SEC v. Ronald Pallek (2025)
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.
In March 2025 the SEC announced a settlement with Ronald Pallek. The complaint alleges that Pallek raised over $1.5 million from at least 87 investors promising to double their money with an options strategy, sent false statements and used some funds for Ponzi-like payments. He consented to an injunction with money relief to be decided later and agreed a plea in a parallel criminal case.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-26264 |
| Date filed | 2025-03-11 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| Status | settled |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: charged (Ronald Pallek (a plea agreement was announced; no plea entry stated)), Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2025-03-11 |
| Defendants | Ronald Pallek |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on March 11, 2025 as release LR-26264. The complaint alleges that Pallek raised over $1.5 million from at least 87 investors promising to double their money with an options strategy, sent false statements and used some funds for Ponzi-like payments. He consented to an injunction with money relief to be decided later and agreed a plea in a parallel criminal case.
This library does not tag the matter as a Ponzi scheme: on a source check, the document mentions Ponzi-like payments only in passing, or as part of another party's scheme, and the charges are about something else. 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.
Timeline
- 2025-03-11 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.