SEC v. Michael Scronic (ponzi schemes, 2018)

Settled

✓ 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-michael-scronic-ponzi-schemes-2018) by email

In April 2018 the SEC described its fraud case against Westchester investment adviser Michael Scronic over a Ponzi-like options fund that lost at least $15 million while he told at least 42 investors it was profitable and liquid. A consent final judgment dated February 11, 2019 holds him liable for $17,481,276 in disgorgement, deemed satisfied by criminal restitution and forfeiture orders.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$17.5m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$17.5m

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, filed October 5, 2017 in the Southern District of New York, alleges Scronic raised money from friends and acquaintances from about 2010, claimed a proven record, hid heavy trading losses, and sought new investor funds to meet redemptions from others. Federal prosecutors announced parallel criminal charges.

Outcome: the final judgment as to Scronic, dated February 11, 2019, records his consent. It permanently enjoins him from antifraud violations and holds him liable for disgorgement of $17,481,276 with prejudgment interest, an obligation deemed satisfied by the restitution and forfeiture orders totaling $22,026,427 in United States v. Scronic, 18 Cr. 43. It incorporates his consent, and includes the admission, for bankruptcy purposes, that the complaint's allegations are true. The document shows no separate civil penalty and no sentence, so none is recorded.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, based on the conduct the regulator describes. 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. 2018-04-04 Litigation release published
2. 2019-02-11 Consent final judgment entered against Scronic (S.D.N.Y.)

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 Michael Scronic (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2019)

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.