Photo: Ralph Zuranski · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons

Born in United States · Nationality American — Brokerage / penny stocks / securities fraud / money laundering / restitution / media

Jordan Belfort

Business and billionaires

Documented profile covering 8 controversies, including “1992–1994: SEC action against Stratton Oakmont and Belfort for fraudulent 'boiler room' practices, followed by personal sanction” and “1993: secret arrangement surrounding Steve Madden IPO to conceal Belfort's beneficial ownership”.

Are you concerned? Right of reply

Profile No. 1978 · Updated on 12 October 2026

8Documented controversies

7Sources

0Formal charge · all time

1Conviction

§ Legal statuses reflect the documented sources as of the date shown; they replace neither court decisions nor the presumption of innocence. Counts are not a rating. Methodology

I. Documented controversies

23 January 2020

2020: $300 million lawsuit against Red Granite following 1MDB scandal surrounding film financing

Civil / administrative proceedings

Belfort sued Red Granite Pictures and Riza Aziz for $300 million, claiming he would not have sold the rights to his story had he known the company's funding was linked to the alleged misappropriation of funds from Malaysia's 1MDB.

State of the evidence: Documented
Attribution: Protagonist is the complainant

Sources · 1

[1]
Los Angeles Times‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ told the story of his fraud. Now he’s suing for fraudPressHigh reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

2003–2018

2003–2018: restitution of $110.36 million and prolonged dispute over payments to victims

Civil / administrative proceedings

The judgment set the restitution owed by Belfort at $110,362,993.87. Years later, courts and prosecutors were still examining payment arrangements and income from his companies, with only a fraction of the amount having been paid.

State of the evidence: Documented
Attribution: Directly implicated

Sources · 2

[1]
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York via GovInfoUnited States v. Belfort — restitution/sentencing orderCourt recordVery high reliability
[2]
The GuardianWolf of Wall Street: Jordan Belfort's rights payments may be seizedPressHigh reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

2013–2014

2013–2014: controversy over book and film income while restitution remained largely unpaid

No legal proceedings

The success of The Wolf of Wall Street revived controversy over the money Belfort was earning from his story while still owing victims tens of millions of dollars. Authorities sought to direct part of the payments for rights towards restitution.

State of the evidence: Documented
Attribution: Directly implicated

Sources · 2

[1]
The GuardianWolf of Wall Street: Jordan Belfort's rights payments may be seizedPressHigh reliability
[2]
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York via GovInfoUnited States v. Belfort — restitution/sentencing orderCourt recordVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

Case · 2 documented stages

2003: sentenced to 42 months in prison and three years' supervised release

Conviction

October 2003

2003: sentenced to 42 months in prison and three years' supervised release

Conviction

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York sentenced Belfort to 42 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release following his guilty pleas in the Stratton Oakmont case.

State of the evidence: Documented
Attribution: Accused

Sources · 1

[1]
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York via GovInfoUnited States v. Belfort — restitution/sentencing orderCourt recordVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

1998–23 September 1999

1998–1999: guilty pleas for securities fraud, money laundering and manipulation of at least 34 IPOs

Conviction

Belfort pleaded guilty in the Stratton Oakmont criminal case to conspiracy/securities fraud and money laundering counts. The expanded 1999 pleas described manipulation of at least 34 initial public offerings and a money laundering scheme then estimated at no less than $80 million.

Attribution: Accused

Sources · 2

[1]
Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg NewsMore Admissions in Stratton Fraud CasePressHigh reliability
[2]
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York via GovInfoUnited States v. Belfort — restitution/sentencing orderCourt recordVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

December 1996

1996: Stratton Oakmont expelled from NASD following lengthy series of violations

Civil / administrative proceedings

In December 1996, the NASD expelled Stratton Oakmont from the securities industry after finding fraudulent or excessive mark-ups and serious supervisory failures. The regulator emphasised the repeated and serious nature of the firm's disciplinary record.

State of the evidence: Documented

Sources · 1

[1]
FINRA / NASD RegulationNASD Regulation Expels Stratton Oakmont, Bars PrincipalsRegulatory authorityVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

1992–February 1994

1992–1994: SEC action against Stratton Oakmont and Belfort for fraudulent 'boiler room' practices, followed by personal sanction

Civil / administrative proceedings

The SEC sued Stratton Oakmont and its executives, including Jordan Belfort, for market manipulation and fraudulent sales practices. The SEC-approved settlement imposed, among other measures, a permanent injunction, a $100,000 civil penalty and a ban on Belfort associating with certain regulated entities.

State of the evidence: Settlement
Attribution: Accused

Sources · 1

[1]
U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC News Digest — Settlement Reached with Stratton Oakmont, Inc., Jordan Belfort, Kenneth Greene and Daniel PorushRegulatory authorityVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

December 1993

1993: secret arrangement surrounding Steve Madden IPO to conceal Belfort's beneficial ownership

Civil / administrative proceedings

In the SEC case against Steve Madden, the regulator described a sham agreement under which Belfort was to formally sell his Steve Madden Ltd. shares to a Madden company to comply with NASD shareholding limits while secretly retaining beneficial ownership. The prospectus did not disclose this secret agreement.

State of the evidence: Allegations
Attribution: Direct responsibility

Sources · 1

[1]
U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC v. Steve Madden — Litigation Release No. 17014Regulatory authorityVery high reliability

Last verified: 14 September 2026

Add to this entry

II. Constellation of documented links

No documented link with another published profile for now.

Two profiles are linked when a documented controversy of one names the other. The link points to that controversy and its sources; it does not indicate a personal relationship.

III. Has something changed?

A new court decision, a missing source, a mistake? Tell us what should be updated: every request is read by the editorial team.

Support the archive

Controversia checks and updates its profiles independently. Support is optional and has no effect on the content of profiles.

Donate