SEC v. Sohrab ("Sam") Sharma and Robert Farkas (unregistered distributions, 2018)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-sohrab-sam-sharma-unregistered-distributions-2018) by email

In 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against Sohrab ("Sam") Sharma, Robert Farkas and Raymond Trapani, alleging conduct this library classifies as unregistered distributions and price manipulation. The matter concluded in 2022 with final consent judgments recording combined disgorgement (including prejudgment interest) of $40.7 million, each deemed satisfied by a parallel criminal forfeiture order.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$40.7m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$40.7m

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 filed this matter on April 20, 2018 (amended complaint, S.D.N.Y., Civil Action No. 18-cv-02909); the initial release is dated April 2, 2018 (release LR-24090). The respondents named are Sohrab ("Sam") Sharma, Robert Farkas and Raymond Trapani, who together controlled Centra Tech Inc. and raised over $32 million by selling "CTR tokens" in an unregistered initial coin offering.

Alongside the unregistered-offering claim, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants made numerous material misrepresentations marketing CTR tokens (fabricated partnerships with Visa, MasterCard and The Bancorp, and fictitious executive biographies) and, separately, manipulated trading in the CTR tokens to generate interest in the company and prop up the price of the tokens.

This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions and price manipulation, 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: the SEC's amended complaint itself charges violations of Securities Act Sections 5 and 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The conduct is recorded against crypto.

The relief recorded in our data is disgorgement of $40,705,743. 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.

On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgments on consent against all three defendants: permanent injunctions, officer-and-director bars, a permanent injunction from conducting any offering of digital asset securities or other securities, and disgorgement including prejudgment interest of $37,701,966 (Sharma), $2,608,869 (Trapani) and $394,908 (Farkas) — recorded here combined as $40,705,743. Each disgorgement figure was deemed satisfied by a forfeiture order already entered in the parallel criminal proceeding, United States v. Sharma et al., 18-Cr.-340 (S.D.N.Y.), in which all three defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately in principle, but here the civil judgment's own monetary relief is expressly the criminal forfeiture, so no separate penalty is recorded.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary documents linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the releases.

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.

• Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2018-04-02 Litigation release published (original complaint)
2. 2018-04-20 Amended complaint filed (S.D.N.Y., No. 18-cv-02909)
3. 2022-05-17 Final judgments on consent entered against all three defendants

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 (original complaint)
• SEC litigation release (final judgments)

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 October 1, 2026. submit a correction.