SEC v. AHUJA ET AL, No. 1:18-cv-04145, Southern District of New York (Sept. 28, 2022)

 
 
 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 Before the 
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
 
INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 
Release No. 6154 / September 28, 2022 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-21175 
 
In the Matter of 
 
ANILESH AHUJA,   
 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORDER INSTITUTING  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 203(f) OF THE 
INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, 
MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING 
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 
 
 
I. 
 
 The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the 
public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to 
Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Anilesh Ahuja 
(“Ahuja” or “Respondent”).  
 
II. 
 
 In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer 
of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 
purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 
Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings 
herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him, the subject matter of these 
proceedings, and the findings contained in paragraphs III(2), (4), and (5) below, which are 
admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceeding 
Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and 
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), as set forth below.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

 2 
III. 
 
 On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that: 
 
1. Ahuja, age 54, resides in Miami, Florida.  Ahuja was the founder, chief executive 
officer, chief investment officer, and majority  owner of Premium Point Investments LP (“Premium 
Point”), a Delaware limited partnership and New York-based registered investment adviser.  Prior 
to founding Premium Point, Ahuja was associated with several broker-dealers registered with the 
Commission. 
 
2. On September 20, 2022, a final judgment was entered by consent against Ahuja, 
permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 
1933, and Advisers Act Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) and Rule 206(4)-8(a)(2) thereunder, in the civil 
action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Premium Point Investments LP, et al., 18 
Civ. 4145 (JPC), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 
3. The Commission’s amended complaint alleged that, from at least September 2015 
through March 2016, Ahuja engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the value of securities held by 
several private investment funds managed by Ahuja and Premium Point.  The amended complaint 
further alleged that Ahuja sought to hide the funds’ poor performance, both to stem redemptions 
and to persuade investors to invest in a new fund. 
 
4. On April 22, 2022, Ahuja pleaded guilty to one violation of securities fraud [15 
U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78f(f); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and 18 U.S.C. § 2] before the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Ahuja et al., 18 Cr. 328 
(KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). 
 
5. The count of the indictment to which Ahuja pleaded guilty alleged that Ahuja 
defrauded investors by participating in an effort to deceptively mismark the value of certain 
securities held by one of the private funds he and Premium Point managed, and thus fraudulently 
inflated the net asset value of the fund as reported to investors.  
 
IV. 
 
 In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to 
impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Ahuja’s Offer. 
 
 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Advisers Act Section 203(f), that 
Respondent Ahuja be, and hereby is barred from association with any investment adviser, broker, 
dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized 
statistical rating organization. 
 
 Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws 
and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of 

 3 
factors, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Commission’s order and payment of any 
or all of the following:  (a) any disgorgement or civil penalties ordered by a Court against the 
Respondent in any action brought by the Commission; (b) any disgorgement amounts ordered 
against the Respondent for which the Commission waived payment; (c) any arbitration award 
related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (d) any self-regulatory 
organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as 
the basis for the Commission order; and (e) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, 
whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order. 
 
 By the Commission. 
 
 
 
 
Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 
 
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Before the 

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 

Release No. 6154 / September 28, 2022 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-21175 

 

In the Matter of 

 

ANILESH AHUJA,   

 

Respondent. 

 

 

ORDER INSTITUTING  

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 203(f) OF THE 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, 

MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING 

REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 

 

 

I. 
 

 The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the 

public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to 

Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Anilesh Ahuja 

(“Ahuja” or “Respondent”).  

 

II. 
 

 In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer 

of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 

purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 

Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings 

herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him, the subject matter of these 

proceedings, and the findings contained in paragraphs III(2), (4), and (5) below, which are 

admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceeding 

Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and 

Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), as set forth below.   

 

 

 

 

 

 



 2 

III. 
 

 On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that: 

 

1. Ahuja, age 54, resides in Miami, Florida.  Ahuja was the founder, chief executive 

officer, chief investment officer, and majority  owner of Premium Point Investments LP (“Premium 

Point”), a Delaware limited partnership and New York-based registered investment adviser.  Prior 

to founding Premium Point, Ahuja was associated with several broker-dealers registered with the 

Commission. 

 

2. On September 20, 2022, a final judgment was entered by consent against Ahuja, 

permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 

1933, and Advisers Act Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) and Rule 206(4)-8(a)(2) thereunder, in the civil 

action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Premium Point Investments LP, et al., 18 

Civ. 4145 (JPC), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

 

3. The Commission’s amended complaint alleged that, from at least September 2015 

through March 2016, Ahuja engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the value of securities held by 

several private investment funds managed by Ahuja and Premium Point.  The amended complaint 

further alleged that Ahuja sought to hide the funds’ poor performance, both to stem redemptions 

and to persuade investors to invest in a new fund. 

 

4. On April 22, 2022, Ahuja pleaded guilty to one violation of securities fraud [15 

U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78f(f); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and 18 U.S.C. § 2] before the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Ahuja et al., 18 Cr. 328 

(KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). 

 

5. The count of the indictment to which Ahuja pleaded guilty alleged that Ahuja 

defrauded investors by participating in an effort to deceptively mismark the value of certain 

securities held by one of the private funds he and Premium Point managed, and thus fraudulently 

inflated the net asset value of the fund as reported to investors.  

 

IV. 

 

 In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to 

impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Ahuja’s Offer. 

 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Advisers Act Section 203(f), that 

Respondent Ahuja be, and hereby is barred from association with any investment adviser, broker, 

dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized 

statistical rating organization. 

 

 Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws 

and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of 



 3 

factors, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Commission’s order and payment of any 

or all of the following:  (a) any disgorgement or civil penalties ordered by a Court against the 

Respondent in any action brought by the Commission; (b) any disgorgement amounts ordered 

against the Respondent for which the Commission waived payment; (c) any arbitration award 

related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (d) any self-regulatory 

organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as 

the basis for the Commission order; and (e) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, 

whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order. 

 

 By the Commission. 

 

 

 

 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary