Market Manipulation. Search

SEC v. Diverse Financial Corp., Dekel and Kandell (ponzi schemes, 2015)

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-diverse-financial-corp-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

The SEC's October 2015 case against Diverse Financial Corporation, CEO Roy Dekel and former president David Kandell over a premium-finance note offering ended in consent final judgments filed on 8 December 2016 in the Central District of California. Dekel owes $2,717,758.20 in disgorgement (jointly with the company), $108,023.57 in interest and a $455,994.78 penalty; Kandell $260,363 and an $89,078 penalty. The company's own judgment was not read.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency SEC
Release number LR-23396
Date filed 2015-10-28
Date resolved 2016-12-08
Court U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Status settled
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Diverse Financial Corporation (entity) ; Roy Dekel (individual) ; David Kandell (individual)
Cited as charged or alleged Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.20(a) ; Securities Act s.17(a) (statutes and rules cited in the document; not a finding that they were violated)
Techniques Ponzi schemes

What was ordered

Civil penalty
$545k
Disgorgement
$3m
Prejudgment interest
$108k
Total relief
$3.6m
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 October 28, 2015 in the Central District of California, alleges that investors were told the money would fund premium finance lending, but it was diverted to Diverse Financial's operations and used for payments to other investors, and that Kandell should have known the use of funds was misdescribed. Ponzi-like payments are one allegation among several in a mainly misuse-of-proceeds case.

The allegations are unproven and nothing had been ordered. The record had the status unknown and the lead name 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.

Both men consented to the judgments, which were filed on 8 December 2016. Dekel was enjoined from violating Section 17(a) and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and ordered to pay disgorgement of $2,717,758.20, jointly and severally with Diverse Financial Corporation, prejudgment interest of $108,023.57 and an individual civil penalty of $455,994.78, $3,281,776.55 in all. Kandell, who consented without admitting or denying, was ordered to pay disgorgement of $260,363 and a civil penalty of $89,078, $349,441 in all, within 365 days. The stored totals add the two men's amounts; I did not read the judgment against the company, so I cannot tell whether any of Kandell's figure overlaps with the company's joint amount.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary documents linked above. This page summarises the structured record and does not reproduce them.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2015-10-29 Litigation release published
  2. 2016-12-08 Consent final judgments filed as to Dekel and Kandell (C.D. Cal.)

Primary documents

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

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.

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

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Mark D. Hanf and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-09-04 Ponzi Schemes — settled
SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-08-13 Ponzi Schemes — filed
CFTC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) CFTC 2026-08-11 Ponzi Schemes — filed
SEC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher A. Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Ponzi Schemes — filed
SEC v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-07-24 Ponzi Schemes $449k judgment
CFTC v. Trevor L. Vernon and Argent Capital Management LLC (ponzi schemes, 2026) CFTC 2026-07-07 Ponzi Schemes — filed

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.