SEC v. Ivan Acevedo & Dane R. Roseman (ponzi schemes, 2019)

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-ivan-acevedo-dane-r-roseman-ponzi-schemes-2019) by email

In April 2019 the SEC charged Ivan Acevedo and Dane Roseman, successive sales directors at Woodbridge Group, with helping raise over $1.2 billion from retail investors and acting as unregistered brokers. Consent final judgments entered on 14 December 2021 order disgorgement and interest of $904,362.92 (Acevedo) and $2,853,858 (Roseman), each treated as satisfied by criminal restitution, with civil penalties dismissed because of their convictions.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$3.2m

Prejudgment interest

$585k

Total relief

$3.8m

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 complaint on April 12, 2019 (LR-24450) in the Southern District of Florida. It alleges Acevedo led fundraising from 2012 to 2015 and Roseman after him, that they hired and trained the sales force and approved misleading materials, and that together they received over $3 million in compensation. The SEC sought disgorgement, interest and penalties.

The record joined the two defendants into one name; they are now listed separately.

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.

Outcome. The Southern District of Florida docket entries filed on 14 December 2021 are consent final judgments, one per defendant. Acevedo is liable for $743,059 in disgorgement and about $161,303.92 in prejudgment interest (total $904,362.92); Roseman for $2,430,550 and $423,308 (total $2,853,858). Both amounts are treated as satisfied by the restitution ordered against each in the parallel criminal case, and the SEC's civil-penalty claims were dismissed in light of their criminal convictions and sentences. The judgments also contain permanent injunctions against fraud and registration violations. The record's figures sum the two defendants. The judgments rest on consent and the scanned copies are partly illegible, so the interest figure for Acevedo is inferred from the stated total.

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. 2019-04-12 Litigation release published
2. 2021-12-14 Consent final judgments entered against Acevedo and Roseman

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 as to Ivan Acevedo (SEC-hosted court filing)
• Final judgment as to Dane Roseman (SEC-hosted court filing)

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.