If you could put 15-20k a month into startups, how are you not meeting the accreditation reqs?
I think the requirements are to cut off companies from taking investments from little old ladies. It's the startup that would get in trouble, not you.
You considered talking to a lawyer?
If preventing little old ladies was all that was needed, then it could be accomplished with a wavier.
I've done approx 45 investments. One has returned (a small amount) of money in five years, so far.
And, perhaps he fudged some numbers, by inflating the value of something illiquid, to claim to be accredited slightly before he was.
As I understand it -- but could be wrong, IANAL -- this requirement isn't a matter of providing formal documentation to the government beforehand, but of asserting your status to the security issuer, perhaps with some documentation, and them accepting your assertion.
Only if things go south, and disputes/lawsuits begin, would the fact that money was accepted from non-accredited investors begin to cause liability and enforcement troubles for the issuers. So the issuers are motivated to ask for some documentation, but could also easily 'look the other way' or accept flimsy assertions in some instances.
Meanwhile, I have easily lost an angel investment's sized amount of money in equities and derivatives I've controlled. (and made many times that in positive returns... but it is the losses the government pretends like they are protecting me from.)
I could have been putting $15k-$20k into several startups a year, for the past 15 years, up to one a month in recent years, if the government would let me.
Think about that-- it would have been ILLEGAL for me to invest in these companies (or for them to take my money)... while at the same time I've incurred complete losses of the same size in the public markets, and could blow all of it and more at any casino on the country in a weekend.