etc. We'll translate the headings.
First h2: "The alleged scheme" -> "Det påstådda upplägget" or "Det påstådda Ponzi-schemat"? Better: "Det påstådda systemet" but "scheme" in context is Ponzi scheme, so "Det påstådda Ponzi-schemat" is clear. But the original heading is "The alleged scheme" - we can translate as "Det påstådda upplägget" or "Det påstådda schemat". I'll use "Det påstådda upplägget" to be natural.
Paragraph: "Regulators say Goliath promised investors monthly returns of 3% to 10% from fees, plus return of principal, by claiming to trade crypto assets and run liquidity pools. The CFTC counts about 1,600 customers who put in at least $397 million. The SEC's number is higher: around $425 million from more than 1,300 investors."
Swedish: "Regulatorerna säger att Goliath lovade investerare månatliga avkastningar på 3–10 % från avgifter, plus återbetalning av kapital, genom att hävda att de handlade med kryptotillgångar och drev likviditetspooler. CFTC räknar med cirka 1 600 kunder som satt in minst 397 miljoner dollar. SEC:s siffra är högre: cirka 425 miljoner dollar från fler än 1 300 investerare."
Next: "But the money never went into any liquidity pool. Instead, new investor funds were used to pay earlier investors — the classic Ponzi structure. Account balances and performance figures were fabricated to make the operation look profitable."
Swedish: "Men pengarna gick aldrig in i någon likviditetspool. Istället användes nya investerares medel för att betala tidigare investerare – den klassiska Ponzi-strukturen. Kontosaldo och resultatsiffror var påhittade för att få verksamheten att se lönsam ut."
Next h2: "Where the money went" -> "Vart pengarna tog vägen" or "Vart pengarna gick". I'll use "Vart pengarna tog vägen".
Paragraph: "Delgado personally took at least $51 million, spending it on homes, luxury vehicles, a yacht, and travel. The company also hired sales agents and paid them commissions out of investor funds. None of that is disputed in the filings."
Swedish: "Delgado tog personligen minst 51 miljoner dollar, som han spenderade på bostäder, lyxbilar, en yacht och resor. Företaget anlitade också säljare och betalade dem provisioner ur investerarnas medel. Ingen av dessa uppgifter är ifrågasatta i stämningarna."
Next h2: "The collapse" -> "Kollapsen" or "Sammanbrottet". I'll use "Kollapsen".
Paragraph: "By November 2025, Goliath could no longer bring in new money fast enough to keep up with redemption requests. The firm stopped distributions, and the whole thing fell apart. The scheme had run from at least January 2023 through January 2026, according to the article."
Swedish: "I november 2025 kunde Goliath inte längre ta in nya pengar tillräckligt snabbt för att hålla jämna steg med inlösenförfrågningar. Företaget stoppade utbetalningar och allt föll samman. Systemet hade pågått från åtminstone januari 2023 till januari 2026, enligt artikeln."
Note: "according to the article" - but this is the article itself, so we might say "enligt uppgift" or just keep as is. The original says "according to the article" which is odd because it's the article itself. Possibly it's a reference to a source. We'll translate literally: "enligt artikel" but that doesn't make sense. Maybe it's a typo? Actually it says "according to the article" meaning the news article? But we are translating the article. Better to say "enligt uppgifterna" or just omit? To be safe, we can say "enligt artikel" but that is weird. Perhaps it means "according to the article" as in the original report? I think it's fine to say "enligt artikel" but it's a bit off. Alternatively, we can rephrase: "Systemet hade pågått från minst januari 2023 till januari 2026." without the "according to the article" part. But we must maintain meaning. I'll keep it as "enligt artikel" but that might be awkward. Since it's a translation, we can translate literally: "enligt artikel" but it's not natural. Perhaps "enligt uppgift i artikel" but that is redundant. I'll just say "enligt artikel" but it's acceptable.
Actually, looking at the original: "according to the article" - this might be a mistake in the original content? Possibly it means "according to the article" as in the news report that this is based on? But we are the article. I'll translate as "enligt artikel" but it's fine.
Next paragraph: "Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. It would permanently bar him from violating the charged securities provisions, participating in certain securities transactions, and acting as or being associated with a broker or dealer. The court still has to sign off on that deal."
Swedish: "Delgado har gått med på en uppdelad förlikning, som kräver domstolsgodkännande. Den skulle permanent förbjuda honom att bryta mot de åtalade värdepappersbestämmelserna, delta i vissa värdepapperstransaktioner och att agera som eller vara associerad med en mäklare eller återförsäljare. Domstolen måste fortfarande godkänna avtalet."
We need to ensure terminology: "bifurcated settlement" - could be "delad förlikning" or "uppdelad förlikning". "Securities provisions" - "värdepappersbestämmelser". "Broker or dealer" - "mäklare eller återförsäljare" but in securities context, "mäklare" and "handlare" might be better. Actually "dealer" is often "återförsäljare" but in finance, "dealer" is "marknadsgarant" or "handlare". However, to be safe, we can use "mäklare eller handlare". But the original says "broker or dealer" - in Swedish, "mäklare eller återförsäljare" is not typical. Better: "mäklare eller handlare" or "värdepappersmäklare eller -handlare". I'll use "mäklare eller handlare".
Now meta description: "CFTC and SEC sue Goliath Ventures and CEO Christopher Alexander Delgado over an alleged crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions from investors."
Swedish: "CFTC och SEC stämmer Goliath Ventures och vd Christopher Alexander Del
