SEC v. Denis Georgiyevich Sotnikov, et al. (fake certificate-of-deposit fraud, 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-denis-georgiyevich-sotnikov-et-al-2020) by email

On October 15, 2021 the District of New Jersey entered a default final judgment against Denis Sotnikov and six entities he controlled, finding the fake-CD fraud violated antifraud law and ordering about $2.6 million in disgorgement and $8.4 million in penalties.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$8.4m

Disgorgement

$2.6m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$11m

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 March 16, 2020 as release LR-24770. The respondents named are Denis Georgiyevich Sotnikov, Adaptive Technology LLC, AGQ Business Group LLC, ATL Business Group LLC, BO&SA Corporation, DN Industrial LLC and Expert Digital LLC (1 individual, 6 entities).

This library carries no technique tag on this matter. "Spoofed" describes copied bank websites in a fake-CD fraud, not trading orders, so no spoofing tag applies.

The SEC charged Sotnikov and six entities he controlled with luring investors into fictitious certificates of deposit through internet ads and websites copied from real financial firms, with over $26 million in known investor losses. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

Outcome. Litigation release 25247 (October 26, 2021) reports that the court entered a final judgment, after the defendants and relief defendants defaulted, finding that Sotnikov and the six entities violated the antifraud provisions and permanently enjoining them. They must jointly pay $2,628,260 in disgorgement plus interest; Sotnikov owes a $2,535,611 penalty and each entity a $975,230 penalty, which sum to $8,386,991. Sotnikov's wife and other relief defendants must pay $1,277,900 in disgorgement plus interest, which is not included in the stored figures. The prejudgment interest amount is not stated in the release. A parallel criminal matter noted earlier is not described here.

Timeline

1. 2020-03-16 Litigation release published
2. 2021-10-15 Default final judgment entered against Sotnikov and six entities

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 litigation release 25247 (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.

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.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.