SEC v. Edward Laborio and Jonathan Fraiman (boiler rooms, 2015)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-edward-laborio-boiler-rooms-2015) by email

In 2015, the SEC announced a federal jury had convicted Jonathan Fraiman of conspiracy and mail fraud for his part in the Envit boiler room that raised over $4 million from 2008 to 2009 through false promises and pressure sales, including a non-existent hedge fund. The earlier civil judgment against Edward Laborio and the Envit entities carried $4 million penalties each and $5,006,590 in joint disgorgement.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$4m

Disgorgement

$5m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$9m

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 December 16, 2015 as litigation release 23430. The defendants in the 2012 civil complaint are Edward M. Laborio, Jonathan Fraiman, Matthew K. Lazar and the Envit and Aetius entities; the release reports a jury verdict of December 14, 2015 convicting Mr Fraiman of conspiracy and mail fraud. It also recounts the civil outcomes: Fraiman and Lazar consented to injunctions and industry bars in 2013, and in November 2014 a default judgment ordered Mr Laborio and each Envit entity to pay a $4 million civil penalty, with $5,006,590 in disgorgement jointly and severally, and barred Mr Laborio as an officer or director and from penny stock offerings. The record's $4 million penalty is the per-defendant figure, not a total.

This library tags the matter as boiler rooms, based on the conduct the document describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

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. 2015-12-16 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.

• SEC litigation release

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.