Can Anyone Help Make Sense of the Public Records on Gary Scheer’s Penalty

[Andre Jones]

Hi all, I came across some official documents and news articles about a financial advisor named Gary Scheer and wanted to get a better understanding of what’s publicly recorded. According to a state order from the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, his registration as an investment adviser representative was revoked and a $750,000 civil penalty was assessed after regulators found he sold over $12 million of unregistered securities to a number of investors over several years. Six of the seven investments he recommended were later deemed fraudulent schemes by authorities.

What’s interesting is that the Bureau’s revocation order spells out findings of fact, including that he was acting in a registered capacity at the time and that the sales generated substantial commissions. The state action says that the Woodbridge investments he sold were tied to a large nationwide Ponzi scheme and that other offerings were also later associated with enforcement actions.
There’s also local reporting that echoes these points, noting the penalties and the revocation, and mentions that many of the unregistered securities he sold have since been identified by authorities as problematic. It’s a lot to take in, and I’m not totally clear on how to interpret all of this from a practical standpoint for people trying to untangle what happened.

I’m curious if anyone here has looked into these public records or similar regulatory orders before and can help explain what this kind of revocation and penalty typically means for the adviser and for the investors involved. I’m trying to frame a clearer picture without jumping to conclusions or making claims beyond what’s publicly on record.

 

[Ashley Rivera]

Hi all, I came across some official documents and news articles about a financial advisor named Gary Scheer and wanted to get a better understanding of what’s publicly recorded. According to a state order from the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, his registration as an investment adviser representative was revoked and a $750,000 civil penalty was assessed after regulators found he sold over $12 million of unregistered securities to a number of investors over several years. Six of the seven investments he recommended were later deemed fraudulent schemes by authorities.

What’s interesting is that the Bureau’s revocation order spells out findings of fact, including that he was acting in a registered capacity at the time and that the sales generated substantial commissions. The state action says that the Woodbridge investments he sold were tied to a large nationwide Ponzi scheme and that other offerings were also later associated with enforcement actions.
There’s also local reporting that echoes these points, noting the penalties and the revocation, and mentions that many of the unregistered securities he sold have since been identified by authorities as problematic. It’s a lot to take in, and I’m not totally clear on how to interpret all of this from a practical standpoint for people trying to untangle what happened.

I’m curious if anyone here has looked into these public records or similar regulatory orders before and can help explain what this kind of revocation and penalty typically means for the adviser and for the investors involved. I’m trying to frame a clearer picture without jumping to conclusions or making claims beyond what’s publicly on record.

I looked at the state’s penalty and revocation order a while back, and what stands out is how detailed the Bureau’s findings are in terms of the fiduciary duties an adviser is supposed to uphold. From what’s in those orders, regulators didn’t just slap a fine on Scheer but also highlighted failures around due diligence and disclosure. That doesn’t necessarily explain every aspect of the individual investments, but it does show why the state took strong action.

 

[Andre Jones]

I looked at the state’s penalty and revocation order a while back, and what stands out is how detailed the Bureau’s findings are in terms of the fiduciary duties an adviser is supposed to uphold. From what’s in those orders, regulators didn’t just slap a fine on Scheer but also highlighted failures around due diligence and disclosure. That doesn’t necessarily explain every aspect of the individual investments, but it does show why the state took strong action.

That makes sense. The order definitely lays out multiple points where the regulator felt standards weren’t met. One thing I’m unclear on is the scope of the harm to investors. The public releases talk about investors being left to try to recover funds, but I haven’t seen clear figures on actual losses recovered versus remaining. Does anyone know how restitution efforts usually play out after something like this?

 

[Steven Campbell]

Hi all, I came across some official documents and news articles about a financial advisor named Gary Scheer and wanted to get a better understanding of what’s publicly recorded. According to a state order from the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, his registration as an investment adviser representative was revoked and a $750,000 civil penalty was assessed after regulators found he sold over $12 million of unregistered securities to a number of investors over several years. Six of the seven investments he recommended were later deemed fraudulent schemes by authorities.

What’s interesting is that the Bureau’s revocation order spells out findings of fact, including that he was acting in a registered capacity at the time and that the sales generated substantial commissions. The state action says that the Woodbridge investments he sold were tied to a large nationwide Ponzi scheme and that other offerings were also later associated with enforcement actions.
There’s also local reporting that echoes these points, noting the penalties and the revocation, and mentions that many of the unregistered securities he sold have since been identified by authorities as problematic. It’s a lot to take in, and I’m not totally clear on how to interpret all of this from a practical standpoint for people trying to untangle what happened.

