Securities & Exchange Commission v. Polevikov et al

Filing 37

MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 36 Motion for Judgment. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/29/2022) (ks)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-07925-VEC Document 36 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 4 MEMO ENDORSED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/29/22 Plaintiff, -against- Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-7925 SERGEI POLEVIKOV, Defendant, and MARYNA ARYSTAVA, Relief Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT SERGEI POLEVIKOV AND FOR DISMISSAL AS TO RELIEF DEFENDANT MARYNA ARYSTAVA Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission respectfully moves the Court to enter the attached proposed Final Judgment as to Defendant Sergei Polevikov (“proposed Final Judgment”) and the attached proposed Order of Dismissal as to Relief Defendant Maryna Arystava (“proposed Order of Dismissal”). Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment would incorporate by reference the terms of the Judgment imposed by this Court on February 9, 2022 [Dkt. No. 29] and Polevikov’s Consent to the entry of that Judgment [Dkt No. 28-1]. The proposed Final Judgment would also order Polevikov to pay disgorgement in the amount of $8,564,977 but deem this obligation satisfied by the entry of the forfeiture order in the related criminal case, United States v. Sergei Polevikov, Cr. No. 21-CR-774 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.). The Commission submits that the proposed Final Judgment is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. For purposes of determining monetary remedies, Polevikov has agreed Case 1:21-cv-07925-VEC Document 36 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 4 that the allegations of the Commission’s Complaint shall be accepted as true [Dkt. No. 28-1 at 2], including the allegation that Polevikov was unjustly enriched by approximately $8.5 million as a result of his fraudulent conduct. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 57. The Court should order Polevikov to disgorge this entire amount. At the same time, the SEC asks that the Court deem Polevikov’s obligation to pay this amount satisfied by the entry of the forfeiture order in the related criminal matter. The criminal case and the instant case arise out of the same facts and circumstances, and the criminal court’s order that Polevikov forfeit $8,564,977 [U.S. v. Polevikov, Dkt. No. 17] deprives Polevikov of his ill-gotten gains. Although prejudgment interest and a civil monetary penalty would both be appropriate in this case, the Commission has chosen to forego these remedies. The likelihood of any recovery beyond the criminal forfeiture is vanishingly small, and Polevikov has been significantly punished in the criminal matter, sentenced to a prison term of 33 months. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the proposed Order of Dismissal. The Commission’s claim against Relief Defendant Maryna Arystava arose from her “possession of funds derived from Polevikov’s fraud,” to which she had no legitimate claim. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7. In light of Polevikov’s forfeiture in the criminal matter, the Commission will no longer pursue disgorgement against Ms. Arystava. Polevikov’s counsel has indicated Polevikov does not oppose this motion. Accordingly, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter the proposed Final Judgment and the proposed Order of Dismissal, which will resolve all claims in this matter. Dated: July 29, 2022 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Melissa J. Armstrong MELISSA J. ARMSTRONG U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. 2 Case 1:21-cv-07925-VEC Document 36 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 4 Washington, D.C. 20549 Tel: (202) 551-4724 Email: Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. 7/29/22 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?