SEC v. Edwin Yoshihiro Fujinaga and MRI International, Inc., et al. (ponzi schemes, 2017)

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-edwin-yoshihiro-fujinaga-ponzi-schemes-2017) by email

In June 2017 the SEC announced that the Ninth Circuit upheld the summary judgment and the remedies orders against Edwin Fujinaga, MRI International, June Fujinaga and The Yunju Trust in a Ponzi scheme case. The appeal affirms earlier judgments; it adds no new monetary relief.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 SEC alleged that MRI told investors it was buying discounted medical receivables, but used new investors' money to pay earlier ones while Fujinaga spent funds on property and cars. The release says investors in Japan put in more than $800 million.

This is an appeal outcome. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the January 2015 district court judgment against Edwin Fujinaga and MRI (disgorgement of about $442.2 million, interest of about $102.1 million and $20 million in penalties against each, as the release reports) and the order against June Fujinaga and her trust (about $2.3 million). Those dollars are recorded on the 2015 and 2016 records, so this record carries no money figures, to avoid counting the same dollars twice.

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. 2017-06-15 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.