SEC Charges Crypto Mining Operator Over Alleged $22 Million Investment Scheme

In brief

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said on July 20, 2026 that it had filed partially settled charges against Florida resident Zan Shaikh and his company, Bright Vision Distribution LLC, which does business as Mining Automatic, over what it alleges was a multimillion-dollar crypto asset mining investment scheme. The complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges the two raised about $22 million from more than 380 investors but spent only about 13% of that money on the mining they promised. Shaikh and the company consented to judgments, subject to court approval, with the monetary penalties left for the court to set.

What the SEC filed

The SEC announced the action in Litigation Release No. 26590, dated July 20, 2026. The complaint, captioned SEC v. Zan Shaikh and Bright Vision Distribution LLC d/b/a Mining Automatic (No. 26-cv-13301), was filed the same day in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The agency describes it as a partially settled action over an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purported crypto asset mining.

According to the complaint, between approximately June 2023 and May 2025 Shaikh and Mining Automatic promised investors guaranteed monthly returns from a crypto mining operation the SEC says was insufficient to generate those returns, and raised about $22 million from more than 380 investors. The agency alleges the defendants made misrepresentations about their experience and track record, the use of investor money, and the status of the mining operations, and that despite promising to use the funds for mining they spent only about 13% of investor money on mining-related expenses. The complaint further alleges the pair took in at least $20 million more than they repaid to investors, using the money largely to market for new investors and to cover Shaikh's personal and unrelated business expenses.

The charges, and what is settled

The SEC charged both defendants with violating the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws: Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Shaikh and Mining Automatic consented to the entry of judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin them from further violations and impose an officer-and-director bar and a conduct-based injunction against Shaikh. The judgments provide that the defendants shall pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties in amounts to be determined by the court on the Commission's motion.

The distinction matters. A complaint sets out allegations, not proven findings, and consenting to a judgment resolves the case's structure without those allegations being adjudicated. The dollar figures for disgorgement, interest and penalties are not set — the court will determine them later — and this report draws only on the SEC's own release and filed complaint.

What to watch

The concrete next steps are procedural: whether the court approves the consented judgments, and the amounts of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties the court sets on the SEC's later motion. Any separate action by another authority, and any distribution to affected investors, would be new developments beyond this filing.

What we do not know

Several things are not established from the record. The complaint's allegations have not been tested or proven, and the consented judgments still require court approval. The monetary amounts — disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties — are left for the court to determine and are not stated. The release describes only this civil enforcement action and gives no figure for how much, if anything, the more than 380 investors may ultimately recover. Whether any related matter is pending elsewhere is not addressed in the documents reviewed at the cutoff.