SEC v. Deven Sellers and Roland Barrera (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.
In July 2016 an SEC administrative law judge barred Deven Sellers from the securities industry and barred Roland Barrera with a right to reapply in five years, following their 2015 federal injunctions for selling limited partnership interests in Vendetta, which the district court found to be a Ponzi scheme.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-17004 |
| Date filed | 2016-07-14 |
| Date resolved | 2016-07-14 |
| Court | SEC administrative law judge |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | bonds, equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | registration bar |
| Defendants | Deven Sellers ; Roland Barrera |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.15(a) ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The court in the underlying case found that Vendetta raised about $31.4 million from up to 129 investors and was run as a Ponzi scheme that misappropriated over $8 million. Sellers, a cousin of one operator, sold the interests in 2012. The judge accepts that there is no evidence Barrera intentionally joined the Ponzi scheme but notes the court found he acted with reckless disregard of a duty to disclose.
The record had run the names together as "Sellers", "Deven Barrera" and "Roland". The respondents sold the product; they did not run it.
This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the underlying court found the partnerships they sold were a Ponzi scheme. 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
- 2016-07-14 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Mark D. Hanf and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Ponzi Schemes | — | settled |
| SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-13 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| CFTC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher A. Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| SEC v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-24 | Ponzi Schemes | $449k | judgment |
| CFTC v. Trevor L. Vernon and Argent Capital Management LLC (ponzi schemes, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-07-07 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |