SEC v. Louis Martin Blazer III (2017)

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-louis-martin-blazer-iii-2017) by email

In August 2017 the SEC announced a consent final judgment in New York against financial adviser Louis Martin Blazer III, who took money from professional athletes' accounts without permission to fund movie projects, ordering about $1.8 million in disgorgement and interest and a $150,000 penalty.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEC
Release number	LR-23900
Date filed	2017-08-10
Date resolved	2017-08-10
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Status	settled
Criminal parallel	No
Bars imposed	registration bar
Defendants	Louis Martin Blazer III (individual)
Cited as charged or alleged	Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) (statutes and rules cited in the document; not a finding that they were violated)
Techniques

What was ordered

Civil penalty: $150k
Disgorgement: $1.8m
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: $2m
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

Judge Oetken entered the judgment on August 4, 2017, enjoining Blazer under the Securities Act, Exchange Act and Advisers Act and resolving the case. A partial consent judgment in May 2016 had led to an SEC order imposing a permanent industry bar. The SEC alleged he lied to examiners who found the withdrawals.

The release mentions a Ponzi-like repayment to one client, which is incidental to an unauthorized-withdrawal case, so the ponzi-schemes tag has been removed, as on the 2016 record. The record omitted the penalty and had a status of judgment although the order was by consent.

Timeline

2017-08-10 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.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.