Actress and businesswoman Neri Naig has been charged with estafa and violation of the Securities Regulation Code for promoting investments in a skin care company allegedly operating without proper authorization, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced Thursday.
The SEC revealed that Dermacare-Beyond Skin Care Solutions, run by COO Chanda Atienza and finance manager Venus Eunice Gonda, offered “franchise partner agreements” with promises of guaranteed quarterly returns of 12.6% for five years. However, the SEC said the company lacked the necessary licenses to solicit investments from the public.
“Siya ay naghikayat ng mga investments dun sa Beyond Skin Care. ‘Yun ‘yung kumpanyang iniimbestigahan,” SEC Director Filbert Catalino Flores III said in an interview on TeleRadyo Serbisyo.
The SEC has warned that individuals endorsing or recruiting for unregistered investment schemes could face criminal liability under the Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act and the Securities Regulation Code. Penalties include fines of up to ₱5 million or imprisonment of up to 21 years.
Naig was arrested in Pasay City last Saturday on 14 counts of violating the Securities Regulation Code, with bail set at ₱126,000 per count. She also faces a syndicated estafa case, for which no bail was recommended. Police reports stated that two complainants lost a combined ₱1.5 million after being encouraged to invest through Naig’s endorsement.
Naig’s husband, Parokya ni Edgar frontman Chito Miranda, defended her on Facebook, claiming she was only an endorser and had no role in the company’s operations. “Wala siyang kinuhang pera sa ibang tao, lahat ng pera nila na kay Chanda, ang may-ari ng Dermacare,” he wrote.
The SEC emphasized the need for individuals promoting investments to be registered, especially when making profit guarantees. Flores explained that under the law, promoting investments with promised returns qualifies as involvement in securities transactions, requiring SEC registration.
The court proceedings will determine Naig’s liability and whether her involvement went beyond that of a mere endorser.
