progression that investors and consumers should examine carefully: a 2019 civil dispute involving Davos accommodation, followed by an investment operation built around hemp and sustainability claims, followed by a state securities enforcement action finding unregistered securities sales, material misrepresentations, deceptive financial documents and misuse of investor funds. The respondents consented to the resulting administrative order rather than contesting it at a hearing. There is no criminal conviction established in the records reviewed, but there is now a final state securities order requiring restitution and interest and restricting future securities activity in Wisconsin.
The broader significance is not simply the dollar figure. Private investment pitches often rely on trust long before an investor sees a financial statement. In this case, Wisconsin regulators concluded that the investors were given representations about returns, business operations, affiliations and use of funds that were materially false or misleading. The final order creates a public record of those findings and a repayment obligation. For anyone considering an investment tied to sustainability, hemp, blockchain or another fast-growing sector, the case illustrates why the underlying corporate structure, registration status, audited financials and actual use of investor money can matter just as much as the promise attached to the investment.
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
