Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) v. Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Court Filing,  Dec 21 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 12 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here *Feature Image: movie poster, featuring Ellison, Wang, SBF, and the SEC, made by HackerNoon * The big fraud short : 1:22-cv-10794 Case Number : Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) Plaintiffs : Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Defendants : Dec 21, 2022 Filing Date : US District Court, Southern District of New York Location : Jorge G. Tenreiro, David L. Hirsch (not admitted in SDNY), Ladan F. Stewart, Amy Harman Burkart, David J. D'Addio - Attorneys for the Plaintiff Filer FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES (Violations of Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act) 116. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 115. 117. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, in connection with the offer or sale of securities, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly, acting knowingly, recklessly, or, as to (ii), negligently,(i) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; and (ii) engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any persons, including purchasers or sellers of the securities. 118. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants violated Securities Act Sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)]. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES (Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) Thereunder) 119. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 115. 120. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly, (i) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; and (ii) engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any persons, including purchasers of the securities. 121. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) and (c)] thereunder. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final Judgment: A. Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5]; B. Ordering Defendants pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of all ill-gotten gains obtained by reason of the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; C. Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; D. Ordering Defendants barred from acting as an officer or director pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; E. Prohibiting Defendants from participating, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity controlled by them, in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any securities, including crypto asset securities, provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendants from purchasing or selling securities, including crypto asset securities, for their own personal accounts; and F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND The Commission demands trial by jury. About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case 1:22-cv-10794 on Dec 21 2022, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. retrieved

Ellison & Wang shall face Trial by Jury, per SEC lawsuit

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

At SBF's direction, Caroline materially misled investors that Alameda was fine. It was not.

Caroline Ellison and Garry Wang violated SEC's rules, per lawsuit

Caroline Ellison was CEO of Alameda but did not own it, while Gary wang owned 10% of Alameda

Charged with fraud by the SEC, Caroline Ellison and Garry Wang wisely turned on SBF

Ellison and Wang carried out the fraud via coding & accounting tricks, but SBF was the architect

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

At SBF's direction, Caroline materially misled investors that Alameda was fine. It was not.

Caroline Ellison and Garry Wang violated SEC's rules, per lawsuit

Caroline Ellison was CEO of Alameda but did not own it, while Gary wang owned 10% of Alameda

Charged with fraud by the SEC, Caroline Ellison and Garry Wang wisely turned on SBF

Ellison and Wang carried out the fraud via coding & accounting tricks, but SBF was the architect

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps