SEC v. Clinton Maurice Tucker II (boiler rooms, 2020)

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-clinton-maurice-tucker-ii-boiler-rooms-2020) by email

A final judgment was entered on November 16, 2020 in the Central District of California permanently enjoining Clinton Tucker II from antifraud and broker-registration violations. The SEC cites it in a May 2021 follow-on proceeding, which states no money amounts.

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 May 11, 2020 as release LR-24814. The respondents named are Clinton Maurice Tucker II (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

This library tags the matter as boiler rooms, 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 conduct is recorded against equities.

Outcome. An SEC order instituting administrative proceedings (May 13, 2021) states that on November 16, 2020 the court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Tucker from violating Section 17(a), Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and the broker-dealer registration provision. It restates the complaint's allegations of misappropriation and unregistered selling. It does not say whether the judgment was by consent or default, and it gives no disgorgement or penalty figure, so those fields are empty. The follow-on proceeding was only instituted by that order; its result was not checked.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2020-05-11 Litigation release published
2. 2020-11-16 Final judgment entered against Tucker (as recited in SEC administrative order)

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 administrative order citing the 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.