SEC v. Thomas San Miguel, No. 4:24-cv-02805, Southern District of Texas (Dec. 11, 2025) — Complaint
raw: In re SGR Energy
In re SGR Energy, No. 4:24-cv-02805 (Dec. 11, 2025)
Exhibit of Thomas San Miguel
Classified unregistered-securities(confidence 100%). EDGAR detection: forms Form D/S-1· recall 41% / precision 30%. detection rule →
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)15 U.S.C. § 77e(a)15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-517 C.F.R. § 240.10b-Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities ActSections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities ActSections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities ActSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange ActSection 20(b) of the Securities ActSections 20(d) and 22(a) of the Securities ActSections 20(d) and 22(a) of the Securities ActRule 10b-5
Parties
Securities and Exchange CommissionThomas San Miguel
Keywords
sgrenergysanmiguelinvestorsdocument txsdtxsd pagesecuritiesbusinesscv-revenuesalesterminaldocumenttxsd
Extracted insights
Entities 2
- agency Securities and Exchange Commission
- person thomas san miguel
Triples 12
- Securities And Exchange Commission files this Complaint against Thomas San Miguel
- Thomas San Miguel raised approximately $21.3 million from over 300 investors nationwide
- Thomas San Miguel lured investors with claims of a 12% annual dividend funded by escalating revenue and profits and a $19 million account receivable
- Thomas San Miguel claimed he would use investors' funds to grow SGR Energy’s fuel-blending business by expanding customer geography and acquiring blending facilities and fuel terminals
- Thomas San Miguel trumpeted SGR Energy’s purported acquisition of a large capacity fuel terminal in a northern port-town in Colombia
- Thomas San Miguel claimed no commissions would be paid to sales personnel on new investments
- Thomas San Miguel knew SGR Energy had generated only a fraction of the claimed revenues and likely never generated any profit
- Thomas San Miguel knew the $19 million accounts receivable he recorded was false
- Thomas San Miguel knew SGR Energy never acquired the Colombian terminal and sustained enormous losses while leasing it
- Thomas San Miguel knew SGR Energy was paying 8% sales commissions to the sales team for new investments
- Thomas San Miguel violated 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
- Securities And Exchange Commission brings this action against Thomas San Miguel seeking permanent injunctive relief, an officer-and-director bar, civil penalties, and all other equitable and ancillary relief
PDF
Text layers
Extracted body text (140c)
[OCR_UNRECOVERABLE method=recover reason=missing_pdf ts=2026-09-26T14:05:04.920Z]