The U.S. Supreme Courtroom is contemplating irrespective of whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may force defendants accused of defrauding traders to disgorge their unwell-gotten gains.

At a listening to on Tuesday, the justices appeared skeptical that the SEC exceeded its authority by getting a disgorgement purchase towards a California few for the $27 million they experienced raised from traders by misrepresenting the revenue would be utilized to fund a cancer-procedure heart.

Charles Liu and Xin Wang argued that disgorgement was not a type of “equitable relief” that Congress has authorized the SEC to request, citing a 2017 Supreme Courtroom decision identified as Kokesh v. SEC locating it was a penalty.

“This authority is being utilized by the company to punish …their justification for it is punitive,” the couple’s legal professional, Gregory Rapawy, advised the court docket.

But the justices suggested it was not punishment for the SEC to consider revenue from a fraudster to refund the defrauded. “Is it not an equitable theory that no one need to be permitted to revenue from his individual completely wrong?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned.

The SEC routinely invokes disgorgement as a remedy in enforcement steps, collecting much more than $3.2 billion in fiscal 2019 and returning virtually $one.2 billion to harmed traders.

“If the significant court docket finds SEC disgorgements are unauthorized [in the Liu case], it could make the agency’s enforcement actions somewhat toothless,” Quartz famous.

Liu and Wang raised their $27 million from Chinese traders under a software that allows foreign nationals to acquire visas in exchange for investing in position-generating tasks in the U.S. A trial decide requested the disgorgement immediately after locating that they misappropriated most of the revenue.

In their charm to the Supreme Courtroom, the few argued that disgorgement falls outside the scope of equitable aid simply because, as the court docket held in the Kokesh case, “it aims to punish violations of public regulation and discourage many others from the same.”

But the SEC stated Kokesh established that disgorgement only constitutes a penalty under the five-yr statute of limits for steps to enforce civil penalties.

(Picture by ANTHONY WALLACE/AFP via Getty Illustrations or photos)

charm, Charles Liu, disgorgement, Kokesh, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Supreme Courtroom, Xin Wang