SEC v. James A. Evans, Jr., d/b/a Cashflowbot.com, d/b/a DollarMonster (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.
In April 2015 the SEC sued James A. Evans, Jr., who ran the Cashflowbot.com and DollarMonster website, alleging a Ponzi scheme that took in money from roughly 3,400 investors. The court entered a default judgment, in corrected form on September 30, 2015 and effective August 3, 2015, ordering $1,146,307.67 in disgorgement, $116,942.42 in interest and a $60,000 penalty.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23240 |
| Date filed | 2015-04-13 |
| Date resolved | 2015-09-30 |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | conduct-based injunction |
| Defendants | James A. Evans, Jr., d/b/a Cashflowbot.com, d/b/a DollarMonster |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $60k
- Disgorgement
- $1.1m
- Prejudgment interest
- $117k
- Total relief
- $1.3m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on April 13, 2015 as release LR-23240. The respondents named are James A. Evans, Jr., d/b/a Cashflowbot.com, d/b/a DollarMonster (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.
Outcome. The Northern District of Georgia docket shows a Corrected Default Judgment Order of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Evans (Document 9, filed September 30, 2015, Judge Story), made effective nunc pro tunc to August 3, 2015 after he failed to answer the complaint and a default was entered on June 3, 2015. Under the default, the court treated the complaint's allegations as true and found that from January 2012 to April 2014 he ran a Ponzi scheme through the site, telling investors profits came from investments although payouts depended on new deposits. It orders disgorgement of $1,146,307.67 from about 3,444 investors, prejudgment interest of $116,942.42 (together $1,263,250.09) and a civil penalty of $60,000, together with a permanent injunction. These findings come from a default, not a contested trial. Whether any of the money was collected is not shown.
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
- 2015-04-13 Litigation release published
- 2015-09-30 Corrected default judgment against Evans (N.D. Ga.), effective Aug. 3, 2015
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
- Corrected default judgment as to James A. Evans, Jr. (N.D. Ga. 1:15-cv-1118, Doc. 9)
Related actions
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 |