SEC v. Aleksandr Milrud (layering, 2015)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sec-aleksandr-milrud-layering-2015) by email

In January 2015 the SEC filed a complaint in New Jersey alleging Aleksandr Milrud, an Ontario man, recruited online traders in China and Korea, supplied them accounts and technology, and shared in profits from layering in U.S. stocks. A parallel criminal case was announced the same day. On January 25, 2022 the court entered a final consent judgment, enjoining him and ordering disgorgement deemed satisfied by his criminal forfeiture.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on January 13, 2015 as release LR-23173. The respondent named is Aleksandr Milrud (1 individual, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as layering, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The SEC's complaint alleged that Milrud, an Ontario man, recruited online traders in China and Korea, supplied them accounts and technology, and shared in profits from layering in U.S. stocks. A parallel criminal case was announced the same day.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

Outcome. SEC litigation release 25319 (January 26, 2022) says Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey entered a final consent judgment on January 25, 2022. Milrud consented to a permanent injunction against violating Securities Act section 17(a), Exchange Act sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and to liability for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, which the judgment deems satisfied by the forfeiture ordered in his criminal case. In that criminal case, the release says, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to forfeit $285,000. The release gives no separate disgorgement figure and no civil penalty, so none is stored. The allegations were settled, not tried.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Layering — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-01-13 Litigation release published
2. 2022-01-25 Final consent judgment entered (D.N.J.): injunction, disgorgement deemed satisfied by forfeiture

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC litigation release
• SEC litigation release 25319 (final consent judgment)

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.