SEC v. Curtis A. Peterson (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-peterson-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In August 2016 the SEC settled proceedings against Curtis A. Peterson of Miami Springs, Florida, an unregistered sales agent for Virtual Concierge Machine contracts issued by JCS Enterprises and T.B.T.I., companies sued in 2014 for a Ponzi scheme. He is barred and pays a $7,500 penalty, with disgorgement to be decided later.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$7.5k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$7.5k

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 Peterson sold the contracts as an unregistered broker and orders cease and desist, an industry bar and a $7,500 penalty, with further proceedings on any disgorgement and interest. Hearing notice is part of that follow-on stage.

His finding is the unregistered selling; the issuers were the Ponzi scheme operators. The record carried his name split into two entries.

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. 2016-08-23 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.

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.