Sec Speeches Cryptocurrency Remarks Before 12th Annual Government Enforcement Institute

[As Prepared]

Good morning and thank you for the warm welcome. It’s always a pleasure to be back in Texas, and I’m grateful to my law school alma mater, the University of Texas, for hosting this event and for inviting me to speak today. This institute in particular has long been an important forum for defense counsel, in‑house lawyers, compliance professionals, law enforcement personnel, and advisors who shape how our enforcement system functions in practice.

Before I begin, allow me to share the standard disclaimer: I am speaking today in my official capacity as Director of the Division of Enforcement. My remarks represent my own views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or my colleagues on the staff. 

Today, I want to provide a clear update on the SEC’s Enforcement Division, outline a few new initiatives that strengthen our enforcement program, and deliver some direct messages about what defense counsel should expect from us going forward.

Update on the Enforcement Program

The Enforcement Division has a more than 50-year history of professionalism, rigor, and effectiveness. The Division’s staff are talented, highly-professional, mission‑driven, and deeply committed to protecting investors, upholding market integrity, and ensuring accountability. And it is a privilege to lead such a dedicated group.

In my first three months on the job, I visited all 10 of our regional offices and met with every Specialized Unit and Associate Group. I enjoyed meeting with staff across the country, and, during those meetings, I made clear that my goal as Director of the Enforcement Division is aligned to that of Chairman Atkins: to refocus the enforcement program squarely on our mission and get back to basics. We are well underway. 

Indeed, in the last several months the Commission has brought a number of cases confirming that we’re prioritizing back to basics cases—cases focusing on conduct that harms investors, holding individual wrongdoers accountable, and pursuing opportunities to return money to harmed investors. And that is what you can expect from the Division going forward—we will aggressively pursue fraud, insider trading, accounting fraud, compliance failures, investment adviser conflicts and misrepresentations, and more.

Now, let me briefly touch upon enforcement statistics. Some outside observers keep a close watch on certain numbers associated with our enforcement program, for example the number of cases the Commission files or amount of monetary remedies it obtains in those cases. But Chairman Atkins has been clear: the past approach of assessing the effectiveness of enforcement by the numbers, not the quality, of cases brought is flawed. I share the Chairman’s view. Raw case counts and the total dollar value of remedies obtained tell us little about the quality or nature of our enforcement recommendations. And they don’t answer the question whether our efforts are contributing to the health of our capital markets. 

I would add that using these metrics to assess the enforcement program is particularly fraught for fiscal year 2026. Setting aside that we endured the longest government shutdown in history, this last year has been a period of recalibration for the Enforcement Division. Collectively, the Commissioners have decades of experience at the SEC. They are exacting. They have high standards. They are thoughtful and deliberate about the cases the Commission brings. That level of rigor sharpens the enforcement program. And it’s no secret that this Commission has different enforcement priorities than those of the prior administration. That is normal. And the Division has been intentional and responsive in recalibrating the enforcement program to deliver on those priorities.

One aspect of this recalibration was a comprehensive review of our investigative docket, which takes time. We assessed our pipeline, identified matters that were either out of step with this Commission’s focus on misconduct that causes genuine harm or otherwise presented little realistic prospect of delivering meaningful redress to investors. This review is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of discipline. Investigations come at a cost. They consume limited resources, and closing matters where we quite simply could not justify the cost freed up our most valuable resource—staff’s time and attention—for pursuing cases that better fit this Commission’s priorities. 

A Healthy, Visible Enforcement Program Matters More Than Statistics

Rather than striving to bring an ever-increasing number of enforcement actions—without regard for their impact or their capacity to positively affect capital markets and investors—I am focused on administering an enforcement program that is strong and visible in the marketplace. As former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt noted, “an essential predicate for any effective enforcement program is visibility.” The market must see—and feel—that Enforcement is on the job and market participants need to understand that if they violate the securities laws, they will suffer the consequences. We want bad actors to know that Enforcement is committed to detecting and shutting down their misconduct, holding them accountable, and putting appropriate measures in place to prevent them from continuing to violate the law. An enforcement program that is visible contributes to healthy markets and makes investors better off. I am not preoccupied with numbers, because when the Enforcement Division empowers the staff to work efficiently, removes barriers to effective enforcement, and prioritizes impactful cases—and we are—we will produce results without needing to chase numbers.

Case Highlights

A number of recent matters highlight a visible Enforcement Division bringing impactful cases in response to a spectrum of misconduct.

