More than 380 people put money into a crypto-mining operation that claimed it would generate returns through digital-asset mining packages. The Securities and Exchange Commission now says the firm behind those promises, Bright Vision Distribution LLC doing business as Mining Automatic, funneled only about 13 percent of the roughly $22 million it collected toward anything related to actual mining. The agency filed a civil action in the District of Massachusetts against the company and its operator, Zan Shaikh, on July 20, 2026, while the FBI’s Boston Division opened a parallel effort to identify additional victims.
Why a $22 million gap between promises and spending drew two federal agencies
The SEC’s case centers on a stark disparity: investors handed over approximately $22 million, yet only about 13 percent of those funds went to expenses tied to the crypto-asset mining that was advertised, according to an official release. That leaves roughly $19 million unaccounted for in terms of the stated business purpose. The complaint was filed in federal court in Massachusetts, naming both Shaikh and Bright Vision Distribution LLC.
The FBI is not waiting for the civil case to play out. Its Boston Division posted a public notice seeking victim information tied to Shaikh and entities including Bright Vision Distribution, YT Automatic, and Mining Automatic. The bureau believes Shaikh primarily targeted investors between 2022 and 2025, a three-year window that overlaps with periods of intense retail interest in crypto mining. That dual-track approach, with the SEC pursuing civil remedies and the FBI soliciting victims for a criminal inquiry, signals that federal authorities view the alleged conduct as more than a registration violation.
Public victim-solicitation postings like the FBI’s tend to surface people who never filed formal complaints. When those individuals come forward, they often provide transaction records and communications that strengthen both the criminal and civil cases. The practical effect is that the FBI’s notice could drive a wave of new tips to regulators within weeks, expanding the pool of evidence well beyond what the SEC complaint currently describes.
What the SEC complaint and FBI posting reveal about Mining Automatic
The SEC’s litigation release identifies the defendants as Zan Shaikh and Bright Vision Distribution LLC, operating under the name Mining Automatic. The agency states that the defendants raised approximately $22 million from more than 380 investors and used only about 13 percent of those funds on expenses relating to purported crypto-asset mining. The release does not provide a line-by-line breakdown of where the remaining 87 percent went. That missing detail is significant: without it, investors cannot assess whether funds were spent on overhead, personal expenses, or transferred to other entities.
The FBI’s posting adds a layer of specificity by naming three entities tied to Shaikh: Bright Vision Distribution, YT Automatic, and Mining Automatic. The inclusion of YT Automatic suggests the operation may have used multiple brand names to reach different investor groups over the 2022-to-2025 period. No additional public filings tied to the case have appeared in the SEC’s broader enforcement docket beyond the July 20 litigation release, at least as of the latest update.
Earlier SEC enforcement actions in the crypto-mining space follow a similar pattern. The agency has previously targeted schemes where promised hardware and hosting contracts either never materialized or operated at a fraction of the scale described in marketing materials. In those cases, investors were often shown photos of industrial racks of mining rigs, hash-rate projections, and payout calculators that created the impression of a mature, capital-intensive business. The Mining Automatic allegations fit that broader template: a technically complex pitch, heavy reliance on online promotion, and limited transparency about how funds were actually deployed.
How the alleged scheme worked for investors
According to the SEC, Mining Automatic attracted investors with packages that purported to give them exposure to crypto-asset mining without requiring them to buy or maintain their own equipment. Investors were told that their money would fund specialized mining hardware, data-center space, electricity, and maintenance. In return, they were promised passive income tied to the output of those machines.
The complaint indicates that only a small slice of investor funds went toward anything resembling those operational costs. While the SEC’s release does not spell out the precise destination of the remaining money, the allegation that 87 percent did not go to mining-related expenses undercuts the core premise of the offering. If proven, that gap would mean investors were largely financing something other than the business they believed they were joining.
For many participants, the appeal likely rested on two beliefs: that mining remained lucrative despite rising network difficulty, and that outsourcing the technical side to a specialist would reduce risk. The SEC’s action suggests that, instead of reducing risk, the outsourcing structure made it easier for the operator to control information and obscure how funds were being used.
What investors and potential victims can do now
People who suspect they invested with Bright Vision Distribution, Mining Automatic, or YT Automatic between 2022 and 2025 can use the FBI’s online form to share documentation, including contracts, payment receipts, and correspondence. Those submissions can help investigators trace the flow of funds and identify common patterns in how the products were marketed.
Regulators often encourage investors in similar situations to preserve all records rather than attempting chargebacks or informal settlements that could complicate later recovery efforts. While the SEC’s civil case may eventually seek disgorgement or penalties, any return of funds to investors typically depends on what assets authorities can locate and freeze. That process can take months or years, and there is no guarantee that victims will be made whole.
The Mining Automatic case underscores a recurring lesson in crypto-related offerings: if a product promises high, steady returns from a complex technical process but offers little verifiable detail about operations or spending, the risk of misrepresentation is substantial. As federal agencies move forward with both civil and potential criminal actions, the outcome will likely hinge on tracing that missing 87 percent and demonstrating whether investors were misled from the outset.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
