SEC v. Andres Fernandez and Edison Denizard (ponzi schemes, 2019)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-andres-fernandez-ponzi-schemes-2019) by email

In September 2019 the SEC charged Florida concert promoters Andres Fernandez and Edison Denizard with two offering frauds and Ponzi schemes. The court granted default judgment against Fernandez on 12 July 2021 ($1,627,700 disgorgement, $192,596.28 interest) and entered a consent final judgment against Denizard on 28 October 2021 ($1,241,400 and $237,039.79), each offset by criminal restitution.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$2.9m

Prejudgment interest

$430k

Total relief

$3.3m

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 SEC announced the complaint on September 25, 2019 (LR-24619) in the Middle District of Florida. It alleges only a small share went to produce concerts, new investor money paid earlier investors, and each man took over $1 million. Both are charged under Section 17(a), Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Sections 5(a) and 5(c).

The record showed the status as unknown; it is filed.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes it as a scheme paying earlier investors with later investors' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

Outcome. A federal order in the Middle District of Florida dated 12 July 2021 grants the SEC default judgment against Fernandez, who failed to respond to the complaint, with a permanent injunction and disgorgement of $1,627,700 plus $192,596.28 in prejudgment interest, offset by the restitution award in the parallel criminal case. A docket entry of 28 October 2021 enters a final judgment against Denizard with his consent, without admitting or denying the allegations, ordering $1,241,400 in disgorgement and $237,039.79 in interest (total $1,478,439.79), likewise deemed offset by criminal restitution. The record's figures add the two defendants. Fernandez's default judgment is not a decision after trial; Denizard's rests on consent. I did not read a separate formal final-judgment document for Fernandez, so his date is that of the order.

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. 2019-09-25 Litigation release published
2. 2021-07-12 Court grants default judgment against Andres Fernandez
3. 2021-10-28 Consent final judgment entered against Edison Denizard

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
• Order granting default judgment against Andres Fernandez (SEC-hosted court filing)
• Final judgment as to Edison Denizard (SEC-hosted court filing)

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.