SEC v. Pavel Ruiz (ponzi schemes, 2022)

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-pavel-ruiz-ponzi-schemes-2022) by email

In August 2022 the SEC announced a settlement with Pavel Ruiz. The complaint alleges that Ruiz, a board member and top sales agent of MJ Capital Funding, and his team of about 70 agents raised at least $46 million from over 5,100 investors while he knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that new money paid earlier investors, and that he misused about $6.5 million. He consented to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval, with monetary relief left for the court to decide.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on August 30, 2022 as release LR-25490. The complaint alleges that Ruiz, a board member and top sales agent of MJ Capital Funding, and his team of about 70 agents raised at least $46 million from over 5,100 investors while he knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that new money paid earlier investors, and that he misused about $6.5 million. He consented to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval, with monetary relief left for the court to decide.

This library tags the matter as a Ponzi scheme because the document describes returns to earlier investors paid from later investors' money, as alleged or found. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

A parallel criminal proceeding is referenced. Civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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. 2022-08-30 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.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.