SEC v. Edwin Yoshihiro Fujinaga and MRI International, Inc., et al. (ponzi schemes, 2016)

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-edwin-yoshihiro-fujinaga-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In March 2016 the SEC announced that a Nevada federal court refused to reconsider its judgment against June Fujinaga and The Yunju Trust, relief defendants in the MRI International Ponzi scheme case, holding them liable to disgorge about $2.33 million of funds received from her husband Edwin Fujinaga, with a $50,000 clerical adjustment.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$2.3m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$2.3m

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 release reports the March 4, 2016 order and recalls that the SEC sued Edwin Fujinaga and MRI International in 2013 for a Ponzi scheme, won summary judgment on liability in 2014, and obtained a January 2015 judgment of more than $580 million against them. The matter in this release, however, is the relief defendants' liability for $2,333,382 of funds and property they received.

The record had listed Edwin Fujinaga and MRI as the respondents and entered the $580 million total as disgorgement; that total is the 2015 judgment against them and is not the subject of this release.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the SEC or the court describes new investors' money being used to pay earlier investors. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2016-03-09 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.