SEC v. Adam Troy Dooly (paid stock promotion, 2013)
Settled
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.
In 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Adam Troy Dooly, alleging conduct this library classifies as paid stock promotion and ponzi schemes. The release records a civil penalty of $3,000, disgorgement of $3,000.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 33-9460 |
| Date filed | 2013-09-30 |
| Date resolved | 2013-09-30 |
| Status | settled |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Adam Troy Dooly |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Securities Act s.17(b) |
| Techniques | Paid stock promotion , Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $3k
- Disgorgement
- $3k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $6k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on September 30, 2013 as release 33-9460. The respondents named are Adam Troy Dooly (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion and ponzi 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 relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $3,000, disgorgement of $3,000. 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.
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 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.
- Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
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. Mark D. Hanf and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Ponzi Schemes | — | settled |
| SEC v. Brian Keasberry (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Paid Stock Promotion | $37.5k | judgment |
| SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-13 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| CFTC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher A. Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-24 | Ponzi Schemes | $449k | judgment |