Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Remarks at Texas Stock Exchange Event
MIAMI, Florida, April 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on April 7, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at an event entitled "Texas Stock Exchange Event: Welcome to the Boom Belt: A Return to First Principles in Public Markets":
* * *
Thank you very much, Jim [Lee], and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Governors Abbott and DeSantis, I am grateful to share the stage with you. And to Messieurs [Jim] Esposito and Lee, I thank you for the perspectives that you have shared and for the example that you have set.
First principles have very clearly found fertile
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, April 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on April 7, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at an event entitled "Texas Stock Exchange Event: Welcome to the Boom Belt: A Return to First Principles in Public Markets":
* * *
Thank you very much, Jim [Lee], and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Governors Abbott and DeSantis, I am grateful to share the stage with you. And to Messieurs [Jim] Esposito and Lee, I thank you for the perspectives that you have shared and for the example that you have set.
First principles have very clearly found fertileground here in Florida. And at its core, I believe that the momentum taking place across the Boom Belt reflects a deeply American idea: that competition--among firms; among markets; and yes, among States--is the animating force behind a system that has produced more prosperity than any other in human history.
Competition, as I noted recently in Texas, does not pause for tradition, nor does it defer to legacy jurisdictions. Over time, it compels systems, and States, to adapt--or to yield. Through competition, good ideas spread, poor ones fade, and the system itself grows stronger.
We need not look any further than the Boom Belt for a better example. The eleven states that span the Southeast are outpacing every other American quadrant across the measures that matter most, among them gross domestic product, population growth, job creation, foreign investment, and private market activity.
When capital, companies, and people all move in the same direction--with that kind of consistency, and at that kind of scale--it behooves us to ask why.
I believe that the answer, more often than not, is the region's steady adherence to first principles, including those that rigorously protect investors without needlessly paralyzing companies.
So, for our part, the SEC is returning to those same principles by renewing the conditions that make our public markets the natural destination for companies to raise capital and for investors to share in their success.
For context, decades of accretive rulemakings and regulatory adventurism have made the path to becoming a public company narrower--and the experience of remaining one encumbered with rules that can introduce more friction than benefit.
It is little surprise, then, that shortly after I left the SEC back in the mid-1990s as chief of staff, there were more than 7,800 companies listed on the U.S. exchanges--and by the time that I returned last year as Chairman, that figure had fallen by roughly 40 percent.
This trajectory tells a cautionary tale that we are working to rectify through the three pillars of my plan to make IPOs great again.
First, we are modernizing, rationalizing, and streamlining disclosure reports so that they are meaningful, understandable, and not a repellant to investors. Too many SEC requirements that began as a framework to inform have become instruments to obscure--drifting along the way from what a reasonable investor would consider important to what a regulator might find interesting. That is completely opposite of what should be the case since we are commanded by law to put the investor first.
Our disclosure regime is most effective when the SEC provides the minimum effective dose of regulation necessary to elicit the information that is material to investors, and we allow market forces--not the regulator--to drive the disclosure of any additional aspects that may be beneficial. Materiality, in short, must reclaim its place as the SEC's north star.
Second, as part of the three pillars of making IPOs great again, we are focused on ensuring that States, and not the SEC, regulate matters of corporate governance. Over time, the agency has used its disclosure authority to attempt to indirectly establish governance standards that state corporate law should and can address. We must stay in our lane as a disclosure agency and not be a merit regulator.
Third [pillar], and finally, we are allowing public companies to have litigation alternatives while maintaining an avenue for shareholders to continue to bring forth meritorious claims. At the SEC, we have been hard at work on executing this plan so that we can shield the innovator from the frivolous--and protect the investor from the fraudulent.
Taken together, these reforms represent something larger than a regulatory agenda--indeed, they herald the SEC's return to first principles that have made this region's ascent so remarkable. In many ways, the Boom Belt embodies the best of what we are working toward in Washington. And guided by your example, we are reminded that the most consequential reforms are not those that add to the compliance burden, but those that have the courage to lift it.
