SEC v. Veros Partners, Haab, Risinger and Senefeld (ponzi schemes, 2015)

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-veros-partners-inc-et-al-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

The SEC's 2015 farm-loan fraud case against Veros Partners and others in the Southern District of Indiana ended in consent final judgments entered between 2016 and 2018. The SEC's case page records judgments against Veros, Matthew Haab, Jeffrey Risinger, Tobin Senefeld and the two loan-pool entities, plus a relief defendant. The page gives several dollar figures but does not split them in a way that can be totalled, so no single figure is stored here.

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 April 22, 2015 in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges the defendants raised money from at least 80 mostly advisory-client investors for short-term farm operating loans, used a large part to cover farmers' unpaid debts and to pay investors in prior offerings, and took over $800,000 in undisclosed fees. A temporary restraining order and asset freeze were obtained.

The allegations are unproven.

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.

The SEC's investor-information page for the case traces how it ended. As of 3 July 2017, Haab, Risinger and Veros had settled, and Haab and Risinger had together paid $283,640 in disgorgement; the SEC reports that nothing had been collected from Veros against $1,083,283.19 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties. On 6 February 2018 the court entered a consent final judgment against Senefeld ordering $843,356.65 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties; the SEC had asked for $698,818.29 in disgorgement and $94,538.36 in interest plus a penalty, which is consistent with a $50,000 penalty but the page does not say so. Judgments followed on 16 April 2018 against PinCap ($440,511.37 in disgorgement and interest) and, without monetary orders, against FarmGrowCap and Veros Farm, and on 21 May 2018 against the relief defendant Pin Financial ($9,273.05 in disgorgement and interest). The court terminated the receivership on 13 August 2018. The overlap between these figures is not explained on the page, so this record does not sum them. The page does not reproduce any findings, so the SEC's allegations of a fraudulent farm-loan offering remain allegations in this record.

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.

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. 2015-04-24 Litigation release published
2. 2018-05-21 Final judgment entered against the relief defendant, last of the final judgments listed by the SEC

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
• SEC information for harmed investors: SEC v. Veros Partners, Inc., et al.
• Final judgment as to Matthew D. Haab (14 Sep 2016)

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.