Counteracting “bread-and butter” offering frauds—especially those that generate significant retail harm—remains foundational to our mission, even as market structures and products evolve. Last month, for example, the SEC charged a company and its founder and CEO for raising at least $425 million from over 1,300 investors through an alleged multi-year Ponzi scheme. According to the complaint, the defendants operated the scheme through an unregistered securities offering in which investors would “partner” with the company to invest in purported crypto asset liquidity pools, but rather than using the investor funds as promised, the defendants used money and crypto assets from new and existing investors to pay promised returns to earlier investors and the CEO misappropriated at least $51 million for personal use, including to buy real estate, luxury vehicles, and a yacht.

At the same time, we are staying nimble and adjusting to new methods of fraud, including fraud cloaked in new and emerging technologies. In late-2025, the Commission charged three purported crypto asset trading platforms and four investment clubs with defrauding retail investors of at least $14 million in an alleged investment confidence scam. This alleged scheme involved the investment clubs soliciting investors through social media, gaining investors’ confidence with supposedly AI-generated investment tips, and luring them to open and fund accounts on the purported crypto asset trading platforms where they allegedly offered investors “Security Token Offerings” purportedly issued by legitimate businesses. The lesson, of course, is that fraud changes shape, but investor harm looks the same.

Our mandate also includes taking decisive action to disrupt foreign bad actors targeting U.S. markets and investors. In August, the SEC brought charges in the District of Colorado against 38 entities, several of whom appear to be located overseas, that allegedly used false SEC filings to feign legitimacy as U.S. advisers to lure retail investors, and brought similar charges against an additional entity in the Northern District of New York. Likewise, the Commission has instituted trading suspensions in response to suspected manipulation in the securities of foreign issuers and thereby head off the threat of harm to U.S. investors. These actions underscore the broader enforcement prerogative: misrepresentation and manipulation—particularly when they are designed to exploit trust in U.S. markets—are serious cross‑border threats, and we will use all available tools to undermine their capacity to harm American investors.

The Division is more committed than ever to promoting integrity and accountability in financial reporting. I have more to say on this topic in a moment, but earlier this year the SEC brought charges against—

• a company and its former executives for allegedly materially inflating the performance of a key business segment that the company touted to investors as an important growth driver; and
• another company and two of its senior executives for books and records and internal controls violations related to alleged false entries in the company’s inventory system that improperly increased income.

More recently, the Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against:

• a foreign-based issuer that, according to the SEC’s settled order, engaged in sham transactions concerning certain online advertising and marketing that resulted in materially overstated net revenues and operation and support costs;
• two former company executives for allegedly failing to disclose to the company’s auditor at least $290,000 in personal and/or unauthorized expenses that the company paid for; and
• a former CFO of a public company, who, according to the SEC’s settled order, directed the company to file its Form 10-K—which represented that the audit of the company’s financial statements was complete and included audit opinions and consents from the company’s auditors—despite knowing that the auditors had not provided final approval to include their audit opinions and consents.

I highlight these actions not only to underscore that financial reporting and internal accounting controls are a central enforcement priority, but also to emphasize a straightforward message regarding disclosures: get the numbers right, fix problems fast, and engage constructively with the staff.

New Initiatives Strengthening Enforcement

We have also undertaken new initiatives that will further the visible, disciplined, and efficient program we are building.

The newly-launched Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit expands on the Division’s efforts to crack down on bad actors in the accounting and auditing professions. As investors gain access to new markets and expanded investment options, our responsibility to ensure strong financial reporting and accurate disclosure is more essential than ever. Financial reporting cases, however, are among our most challenging and lengthy—often taking several years from opening to charging. The new specialized unit will bring dedicated expertise, focused capacity, and a consistent, disciplined approach to pursuing financial reporting fraud, accounting misconduct, and auditor violations. And, by aggregating specialists and expertise from across the Division, we expect to move faster, and bring better cases more quickly.

In addition, we launched the Retail Fraud Working Group to bring focused energy and resources from across the Division to pursue retail fraud—using data, technology, and intelligence-sharing. The group will better position the Division to identify potential misconduct, build partnerships with regulatory counterparts, and remain nimble and responsive to new methods of fraud, including fraud involving artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. The working group is also coordinating with foreign partners and participating in educational outreach to retail investors.

Both initiatives promote our visibility in the market and strengthen our capacity to recommend great cases. Both reflect our commitment to the Commission’s priorities and returning to basics.

