SEC v. Allen Ross Smith (unregistered distributions, 2015)
Judgment entered
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Allen Ross Smith, alleging conduct this library classifies as unregistered distributions. The release records a civil penalty of $43,343, disgorgement of $39,525. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23383 |
| Date filed | 2015-10-08 |
| Date resolved | 2015-10-08 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | Yes |
| Defendants | Allen Ross Smith |
| Techniques | Unregistered distributions |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $43.3k
- Disgorgement
- $39.5k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $82.9k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on October 8, 2015 as release LR-23383. The respondents named are Allen Ross Smith (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire.
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 relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $43,343, disgorgement of $39,525. 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.
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.
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
- 2015-10-08 Litigation release published
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. Stephen J. Czarnik (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-06-29 | Paid Stock Promotion , Unregistered Distributions | — | judgment |
| 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, et al. (pump and dump, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-20 | Pump And Dump , Unregistered Distributions | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Peter Scalise III and The3rdBevco Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $236k | judgment |
| SEC v. Investview, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-17 | Unregistered Distributions | — | settled |