So, I am grateful, once again, for the opportunity to be part of today's program. I look forward to engaging with you in the work that we have discussed today. And above all, I thank you for your faith in what this country can achieve when it remembers the principles that, in this 250th anniversary of the United States, made it great. Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-boom-belt-040726
FDIC Chairman Hill Issues Statement on Proposal to Implement the Bank Secrecy Act Program Rule
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement on April 7, 20226, by Chairman Travis Hill on the proposal to implement the Bank Secrecy Act program rule:
* * *
In 2021, Congress passed the AML Act,/1 the most substantial overhaul of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) in a generation, and the first since the USA Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001. In the AML Act, Congress directed FinCEN and the banking agencies to, among other things, modernize the BSA, ensure that bank BSA programs focus on high-risk areas that are important to law enforcement and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement on April 7, 20226, by Chairman Travis Hill on the proposal to implement the Bank Secrecy Act program rule:
* * *
In 2021, Congress passed the AML Act,/1 the most substantial overhaul of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) in a generation, and the first since the USA Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001. In the AML Act, Congress directed FinCEN and the banking agencies to, among other things, modernize the BSA, ensure that bank BSA programs focus on high-risk areas that are important to law enforcement andnational security agencies, and encourage technological innovation to more effectively counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Banks currently devote enormous resources to complying with BSA requirements, while it is unclear to what extent much of that effort actually helps further law enforcement or national security efforts. Meanwhile, the risk of large fines due to BSA violations incentivizes banks to "debank" customers by denying or closing accounts.
Today, the FDIC Board is considering perhaps the most important of the reforms Congress envisioned in the AML Act. The proposal embraces a risk-based approach to supervision and would affirmatively encourage banks to allocate resources away from lower risk activities and toward higher risk activities. It would require that programs be established and effectively implemented in light of each bank's particular risk assessment and profile. Banks, notably community banks that receive little direct feedback from law enforcement, would be able to rely on the Treasury Department's "National Priorities" as they develop their risk assessments. The proposal seeks to avoid penalizing banks for "foot faults" or approaching exams as "box checking" exercises, and instead focuses on better aligning regulation with risk and avoiding having to wait until a massive failure to take action. At the same time, the proposal would still maintain the tools necessary for regulators to take action if, for example, a bank is accepting duffel bags full of cash from drug cartels or funding terrorists overseas.
I want to thank FDIC staff for their work on this proposal, along with the staffs of our interagency partners, and I look forward to receiving comments.
1 Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, Pub. L. No.116-283, Sec.Sec. 6001-6511, 134 Stat. 4547-4633 (2021).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/statement-chairman-travis-hill-proposal-implement-bsa-program-rule
FCC Suspends Seven Convicted Criminals From Universal Service Fund Programs
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on April 7, 2026:
* * *
FCC Suspends Seven Convicted Criminals from Universal Service Fund Programs
Enforcement Bureau Moves E-Rate Program Criminals Closer to Debarment
*
Today, the Federal Communications Commission suspended seven individuals from participating in the agency's Universal Service Fund programs. These individuals illegally enriched themselves through schemes to defraud the E-Rate program, including by lying in official filings with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on April 7, 2026:
* * *
FCC Suspends Seven Convicted Criminals from Universal Service Fund Programs
Enforcement Bureau Moves E-Rate Program Criminals Closer to Debarment
*
Today, the Federal Communications Commission suspended seven individuals from participating in the agency's Universal Service Fund programs. These individuals illegally enriched themselves through schemes to defraud the E-Rate program, including by lying in official filings with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)and overbilling the E-Rate program. As part of the FCC's efforts to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in Universal Service Fund (USF) programs, the FCC recently voted on updates to its suspension and debarment rules that enable the agency to take quicker and more comprehensive action against wrongdoers.
Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement:
"The FCC is committed to stopping bad actors from defrauding our USF programs, including those that target our E-Rate program as a way to line their own pockets. We must be good stewards of federal dollars. I want to thank our federal and state law enforcement partners for their work on these cases--and the FCC's own Enforcement Bureau and Office of Inspector General for their commitment to ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse from USF programs."
* * *
Additional Background Information:
The FCC's Enforcement Bureau issued Notices of Suspension and officially initiated debarment proceedings for seven individuals today. Each individual has been found guilty of crimes related to the USF-supported E-Rate program which is designed to enhance access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary
school classrooms and libraries. Those who are being suspended today are:
* Donatus Anyanwu and Donna Woods of Texas - Knowingly conspired to defraud the E-Rate program of more than $337,000 by using Woods' position as CEO of a Texas school, Nova Charter School, to select Anyanwu's company, ADI Engineering, as the school's E-Rate provider.
