SEC v. Sean Nathan Healy (ponzi schemes, 2013)

Settled

✓ 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-sean-nathan-healy-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In April 2013 the SEC barred Sean Nathan Healy from the securities industry and from penny-stock offerings, by settled order, after his guilty plea to wire fraud and unlawful monetary transactions for a Ponzi scheme that raised about $17 million.

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

This is a follow-on administrative order. It finds that Healy, a former registered representative, pleaded guilty in November 2009 to two wire fraud counts and one unlawful monetary transactions count based on a Ponzi scheme from 2004 to 2009 in which he raised about $17 million on promises of stock and commodity trading, spent heavily on himself, and used some of the money for Ponzi payments. He began a 16-year prison term in April 2010, and a consent injunction was entered against him the same month.

He submitted an offer of settlement, so the status is settled rather than unknown. The order imposes an association bar and a penny-stock bar and no money.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

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.

• Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2013-04-08 Administrative proceeding instituted (findings)

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 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.