SEC v. David Craven and Alexander J. Craven (pump and dump, 2015)

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-david-craven-et-al-pump-and-dump-2015) by email

In April 2015 the SEC announced a March 26 preliminary injunction against David and Alexander Craven in its case alleging a pump-and-dump of American Energy Development Corp. stock using wash and matched trades. On August 27, 2015 the court entered a default final judgment against David Craven: injunctions, a permanent penny stock bar, $4,868,135 in disgorgement, $509,312.56 in interest and a $4,868,135 penalty. Alexander Craven's outcome was not found.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$4.9m

Disgorgement

$4.9m

Prejudgment interest

$509k

Total relief

$10.2m

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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on April 1, 2015 as release LR-23227. The respondents named are David Craven and Alex J. Craven (2 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

The release reports the court found the SEC likely to succeed on claims that the Cravens inflated the share price through wash and matched trading, funded a promotional mailer and sold through overseas accounts, and ordered accountings from David Craven, Alexander Craven and Anna Craven. The Cravens offered no opposition. This library tags the matter as pump and dump and wash trading.

The conduct is recorded against equities.

Outcome. The Southern District of New York docket shows a Final Judgment as to Defendant David Craven (Document 39, filed August 27, 2015, Judge Furman), entered on the SEC's request for default after he did not defend. It permanently enjoins him from violating Exchange Act sections 10(b), 9(a)(1) and 9(a)(2), Rule 10b-5 and Securities Act section 17(a), bars him permanently from participating in a penny stock offering, and holds him liable for disgorgement of $4,868,135, prejudgment interest of $509,312.56 and a civil penalty of $4,868,135, a total of $10,245,582.56 (amounts inserted by hand on the order). The disgorgement and interest are joint and several with Alexander Craven. Because this is a default judgment, the allegations were not tested at trial. This outcome covers David Craven only: the judgment against Alexander Craven and any order on relief defendant Anna Craven were not found or opened.

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

1. 2015-04-01 Litigation release published
2. 2015-08-27 Default final judgment against David Craven (S.D.N.Y.)

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
• Final judgment as to David Craven (S.D.N.Y. 15-cv-1820, Doc. 39)

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.