SEC v. iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 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.
In 2015 a federal court ordered former iShopNoMarkup.com chairman Anthony Knight to pay $2.3 million disgorgement, over $2.5 million interest and a $330,000 penalty after a jury found he committed fraud and sold unregistered securities.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23362 |
| Date filed | 2015-09-25 |
| Date resolved | 2015-09-25 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | officer-and-director bar |
| Defendants | iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc. ; Anthony Knight |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Unregistered distributions |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $330k
- Disgorgement
- $2.3m
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $2.6m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
On September 25, 2015 the SEC announced that the Eastern District of New York had imposed relief on Anthony Knight, former chairman of iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc., after an October 2014 jury verdict. The complaint alleged an unregistered offering and fraud in 1999 to 2000 that took about $2.3 million from over 350 investors. The court ordered $2.3 million in disgorgement, over $2.5 million of prejudgment interest and a $330,000 penalty against Knight, and issued an officer and director bar and injunctions. The monetary relief is against Knight; he was not previously listed as a defendant.
This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions, 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.
- Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-09-25 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Zachary Miller (unregistered distributions, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Unregistered Distributions | — | settled |
| SEC v. David Hudzik (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-12-23 | Unregistered Distributions | $70k | judgment |
| SEC v. Ongkaruck Sripetch and others (pump and dump, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-20 | Pump And Dump , Unregistered Distributions | $204k | judgment |
| SEC v. Peter Scalise III and The3rdBevco Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $236k | settled |
| SEC v. Investview, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $375k | settled |
| SEC v. Tai Mo Shan Limited (unregistered distributions, 2024) | SEC | 2024-12-20 | Unregistered Distributions | $36.7m | settled |