SEC v. Summit Trust Company, Kevin and George Brown (ponzi schemes, 2015)

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-summit-trust-company-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

In October 2015 the SEC announced a settled civil action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Kevin C. and George P. Brown and their entities for three offering frauds, two of which involved Ponzi-like payments. The settlements carry civil penalties of about $6.5 million in all and large, partly joint disgorgement orders.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$6.5m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$6.5m

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 alleges that Summit Trust Company raised over $33 million from 2008 to 2014 and used most of it to pay existing shareholders and cover obligations, and that Kevin Brown ran Trust Counselors Network, which took over $12 million for annuity products, as a Ponzi-like scheme from 2008. A third offering, the Rampart Fund, raised about $7.9 million. Penalties are about $2.9 million for Kevin Brown and about $1.8 million each for George Brown and Brown Investment Advisors; the corporate entities were excused from penalties for financial condition. The Browns agreed to bars. The settlements need court approval.

The record had held only Kevin Brown's $1.3 million disgorgement and $120,000 interest, one of several overlapping orders (for example about $16.5 million for the trust company and $9.2 million for the network), so those fields are cleared and the penalty total is recorded instead. The figure is approximate because the release gives rounded amounts.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the complaint alleges Ponzi-like payments in two of the three offerings. 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. 2015-10-27 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.