SEC v. Marquis Properties, Deucher and Clatfelter (ponzi schemes, 2016)

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-marquis-properties-llc-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

The SEC's January 2016 case over the $28 million Marquis Properties real-estate scheme ended, as to Chad Deucher and Richard Clatfelter, in consent final judgments filed on 9 and 30 January 2018 in the District of Utah. Deucher owes $16,560,552 in disgorgement; Clatfelter $1,232,849, $160,102.21 in interest and a $130,000 penalty. Deucher was indicted in a parallel criminal case.

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 January 19, 2016 in the District of Utah, alleges that from March 2010 the defendants sold notes and investment contracts said to be fully collateralized by real estate and guaranteed to return principal and profits, but did not buy the properties.

The allegations are unproven and nothing had been ordered. The record listed only the company and had the status unknown.

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.

Deucher consented to a final judgment filed on 9 January 2018 that holds him liable for disgorgement of $16,560,552 and no stated penalty. Clatfelter consented to one filed on 30 January 2018, which orders disgorgement of $1,232,849, prejudgment interest of $160,102.21 and a $130,000 civil penalty, $1,522,951.21 in total. The stored figures add the two men's disgorgement. The SEC's earlier release reports that Deucher was indicted in April 2016 for running the scheme as a Ponzi scheme; the sources I opened do not give his criminal outcome. I did not read a judgment against Marquis Properties, LLC.

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.

Money note: the dollar amounts in this record's text describe the January 2018 consent judgments; to avoid counting the same amounts twice, the money fields are left empty here and the figures are held on the record for the same case under release LR-23533 (sec-marquis-properties-llc-chad-deucher-ponzi-schemes-2016).

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. 2016-01-21 Litigation release published
2. 2018-01-09 Consent final judgment filed as to Deucher (D. Utah)
3. 2018-01-30 Consent final judgment filed as to Clatfelter (D. Utah)

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
• Final judgment as to Chad Deucher (9 Jan 2018)
• Final judgment as to Richard Clatfelter (30 Jan 2018)
• SEC litigation release 23533 (Deucher indictment)

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 2 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.