SEC v. Capital Financial Partners, Allen and Daub (ponzi schemes, 2015)

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-capital-financial-partners-llc-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

In April 2015 the SEC charged former football player William D. Allen, Susan C. Daub and Capital Financial Partners, LLC in Boston with a Ponzi scheme that raised more than $31 million for loans to professional athletes, and obtained asset freezes. A final judgment entered on November 17, 2017 enjoins the defendants and imposes disgorgement of more than $15.7 million plus interest, deemed satisfied by the criminal restitution order. Allen and Daub were each sentenced to six years in prison.

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, filed April 1, 2015, alleges that from July 2012 to February 2015 the defendants paid investors about $20 million while receiving a little over $13 million in athlete loan repayments, covering the gap with other investors' money, and misled investors about the loan terms and existence. The court froze assets the same day.

The record had the status unknown and the lead defendant ending "et al."

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.

Outcome. SEC litigation release 23991 (November 17, 2017) says the District of Massachusetts entered a final judgment that day against Allen, Daub and the three Capital Financial entities, permanently enjoining them from violating Securities Act section 17(a), Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and requiring disgorgement of more than $15.7 million plus prejudgment interest. That obligation is deemed satisfied by the restitution order in the parallel criminal case. Release 23768 (March 3, 2017) reports that Allen and Daub pleaded guilty in November 2016 and on March 1, 2017 were each sentenced to six years in prison with $16.8 million in restitution. Because the release gives the disgorgement only as 'more than $15.7 million', no money field is stored. The release does not describe the outcome for the relief defendants named in the complaint, which we did not check, and does not say whether the judgment was by consent.

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. 2015-04-07 Litigation release published
2. 2017-03-01 Allen and Daub sentenced to six years each in parallel criminal case
3. 2017-11-17 Final judgment entered (D. Mass.): injunction and disgorgement deemed satisfied

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 23768 (criminal sentences)
• SEC litigation release 23991 (final judgment)

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 4 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.