* Shawn Clemmons of Ohio - As executive director of E-Rate program service provider South Central Ohio Computer Association, he unlawfully withheld reimbursements to schools longer than allowed; regularly used USAC reimbursements from one year to pay schools the reimbursements they were owed for the previous year; and one year, he caused all but one of the client public schools to not receive their reimbursements. A court ordered him to pay more than $3.2 million in restitution.
* Kenneth Collura of Ohio - Knowingly submitted a false certification to USAC that a contract between the Diocese of Columbus Office of Catholic Schools and the South Central Ohio Computer Association covered no ineligible services, when the charges under the contract were inflated and included expenses not eligible for E-Rate funding.
* John Comito of New York - Knowingly and intentionally devised a scheme to defraud USAC and 26 schools in New York City in order to obtain money and property from them. A court ordered him to pay more than $505,000 in restitution and a fine of $250,000.
* Charles Jones of Tennessee - Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit wire fraud that involved submitting fabricated documents in Tennessee and Missouri to defraud the E-Rate program. For a decade, Jones and others siphoned more than $6 million from the E-Rate program to benefit companies he owned.
* Mark Whitaker of Tennessee - Failed to report the knowing transmission of materially false communications and documents to the federal government with the intent of defrauding the E-Rate program.
The FCC recently voted to adopt rules to bolster its suspension and debarment program and align it with other agencies and seek comment on expanding the program to allow for the broader removal of participants that commit waste, fraud, and abuse. The FCC has also proposed applying its suspension and debarment rules beyond USF programs to other programs including its Rip and Replace program, and to a wider range of misconduct. The new rules promote greater accountability and policing among program recipients, including by requiring program participants, their board members, and other company executives to disclose prior misconduct and ensure that the parties with whom they do business under FCC programs are not currently suspended or debarred.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-suspends-seven-convicted-criminals-usf-programs
iPRO Dental Laboratory to Pay $30,000 in EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
iPRO Dental Laboratory to Pay $30,000 in EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Settles federal suit alleging dental laboratory fired employee because she was pregnant
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - iPRO Dental Laboratory, Inc., a Fort Lauderdale manufacturer of dental restoration products, will pay $30,000 to settle a federal pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
iPRO Dental Laboratory to Pay $30,000 in EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Settles federal suit alleging dental laboratory fired employee because she was pregnant
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - iPRO Dental Laboratory, Inc., a Fort Lauderdale manufacturer of dental restoration products, will pay $30,000 to settle a federal pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, the EEOCcharged that the company fired a newly hired employee in January 2023 after learning she was pregnant. The employee started work on a Monday, informed the company she was pregnant on Tuesday, and was terminated on Friday without any record of performance or disciplinary issues.
"Employers cannot force workers out of their jobs because of pregnancy," said Kristen Foslid, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office. "The law is clear that pregnancy cannot be the basis for denying employment opportunities."
The conduct alleged in EEOC's compliant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. iPRO Dental Laboratory, Inc. Case No. 0:25-cv-61904) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
EEOC Miami District Director Evangeline Hawthorne said, "Assumptions and stereotypes about pregnant workers' ability to perform have no place in a fair and equitable workplace. The EEOC will continue to stand up for the rights of all employees to work in an environment free from discrimination."
In addition to monetary damages paid to the terminated employee, the company will hire a third-party equal employment opportunity coordinator to conduct investigations into complaints of discrimination and to shadow iPro's interviews to provide feedback on best practices. In addition, iPro will create a hotline for employees to report discrimination; create policies on pregnancy discrimination and handling requests for accommodation from pregnant employees, provide annual training for all employees; post a notice regarding the lawsuit; and submit biannual reports to the EEOC regarding complaints of discrimination and requests for accommodation due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.
The EEOC's Miami District Office's jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ipro-dental-laboratory-pay-30000-eeoc-pregnancy-discrimination-lawsuit
SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement results for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2025.
Central to an effective enforcement program is determining which cases to bring and responsibly stewarding Commission resources. Regrettably, such resources have been misapplied in prior years to pursue media headlines and run up numbers, and in turn, led to misguided expectations on what constitutes effective
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement results for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2025.
Central to an effective enforcement program is determining which cases to bring and responsibly stewarding Commission resources. Regrettably, such resources have been misapplied in prior years to pursue media headlines and run up numbers, and in turn, led to misguided expectations on what constitutes effectiveenforcement.
