SEC v. Martin T. Cantu (fake press releases, 2017)
Status unknown
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 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against Martin T. Cantu, alleging conduct this library classifies as fake press releases and pump and dump. The release records disgorgement of $632,327. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-81793 |
| Date filed | 2017-10-02 |
| Status | unknown |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | Yes |
| Defendants | Martin T. Cantu |
| Techniques | Fake press releases , Pump and dump |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $632k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $632k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on October 2, 2017 as release 34-81793. The respondents named are Martin T. Cantu (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as fake press releases and pump and dump, 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 relief recorded in our data is disgorgement of $632,327. 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 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.
- Fake press releases — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Pump and dump — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2017-10-02 Administrative proceeding instituted (102e)
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 A. Miller (fake press releases, 2021) | SEC | 2021-06-21 | Fake Press Releases , Pump And Dump | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Mark E. Fisher, Esq. (fake press releases, 2018) | SEC | 2018-11-02 | Fake Press Releases , Pump And Dump | — | judgment |
| SEC v. John Madsen, Andalusian Resorts and others (fake press releases, 2018) | SEC | 2018-10-23 | Fake Press Releases , Pump And Dump +1 | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Andalusian Resorts and others (fake press releases, 2017) | SEC | 2017-10-30 | Fake Press Releases , Paid Stock Promotion +2 | — | filed |
| SEC v. Randy A. Hamdan and Oracle Consultants, LLC (fake press releases, 2016) | SEC | 2016-02-17 | Fake Press Releases , Pump And Dump | $150k | judgment |
| SEC v. Michael J. Forster (pump and dump, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-15 | Pump And Dump | — | judgment |