SEC v. Garfield Taylor, Jeffrey King and Gibraltar Asset Management (ponzi schemes, 2015)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-garfield-taylor-inc-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

In October 2015 the SEC announced September 2015 final judgments in the District of Columbia against Garfield M. Taylor, Jeffrey A. King and their companies in a Washington-area Ponzi scheme that took more than $27 million from about 130 investors. Penalties total $1.6 million, and Taylor owes about $23.6 million in disgorgement plus $4.3 million in interest.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$1.6m

Disgorgement

$23.6m

Prejudgment interest

$4.3m

Total relief

$29.5m

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

Taylor was sentenced to 13 years (156 months) and over $28.6 million in criminal restitution after a 2014 guilty plea. In the civil case, King owes $137,641 in disgorgement, $14,480 in interest and a $150,000 penalty; Gibraltar and Garfield Taylor, Inc. each face a $725,000 penalty and tens of millions in disgorgement; The King Group, as relief defendant, owes $65,801 plus interest.

The record carried only King's three figures, which belong to one of five defendants. The recorded disgorgement is Taylor's own; the entities' amounts are separate and may overlap with it, so they are not added.

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.

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. 2015-10-08 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.