Case Status Update (March 2026)
Timeline
- March 20, 2024: District court dismissed the indictment (pretrial).
- October 2, 2025: Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded (pleading-stage decision, not a finding of guilt).
- March 2026: Case is back in the district court for further proceedings. Judge Andrew S. Hanen has recused, and the case is now assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett.
Important: An indictment is an allegation. I am presumed innocent unless and until the government proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
What the Fifth Circuit did (and did not) decide
The Fifth Circuit decision addressed whether the superseding indictment was legally sufficient to move forward at the pleading stage. It did not decide that any statement was actually false, that any alleged statement was material, or that any particular investor was actually defrauded. Those questions are for trial, with the government bearing the burden of proof.
Why Kousisis matters and where I disagree
The Fifth Circuit relied in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kousisis v. United States. In plain English, Kousisis involved alleged lies used to obtain contract payments. The Supreme Court explained that fraud can exist when a material lie is used to obtain money or property, even if the other side later argues it got some value in return.
My view is that the Fifth Circuit applied that reasoning too broadly to public market commentary. A fraud case still requires proof of a materially false statement, materiality, and intent. Converting public discussion about trading into criminal fraud risks turning everyday market speech into a felony, and that is not a stable foundation for free markets or free expression.
Materiality in plain English
In securities, “materiality” is not a popularity test and it is not “anything a follower might find important.” The Supreme Court’s securities cases use the “total mix” standard: a fact is material only if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important because it significantly alters the total mix of information available about the issuer and the security’s value.
That “total mix” is issuer level information tied to the company and the security itself, such as financial results and condition, operations, regulatory posture, major corporate events, and required disclosures. A third party speaker’s personal trading posture, subjective price targets, or a future plan to sell concerns the speaker, not the issuer, and does not change that issuer information.
That distinction matters here because influence alone is not materiality. In my view, the government must identify a concrete issuer level falsehood and explain why it is materially misleading under the total mix standard. Opinions, predictions, and ordinary trader talk are not automatically fraud, and omissions are not actionable absent a duty to speak or a misleading half truth about the same issuer subject.
Why this matters beyond my case
Markets are loud by design. People share bullish and bearish views, post charts, debate catalysts, and change their minds in real time. If prosecutors can treat public trading commentary as a criminal "scheme" without clear, objective falsity and clear materiality, the result is a chilling effect on speech and a blurry line between fraud and disagreement. That is dangerous for market participants, creators, and everyday retail traders.
I respectfully disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s decision and will continue to challenge the government’s theory in court. I maintain my innocence.
Sources
District court order (PDF): Dismissal (Mar 20, 2024)
Fifth Circuit opinion (PDF): Reversal and remand (Oct 2, 2025)
DOJ case page: Status update
Variety: Coverage of the 2024 dismissal
Law360 (PDF): Case tossed ahead of trial
Dynamis LLP: Dismissal summary
Answers
- Was PJ Matlock charged? Yes. In 2022, PJ Matlock was charged in a federal criminal case. The district court dismissed the indictment on March 20, 2024. The government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reversed on October 2, 2025, so the criminal case is currently pending again.
- What is the current status of PJ Matlock’s case? As of March 2026, the Fifth Circuit has reversed the March 20, 2024 dismissal and remanded the case to the Southern District of Texas for further proceedings. Judge Andrew S. Hanen has recused, and the case is now assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett. PJ Matlock continues to maintain his innocence.
- Did the judge find any criminal acts? No. There has been no trial and no finding of guilt. The district court dismissal in 2024 was a pretrial ruling, and the Fifth Circuit decision in 2025 was a procedural ruling about whether the indictment could proceed. The government must still prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
- What does PJ Matlock trade? PJ Matlock primarily trades U.S. equities, options, futures, and some cryptocurrency with day trading as the focus. Nothing he posts is financial advice. He does not manage money for others and has never traded on behalf of other people.
- Was PJ Matlock involved in a pump-and-dump? Allegations were made in 2022. The indictment was dismissed on March 20, 2024, and that dismissal was reversed on appeal on October 2, 2025. The case is pending, and PJ Matlock maintains his innocence of all allegations.
- PJ Matlock appeal / Fifth Circuit After the district court dismissed the indictment on March 20, 2024, the government appealed. On October 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- PJ Matlock Discord / Atlas Trading Discord Atlas is PJ Matlock’s community. Invite link: https://discord.gg/atlastrading
- PJ Matlock interview / statement / biography This page provides the current official status and links. Additional statements or interviews will be linked from https://pjmatlock.com/ when available.
- Who else was named in the 2022 case? Public filings list several co-defendants, including Edward Constantinescu (also known online as Zack Morris). The case is pending in federal court.
- What about the line 'we’re robbing idiots of their money'? That line is attributed in public reporting and filings to a defendant who later entered a guilty plea. PJ Matlock was not in the private chat where that line was allegedly written.
- Was there a whistleblower? Some reporting has used the term 'whistleblower.' PJ Matlock is not aware of any whistleblower who had direct contact with him, and he had no relationship with any such person.