SEC v. Mogler, Hinkeldey, Polanchek, Buckley and Stevens (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.

Report an error in this record (sec-jason-mogler-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

The SEC's September 2015 case against five Arizona men over a roughly $18 million real-estate and recycling offering ended in judgment on 5 March 2020 in the District of Arizona. The court granted the SEC summary judgment on liability and non-monetary relief against Mogler, Polanchek and Stevens, after consent judgments from Buckley and Hinkeldey. The judgment text read sets no dollar amount.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 September 11, 2015 in the District of Arizona, alleges the men spent the money on travel, entertainment and personal expenses, and in certain instances made Ponzi-like payments, which Mogler called "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Misappropriation is the core allegation; the Ponzi-style payments are secondary.

The record listed the lead defendant with "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.

On 5 March 2020 the court granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment on liability and non-monetary relief, finding violations and ordering permanent injunctions against Jason Mogler and James Stevens (antifraud and registration provisions) and Casimer Polanchek (broker registration and Section 5), and entered judgment and closed the case. Mogler and Stevens had pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case, and Mogler had challenged his conviction. The court's order records that judgment had already been entered against Brian Buckley on consent and that James Hinkeldey agreed to summary judgment and non-monetary relief. The order and judgment I read state no disgorgement or penalty figure, so none is recorded, and the criminal sentences are not given in them.

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.

• Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-09-15 Litigation release published
2. 2020-03-05 Summary judgment and judgment entered; case terminated (D. Ariz.)

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
• Order and judgment granting summary judgment (5 Mar 2020)

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.