SEC v. William Scott Lawler, Esq. (matched orders, 2021)
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 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against William Scott Lawler, Esq., alleging conduct this library classifies as matched orders and wash trading. The release records disgorgement of $186,594, prejudgment interest of $13,602.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-92707 |
| Date filed | 2021-08-18 |
| Date resolved | 2021-08-18 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | William Scott Lawler, Esq. |
| Techniques | Matched orders , Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $187k
- Prejudgment interest
- $13.6k
- Total relief
- $200k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on August 18, 2021 as release 34-92707. The respondents named are William Scott Lawler, Esq. (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as matched orders and wash trading, 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 $186,594, prejudgment interest of $13,602. 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.
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.
- Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2021-08-18 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. Ahmad Haris Tajyar and Eric Leo Marsoubian (marking the close, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-13 | Marking The Close , Matched Orders +1 | $220k | settled |
| CFTC v. Coinbase Inc. (exchange wash trading, 2021) | CFTC | 2021-03-19 | Exchange Wash Trading , Matched Orders +1 | $6.5m | judgment |
| SEC v. Gotbit Consulting LLC a/k/a Gotbit Hedge Fund and Fedor Kedrov (wash trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-03 | Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Canaccord Genuity LLC (marking the close, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-06 | Marking The Close , Marking The Open +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Limited, BitTorrent Foundation Ltd., Rainberry, Inc., and DeAndre Cortez Way (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Paid Stock Promotion , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| CFTC v. unnamed respondents (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-02-25 | Insider Trading , Wash Trading | — | settled |