Fiscal Year 2025 Results & Supporting Context
During fiscal year 2025, the Commission filed 456 enforcement actions, including 303 standalone actions and 69 "follow-on" administrative proceedings seeking to bar or suspend individuals from certain functions in the securities markets based on criminal convictions, civil injunctions, or other orders, and obtaining orders for monetary relief totaling $17.9 billion. These enforcement actions addressing a broad range of misconduct demonstrate the Commission's prioritization of cases that directly harm investors and the integrity of the U.S. securities markets, including offering frauds, market manipulation, insider trading, issuer disclosure violations, and breaches of fiduciary duty by investment advisers.
The results do not include the 1,095 matters in which potentially violative conduct was investigated and which were closed, the several matters where market participants remediated their practices, or cases that were otherwise not pursued.
FY 2025 was a unique period of transition for the enforcement division never experienced before in modern SEC history. It was characterized by an unprecedented rush to bring a significant number of cases in advance of the presidential inauguration [1] and the aggressive pursuit of novel legal theories under the prior Commission.
This period brought about the current Commission's resolution of prior cases that were not sufficiently grounded in the federal securities laws. The current Commission deliberately refocused the enforcement program on matters of fraud-cases that inherently require more time and resources to develop and bring, often requiring up to two or more years to manifest results.
Since fiscal year 2022, the prior Commission brought 95 actions and $2.3 billion in penalties against firms for book-and-record violations, specifically failing to maintain and preserve off-channel communications. Together with seven crypto firm registration-related and six 'definition of a dealer' cases, these cases identified no direct investor harm from those violations, produced no investor benefit or protection, and demonstrate what the current Commission views as a misinterpretation of the federal securities laws, a misallocation of Commission resources, and a bias for volume of cases brought versus matters of investor protection. This year's enforcement results clarify the flaws of these actions and their respective penalties and re-establish the definition and measure of enforcement effectiveness, grounded in Congress's original intent and focused on bringing actions that actually prevent investor harm instead of headlines and inflated numbers.
Going forward, enforcement priorities and results will be linked to the Commission's and the Division's core mandate, and will thus contemplate the following elements to fulfill its mission: Standing up to fraud in its many forms and those market participants engaged in such misconduct; addressing the fraudulent and manipulative conduct of the parties in question through appropriate remediation; and repaying investors' losses when harmed.
"Over the past year, the Commission has put a stop to regulation by enforcement and recentered its enforcement program on the Commission's core mission by prioritizing cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity," said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. "We have redirected resources toward the types of misconduct that inflict the greatest harm-particularly fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust-and away from approaches that prioritized volume and record-setting penalties over true investor protection. A key part of this course correction is a renewed emphasis on holding individual wrongdoers accountable, which promotes stronger deterrence and better safeguards investors. I am proud of the staff's work in advancing an enforcement program grounded in sound judgment, clear legal authority, and the real-world needs of the investing public."
"I fully support the move away from using enforcement as a tool for policymaking, and the return to the Commission's historical norms," said SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda. "We will remain focused on coherent and transparent policymaking, as well as meaningful engagement with market participants to promote compliance, and wield the authority of enforcement in a more appropriate manner, guided by investor protection above all."
Supporting Detail
In connection with its fiscal year 2025 enforcement actions, the Commission obtained orders for monetary relief totaling $17.9 billion, of which was $10.8 billion in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest and $7.2 billion in civil penalties. And some of the actions in which the Commission obtained orders for monetary relief included disgorgement amounts that the Commission deemed satisfied, in whole or in part, by a court order in a separate non-SEC action (e.g., a restitution or forfeiture order in a parallel criminal proceeding). After excluding these "deemed satisfied" amounts, which historically had not been broken out or excluded in annual Commission statistics, and the judgments against Robert Allen Stanford and other defendants in the Commission's long-running litigation concerning their $8 billion Ponzi scheme, the monetary relief obtained in fiscal year 2025 totaled $1.4 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $1.3 billion in civil penalties.
In fiscal year 2025, some market participants self-reported violations, co-operated meaningfully [3] with the Division's investigations, and/or remediated [4] securities law violations. As a result, the Division recommended, and the Commission approved, resolutions imposing reduced civil penalties [5] or declined to recommend an enforcement action against a party. During fiscal year 2025, the Commission returned approximately $262 million to harmed investors and awarded approximately $60 million to 48 individual whistleblowers. In addition, the SEC received a record 53,753 tips, complaints, and referrals in fiscal year 2025, nearly 19 percent more than in the prior fiscal year.
