FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

SEC Seeks Disgorgement and Civil Penalties From Toms River Trio in Alleged $47 Million Fraud

The commission's complaint asks a federal district court for disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties and injunctive relief; the fact set records no order or settlement to date.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 5:03 p.m. ET

More on this incident

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest, as well as penalties, in its case against three Toms River, New Jersey residents, according to an SEC reported by finanznachrichten.de. Both sums are recorded as sought rather than ordered or agreed. The release also states that the complaint, filed in federal district court, seeks permanent injunctive relief and a conduct-based injunction against Leor Moshe. No dollar figure is attached in the release to either the disgorgement or the penalties, and no redress fund for investors is described. The matter is at the charging stage, and the record supplied contains no court ruling and no settlement. By way of background, the SEC alleges that Moshe, Jacob Goldman and Isaac Odes took part in an alleged 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 the release reported by finanznachrichten.de. 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, and that Goldman and Odes, who were not registered as broker-dealers, were paid to recruit investors and 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 allegations have not been proven, and the release does not record responses from the three men.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:05current

    First published.

  2. Version 114 Aug 2026, 00:08current

    First published.

  3. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:03current

    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.