SEC v. Julie Minuskin, Joshua Stoll, Dennis DiRicco, Tom Casey and Golden Genesis, Inc. (ponzi schemes, 2022)

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-julie-minuskin-joshua-stoll-dennis-diricco-tom-casey-ponzi-schemes-2022) by email

In April 2022 the SEC charged Julie Minuskin, Joshua Stoll, Dennis DiRicco, Tom Casey and Golden Genesis over high-yield promissory notes sold to retirees. On September 11, 2025 the court entered a default judgment against Minuskin with injunctions, $457,476 in disgorgement, $175,204.24 in interest and a $457,476 penalty. The outcome for the other defendants was not checked.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$457k

Disgorgement

$457k

Prejudgment interest

$175k

Total relief

$1.1m

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 announced the complaint on April 11, 2022 (LR-25359) in the Southern District of California. It alleged Minuskin vouched for notes though she knew some issuers were paying returns from new principal, and aided and abetted DiRicco and Casey. Only DiRicco had settled.

The record showed the whole matter as settled and ran four names together; only DiRicco settled, and the five defendants are listed. The tag is retained because the issuers are charged with paying earlier investors from new money.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes it as a scheme paying earlier investors with later investors' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

Outcome. The final judgment as to Minuskin, dated September 11, 2025, grants the SEC's motion for default judgment, so it follows her failure to defend rather than a trial. It permanently enjoins her from violating the Exchange Act and Securities Act antifraud provisions, the Securities Act registration provisions and the broker registration provision, and orders disgorgement of $457,476, prejudgment interest of $175,204.24 and a civil penalty of $457,476, $1,090,156.24 in all. The same notice dates the qualifying judgment in the case September 11, 2025. This covers Minuskin only; Stoll, DiRicco, Casey and Golden Genesis were not checked.

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. 2022-04-11 Litigation release published
2. 2025-09-11 Default final judgment as to Julie Minuskin

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
• Final judgment as to Julie A. Minuskin (S.D. Cal., Doc. 166)
• SEC whistleblower notice 2026-006

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.