SEC v. Daniel Christian Stanley Powell (ponzi schemes, 2016)

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-daniel-christian-stanley-powell-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In November 2016 an SEC administrative law judge barred Daniel Christian Stanley Powell by default from the securities industry and penny stock offerings, after his criminal conviction and a federal injunction over a Christian Stanley debenture scheme the decision calls a Ponzi scheme.

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 follow-on decision rests on the February 2016 Central District of California injunction in SEC v. Christian Stanley, Inc. and a jury conviction in November 2014 on five counts of mail fraud, five of wire fraud and three of obstruction. He was sentenced in June 2015 to 121 months and over $4.4 million in restitution. The decision finds that interest on debentures was paid from the debt pool, which also paid operating costs.

The record omitted the sentence. No money is imposed in the order.

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.

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. 2016-11-01 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-1075)
• 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.