Protecting Retail Investors
The fiscal year 2025 enforcement results demonstrate the Commission's focus on protecting the interests of retail investors, who may be particularly vulnerable to securities fraud, while prioritizing identifying and remedying fraudulent conduct. The Division devoted significant resources to this critical area in fiscal year 2025 and brought actions to address conduct involving fraudsters who targeted veterans, seniors, and members of a religious community.
The Division filed several noteworthy actions, including:
* Paramount Management Group, LLC, Prestige Investment Group, LLC, and their founder, Daryl F. Heller, in connection with a Ponzi scheme that allegedly defrauded approximately 2,700 investors, many of whom were retail investors, and resulted in $400 million in investor losses;
* First Liberty Building & Loan, LLC and its owner, Edwin Brant Frost IV, in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme that defrauded approximately 300 investors of more than $140 million;
* Nightingale Properties, LLC and its founder Elchonon "Elie" Schwartz in connection with allegedly raising $60 million from approximately 700 retail investors through false representations and misappropriating more than $52 million in investor funds;
* Massachusetts-based biopharmaceutical company Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. for disclosure failures that concealed from the investing public a harsh critique levied by the FDA regarding the company's flagship cancer drug candidate; and
* Vanguard Advisers, Inc., a registered investment adviser, for failing to adequately disclose conflicts of interest when recommending to prospective and existing clients that they enroll in a fee-based advisory service that provided ongoing portfolio management of their accounts.
Holding Individual Wrongdoers Accountable
In fiscal year 2025, the Commission prioritized charging individuals for violating federal securities laws and will continue to do so. Of the standalone actions filed during this past fiscal year, approximately two-thirds involved charges against one or more individual bad actors (a 27 percent year-over-year increase), and nearly nine out of every 10 standalone actions filed under Acting Chairman Uyeda and Chairman Atkins involved individual charges. The Commission also obtained orders barring 119 individuals from serving as officers and directors of public companies.
Holding individual wrongdoers accountable benefits the investing public by seeking to provide specific and general deterrence, and, particularly where injunctive and other non-monetary remedies are imposed, protecting markets and investors from future misconduct by those same bad actors.
Combatting Securities Fraud Wherever it Occurs
The Commission continued to pursue enforcement actions involving potential market manipulation, such as account takeover and "pump-and-dump" or "ramp-and-dump" schemes involving foreign-based companies and gatekeepers. In September 2025, the Commission formed the Cross-Border Task Force to help address the serious threat that fraudsters located abroad pose to U.S. investors and markets, and several enforcement actions from fiscal year 2025 demonstrate the Commission's commitment to pursuing transnational fraud that harms American investors.
Safeguarding Markets from Abusive Trading
Central to the Commission's enforcement efforts are detecting and deterring market abuses, including insider trading, market manipulation, and myriad other practices that interfere with fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
In fiscal year 2025, the Commission brought a number of actions covering a wide range of abusive trading practices, including against a California resident for allegedly conducting a manipulative trading scheme known as "spoofing" through which he obtained approximately $234,000 in ill-gotten gains.
The Commission also filed insider trading charges against, among others:
* a former Vice President of Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance at a biopharmaceutical company ;
* a former investor relations executive and two others ; and
* a former Head of Equity Trading at an investment firm.
Deploying Resources Judiciously as to Emerging Technologies
In fiscal year 2025, the Commission made a necessary course correction in its approach to enforcing the federal securities laws in the context of crypto assets. [6] The Division remains committed to detecting, deterring, and bringing actions against those seeking to take advantage of investors by misusing new technologies. In February 2025, the Commission announced the launch of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit to complement the work of the Crypto Task Force and to protect investors by combatting misconduct as it relates to securities transactions involving blockchain technology, AI, account takeovers, cybersecurity, and other areas.
During fiscal year 2025, the Division charged:
* New York City-based Unicoin, Inc. and four of its current or former top executives for alleged false and misleading statements in an offering of certificates that purportedly conveyed rights to receive crypto assets called Unicoin tokens and in an offering of Unicoin, Inc.'s common stock;
* PGI Global founder Ramil Palafox for allegedly orchestrating a $198 million crypto asset and foreign exchange fraud scheme that involved the offer and sale of "membership" packages, which he claimed guaranteed investors high returns from supposed crypto asset and foreign exchange trading, and for misappropriating more than $57 million; and
* The founder and former CEO of artificial intelligence company Nate, Inc. with fraudulently soliciting investments and raising more than $42 million through the sale of company stock by allegedly making false and misleading statements about the company's use of artificial intelligence.
