Zan Shaikh, a Florida resident, operated Bright Vision Distribution LLC under the trade name Mining Automatic, marketing it to investors as a turnkey entry into cryptocurrency mining. Crypto asset miners are participants in a blockchain network who contribute computational resources to validate transactions, and who may be rewarded with crypto assets for that work. Shaikh and Mining Automatic promised investors guaranteed monthly returns from what he described as a professional crypto mining operation, backed by his claimed experience, expertise, and track record in the field. Between approximately June 2023 and May 2025, Shaikh and Mining Automatic raised approximately $22 million from more than 380 investors. According to the SEC, the mining operation was insufficient to generate the returns Shaikh guaranteed, and the guarantees themselves were built on misrepresentations about nearly every material aspect of the business. On July 20, 2026, the SEC filed partially settled charges against Shaikh and Mining Automatic in the District of Massachusetts, alleging they misappropriated and misused investor funds.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Shaikh and Mining Automatic made misrepresentations about their experience and expertise in crypto mining, the uses of investor money, the status of the mining operations, and the reasons they could not make monthly payments to investors when those payments came due. Shaikh consented to judgments, subject to court approval, imposing an officer and director bar and a conduct-based injunction, with disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties to be determined by the court. The investigation was conducted by the SEC’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit and the Boston Regional Office.
Only 13% of Investor Money Went to Mining, the Rest to Recruitment and Personal Expenses
The single most damning figure in the complaint is the allocation of investor funds. Despite representing to investors that their money would be used to engage in crypto asset mining, Shaikh and Mining Automatic used only about 13% of investor funds on expenses relating to purported crypto mining. The remaining 87% went elsewhere. According to the SEC, the funds were used largely for marketing to solicit new investors and to pay for Shaikh’s personal and unrelated business expenses. The structure the complaint describes is a familiar one: a small fraction of incoming capital deployed toward the actual represented activity, with the majority spent on the recruitment of new investors whose money would be needed to pay the guaranteed returns owed to earlier investors. A mining operation funded with only 13% of the money raised could not plausibly generate the guaranteed monthly returns promised to 380 investors.
The mathematics of the shortfall are stark. According to the complaint, Shaikh and Mining Automatic took in at least $20 million more in investments than they repaid to investors. That $20 million gap represents the difference between what investors put in and what they received back, and it is the measure of the money that flowed into the operation and did not come out as returns. When the mining operation cannot generate the guaranteed returns, and when only 13% of the money is actually being mined, the monthly payments to existing investors can only come from the capital contributed by new investors, until the flow of new money slows and the payments stop.
Guaranteed Monthly Returns, Excuses for Missed Payments, and a Track Record That Did Not Exist
Shaikh’s marketing rested on guarantees that no legitimate crypto mining operation could responsibly make. Crypto mining returns depend on volatile factors including the price of the mined asset, network difficulty, electricity costs, and hardware performance, none of which can be guaranteed on a fixed monthly basis. Shaikh nonetheless promised guaranteed monthly returns and supported those promises with claims about his experience, expertise, and track record in crypto mining that the SEC alleges were misrepresentations. When the operation could not produce the promised payments, Shaikh offered investors false explanations for why the monthly payments could not be made on time, according to the complaint. Those excuses about the status of the mining operations were themselves part of the fraud, designed to keep investors from recognizing that the underlying business could not support what they had been promised and to buy time to recruit additional investors whose funds could cover the gap.
A Partially Settled Case With Penalties Left to the Court
The SEC’s action is partially settled, meaning Shaikh has agreed to the entry of judgments on the core injunctive relief while leaving the monetary components for later determination. Shaikh and Mining Automatic consented to permanent injunctions against violating the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act, an officer and director bar, and a conduct-based injunction. The disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalty amounts will be set by the court on the SEC’s motion. The involvement of the SEC’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit reflects the agency’s continued focus on fraud in the crypto asset space, where guaranteed-return mining and staking schemes have become a recurring enforcement target. The 380 investors who were promised guaranteed monthly returns from a professional mining operation face a recovery process that depends on what assets remain after 87% of their money went to marketing and personal expenses.
Conclusion
Zan Shaikh told 380 investors he was a crypto mining expert who could guarantee them monthly returns. He spent 13% of their $22 million on mining and the other 87% on recruiting more investors and covering his personal expenses. When the payments he had guaranteed could not be made, he gave investors false reasons why. He took in $20 million more than he paid out. The SEC’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit built the case, Shaikh consented to an industry bar, and the penalties are now for the court to set. The mining operation that was supposed to generate guaranteed returns was funded with a fraction of the money raised to run it.
