> The SEC claims that the illegal trading by L. Palmer's former client and J. Palmer's friend netted approximately $35,000 and $73,000 in profits, respectively, portions of which were shared with L. Palmer and J. Palmer according to their arrangements.

> Additionally, the final judgment against L. Palmer would order him to disgorge $9,000 plus prejudgment interest of $2,026, and pay a civil penalty of $88,698. The final judgment against J. Palmer would order him to disgorge $28,000 plus prejudgment interest of $6,303, and pay a civil penalty of $73,399. The litigation as to Dishinger remains pending.

In no sense was it "worth it for them."

>Palmer's friend netted approximately $35,000 and $73,000 in profits

Yeah I'd like to see proof that's actually all there is, rather than all they were able to charge them with. It's not as if those involved in financial related crimes are always honest about finances, and it could be they only gave up the portions where they figured out the feds were going to find.

>Yeah I'd like to see proof that's actually all there is, rather than all they were able to charge them with.

doesn't this require proving a negative? If they got charged, presumably the feds combed through their bank records and found any unexplained deposits. You could argue that they had the real loot in some numbered offshore account and/or crypto that's totally unlinked to them, but I'm not sure how you'd prove that those accounts don't exist.

One could assume that the SEC (or any legal entity with investigative powers) will do their own due diligence and in this case, will do their own forensic accounting investigation into these two to corroborate their story.

He’s clearly just grinding his axe about government. Probably not worth engaging him tbh.

I reached the same conclusion from your comment and afaik I’ve never encountered you before (and if I have it wasn’t very memorable, sorry bud)

Can’t edit the comment now. To the person above, I’m easy to find and contact, feel free to avail yourself if you have something you want to say. That’s not an invitation for abuse, but I’m considerably more open minded to expressing and hearing strong emotions than I feel comfortable doing or expect to be kosher here. Have at it. As long as you’re not threatening me, I’ll read what you have to say.

You said you came to the same "conclusion" ("not worth engaging tbh" said OP). So now you admit that your comment was a lie, and that you do want to engage. Not really interested now though, someone who one moment believes I'm not worthy of engaging but the next moment pretends they are an open and interested communicator ready and receptive to communication is quite the mood swing on your end. This is the last I desire to ever interact with you, and I'll give you the benefit of the result there would be had your comment actually been truth: have a nice life and I promise never to intentionally contact you again.

It can, and often does, work with the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office to bring criminal charges.

A lot of times the SEC and the DOJ bring parallel actions, with the DOJ bringing criminal charges. You need to go specifically look for the DOJ's press release or scour court dockets.