Litigation Highlights
The Division prevailed in several cases at trial and on summary judgment in fiscal year 2025, including:
Trial Victories
* SEC v. Gallagher (S.D.N.Y.) - In 2021, the Commission charged defendant Steven M. Gallagher with allegedly committing securities fraud through a scheme to manipulate stocks using Twitter. In September 2025, after a nine-day trial, the jury found Gallagher liable for securities fraud and manipulative trading. As demonstrated at trial, between December 2019 and October 2021, Gallagher used his Twitter account to encourage his numerous followers, including many retail investors, to buy stocks in which Gallagher had already amassed holdings. Gallagher then sold those stocks while he continued to recommend others buy them, never disclosing that he was selling the stocks. Gallagher repeated this pattern with more than 30 microcap stocks, making illicit trading profits in excess of $2.6 million. For two of these stocks, Gallagher was also found to have engaged in manipulative trading by "marking the close" - a strategy involving placing end-of-day orders to buy stock at above-market prices to artificially increase the stock's price.
* SEC v. Minuskin, et al. (S.D. Cal.) - In 2022, the Commission charged defendant Thomas F. Casey and other co-defendants for their alleged roles in a fraudulent securities offering that targeted retirees' retirement accounts. In June 2025, after a five-day trial and less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Casey liable for inducing more than 200 people to invest in excess of $10 million into Golden Genesis, a venture to supposedly create blood banks for selling human plasma from young donors for anti-aging treatments, based on false claims including that the investments would generate guaranteed high returns and be secured by the company's assets. As demonstrated at trial, the funds were not secured, and Casey used investor funds to compensate himself and to prop up the scheme by paying back other investors, causing approximately $8 million in losses to the victims.
* SEC v. Cutter Financial Group, et al. (D. Mass.) - In 2023, the Commission charged Massachusetts-based investment adviser Jeffrey Cutter and his advisory firm, Cutter Financial Group, LLC, for allegedly recommending that their advisory clients invest in insurance products that paid a substantial up-front commission without adequately disclosing the defendants' financial incentive to sell the products. In April 2025, after a seven-day trial, the jury found Cutter and his firm liable for violating Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The jury found for the defendants on claims the Commission alleged under Sections 206(1) and (4) of the Act.
Summary Judgment Victories
* SEC v. Brown, et al. (N.D. Tex.) - In 2024, the Commission charged defendants Matthew Brown and his company for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to submit and publicly tout a bogus offer to invest $200 million in Virgin Orbit Holdings, Inc., which was on the verge of bankruptcy. Among other things, to convince Virgin Orbit that the offer was legitimate, the Commission's complaint alleged that Brown sent Virgin Orbit a fabricated screenshot of his company's bank account purporting to show a balance of more than $182 million, when the bank account had less than $1. In August 2025, the court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment and found that Brown and his company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
* SEC v. Melton, et al. (M.D.N.C.) - In 2023, the Commission charged recidivist Marshall Melton and a business he controlled with allegedly conducting an offering fraud that largely targeted older investors. In April 2025, the court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment and found that Melton and his business violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by raising funds purportedly for a real estate development project without disclosing to investors that he actually was using the funds for personal and unrelated expenses. The court also found that the defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose Melton's securities disciplinary history.
[1] Press Release, SEC Announces Record Enforcement Actions Brought in First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025 (Jan. 17, 2025 ): ("the most actions filed in their respective periods since at least 2000.")
[2] E.g., In the Matter of MUFG Securities EMEA plc, Exch. Act Release No. 103646, Admin. Proceeding File No. 3-22504 (Aug. 6, 2025). (Aug. 6, 2025)
[3] E.g., In the Matter of Sourcerock Group, LLC, Exch. Act Release No. 103629, Admin. Proceeding File No. 3-22502 (Aug. 4, 2025). (Aug. 4, 2025)
[4] E.g., In the Matter of Empower Advisory Group, LLC and Empower Financial Services, Inc., Exch. Act Release No. 103809, Admin. Proceeding File No. 3-22517 (Aug. 29, 2025). (Aug. 29, 2025)
[5] E.g., Press Release, SEC Charges Three Broker-Dealers with Filing Deficient Suspicious Activity Reports (Nov. 22, 2024).
