SEC v. David Craven et al. (pump and dump, 2015)
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 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against David Craven et al., alleging conduct this library classifies as pump and dump and wash trading. No monetary relief has been recorded at this stage; the matter is an allegation and remains unproven.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23227 |
| Date filed | 2015-04-01 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Status | filed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | David Craven et al. |
| Techniques | Pump and dump , Wash trading |
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 April 1, 2015 as release LR-23227. The respondents named are David Craven et al. (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
This library tags the matter as pump and dump and wash trading, 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.
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 This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.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 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.
- Pump and dump — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-04-01 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Canaccord Genuity LLC (marking the close, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-06 | Marking The Close , Marking The Open +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. SpeedRoute LLC (layering, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-10 | Layering , Pump And Dump +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Gary S. Williky (insider trading, 2015) | SEC | 2015-03-02 | Insider Trading , Newsletter Scalping +3 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Gotbit Consulting LLC a/k/a Gotbit Hedge Fund and Fedor Kedrov (wash trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-03 | Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Michael J. Forster (pump and dump, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-15 | Pump And Dump | — | judgment |
| SEC v. George John Drazenovic, CPA (pump and dump, 2026) | SEC | 2026-04-20 | Pump And Dump | — | judgment |