Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00715
Case Name:   USA v. Geraci
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JOHN GERACI pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud.  GERACI’s plea stems from his participation in a scheme to defraud clients of his company, Meridian Capital Asset Management.  GERACI caused two clients (“Victim-1” and “Victim-2”) to invest in a hedge fund called the Meridian Matrix Long Short Fund (the “Meridian Matrix Fund”).  Between in or about December 2015 and November 2016, GERACI provided fictitious account statements and updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, telling them that their investment was worth millions when, in reality, GERACI knew that large portions of it had been stolen by the Meridian Matrix Fund’s administrator.  GERACI eventually liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund and misappropriated significant portions of the remaining funds.  Although he had recovered over $1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI falsely told them that their entire investment had been lost, and improperly used their money to pay his own personal and business expenses. 

GERACI was arrested on August 7, 2018, and pled guilty today before United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. 

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he admitted today, John Geraci lied to his clients about how much of their money was lost in investments with Nicholas Mitsakos.  What wasn’t actually lost to Mitsakos was stolen by Geraci.  Now Geraci, like Mitsakos, is a convicted felon.”

According to the Complaint, the Indictment, and other statements made in open court:

JOHN GERACI was the principal and founder of Meridian Capital Asset Management.  In or about February 2015, GERACI was introduced to another individual, Nicholas Mitsakos, who purported to operate a hedge fund called Matrix Capital (“Matrix”).  Mitsakos told GERACI that Matrix had tens of millions of dollars under management and had achieved annual returns between 19.4% and 66.3% from 2012 to 2014.  GERACI and Mitsakos subsequently entered into an arrangement whereby GERACI would raise money for Mitsakos, Mitsakos would manage that money through a new vehicle, the Meridian Matrix Fund, and GERACI and Mitsakos would then split any fees that the Meridian Matrix Fund generated.  As part of this arrangement, GERACI solicited Victim-1 and Victim-2 to invest approximately $2 million in the Meridian Matrix Fund, in large part by relying on Mitsakos’s claims about his supposed fund’s assets under management and performance returns.

In or about December 2015, however, GERACI learned that Mitsakos had only invested approximately $1.2 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, and had misappropriated significant portions of the remaining money.  GERACI also learned that Mitsakos never had any actual assets under management, and that his performance returns were accordingly fictitious and misleading.  Nonetheless, GERACI never told Victim-1 or Victim-2 that their investment was in jeopardy or had been solicited with misleading information.  To the contrary, GERACI sent Victim-1 and Victim-2 updates that hid Mitsaskos’s misappropriation and falsely claimed that their investment had appreciated.  GERACI sent these fictitious updates even after GERACI had liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions in or about June 2016.

In or about August 2016, Mitsakos was charged in this District with securities fraud and other offenses.  In or about September 2016, GERACI changed course: instead of providing fictitious account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI told them, in substance and in part, that their entire investment had been wiped out through Mitsakos’s fraud.  GERACI did this even though he had ultimately received approximately $1.1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment back from Mitsakos after liquidating the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions.  Rather than returning this amount to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI used it to pay for his own personal and business expenses, including, for example, payments on a BMW automobile, a gym membership, gas, groceries, travel expenses, and his cellphone bill.

In addition to sending false account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2 even after learning that Mitsakos had lied about his fund’s assets and performance and that Mitsakos had stolen significant portions of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI continued to try to raise money for an investment related to Meridian Matrix Fund from others.  In attempting to do so, moreover, GERACI relied on the same representations about Matrix’s assets and performance that he knew to be false.   

Mitsakos pled guilty to conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud on May 25, 2017, and on November 7, 2017, was sentenced to 30 months in prison by the Honorable Denny Chin, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who was sitting by designation in the Southern District of New York. 

*                      *                      *

GERACI, 62, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud. This charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

GERACI will be sentenced on January 23, 2020.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant United States Attorneys Jared Lenow and Drew Skinner are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the arrest and unsealing of a complaint charging JOHN GERACI with investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy in connection with a scheme to defraud clients of his company, Meridian Capital Asset Management.  GERACI caused two clients (“Victim-1” and “Victim-2”) to invest in a hedge fund called the Meridian Matrix Long Short Fund (the “Meridian Matrix Fund”).  Between in or about December 2015 and November 2016, GERACI provided fictitious account statements and updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, telling them that their investment was worth millions when, in reality, GERACI knew that large portions of it had been stolen by the Meridian Matrix Fund’s administrator.  GERACI eventually liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund and misappropriated significant portions of the remaining funds.  Although he had recovered over $1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI falsely told them that their entire investment had been lost, and improperly used their money to pay his own personal and business expenses.

