SEC v. Arthur Lamar Adams et al. (ponzi schemes, 2018)

Settled

✓ 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 (sec-arthur-lamar-adams-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2018) by email

In November 2018 the SEC reported that Arthur Lamar Adams, who ran the Madison Timber Ponzi scheme in Mississippi, was sentenced to 19.5 years in prison in a parallel criminal case. In the SEC case he had consented to a permanent injunction and asset freeze, and a receiver was in place.

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 SEC announced the sentencing on November 9, 2018 (LR-24347); the civil case is in the Southern District of Mississippi. Adams told at least 150 investors their money would secure and harvest timber, promising 12 to 15%, but no harvesting rights existed; he allegedly forged deeds and cutting agreements, paid early investors with later investors' money and spent funds on personal items and an unrelated real estate project. The 19.5-year sentence is 234 months.

The record named the defendant as "Arthur Lamar Adams et al." and gave no sentence; the company is now listed and the sentence entered.

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.

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. 2018-11-09 Litigation 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.

• SEC litigation 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.

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.