SEC v. Anthony J. Thompson, Jr., et al. (paid stock promotion, 2019)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-anthony-j-thompson-jr-et-al-paid-stock-promotion-2019) by email

In February 2019 the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a November 2018 consent judgment against penny stock promoter Jay Fung, one of three defendants it charged in 2014 over newsletters touting five penny stocks between 2009 and 2010. The judgment enjoins him under Securities Act Section 17(b) and leaves any disgorgement and penalty for the court to set.

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 February 1, 2019 as release LR-24389. The respondents named are Anthony J. Thompson, Jr. and Jay Fung (2 individuals, 0 entities).

The release describes multiple pump-and-dump schemes in which Fung, through controlled entities, acquired large blocks of shares and distributed newsletters that said they might sell while intending to sell. The release does not describe Thompson's role; he appears only in the caption. This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion and pump and dump.

The conduct is recorded against equities.

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.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.

• Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Pump and dump — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2019-02-01 Litigation release published

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

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.