In a separate action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed civil charges against GERACI.  

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, when John Geraci realized that Nicholas Mitsakos was a con artist, he withheld this fact from investors he had solicited for the purportedly high-yield fund run by Mitsakos.  Geraci allegedly concealed Mitsakos’s fraud because it was lucrative for him.  Mitsakos is now a convicted felon in this district, and Geraci faces prosecution for his alleged crimes.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed in Manhattan federal court:[1]

JOHN GERACI was the principal and founder of a company called Meridian Capital Asset Management, which provided investment advice to clients.  In or about February 2015, GERACI was introduced to another individual, Nicholas Mitsakos, who purported to operate a hedge fund called Matrix Capital (“Matrix”).  Mitsakos told GERACI that Matrix had tens of millions of dollars under management and had achieved annual returns between 19.4% and 66.3% from 2012 to 2014.  GERACI and Mitsakos subsequently entered into an arrangement whereby GERACI would raise money for Mitsakos; Mitsakos would manage that money through a new vehicle, the Meridian Matrix Fund; and GERACI and Mitsakos would then split any fees that the Meridian Matrix Fund generated.  As part of this arrangement, GERACI convinced Victim-1 and Victim-2 to invest approximately $2 million in the Meridian Matrix Fund, in large part by relying on Mitsakos’s claims about his supposed fund’s assets under management and performance returns.

In or about December 2015, however, GERACI learned that Mitsakos had only invested approximately $1.2 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, and had misappropriated significant portions of the remaining money.  GERACI also learned that Mitsakos never had any actual assets under management, and that his performance returns were accordingly fictitious and misleading.  Nonetheless, GERACI never told Victim-1 or Victim-2 that their investment was in jeopardy or had been solicited with misleading information.  To the contrary, GERACI sent Victim-1 and Victim-2 updates that hid Mitsaskos’s misappropriation and falsely claimed that their investment had appreciated.  GERACI sent these fictitious updates even after Mitsakos sustained significant trading losses and even after GERACI himself had liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions in or about June 2016. 

In or about August 2016, Mitsakos was charged in this District with securities fraud and other offenses.  In or about September 2016, GERACI changed course: instead of providing fictitious account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI told them, in substance and in part, that their entire investment had been wiped out through Mitsakos’s fraud.  GERACI did this even though he had ultimately received approximately $1.1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment back from Mitsakos after liquidating the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions.  Rather than returning this amount to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI used it to pay for his own personal and business expenses, including, for example, payments on a BMW automobile, a gym membership, gas, groceries, travel expenses, and his cellphone bill. 

In addition to sending false account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2 even after learning that Mitsakos had lied about his fund’s assets and performance and that Mitsakos had stolen significant portions of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI continued to try to raise money for the Meridian Matrix Fund.  In attempting to do so, moreover, GERACI relied on the same representations about Matrix’s assets and performance that he knew to be false.    

*                      *                      *

GERACI, 61, of Miami, Florida, is charged with one count of investment adviser fraud, one count of securities fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud. The investment adviser fraud and conspiracy charges each carry a maximum term of five years in prison.  The securities and wire fraud charges each carry a maximum term of 20 years in prison.  The charges also carry a maximum fine of $5 million, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.           

Mr. Berman praised the exceptional work of the Office’s Special Agent criminal investigators and thanked the SEC for its assistance. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant United States Attorney Robert Allen is in charge of the prosecution.  

The allegations contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vrBqRhKpUgYEOUGGzddiYMeffeyuQ9EXFU1eUD_N-rg
  Last Updated: 2026-04-25 17:59:18 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-mj-05904
Case Name:   USA v. Geraci
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wbVnObzjTkE3756yV0wnI9tp1B-bvw_Pax72dZ62pAw
  Last Updated: 2025-02-25 21:36:24 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E