SEC v. Julieann Palmer Martin (ponzi schemes, 2015)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-julieann-palmer-martin-ponzi-schemes-2015) by email

In 2015 an SEC administrative law judge barred Julieann Palmer Martin for her part in the National Note Ponzi scheme and unregistered sales, ordering $329,000 disgorgement and a $1,050,000 penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$1.1m

Disgorgement

$329k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$1.4m

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

On March 9, 2015 an SEC administrative law judge issued an initial decision finding that Julieann Palmer Martin took part in a Ponzi scheme and acted as an unregistered broker selling unregistered securities for National Note, violating Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 15(a). She is barred from the securities industry, ordered to cease and desist, to disgorge $329,000 plus interest, and to pay a $1,050,000 penalty. A parallel criminal matter is noted. The record previously showed the status as settled and omitted the money.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes and unregistered distributions, based on the conduct the document describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.
• Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-03-09 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-751)
• 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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.