SEC v. Amrit J. S. Chahal (ponzi schemes, 2018)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-amrit-j-s-chahal-ponzi-schemes-2018) by email

In April 2018 the SEC sued Amrit Chahal over an alleged fraudulent investment scheme run through Kane Capital Investment Group. On 21 June 2019 the Eastern District of Virginia entered a final judgment enjoining him and ordering $1,232,510 in disgorgement, deemed satisfied by his criminal forfeiture; he was also sentenced to 30 months in prison and barred by the SEC.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$1.2m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$1.2m

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 complaint, filed April 12, 2018, alleges Chahal falsely claimed trading experience and a low-risk strategy, lied about returns after losses, kept raising money, and used funds for his car, rent, travel and dining. Prosecutors and the CFTC filed parallel actions; the CFTC case is the other Kane Capital record in this library.

At the filing stage the allegations were unproven and nothing had been ordered. The Ponzi-like payments are a single clause in the SEC release, so this tag is weaker than on the CFTC record.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

An SEC litigation release shows the outcome. On 21 June 2019 the court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Chahal from antifraud violations under the securities and advisers laws and ordering disgorgement of $1,232,510; the release says this obligation is deemed satisfied by the forfeiture order in his criminal case. In that case he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 months, with restitution of $445,633 also ordered. On 25 June 2019 the Commission barred him from association with brokers, dealers, investment advisers and similar firms, and the release notes he also settled the CFTC's parallel case. The release does not say whether the SEC judgment was entered by consent.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2018-04-16 Litigation release published
2. 2019-06-21 Final judgment entered against Chahal; disgorgement deemed satisfied by criminal 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 LR-24517 (final 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.