Attorney at Law – Dr. Jur. Marius R. Stef
L&S Law Firm Ltd
Insights | 25 September 2026
Introduction
On 16 September 2026, United States authorities announced a nine-year federal prison sentence against Edwin Emmett Lickiss Jr. of Danville, California, following his guilty plea to wire fraud and money laundering in connection with a decades-long Ponzi scheme. The criminal disposition sits alongside a parallel civil enforcement complaint filed by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in July 2025.
This article sets out the public facts drawn from those primary sources, then offers our firm’s investor-protection observations. The commentary under “Our thoughts” is that of Attorney at Law – Dr. Jur. Marius R. Stef and L&S Law Firm Ltd. The factual narrative that follows is drawn only from the named public sources listed at the end. Nothing herein is a finding of fact beyond what those authorities expressly state.
Where the criminal matter is concerned, the defendant pleaded guilty and a court has imposed a sentence. Where the SEC civil complaint is concerned, the matters described remain civil allegations unless and until a court enters a final judgment that expressly adjudicates them.
Background
On 16 September 2026, IRS Criminal Investigation announced that Edwin Emmett Lickiss Jr., who had pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering in connection with a decades-long Ponzi scheme, was sentenced by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar to nine years in federal prison.
According to that IRS Criminal Investigation announcement, Lickiss of Danville, California, admitted that he defrauded at least 93 victims of over USD 9.5 million from 1998 through September 2024. As part of the scheme, Lickiss said that he would invest victims’ money in exclusive, tax-free bonds that offered rates of return up to 30 percent. He also claimed that members of his own family had invested in the bonds, that he charged no investment fees because he had already profited so substantially, and that investors could redeem their money at any time.
In fact, according to the same announcement, the bonds did not exist. Lickiss funneled money from later victims to pay earlier investors, consistent with a Ponzi scheme. He also siphoned victim funds to pay personal expenses, including cash withdrawals, home renovations, travel, and payments on vehicles, mortgages, and personal credit cards.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) had issued an order barring Lickiss from engaging in any broker-related business from 18 August 2014 through 17 December 2014. Despite that order, according to IRS Criminal Investigation, Lickiss continued to fraudulently solicit and obtain investments from victims during that period.
Secondary reporting of the matter identifies Lickiss as having owned and operated Foundation Financial Group, a firm that provided investment services to investors in the Northern District of California, Idaho, and elsewhere in the United States. That firm name is not restated in the IRS Criminal Investigation sentence announcement itself; readers should treat the firm attribution as secondary reporting of the broader enforcement narrative.
The parallel SEC civil action
On 21 July 2025, the SEC filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Edwin Emmett Lickiss, Jr. (Litigation Release No. 26360, issued 22 July 2025; Securities and Exchange Commission v. Edwin Emmett Lickiss, Jr., No. 4:25-cv-06126).
According to the SEC’s litigation release, between 1998 and August 2024 Lickiss allegedly fraudulently offered and sold to investors approximately USD 12.7 million in promissory notes that purported to pay interest rates of between 9 and 32 percent per annum. The complaint alleges that Lickiss falsely represented to investors that their monies would be invested in limited-opportunity, high-yield government bonds or other high-yield investment opportunities to which only he had select access. In reality, as alleged, Lickiss used money from new investors to make Ponzi payments to earlier investors or for his personal expenses.
The complaint charges Lickiss with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief, including conduct-based injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. The SEC expressly notes the parallel criminal action investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and IRS Criminal Investigation.
The criminal sentence and the civil complaint are related but distinct. The former rests on a guilty plea and a court-imposed term of imprisonment. The latter remains a civil enforcement action seeking equitable and monetary relief as framed by the Commission.
Our thoughts
Marketing that leans on exclusivity, tax advantages, family co-investment, fee-free “already made enough” generosity, and on-demand redemption is designed to close the diligence gap with trust language. The operational question for any board, family office, or individual investor is not whether the story is persuasive. It is whether the bonds, the custody arrangements, and the issuer exist outside the promoter’s narrative and can be confirmed without relying on the promoter’s own PDF.
A FINRA bar or prior industry sanction is a stop sign, not a biographical footnote. Continued solicitation during a bar period, as described by IRS Criminal Investigation in this matter, is precisely the kind of red flag that independent background checks and CRD / BrokerCheck reviews are meant to surface before capital moves.
Promissory notes that advertise high fixed returns tied to “limited” government-bond access should reconcile, line by line, to named issuers, CUSIPs or equivalent identifiers, independent custody statements, and bank records the investor can verify with the purported issuer or custodian. If that confirmation cannot be obtained in writing, the instrument is not yet an investment product. It is a story about one.
Our firm view is straightforward: a bond that cannot be independently confirmed is not a bond. Independent custody and issuer proof are the minimum, not a courtesy.
Sources
IRS Criminal Investigation, Former East Bay financial advisor sentenced to nine years in federal prison for Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 93 victims (16 September 2026): https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/former-east-bay-financial-advisor-sentenced-to-nine-years-in-federal-prison-for-ponzi-scheme-that-defrauded-at-least-93-victims
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Litigation Release No. 26360, SEC Charges California Man with Operating a $12.7 Million Ponzi Scheme (22 July 2025; complaint filed 21 July 2025): https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26360.
Important notice
This article is for general information and investor-education purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client (or attorney–client) relationship. Allegations described herein are those of the named public authorities and have not been proven in court unless a final judgment is expressly cited.
A guilty plea and criminal sentence establish the criminal disposition described by the sentencing court and the announcing agencies. Parallel civil allegations in an SEC complaint remain allegations unless and until a court enters a final judgment that expressly adjudicates them. Readers should consult the primary sources cited above and take independent professional advice before acting.
*Contact:* office@lslawfirm.co.uk | www.lslawfirm.co.uk
