SEC v. Chimene Van Gundy and others (ponzi schemes, 2023)

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-chimene-van-gundy-ponzi-schemes-2023) by email

In May 2023 the SEC charged Chimene Van Gundy, her company Outstanding Real Estate Solutions and three others over a mobile-home investment program that raised about $18.5 million. Van Gundy defaulted, and on May 22, 2024 the court ordered $6,523,598.77 of disgorgement, $857,148.35 of interest and a $6,523,598.77 penalty; other defendants resolved separately and the company and Trofimoff were not checked.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$6.5m

Disgorgement

$6.5m

Prejudgment interest

$857k

Total relief

$13.9m

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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on May 31, 2023 as release LR-25739. The complaint alleged that Van Gundy and her company raised about $18.5 million from at least 600 investors for mobile home purchases they did not make, paying earlier investors Ponzi-like and funding personal expenses.

This library tags the matter as a Ponzi scheme because the document describes returns to earlier investors paid from later investors' money, as alleged or found. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

Outcome: the Western District of Texas entered a final consent judgment against Maria Tosta on June 1, 2023 (disgorgement of $102,076.31 and a $60,000 penalty, $177,917.57 in all). On May 22, 2024 it entered a final judgment by default against Van Gundy, after the clerk recorded her default, ordering disgorgement of $6,523,598.77, prejudgment interest of $857,148.35 (total $7,380,747.12) and a civil penalty of $6,523,598.77, and permanently barring her from serving as an officer or director of a public company. On June 1, 2026 it entered a default judgment against Santos Kidd for disgorgement of $285,155.97, interest of $37,467.18 and a $285,155.97 penalty, according to SEC release LR-26565. The recorded penalty, disgorgement and interest are Van Gundy's alone; the other defendants' figures are described here and not added. The same default motion named Michael Trofimoff, but the document I read is Van Gundy's judgment only, and I did not check the outcomes for Trofimoff or Outstanding Real Estate Solutions. The Kidd release describes the SEC's litigation as still being handled, so this matter may not be fully closed.

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. 2023-05-31 Litigation release published
2. 2023-06-01 Final consent judgment as to Maria Tosta (W.D. Tex.)
3. 2024-05-22 Final judgment by default as to Chimene Van Gundy (W.D. Tex.)
4. 2026-06-01 Default final judgment as to Santos Kidd (W.D. Tex.)

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
• Final judgment by default as to Chimene Van Gundy
• Final judgment as to Maria Tosta
• SEC release on default judgment against Santos Kidd

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.