SEC v. Richard Weed et al. (paid stock promotion, 2018)
Dismissed
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action, since dismissed, against Richard Weed et al., alleging conduct this library classifies as paid stock promotion and reverse merger schemes. The release records a civil penalty of $150,000. A parallel criminal matter produced a custodial sentence of 48 months.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-24175 |
| Date filed | 2018-06-26 |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | Yes |
| Sentence | 4 years |
| Defendants | Richard Weed et al. |
| Techniques | Paid stock promotion , Reverse merger schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $150k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $150k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on June 26, 2018 as release LR-24175. The respondents named are Richard Weed et al. (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion and reverse merger schemes, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.
The conduct is recorded against equities.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $150,000. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.
A parallel criminal proceeding is referenced, with a custodial sentence of 48 months recorded. Criminal and civil outcomes are tracked separately throughout this site.
The action was dismissed. We keep dismissed matters in the library precisely so that the outcome is visible alongside the original allegation.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.
- Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Reverse merger schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2018-06-26 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. Meta Materials, Inc. ( and others (engineered short squeeze, 2024) | SEC | 2024-06-25 | Engineered Short Squeeze , Paid Stock Promotion +1 | $1m | settled |
| SEC v. Morrie Tobin et al. (paid stock promotion, 2019) | SEC | 2019-08-30 | Paid Stock Promotion , Reverse Merger Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Joe Yiu Cheung ( and Dylon De Lu Zhang) (paid stock promotion, 2017) | SEC | 2017-08-02 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Richard Weed et al. (paid stock promotion, 2016) | SEC | 2016-10-04 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump +1 | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Joshua A. Weiss (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-10 | Paid Stock Promotion | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Stephen J. Czarnik (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-06-29 | Paid Stock Promotion , Unregistered Distributions | — | judgment |