[6] Beginning in February 2025, the Commission dismissed seven enforcement actions brought by the prior Commission involving crypto assets: SEC v. Coinbase, Inc., et al. (Feb. 27, 2025); SEC v. v. Cumberland DRW LLC (Mar. 27, 2025); SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. (Mar. 27, 2025); SEC v. Payward, Inc., et al. (Mar. 27, 2025); SEC v. Dragonchain, Inc. (Apr. 30, 2025); SEC v. Balina (May 2, 2025); and SEC v. Binance Holdings Limited, et al. (May 29, 2025).
***
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-34
Agencies Request Comment on Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Proposed Rule
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Request Comment on Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Proposed Rule
*
WASHINGTON - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (collectively, the "Agencies") today invite public comment on a proposed rule to amend the respective requirements for their supervised institutions to establish and maintain effective risk-based anti-money laundering and countering
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Request Comment on Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Proposed Rule
*
WASHINGTON - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (collectively, the "Agencies") today invite public comment on a proposed rule to amend the respective requirements for their supervised institutions to establish and maintain effective risk-based anti-money laundering and counteringthe financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs designed to identify, assess, and mitigate risks of illicit finance. The amendments are intended to align each agency's AML/CFT rules with changes concurrently proposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) refers to the statutory framework imposing various AML/CFT regulatory requirements on financial institutions, including banks and credit unions supervised by the Agencies. In 2020, Congress passed the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act), which directed FinCEN and the Agencies to modernize and strengthen the AML/CFT regulatory framework to encourage more effective outcomes for financial institutions, regulators, law enforcement, and national security agencies. The Agencies are proposing to revise their respective regulations to reflect these broader revisions to the BSA, as well as to ensure consistency between FinCEN's and the Agencies' separately authorized compliance program requirements.
Among other changes, the proposed rule would:
* Incorporate the AML Act provision that a bank's AML/CFT program should be risk-based, including ensuring that banks direct more attention and resources toward higher-risk customers and activities, consistent with the risk profile of the institution, rather than toward lower-risk customers and activities.
* Describe the requirements for a bank to establish an AML/CFT program; explicitly incorporate FinCEN's existing customer due diligence requirement; and clarify that a bank's designated AML/CFT officer must be located in the U.S. and accessible to regulators.
* Require that once a bank has properly established its AML/CFT program, the institution maintains that program in all material respects. In addition, the proposed rule would clarify that only significant or systemic failures to implement a properly established program would warrant an "AML/CFT enforcement action" or a "significant AML/CFT supervisory action."
* Enhance FinCEN's role in the Agencies' supervision and enforcement process by establishing a new consultation framework for certain actions by the Agencies.
* Clarify that banks may share any information with FinCEN related to certain AML/CFT supervisory and enforcement actions.
Comments on the proposed rule are due 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Attachment(s)
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program Requirements (PDF)
Contact(s)
FDIC: Brian Sullivan, (202)-412-1436
OCC: Andrea Cox, (202) 649-6870
NCUA: Ashley Gordon, (703) 346-9550
***
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2026/agencies-request-comment-anti-money-launderingcountering-financing
Agencies Issue Final Rule to Prohibit Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Issue Final Rule to Prohibit Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators
*
WASHINGTON - The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the agencies) today jointly issued a final rule that codifies the elimination of reputation risk from their supervisory programs.
The rule defines "reputation risk" and prohibits the agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk. The rule also prohibits
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Issue Final Rule to Prohibit Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators
*
WASHINGTON - The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the agencies) today jointly issued a final rule that codifies the elimination of reputation risk from their supervisory programs.
The rule defines "reputation risk" and prohibits the agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk. The rule also prohibitsthe agencies from requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close customer accounts or take other actions on the basis of a person or entity's political, social, cultural, or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech, or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk.
This rule also responds to concerns expressed in Executive Order 14331, Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans, that the use of reputation risk can be a pretext for restricting law-abiding individuals' and businesses' access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.
Attachment(s)
Final Rule: Prohibition on the Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators (PDF)
Contact(s)
FDIC: Brian Sullivan, (202)-412-1436
OCC: Stephanie Collins, (202) 649-6870
***
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2026/agencies-issue-final-rule-prohibit-use-reputation-risk-regulators