I’m curious if anyone here has looked into these public records or similar regulatory orders before and can help explain what this kind of revocation and penalty typically means for the adviser and for the investors involved. I’m trying to frame a clearer picture without jumping to conclusions or making claims beyond what’s publicly on record.

Restitution can be a long slog. In cases where the underlying securities are part of larger schemes like Woodbridge that went into bankruptcy, courts or receivers might try to distribute some funds back to investors. But it often ends up being only a fraction of what was invested. The public reporting you’re referencing mentions that authorities later identified those investments as fraudulent, but the records don’t typically include detailed restitution outcomes.

 

[Paul Carter]

Restitution can be a long slog. In cases where the underlying securities are part of larger schemes like Woodbridge that went into bankruptcy, courts or receivers might try to distribute some funds back to investors. But it often ends up being only a fraction of what was invested. The public reporting you’re referencing mentions that authorities later identified those investments as fraudulent, but the records don’t typically include detailed restitution outcomes.

Something I try to keep in mind with situations like this is the difference between a regulator’s administrative action and a criminal conviction. The state revoking his registration and levying a penalty is a serious civil regulatory measure, but it doesn’t automatically mean there was a criminal case against him personally unless there’s court documentation beyond that. Public releases often stick to the regulatory facts.

 

[Ashley Rivera]

Something I try to keep in mind with situations like this is the difference between a regulator’s administrative action and a criminal conviction. The state revoking his registration and levying a penalty is a serious civil regulatory measure, but it doesn’t automatically mean there was a criminal case against him personally unless there’s court documentation beyond that. Public releases often stick to the regulatory facts.

That’s a good point. The documents from the Bureau focus on securities law violations and fiduciary duty breaches. They don’t necessarily translate into criminal charges on their own. Sometimes separate civil suits by investors or enforcement actions by federal agencies plug those gaps, but the regulatory order itself doesn’t provide all of that context.

 

[Andre Jones]

That’s a good point. The documents from the Bureau focus on securities law violations and fiduciary duty breaches. They don’t necessarily translate into criminal charges on their own. Sometimes separate civil suits by investors or enforcement actions by federal agencies plug those gaps, but the regulatory order itself doesn’t provide all of that context.

Thanks, that helps clarify the distinction. It seems like a lot of people might conflate a revocation order with criminal wrongdoing, but as you say, the public record we’re looking at is focused on the regulatory side. I guess understanding what investors consider next steps after such an order would be useful too—does anyone have examples of how investors typically proceed in trying to recover funds after unregistered securities sales?

 

[Steven Campbell]

Thanks, that helps clarify the distinction. It seems like a lot of people might conflate a revocation order with criminal wrongdoing, but as you say, the public record we’re looking at is focused on the regulatory side. I guess understanding what investors consider next steps after such an order would be useful too—does anyone have examples of how investors typically proceed in trying to recover funds after unregistered securities sales? Patch

Often investors have to rely on a mix of civil litigation and claims in bankruptcy proceedings of the issuer. If the issuer of the security is in bankruptcy, a receiver might be appointed to liquidate assets and return some funds. Civil lawsuits against the adviser or issuer might result in settlements. But that all depends on litigation outside the regulatory order, so you’d need to check court dockets or legal filings to see the status of those efforts.

 

[Christopher Davis]

Often investors have to rely on a mix of civil litigation and claims in bankruptcy proceedings of the issuer. If the issuer of the security is in bankruptcy, a receiver might be appointed to liquidate assets and return some funds. Civil lawsuits against the adviser or issuer might result in settlements. But that all depends on litigation outside the regulatory order, so you’d need to check court dockets or legal filings to see the status of those efforts.

What I find striking is the variety of unregistered securities mentioned in the formal order—real estate related, pension income streams, and more. It seems like a wide range of products, which, from a due diligence standpoint, raises questions about how these were vetted at the time. The state action gives a sense of that pattern, but without access to investor statements or legal filings, it’s hard to gauge the full picture.

 

[Andre Jones]

What I find striking is the variety of unregistered securities mentioned in the formal order—real estate related, pension income streams, and more. It seems like a wide range of products, which, from a due diligence standpoint, raises questions about how these were vetted at the time. The state action gives a sense of that pattern, but without access to investor statements or legal filings, it’s hard to gauge the full picture.

That’s a great point about the range of products. The public documents definitely list different types of unregistered investments, and I wonder how much that complexity contributed to investor confusion. I appreciate you all helping parse the publicly available info because it’s not always straightforward to interpret these orders without some discussion.

 

[Andre Jones]

Thank you all for this discussion!!!!