SEC v. Austin D. Ellison-Meade (ponzi schemes, 2023)
Alleged — pending
These are allegations. SEC has filed an action; nothing in it has been proven, and the respondents have not been found liable. Everything described on this page is what the regulator alleges, not what a court has found. See our editorial policy.
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against Austin D. Ellison-Meade, alleging conduct this library classifies as ponzi schemes. No monetary relief has been recorded at this stage; the matter is an allegation and remains unproven. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-25625 |
| Date filed | 2023-01-24 |
| Status | filed |
| Criminal parallel | Yes |
| Bars imposed | conduct-based injunction |
| Defendants | Austin D. Ellison-Meade |
| Techniques | Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on January 24, 2023 as release LR-25625. The respondents named are Austin D. Ellison-Meade (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, 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.
Non-monetary relief recorded: conduct-based injunction.
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.
This matter is at the allegation stage. Nothing in the regulator's filing has been proven, and the respondents are entitled to the presumption that it has not been. This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.
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
- 2023-01-24 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Mark D. Hanf and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan a/k/a Nam Phan (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Ponzi Schemes | — | settled |
| SEC v. David T. Gilchrist, Christopher Aaron Novinger, Rebecca Novinger (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-01 | Ponzi Schemes | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Mordechai Haim Ferder and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-01 | Ponzi Schemes | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-13 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| CFTC v. Goliath Ventures Inc. and CEO (ponzi schemes, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher A. Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | settled |