SEC v. Mark A. Jones (ponzi schemes, 2016)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-mark-a-jones-ponzi-schemes-2016-lr-23490) by email

The SEC sued Mark A. Jones in March 2016 over a roughly $10 million Ponzi scheme sold as bridge loans to Jamaican businesses, and he pleaded guilty to parallel criminal charges in September 2016. On March 28, 2017 a Massachusetts federal court entered a default final judgment ordering $3,586,510 in disgorgement, $236,463.48 in interest and a $160,000 penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$160k

Disgorgement

$3.6m

Prejudgment interest

$236k

Total relief

$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

the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on March 16, 2016 as release LR-23490. The respondents named are Mark A. Jones (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

SEC litigation release 23792 reports that the District of Massachusetts entered a final judgment by default against Jones, permanently enjoining him from violating the antifraud provisions and ordering disgorgement of $3,586,510, prejudgment interest of $236,463.48 and a civil penalty of $160,000. The judgment document is dated March 28, 2017 on its face; the penalty figure appears only in the release, as the copy of the judgment read leaves that amount blank. Because the judgment was by default, Jones did not contest it. Release 23648 separately reports that he pleaded guilty on September 16, 2016 to criminal charges arising from the same conduct; no sentence is stated in the sources read. This record and the other Mark A. Jones record concern the same case (civil action 1:16-cv-10524) and carry the same outcome. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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. 2016-03-16 Litigation release published
2. 2016-09-16 Jones pleads guilty to parallel criminal charges (SEC LR-23648)
3. 2017-03-28 Final judgment by default entered (SEC LR-23792)

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 litigation release 23792 (final judgment)
• Final judgment as to Jones

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 3 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.