SEC v. Bogar, Young and Green (ponzi schemes, 2013)

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-bogar-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In August 2013 an SEC administrative law judge found that Daniel Bogar, Bernerd E. Young and Jason T. Green defrauded investors while at Allen Stanford's broker-dealer, barred them, and ordered about $4.76 million in disgorgement and $780,000 in penalties in total.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$780k

Disgorgement

$4.8m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$5.5m

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 initial decision concerns the three men's sales of certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, the vehicle of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, through Stanford Group Company. They are not themselves described as running the scheme; the decision finds they violated the antifraud provisions in selling the product. It orders cease and desist, industry bars, a third-tier penalty of $260,000 on each, and disgorgement of $1,555,485.75 (Bogar), $591,992.46 (Young) and $2,613,506.47 (Green), with interest on the first two.

The record had entered only Bogar's disgorgement, no penalties, and a defendant list in which two surnames were split from their other names. The decision is initial and can be reviewed by the Commission.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the respondents sold products issued as part of a scheme the decision calls a Ponzi scheme. That is a seller-of-a-third-party-scheme tag, which readers should weigh accordingly. 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. 2013-08-02 Initial decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Initial decision (ID-502)
• Order instituting proceedings
• Finality 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.