SEC v. Aequitas Management, LLC, et al. (ponzi schemes, 2016)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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 (sec-aequitas-management-llc-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In March 2016 the SEC sued Aequitas Management and affiliates over a Ponzi-like fraud on more than 1,500 investors. On April 13, 2020 an Oregon federal court entered consent final judgments against the Aequitas entities and executives Robert Jesenik, Brian Oliver and Scott Gillis, with disgorgement and interest deemed satisfied in part by receivership recoveries; the amounts are recorded under the 2020 sibling record.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 complaint says that from 2014 to 2016 Aequitas sold promissory notes paying 8.5-10% and told investors their money funded health care, education and transportation receivables, when the vast majority was used to cover the firm's expenses and repay earlier investors as it faced collapse. Jesenik and Oliver are alleged to have known of the dire condition and kept soliciting; Gillis, the former chief financial officer, is alleged to have hidden the insolvency.

The record showed the matter as dismissed. The release announces a newly filed complaint and reports no dismissal.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the SEC describes money from later investors being used to pay earlier ones. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

SEC release 24805 reports that on April 13, 2020 the District of Oregon entered final judgments on consent, without admission or denial for the entities, Jesenik and Gillis. The Aequitas entities, which were in receivership, owe $453,000,000 in disgorgement and $87,048,072 in interest, to be deemed satisfied by amounts the receiver collects. Jesenik owes $759,502 in disgorgement, $181,304 in interest and a $625,000 penalty; Oliver $190,502 and $45,426; and Gillis a $300,000 penalty. The three executives are barred from serving as officers or directors of public companies, and in separate administrative proceedings were barred from the securities industry. Oliver also pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case and had not been sentenced when the release was issued. The money fields are left empty here because the same judgments are recorded, with their amounts, under the sibling record for SEC release 24805 (sec-aequitas-management-llc-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2020); this avoids counting them twice. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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. 2016-03-11 Litigation release published
2. 2020-04-13 Consent final judgments entered against the Aequitas entities, Jesenik, Oliver and Gillis (SEC LR-24805)

Primary documents

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

• SEC litigation release
• SEC litigation release 24805 (final judgments)

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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.