SEC v. Robert Allen Stanford and others (ponzi schemes, 2025)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-robert-allen-stanford-ponzi-schemes-2025) by email

In February 2025 the SEC announced a judgment against Robert Allen Stanford, James Davis and 6 others. On 29 January 2025 final judgments were entered against Stanford, Davis, Lopez and five Stanford entities in the $8 billion offshore certificate of deposit Ponzi scheme. Penalties are $5.9 billion on Stanford and $5 million on Davis; disgorgement and interest are given only as combined figures per defendant, in the billions and deemed satisfied by forfeiture or receiver recoveries.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$5.9bn

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$5.9bn

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 February 24, 2025 as release LR-26255. On 29 January 2025 final judgments were entered against Stanford, Davis, Lopez and five Stanford entities in the $8 billion offshore certificate of deposit Ponzi scheme. Penalties are $5.9 billion on Stanford and $5 million on Davis; disgorgement and interest are given only as combined figures per defendant, in the billions and deemed satisfied by forfeiture or receiver recoveries.

This library tags the matter as a Ponzi scheme because the document describes returns to earlier investors paid from later investors' money, as alleged or found. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

In the parallel criminal case, the Fifth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Stanford (No. 12-20411, 29 October 2015) states that a jury convicted Stanford on 13 of 14 counts and the district court sentenced him to 110 years in prison. The SEC's January 2025 order itself cites only the criminal judgment and forfeiture order (No. 4:09cr342, S.D. Tex.) as satisfying the disgorgement obligation.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil penalty of $5,905,000,000, as the release or order states it. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

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. 2025-02-24 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.