SEC DROPS THREE MAJOR FRAUD CASES! Justice Denied or Smart Strategy?

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Litigation Release No. 26330, dated June 18, 2025.

The SEC announced the dismissal of three civil enforcement actions on June 18, 2025. These dismissals were based on policy considerations rather than an assessment of the merits of the claims. The cases involved John M. Fife et al. (filed 2020), Auctus Fund Management, LLC et al. (filed 2023), and Curt Kramer et al. (filed 2024). The SEC emphasized that these dismissals do not set a precedent for other cases.

In Plain English

The SEC decided to close three lawsuits it had filed against different people and companies. This decision was made for policy reasons, not because the SEC decided the people or companies did nothing wrong. The SEC stated that this decision doesn't mean they will close other similar lawsuits.

Disclaimer: all facts are drawn from the SEC's own filings; the claims described are allegations unless and until a court rules or the parties settle, and some cases end in dismissal.

How the Alleged Scheme Worked

  1. Filing of Enforcement Actions The SEC initiated three separate civil enforcement actions. These included Securities and Exchange Commission v. John M. Fife, et al., filed in the Northern District of Illinois on September 3, 2020; Securities and Exchange Commission v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, et al., filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 1, 2023; and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Curt Kramer, et al., filed in the Southern District of New York on May 7, 2024.
  2. Ongoing Litigation These three cases were actively progressing as civil enforcement actions brought by the Commission. The details of the allegations or the specific fraudulent activities within each case are not provided in this release.
  3. Joint Stipulations for Dismissal On June 18, 2025, the SEC and the defendants in each of these three cases jointly filed stipulations. These stipulations proposed the dismissal of the respective enforcement actions.
  4. SEC's Decision to Dismiss The Commission exercised its discretion to seek dismissal of these pending actions. This decision was based on the SEC's judgment that the dismissals were appropriate as a policy matter.
  5. No Assessment of Merits Crucially, the SEC stated that its decision to dismiss the cases was not based on an assessment of the merits of the claims that had been alleged in the actions. The underlying allegations remain unadjudicated by this dismissal.
  6. Dismissal With Prejudice Each of the joint stipulations requested that the dismissals be granted 'with prejudice.' This means the SEC cannot refile these specific claims against these defendants in the future.
  7. No Precedent Set The SEC explicitly noted in each stipulation that its decision to seek dismissal 'does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case.' This clarifies that the dismissals are specific to these three matters and do not establish a broad policy change regarding similar allegations.

The Enforcement Action

On June 18, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed joint stipulations with the defendants in three separate cases to dismiss, with prejudice, the following ongoing civil enforcement actions against them: Securities and Exchange Commission v. John M. Fife, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05227 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2020); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11233 (D. Mass. filed June 1, 2023); and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Curt Kramer, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03498 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 7, 2024). The Commission’s decision to exercise its discretion and dismiss these pending enforcement actions rests on its judgment that the dismissals are appropriate as a policy matter, not on any assessment of the merits of the claims alleged in the actions. Furthermore, as stated in each of the joint stipulations, the Commission’s decision to seek dismissal of the actions “does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case.”