SEC v. Craig Danzig (unregistered distributions, 2015)
On appeal
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 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action, now on appeal, against Craig Danzig, alleging conduct this library classifies as unregistered distributions. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-16483 |
| Date filed | 2015-10-20 |
| Date resolved | 2015-10-20 |
| Court | SEC administrative law judge |
| Status | appealed |
| Asset class | bonds, equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | penny stock bar, registration bar |
| Defendants | Craig Danzig |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.15(a) ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Unregistered distributions |
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 October 20, 2015 as release 3-16483. The respondents named are Craig Danzig (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the SEC administrative law judge.
This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions, 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 bonds and equities.
Non-monetary relief recorded: penny stock bar, registration bar.
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.
- Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-10-20 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Zachary Miller (unregistered distributions, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Unregistered Distributions | — | settled |
| SEC v. David Hudzik (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-12-23 | Unregistered Distributions | $70k | judgment |
| SEC v. Ongkaruck Sripetch and others (pump and dump, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-20 | Pump And Dump , Unregistered Distributions | $204k | judgment |
| SEC v. Peter Scalise III and The3rdBevco Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $236k | settled |
| SEC v. Investview, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $375k | settled |
| SEC v. Tai Mo Shan Limited (unregistered distributions, 2024) | SEC | 2024-12-20 | Unregistered Distributions | $36.7m | settled |