At the same time, we are examining ways to force multiply through creative uses of technology and through increased interagency coordination. The Division has a new Office of Artificial Intelligence & Analytics, which is focusing on accelerating our practical implementation of Artificial Intelligence and Analytics. We are laser focused on enabling our existing talented workforce to harness these tools to make us much more efficient—freeing our most valuable resource (the staff) to spend more time on case generation, assessment, and thinking.

A word regarding our coordination efforts. I’ve said it before, but we confront increasingly complex schemes that cross borders, regulatory sectors, and legal frameworks, and no single agency can address it in isolation. That is why we are working hard to leverage opportunities to better coordinate with our regulatory and law enforcement partners. The Commission recently announced an MOU with the FDA aimed at enhancing our cooperation in carrying out our regulatory and enforcement responsibilities and facilitating relevant information-sharing. From the Division’s perspective, FDA-related disclosures have a significant impact on our markets, and fostering a closer partnership with the FDA goes hand-in-hand with our responsibility to enforce applicable disclosure requirements under the securities laws. We’re also coordinating our respective enforcement operations with the CFTC through the Harmonization Initiative; working in tandem with the PCAOB to support their important role in the enforcement landscape; and pursuing opportunities for close collaboration with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, including S.D.N.Y. and here in the Northern District of Texas. 

Removing Roadblocks to Efficient Enforcement

I want to take this opportunity to offer a few messages to defense counsel—messages to bring clarity, efficiency, and predictability to our interactions.

First, the staff is paying close attention to 8-Ks, media reports, TCRs, and myriad other sources. So, it’s better if you come to us first, because you will get a call from us. And, as I’ve said before, a company that self-reports, cooperates fully, and remediates will not be treated the same as a company that conceals, delays, or obstructs.

Next, we are committed to moving investigations promptly and removing roadblocks to efficient enforcement. Each investigation is unique and not every investigation requires the traditional long arc of voluminous document requests followed by months of coordinating testimony—a process which can often consume years. That’s why I encourage the staff to consider taking testimony before document productions are complete, when appropriate. Doing so may help us sharpen our investigative focus earlier on in the process, narrow scope, obtain testimony while memories are fresh, assess cooperation quickly, and prevent slow-rolling or strategic delay. This is not a negotiable concept. It is a procedural tool we will use when it advances efficient, fair enforcement.

In that same vein, I expect defense counsel’s cooperation in resolving investigations efficiently. That means responding quickly and clearly to inquiries, scheduling testimony promptly, avoiding serial extensions without cause, raising issues early rather than late, and engaging constructively in pre-enforcement dialogue, which we value and encourage.

Let me be clear: we will move matters forward—with or without delay attempts from counsel. We will have little patience for defense counsel slow rolling productions, making excuses for missing production deadlines, and, in extreme cases, refusing to produce documents. The staff cannot execute its responsibility to investigate potential securities law violations without the documents and testimony that they seek, and non-compliance with subpoenas wastes time and resources. Defense counsel should expect that the Division will seek to remedy subpoena compliance issues by filing subpoena enforcement actions, and that we’ll do so sooner, rather than waiting years to obtain subpoenaed documents and testimony. In late-August, the Commission filed a subpoena enforcement action in the Northern District of Texas against an LLC and various affiliated individuals and companies. Notably, the Court granted our application within one day of our filing and ordered these individuals to appear for testimony within 21 days, and required the production of documents within 30 days.

Last, defense counsel should understand that a meeting with a Deputy Director is a meeting with the Front Office. Deputy Directors are senior leaders fully empowered to hear counsel’s arguments, evaluate escalated issues, and exercise judgment. Meeting with them satisfies any request to elevate concerns. This policy supports clarity, efficiency, and fairness, and it also prevents strategic appeals that delay investigations, and is entirely consistent with our commitment to move matters forward expediently.

Conclusion

To close, I am pleased to report that the Division is strong, disciplined, and deeply committed to protecting investors. Our staff is exceptional, our priorities are clear, and our enforcement program reflects a return to basics—robust investor protection, visible enforcement, moving matters efficiently, and providing clarity for market participants.

Fiscal year 2026 was a transitionary period, but transitions strengthen disciplined programs. We have recalibrated our pipeline, launched critical initiatives, and re-established core principles. I am honored to lead the Enforcement Division forward and I am excited about what’s to come.

Thank you for your time.