SEC Charges Toms River Trio in Connection with Alleged $47 Million Fraud Targeting…

What the source reports

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three Toms River, New Jersey residents for their roles in an affinity investment fraud that raised approximately $47 million from more than 87 investors, who were primarily members of Orthodox Jewish communities in New Jersey and New York.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the District of New Jersey, alleges that between approximately November 2019 and June 2023, Leor Moshe, the scheme’s orchestrator, convinced investors, most of whom, like Moshe, were active members of the Orthodox Jewish community, to invest in his company, Capital Funding ASAP LLC.

Moshe told the would-be investors that their money would be used to fund short-term loans for small businesses and their investments would lead to significant fixed returns.

However, rather than funding business loans, Moshe allegedly misappropriated more than $11 million from investors for his personal use and used more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier-in-time investors.

The complaint further alleges that Moshe paid fellow Toms River residents, Jacob Goldman and Isaac Odes, who were not registered as broker-dealers or associated with any registered broker-dealer, to recruit investors.

Goldman and Odes solicited more than $23 million from at least 25 investors, negotiated investment terms, and facilitated the collection of funds.

As a result of the scheme, investors from Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Ohio lost more than $25 million.

“As our complaint alleges, the defendants promised some investors that they could see returns in excess of thirty percent which definitely falls into the ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is’ category,” said Thomas P.

, Associate Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.

“In reality, the Jersey Shore triumvirate took advantage of their relationships within Orthodox Jewish communities to raise money for Moshe’s scheme and enrich themselves.

”

The SEC’s complaint charges Moshe with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and charges Goldman and Odes with violations of the broker registration provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against the defendants, and a conduct-based injunction against Moshe.

Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey today announced criminal charges against Moshe for similar conduct.

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance provides guidance on how to avoid frauds that target specific communities on its Investment Scams Targeting Groups webpage.

The SEC also encourages investors to use Investor.

gov to check the background of anyone offering or selling them an investment.

The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.

Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey and the FBI.

How to read this update

This BasisPilot brief preserves the source's reported facts and publication context. The original publisher is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the linked source should remain the reference for the complete release, later corrections, tables, quotations, and any information that was not visible in the extracted page. The brief is organized around what was reported, when it was reported, and which details a reader can verify directly.

Timing and context

The source publication time is recorded separately from the time BasisPilot retrieved the page. That distinction matters because company announcements, economic releases, and regulatory notices can be updated after their first publication. A date, amount, percentage, named entity, or status statement in this brief is treated as a source fact only when it can be traced to the linked document.

What readers should verify

Readers should compare the headline with the original source, check the publication date, review the issuer or agency named in the document, and distinguish reported results from forward-looking statements. Where the source describes a transaction, financing, filing, policy action, or market status, the relevant official filing or notice may contain additional conditions.

How the details fit together

A source-linked brief should be read as a sequence rather than as a collection of isolated claims. First identify the publisher and the document type. Next confirm the date, entities, amounts, percentages, and status statements in the source. Only then consider what the event could mean for a sector or a planning assumption. This order keeps an observable fact separate from a later interpretation and makes the article easier to audit when the publisher issues a correction or follow-up notice.

What is not being inferred

The brief does not infer a stock-price reaction, a change in credit quality, or a future operating result from the announcement alone. A reported dividend, result, policy action, or filing can be material without being predictive. Readers should check the company filing, agency notice, exchange release, or other primary document identified by the publisher when a decision depends on a condition that is not fully reproduced here.

Scope of the document

Official notices often combine a narrow operative change with definitions, procedural dates, affected parties, and supporting authority. Those elements should not be collapsed into a single headline. Before applying the update to an investment or market view, identify whether the document is a proposal, final rule, request for comment, administrative notice, or correction; confirm the effective date separately from the publication date; and check whether the source limits the change to a particular entity, transaction type, reporting period, jurisdiction, or instrument.

A practical reading checklist

Record the source URL, actual publisher, publication timestamp, retrieval timestamp, and any reference period before using the information. Note which statements are historical, which are current status updates, and which are forward-looking language from the issuer or agency. Compare the source with related filings only after preserving the original wording and units. This process prevents a distribution platform from being mistaken for the issuer and reduces the chance that a headline is treated as a complete financial or regulatory record.

Recheck after publication

Company and regulatory pages can add exhibits, corrections, translations, or updated status notes after the first release. BasisPilot therefore keeps the primary link visible and records the source publication date separately from its own publication date. If the source changes materially, the article can be regenerated with a new retrieval timestamp and a new content hash while preserving the original source item identifier for deduplication.

Limits and responsible use

This is an educational news brief, not personalized investment, tax, legal, or trading advice. A reported event does not guarantee a price reaction or a future outcome. BasisPilot does not fill missing facts with estimates, and it does not treat the distribution platform as the actual publisher when the source identifies another issuer. Source-linked details should be rechecked before making a decision.