CFTC v. Harris, Starr, Complete Developments (ponzi schemes, 2013)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (cftc-6586-13-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In May 2013 the CFTC announced a default judgment in the Northern District of Ohio against Kevin Harris, Keelan Harris, Karen Starr and their companies over a forex Ponzi scheme that took more than $23 million. It orders about $15.7 million in restitution and civil penalties of $2.49 million, $2.49 million and $2.64 million, and two relief defendants must disgorge $1.07 million.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$7.6m

Disgorgement

$1.1m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$8.7m

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

The court's opinion finds that Complete Developments and Investment International solicited customers for managed forex accounts from 2006 to 2008 and instead ran a Ponzi scheme, paying earlier customers from later customers' money and spending on personal use. The individuals are liable as controlling persons and are banned from trading and registration.

The record had entered one individual's $2.49 million penalty and one relief defendant's $302,277. Penalties on the three individuals total $7.62 million, and the relief defendants Majestic Enterprises Collision Repair ($302,277) and UCAN Overseas ($768,000) must disgorge $1,070,277. The status was filed; a judgment has been entered.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2013-05-13 CFTC release published

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• CFTC release

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.