SEC v. Jeremy D. Barnes (ponzi schemes, 2016)

Settled

✓ 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-jeremy-d-barnes-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In August 2016 the SEC settled proceedings against Jeremy D. Barnes of Bossier City, Louisiana, an unregistered sales agent for Virtual Concierge Machine contracts issued by JCS Enterprises and T.B.T.I., companies sued in 2014 for running a Ponzi scheme. He is barred and owes $58,900 in disgorgement and $600 in interest.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$58.9k

Prejudgment interest

$600

Total relief

$59.5k

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 order finds that Barnes acted as an unregistered broker, soliciting and selling the contracts and earning transaction-based pay, and orders him to cease and desist from broker registration violations and bars him from the industry. It recites that JCS and T.B.T.I. raised at least $60 million with guaranteed returns of 80 to 120 percent a year and paid earlier investors with newer investors' money.

The finding against Barnes is the unregistered selling; the Ponzi scheme was run by the issuers. The record had no money.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the order describes the products he sold as a Ponzi scheme operated by others. That is a seller-of-a-third-party-scheme tag. 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. 2016-08-16 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)

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 order

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.