In a long-running enforcement saga involving fraudulent microcap stock schemes, the SEC secured final judgments against Elliot Maza and John Ford, two of the defendants in the sprawling SEC v Barry Honig, et al. litigation.
The SEC alleged that Maza, while serving as CEO of a public company covertly controlled by others named in the suit, signed off on misleading public filings that masked the group’s control. Ford, meanwhile, was accused of accepting undisclosed payments to publish promotional articles about certain companies, misleading investors by failing to disclose his compensation.
As part of their settlements, both men consented to permanent injunctions and financial penalties. Their penalties mark the latest resolution in a case that has spanned nearly seven years, underscoring the SEC’s continued efforts to crack down on deceptive practices in the microcap markets.
Final judgments
The US District Court permanently enjoined John Ford from violating key antifraud provisions of federal securities law, including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, along with Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act.
Ford had authored promotional articles about securities while receiving compensation from issuers without disclosing this conflict, thereby engaging in deceptive conduct that misled investors. The court found that this activity constituted a fraudulent scheme and a failure to disclose material facts in connection with the purchase and sale of securities.
In addition to the injunctions, Ford is barred from participating in any penny stock offerings and must pay a $100,000 civil penalty. The enforcement action underscores the SEC’s heightened scrutiny of undisclosed stock promotions, particularly those distributed under the guise of independent analysis, and reinforces long-standing disclosure obligations for paid publicity in the securities markets.
Elliot Maza, the former CEO of a public company involved in the scheme, was likewise permanently enjoined from violating Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Crucially, the court also barred him from aiding and abetting violations of Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15d-1, citing his role in facilitating materially misleading public filings. These filings concealed the true control structure of the issuer, thus enabling broader manipulation.
Maza is prohibited from serving as an officer or director of any public company and from participating in penny stock offerings. He must pay a $578,095 civil penalty and is also suspended from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an attorney or accountant.
Microcap manipulation network
The SEC’s 2018 enforcement action against a South Florida-based group of microcap investors marked one of the agency’s most sweeping responses to pump-and-dump schemes of the last decade.
According to the complaint, the group, led by investor Barry Honig and including Ford and Maza, executed three market manipulation operations between 2013 and 2018 that together generated over $27 million in illicit profits. These schemes involved acquiring large blocks of discounted shares, covertly exercising control over public companies, and orchestrating misleading promotional campaigns to inflate stock prices before offloading shares onto unsuspecting retail investors.
To fuel the illusion of demand, the group engaged in coordinated trading, undisclosed promotional writing, and manipulated public filings. Senior executives, including Maza and others, knowingly signed false disclosures that concealed the group’s true control and ownership stakes.
The manipulation left retail investors holding nearly worthless shares while the perpetrators pocketed millions. The SEC’s charges targeted not only the fraudulent trading activity but also the systemic abuse of disclosure laws and beneficial ownership reporting rules that enabled the group to operate in the shadows.
Long road to justice
Compared to more recent pump-and-dump cases, such as the high-profile $100m scheme carried out by social media influencers on Twitter and Discord, the Honig case stands out not for its novelty, but for its depth, scale, and the SEC’s long-term commitment to enforcement.
While newer schemes often rely on digital hype and rapid trades, the Honig operation was rooted in coordinated stock control, misleading public filings, and deliberate market manipulation over several years. What makes this case particularly rare is the fact that, despite being filed back in 2018, the SEC continued pursuing final judgments through 2025: an unusually persistent arc of accountability in financial fraud enforcement.
