FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

SEC Charges Three New Jersey Men Over Alleged $47 Million Investment Fraud

A civil complaint filed in federal district court accuses three Toms River residents of roles in a scheme the agency says targeted Orthodox Jewish communities in New Jersey and New York. The case is unresolved; no court has ruled on the claims.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 13, 2026, 8:08 p.m. ET
The Securities and Exchange Commission has three residents of Toms River, New Jersey — Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman and Isaac Odes — in connection with what it describes as an affinity investment fraud that misappropriated approximately $47 million from more than 87 investors, primarily members of Orthodox Jewish communities in New Jersey and New York, according to an SEC reported by finanznachrichten.de. The matter is a case in federal district court and is at the charging stage. It has not been decided: the allegations are the SEC's own, they have not been tested in court, and no judge has made any finding of liability against Moshe, Goldman or Odes. Nothing in the material reported indicates the case has been settled, dismissed or otherwise concluded. According to the SEC's complaint as reported, between approximately November 2019 and June 2023 Moshe convinced investors to put money into his company, Capital Funding ASAP LLC, telling them the funds would finance short-term loans to small businesses with significant fixed returns. The agency alleges he instead misappropriated more than $11 million for personal use and used more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors. The complaint further alleges that Moshe paid Goldman and Odes, who were not registered as broker-dealers, to recruit investors, and that the two solicited more than $23 million from at least 25 investors. Moshe is with violations of the antifraud provisions; Goldman and Odes are with violations of the broker registration provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, penalties, and a conduct-based injunction against Moshe. Those are requests made in the complaint, not awards; whether any of them is granted remains for the court to determine. No responses from the three men were included in the material reported. Readers encountering this account later should not assume an outcome: as of the , the case was open and undecided.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 114 Aug 2026, 00:08current

    First published.

  2. Version 114 Aug 2026, 00:16

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.