MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the court is a motion filed by the plaintiff in this action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), seeking disgorgement and prejudgment interest from one of the defendants, Garrett O’Rourke (“Mr. O’Rourke”), following a settlement between the SEC and Mr. O’Rourke. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that Mr. O’Rourke owes the SEC $5,315,186 in disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest. Background The SEC filed this lawsuit against Mr. O’Rourke and his co-defendant in July 2019, alleging that from May 2016 through July 2018, the defendants engaged in a scheme in which they sold stocks of companies they controlled to investors without revealing their stakes in the companies. (See generally ECF No. 1, Complaint.) According to the SEC’s allegations, Mr. O’Rourke made cold calls to “elderly retail investors,” and, while “proms[ing] these investors that he had their best interests in mind,” attempted to persuade them to buy stocks so that he and his co-defendant would profit off of the sale. (Id. 2.) Early on in this litigation, the SEC sought a temporary restraining order over Mr. O’Rourke’s assets, which the court granted. (ECF No. 7, Order to Show Cause.) Subsequently, the SEC and Mr. O’Rourke agreed to a stipulation that froze certain of Mr. O’Rourke’s assets, but allowed him to pay his reasonable living expenses and attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 24, Stipulation and Order.) That stipulation has been subsequently amended several times. (See ECF Nos. 50, 63, 74.) In January 2020, the parties jointly moved for approval of a judgment against Mr. O’Rourke following a settlement. (ECF No. 52, Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Settlement; see ECF No. 52-1, Proposed Judgment as to Defendant O’Rourke.) The court approved the judgment, which enjoined Mr. O’Rourke from violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, and found him liable for disgorgement and prejudgment interest in an amount to be subsequently determined. (See ECF No. 54, Order Granting Joint Motion for Judgment.) The SEC has now submitted a motion regarding the amount of disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and Mr. O’Rourke has responded to the motion. Legal Standard “Where a party violates the federal securities laws, th[e] [c]ourt has broad discretion not only to order the disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains, but also to determine the amount to be disgorged.” SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d 552, 562-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing SEC v. Fischbach Corp., 133 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir.1997) and SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1474 (2d Cir.1996)). Disgorgement is to be “remedial rather than punitive[.]” SEC v. Cavanagh, 445 F.3d 105, 117 n.25 (2d Cir. 2006). “In determining the amount of disgorgement to be ordered, a court must focus on the extent to which a defendant has profited from his fraud.” Universal Exp., 646 F. Supp. 2d at 563. The amount of disgorgement “need only be a reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation.” SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1231 (D.C.Cir.1989)). “In addition to its discretion to order disgorgement, a court has the discretion to award prejudgment interest on the amount of disgorgement and to determine the rate at which such interest should be calculated.” Universal Exp., 646 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (citing First Jersey, 101 F.3d at 1476). Discussion The SEC argues that Mr. O’Rourke should pay $6,102,854 in disgorgement,1 and $593,449 in prejudgment interest, for a total of $6,696,303. (ECF No. 59-3, SEC Reply Brief (“Reply”), at 6.) Mr. O’Rourke “is ready to disgorge $5,214,986 in principal, and prejudgment interest theron of $530,512, for a total of $5,745,498.” (ECF No. 60-1, Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition (“Opp.”), at 1.) Thus, the court must resolve the parties’ difference, which amounts to just under one million dollars in total. Specifically, Mr. O’Rourke objects to three categories of funds identified by the SEC for disgorgement: (1) money that Mr. O’Rourke earned by selling his “sales leads,” (2) money that Mr. O’Rourke moved between accounts that he controlled, and (3) money Mr. O’Rourke paid as commission to individuals working in the call center he oversaw. The court will discuss each category of funds in turn. I. Money Paid to Mr. O’Rourke for “Sales Leads” Mr. O’Rourke contends that $31,336 of the amount of disgorgement sought by the SEC was money that was paid to him in exchange for “sales leads,” and was “not connected in any way to the transactions described [i]n the SEC’s complaint[.]” (Opp. at 5-6; see ECF No. 60-2, Declaration of Garrett O’Rourke (“ O’Rourke Decl.”), 4.) The SEC counters that the “sales leads” sold by Mr. O’Rourke were actually lists of the victims of his fraudulent scheme, and thus the proceeds are subject to disgorgement. (See Reply at 2-3.) The court agrees with the SEC that the money Mr. O’Rourke received for selling lists of victims of his scheme was, contrary to his contention, connected to the fraud, and should be deemed ill-gotten gains that must be disgorged. Mr. O’Rourke earned this money from two transactions, in January 2018 and February 2018. (O’Rourke Decl. 4.) According to the SEC’s complaint, his scheme was still ongoing at that time. (Compl. 1.) “A wrongdoer’s unlawful action may create illicit benefits for the wrongdoer that are indirect….” SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 306 (2d Cir. 2014). It is not clear to the court what value Mr. O’Rourke’s lists of “leads” would have had to a buyer had it not been for his fraud, as it seems likely that the value was dramatically increased by the fact that the lists consisted of people Mr. O’Rourke was successfully able to obtain money from through fraudulent tactics. That fact would have made the lists enticing to any salesman, legitimate or otherwise. The fraudulent scheme, therefore, was causally connected to the value of the lists, and allowing Mr. O’Rourke to keep this money would be to allow him to “unjustly enrich[] [himself] through violations” of the securities laws. Cavanagh, 445 F.3d at 117. Accordingly, the SEC properly requests disgorgement of this $31,336 that Mr. O’Rourke has objected to. II. Money Transferred to Other Accounts by Mr. O’Rourke Mr. O’Rourke next argues that $56,231 of the money originally sought by the SEC is money that Mr. O’Rourke “transferred from one of his accounts to another account,” and that the SEC failed to trace “these funds to any transaction” that was fraudulent. (Opp. at 6.) Mr. O’Rourke attests that he does “not recall that these funds are traceable to those transactions.” (O’Rourke Decl. 5.) The SEC revised its analysis after its initial motion, and reduced the amount from these transactions that should be disgorged to $48,864, instead of $56,231. (Reply at 5.) According to the SEC’s forensic accountant, the $48,864 sought by the SEC represents the proceeds of fraudulent stock sales, which Mr. O’Rourke subsequently transferred out of an account he held with an entity called WB21. (ECF No. 59-4, Declaration of Trevor T. Donelan (“Donelan Decl.”), 8.) Specifically, in November 2016, Mr. O’Rourke received $20,000 into his WB21 account from a foreign company that was part of the complex scheme to conceal the movement of Mr. O’Rourke’s and his co-defendant’s money, and Mr. O’Rourke then transferred $19,392 of that sum to a realtor in Florida. (Id. 8(b); see Compl.
