U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20966 / March 23, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Anthony A. James and James Asset Advisory, L.L.C., Case No. 08-61516-CIV-Altonaga/Brown (S.D. Fla.)
COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT SETTING DISGORGEMENT, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST ANTHONY A. JAMES
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on March 23, 2009, the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, entered a final judgment ordering Anthony A. James to pay $2,390,487.45 in disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest of $84,620.10 and a $130,000 civil penalty in connection with his scheme to misappropriate client funds and operate a Ponzi scheme.
James had previously consented to a judgment of permanent injunction and other relief in connection with the scheme enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Court entered the injunction on September 25, 2008.
The Commission's complaint against James and his investment advisory firm, James Asset Advisory LLC (James Asset) alleged that from at least April 2001 through January 2008, James and James Asset received at least $5.2 million from 44 clients whom they misled into believing their funds would be invested in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. However, the Defendants never invested any client funds. Instead, the complaint alleged, James misappropriated almost $2.4 million to fund personal expenses, including the purchase of a six-bedroom, 5,000 square foot home, a luxury condominium, a Porsche sports car, and season tickets to the Miami Heat games. James is under criminal indictment in the Eastern District of Michigan for the same conduct.
On February 26, 2009, the Commission dismissed, with prejudice, its claims for disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a civil penalty against James Asset because the company is defunct and had no assets from which a judgment could be collected.
For more information on earlier actions in this case, see LR-20741 (Sept. 25, 2008) and LR-20842 (Jan. 6, 2009).