SEC v. Richard St. Julien et al. (paid stock promotion, 2016)

Settled

Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-pranav-v-patel-paid-stock-promotion-2016) by email

In May 2016 the SEC sued ten people, including Richard St. Julien and Pranav Patel, over paid promotion of ForceField Energy stock. Court filings show consent judgments for each of the ten between September 2016 and December 2024, the last as to Richard Brown, with money terms in the filings read only for Jared Mitchell.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEC
Release number	LR-23529
Date filed	2016-05-03
Date resolved	2024-12-23
Court	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Status	settled
Asset class	equities
Criminal parallel	Yes: charged (St. Julien and nine others, including Jared Mitchell (United States v. Mitchell, et al., Crim. No. 16-234 (BMC)); a later release mentions a restitution order against Mitchell), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Defendants	Richard St. Julien, et al. (ten defendants) (individual)
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.17(b) ; Securities Act s.5 (statutes and rules cited in the document; not a finding that they were violated)
Techniques	Paid stock promotion

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

the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on May 3, 2016 as release LR-23529. The respondents named are Richard St. Julien, et al. (ten defendants) (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion, 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 equities.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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.

The SEC's litigation release 26006 and the court's judgments show every named defendant resolved by consent without admitting or denying the allegations. Judgments are dated September 5, 2016 (Khan), August 16, 2017 (Cocuzzo), June 30, 2017 (St. Julien, who was also barred from penny-stock offerings and from serving as an officer or director), September 13, 2017 (Knippa), September 28, 2017 (Patel), September 29, 2017 (Miyana), October 2 (Petrossi) and October 6, 2017 (Castaldo), May 10, 2024 (Mitchell, with $82,220 in disgorgement and interest deemed satisfied by his criminal restitution order) and a final judgment as to Richard Brown stamped December 23, 2024. Most of the judgments read set no dollar amount in their text, and the filings read do not give a single clear figure for each defendant, so the money fields are left empty. This is a record of consent judgments, not findings of fact. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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.

Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

2016-05-03 Litigation release published
2017-09-28 Consent final judgment as to Pranav V. Patel
2024-05-10 Final judgment by consent against Jared Mitchell (SEC LR-26006)
2024-12-23 Final judgment as to Richard Brown, the last defendant

Primary documents

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

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.

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Action	Agency	Filed	Technique	Penalty	Status
SEC v. Brian Keasberry (paid stock promotion, 2026)	SEC	2026-08-21	Paid Stock Promotion	$37.5k	judgment
SEC v. Medallion Financial Corp., Andrew Murstein, Lawrence Meyers, and Ichabod’s Cranium, Inc. (paid stock promotion, 2025)	SEC	2025-06-06	Paid Stock Promotion	$4.1m	judgment
SEC v. John S. Clayton and others (insider trading, 2024)	SEC	2024-12-11	Insider Trading , Paid Stock Promotion	—	filed
SEC v. Ian Balina (paid stock promotion, 2024)	SEC	2024-05-23	Paid Stock Promotion	—	dismissed
SEC v. Ahmed Alomari and MCM Consulting (paid stock promotion, 2024)	SEC	2024-05-03	Paid Stock Promotion	—	filed
SEC v. Christian Fernandez (paid stock promotion, 2024)	SEC	2024-02-20	Paid Stock Promotion	—	settled

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.