Recovering Losses After a Ponzi Scheme: Receivers, Clawbacks, and Claims Against Third Parties
By Michael J. Reiser | Last reviewed September 29, 2026
For many investors, the first sign of trouble is a letter. A receiver writes to say the fund has been frozen and the promoter has been removed. For some investors a second letter follows months later, asking them to pay back money the fund paid them.
When a Ponzi scheme collapses, the operator rarely has enough left to repay anyone. What investors recover usually comes from three places: assets the court-appointed receiver or bankruptcy trustee collects, "clawback" claims against investors who were paid more than they put in, and claims against third parties whose services kept the scheme running. Each has its own rules and deadlines, and the decisions an investor makes in the first few months can change how much he or she recovers, or has to give back.
Who takes over after a Ponzi scheme collapses
Once a scheme is exposed, a court may appoint a receiver to take control of the operator's assets and records. If the business files for bankruptcy, a trustee does that work instead. Either way, that person traces where the money went, pursues recoveries, and distributes what comes in to investors and other creditors through a court-supervised claims process.
Give that claims process the same care you would give a lawsuit. It has its own deadlines and documentation requirements. Read every notice, and file your claim on time with complete records of what you invested and what you received. Before you file a separate case of your own, read the receivership order. Those orders sometimes restrict or stay lawsuits by investors.
Ponzi scheme clawbacks: when investors must return payments
A Ponzi scheme pays early investors with money from later ones. Receivers and trustees recover those payments under voidable transfer law, which used to be called fraudulent transfer law.
In California, a transfer is voidable if the debtor made it "with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04(a)(1). A transfer can also be voidable without any proof of intent, if the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and was in financial distress as the statute defines it. Id. § 3439.04(a)(2). Florida's statute follows the same framework and still uses the term "fraudulent" transfer. Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1).
In federal court in California, proving the operator's intent is the easy part. The Ninth Circuit, whose decisions bind those courts, has held that proof the debtor ran a Ponzi scheme is enough by itself to establish the operator's actual intent to defraud. Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Not every court applies that presumption the same way, so the governing rule depends on where the case is pending.
The netting rule: net winners and net losers
For an investor who acted in good faith, the question that matters is arithmetic. Donell also explains the "netting rule." The payments an investor received are netted against the amount the investor put in. An investor who got back less than he or she invested, and acted in good faith, is not liable. An investor who got back more may be required to return the "profits," meaning the amount above the original investment, even if the investor had no idea the scheme was a fraud. An investor who cannot establish good faith may be required to return principal payments as well.
Good faith matters under both states' statutes. A transfer is not voidable as an actual-intent transfer against a person who took it "in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value." Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.08(a); Fla. Stat. § 726.109(1). In California, the party invoking that defense bears the burden of proving it. Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.08(f)(1).
Clawback deadlines in California and Florida
California extinguishes an actual-intent claim unless it is brought within four years after the transfer or, if later, within one year after the transfer was or reasonably could have been discovered by the claimant. Claims that do not depend on intent must be brought within four years after the transfer. No claim survives more than seven years after the transfer. Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.09. Florida uses the same four-year and one-year discovery periods. Fla. Stat. § 726.110.
If a receiver or trustee sends you a demand letter, do not ignore it, and do not agree to a settlement until someone has checked the math. Your own records, the netting calculation and these deadlines all bear on what, if anything, you owe.
Claims against banks, auditors and other third parties
A Ponzi scheme needs bank accounts, financial statements and professional help to keep going. When a third party knew what was happening and helped anyway, investors may have claims against that party. Unlike the operator, it may have the resources to pay a judgment.
California sets a demanding standard for aiding and abetting. The plaintiff must prove the defendant had actual knowledge of the specific primary wrong and gave substantial assistance to it. Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2005). General awareness that a customer was engaged in some wrongdoing is not enough. The Casey court also recognized, however, that even ordinary banking transactions can amount to substantial assistance when the bank actually knew those transactions were helping its customer commit a specific tort.
Depending on the facts, other theories may reach auditors, broker-dealers, lawyers and other professionals. The key documents are often in the receiver's or trustee's hands, so working with the receivership can matter as much as the choice of legal theory.
If the investor is a California resident 65 or older and a broker or adviser steered the money into the scheme, California's elder financial abuse statute may also come into play. Our article on elder financial abuse and FINRA arbitration explains that claim.
What to do this week
Gather every record of the investment: subscription agreements, account statements, wire confirmations, tax forms, and emails or texts with the promoters. Then build a ledger of every dollar you put in and every dollar you received, with dates. That one document drives both your claim in the receivership and any clawback exposure. Keep every notice you receive, and calendar every deadline.
Talking with Reiser Law
Reiser Law, P.C. represents investors in Ponzi scheme, investor fraud and securities litigation in California, Florida and federal courts, including claims against third parties. You can review our representative cases and practice areas, contact our Bay Area office or Miami office, or send us a message.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law changes, and its application depends on the facts of each case. Attorney advertising.