SEC v. Gregory W. Gray, Jr., Archipel Capital and BIM Management (ponzi schemes, 2017)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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-gregory-w-gray-jr-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2017) by email

In January 2017 the SEC announced Southern District of New York consent judgments against Gregory W. Gray, Jr., Archipel Capital LLC and BIM Management LP over a Ponzi-like fund that sold supposed pre-IPO Twitter and Uber shares, ordering $7,894,100 in disgorgement plus $140,255 in interest, deemed satisfied by criminal forfeiture and restitution.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$7.9m

Prejudgment interest

$140k

Total relief

$8m

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 complaint of February 2015 alleged Gray raised nearly $5.3 million for pre-IPO Twitter shares, did not buy enough, and paid Twitter-fund investors with other money, including from an investor who was told he held $5 million of Uber stock that was never bought. The judgments, entered January 10, 2017 on consent, are joint and several, and the court approved a distribution plan on January 9. Gray pleaded guilty in 2015 and was sentenced to 24 months in October 2016.

The record held the disgorgement but not the interest, had a status of judgment although the defendants consented, and listed only the lead name with "et al."

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. 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. 2017-01-12 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.