SEC v. Landon M. Smith (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-landon-m-smith-ponzi-schemes-2019) by email

In June 2019 the SEC charged Utah man Landon Smith with a real estate Ponzi scheme that allegedly raised nearly $2.5 million from over fifty investors. The SEC's release says Smith agreed to a settlement permanently enjoining him, with disgorgement, interest and a penalty reserved for the court to decide later and the whole subject to court approval. Criminal charges were announced the same day.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on June 24, 2019 as release LR-24545. The respondents named are Landon M. Smith (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Utah.

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.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

Outcome. The SEC's release of 24 June 2019, issued with the complaint, says Smith agreed to a bifurcated settlement under which he is permanently enjoined from the antifraud and registration provisions charged, with disgorgement, prejudgment interest and any civil penalty left for the court to decide on the SEC's later motion, and the settlement subject to court approval. No amounts and no later order were found in the sources read, so no money is recorded, the date of court approval is unknown and the date used is the release date. The release also says the U.S. Attorney's Office announced parallel criminal charges the same day; no result of that case was found. A settlement on these terms is not a finding that the allegations are true.

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. 2019-06-24 Litigation release published
2. 2019-06-24 SEC announces Smith's agreement to a bifurcated settlement (injunction; monetary relief reserved), subject to court approval

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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.