SEC v. Julieann Palmer Martin (ponzi schemes, 2013)

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-martin-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In November 2013 the SEC instituted proceedings against Julieann Palmer Martin, a long-time bookkeeper and office manager at National Note of Utah, alleging that she solicited investors and kept up its guaranteed-return claims while knowing it was paying earlier investors from new money. An initial decision of March 9, 2015 became the Commission's final decision on April 21, 2015, with industry bars, $329,000 disgorgement plus interest 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

The order sets the matter for hearing and states allegations only. It alleges that Martin handled every investor deposit and payment at National Note, which the SEC separately sued as an offering fraud and Ponzi scheme in 2012, received about $366,500 in commissions from 2006 to 2010, and told new investors in late 2011 and early 2012 that returns were guaranteed without mentioning that payments had stopped. It alleges violations of Securities Act section 17(a), Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and unregistered-broker and unregistered-offering provisions.

The record had split her name as "Martin" and "Julieann Palmer"; the order that instituted the proceeding imposed no sanction.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the order alleges she knew the company paid investors from new investor funds. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

Outcome. The Commission's notice of April 21, 2015 says no petition for review was filed and the Commission did not review the decision on its own initiative, so the administrative law judge's initial decision (Release No. 751, March 9, 2015) became final as to Martin. As described in the notice, it orders her to cease and desist from violating Securities Act sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) and Exchange Act sections 10(b) and 15(a) and Rule 10b-5, bars her from association with brokers, dealers, investment advisers and similar firms and from penny stock offerings, permanently prohibits her from investment company roles, and requires disgorgement of $329,000 plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $1,050,000, with recoveries going to a fair fund. We read the Commission's finality notice, not the initial decision itself, so we do not know whether the respondent defaulted or what the findings say in detail.

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. 2013-11-13 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)
2. 2015-03-09 Initial decision (Release No. 751): bars, disgorgement and penalty ordered
3. 2015-04-21 Notice that the initial decision has become final

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 order
• SEC notice that initial decision has become final (33-9753)

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.