Skip to main content

United States v. Blake Williams (and Derek Lopez)

Closed Criminal Division Cases

United States v. Blake Williams (and Derek Lopez)
Court Docket Number: 10-CR-00138-K

The case is assigned to the Honorable Ed Kinkeade, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Courtroom 1627, Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242.

On February 27, 2013, Blake Williams, a securities broker-dealer and employee of TBeck Capital, Inc. (TBeck Capital), and Derek Lopez, a/k/a “Da Big Kahuna,” a broker-dealer who provided services to TBeck Capital, were sentenced to 32 and 24 months in prison, respectively for their roles in a $1 million scheme to manipulate the price and volume of stocks traded in the over-the-counter market. In addition to the prison terms, Williams was ordered to forfeit $125,000; Lopez was ordered to forfeit $72,442; and the pair was sentenced to serve two years of supervised release.

According to court documents, Williams and Lopez admitted to trading stock in their own names as well as through TBeck Capital and other companies to keep the stock price artificially inflated. These actions allowed the defendants and their alleged co-conspirators to then sell that stock at an artificially high price.

Lopez admitted to trading in his own name, as well as in the name "Da Big Kahuna" to disguise his trades. Williams admitted to trading in the names of several companies to make it appear there were multiple unrelated entities buying and selling the stock. According to court documents, Williams received cash payments and Lopez received free-trading stock and cash payments in return for their assistance in manipulating the stock prices of companies in which TBeck Capital owned and controlled large positions of free-trading stock.

The judge did not order restitution in this case because, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3663A(c)(3), mandatory restitution does not apply –
“if the court finds, from facts on the record, that—
(A)       the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable; or
(B)       determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim’s loss would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.”

The court in this case made a finding that both of these exceptions applied.

If you have any questions, please call Pam Washington (888) 549-3945 or email her at

A copy of the Indictment can be found by clicking on the link below.


Updated September 27, 2023