⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit considers how much two defendants must pay back in a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement case. The underlying venture raised money for companies promoting crude-oil processing technology. Investors were offered revenue-sharing agreements, shares and convertible loans. The SEC alleged they were misled about the technology, expected returns and how their money would be used. It said investor money went to personal spending and repayment of personal debts rather than the promised business purposes. Partial consent judgments left the amounts of monetary relief for the judge to decide. For that calculation, the defendants agreed the complaint's allegations would be treated as true. The dispute now concerns disgorgement: giving up profits from wrongdoing. Their lawyer will argue that money they put into the venture and legitimate business expenses must be accounted for, so the award does not exceed what they actually gained. The SEC will argue that its calculation already allows legitimate deductions, and the defendants did not establish the additional deductions they sought. A particular point of disagreement is whether money described as a loan was actually an investment, and what difference that makes when investor funds later flow back to the defendants. Listen for the distinction between calculating net profits and deciding which claimed costs the evidence really supports.

SEC v. Laura and Sichenzio (No. 25-603) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 12, 2026.