SEC v. Kevin B. Merrill, et al. (ponzi schemes, 2022)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-kevin-b-merrill-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2022) by email

In October 2022 the SEC announced final judgments against eight defendants and one relief defendant in its case over a $345 million Ponzi-like scheme, including joint and several disgorgement of $183,973,833 and $5,671,794 of interest on Jay Ledford and six entities, all deemed satisfied by receiver recoveries and criminal restitution. The case against Kevin Merrill himself was continuing.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$184m

Prejudgment interest

$5.7m

Total relief

$190m

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 sued Merrill, Ledford and their entities in 2018, alleging a Ponzi-like scheme that raised more than $345 million from over 230 investors. Merrill and Ledford were sentenced to 264 and 168 months and ordered to pay $189,166,116 in restitution; Cameron Jezierski received 24 months and $45,093,384 of restitution, and owes $105,000 of disgorgement and $2,913 of interest in the civil case.

The figures in the record are those of Ledford and the entities, not of Merrill, whose civil case and that of his wife as relief defendant were still pending; the record had listed Merrill first as though the figures were his.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the SEC or the court describes new investors' money being used to pay earlier investors. 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. 2022-10-18 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.

Same matter

The library links these 4 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.