SEC Charges Three Toms River Residents Over Alleged $47 Million Fraud; Case Undecided
The agency's civil complaint accuses Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman and Isaac Odes of roles in an alleged affinity investment fraud. The matter is only at the charging stage: no court has ruled, and the allegations remain unproven.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has three Toms River, New Jersey residents — Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman and Isaac Odes — in district court over their roles in an alleged affinity investment fraud scheme, according to reporting by finanznachrichten.de. The case is , it is at the charging stage, and it has not been decided: the SEC has filed allegations, and no court has ruled on them.
According to finanznachrichten.de, the SEC alleges the scheme misappropriated approximately $47 million from more than 87 investors, primarily members of Orthodox Jewish communities in New Jersey and New York. The agency alleges that between approximately November 2019 and June 2023, Moshe orchestrated a scheme convincing investors to invest in his company, Capital Funding ASAP LLC, telling them their money would fund short-term loans for small businesses with significant fixed returns.
Instead, the SEC alleges, Moshe misappropriated more than $11 million for personal use and used more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors, finanznachrichten.de reported. The complaint further alleges that Moshe paid Goldman and Odes, who were not registered as broker-dealers, to recruit investors, and that they 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, according to finanznachrichten.de. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, penalties, and a conduct-based injunction against Moshe. Each of those remedies is sought, not ordered; whether any of it is granted is for the district court to determine.
**Status of the matter.** Everything above is an allegation contained in an SEC complaint. The document reported by finanznachrichten.de is a announcing charges, and the proceeding stands at the charging stage. No finding of liability has been made against Moshe, Goldman or Odes, and the allegations have not been tested in court. The source does not report any response, answer or defense from the three men, and it records no ruling, settlement or judgment. A reader encountering this account later should treat the case as open unless a more recent record shows how it was resolved.
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.