SEC v. Sunchip Technology, Inc. (undisclosed control blocks, 2014)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-sunchip-technology-inc-undisclosed-control-blocks-2014) by email

In June 2014 an SEC administrative law judge suspended the effectiveness of Sunchip Technology, Inc.'s registration statement by default, finding it falsely presented a sole officer and director who in fact had no role, with the company actually controlled by undisclosed persons.

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

An SEC administrative law judge issued this initial decision by default on June 16, 2014, after Sunchip did not answer the order instituting proceedings that began the case on June 3, 2014. Because Sunchip was in default, the allegations were taken as true.

The decision concerns the Form S-1 that Sunchip filed on September 26, 2013undefined to register shares in a $30,000 offering. It finds that the statement misdescribed the sole officer and director's role, time commitment, experience and capital contribution, and that the company was controlled by undisclosed persons, in effect a blank-check shell.

This library tags the matter as undisclosed control blocks because the decision finds that the company was controlled by persons the registration statement did not disclose. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The sanction was a stop order under Section 8(d) of the Securities Act suspending the registration statement. No money was ordered.

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

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.

• Undisclosed control blocks — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-06-16 Initial decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Initial decision (ID-613)
• Order instituting proceedings
• Finality order

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.