Prime Capital Ventures: Receiver, Bankruptcy and CEO's 97-Month Sentence (April 2026)

How the deposit worked, in the Justice Department's words

The company's pitch was a loan that needed a deposit first. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York described the mechanism when it announced the arrest on May 31, 2024: Prime Capital “obtained upfront interest payments from prospective borrowers while it sought to secure loans for those borrowers,” called an “Interest Credit Account Payment,” and “An ICA payment would also be refundable if Prime Capital failed to secure a loan for the borrower client.” The release on the superseding indictment of June 13, 2025 adds that an ICA payment “could be in the millions of dollars” and that Prime Capital “obtained ICA payments as large as $20 million.”

What the plea says happened next is the part a borrower should read twice. The owner admitted that clients were deceived “into sending Prime Capital tens of millions of dollars in payments based on false promises that the payments would allow Prime Capital to obtain these large loans and that the payments would be refunded if those loans did not materialize.” The release also says he “then used that money to repay or fund prior clients and on extravagant purchases for himself.” The conspiracy period admitted in the plea runs from mid-2022 to January 2024.

What the deposits were, relative to the loans promised

The court record gives us four deposits next to the loan each was supposed to secure. We do not name the borrowers. All of these are allegations in court filings unless the plea says otherwise.

The deposit was not a small fee on a big loan. In the two largest cases it was roughly a fifth of the loan, which is why a few borrowers account for most of the loss. A deposit of that size, wired before any term sheet is funded, is the feature to remember when you read the checklist further down.

Timeline from the court record

The dates below come from five Justice Department releases and the court orders listed at the end. Dates are the dates the documents give.

Three bankruptcy cases, and why the second one failed

Searches mix up the three cases, and a borrower who filed a claim in the wrong one may not have filed at all. The court itself lists them in a footnote of its March 28, 2025 decision.

On the second case the court wrote that “It is clear to the Court that this case should not have been commenced and cannot continue.” The reason was corporate law, not the fraud: under Delaware law and the company's operating agreement, the sole member stopped being a member when he filed his own bankruptcy, so the receiver and the trustee could not file for the company. The decision was appealed (1:24-cv-00939); we saw the order of August 15, 2024 denying a stay and not an appeal decision. The third case was filed by the personal representative of the sole member.

The receivership: what the federal court found in March 2024

The receivership came from a borrower's lawsuit, not from a regulator. The company fought it, appealed, and lost the stay motion on March 19, 2024. That order is the most detailed public description of where the money went, as of that date. Everything in the next table is the receiver's contention or an allegation unless stated.

The Albany Times Union, reading a later receiver report filed April 18, 2024, reported that $99 million and $83 million of customer cash had first been deposited in three banks (about $182 million, our arithmetic), that about $57 million of it was returned to customers, and that about $125 million was not returned. We could not read that report itself, so treat those numbers as press reporting of a court filing. They do not match the $63,364,750 figure because they count all customer cash passing through, including deposits that were later returned.

Where the money stands today

Read the table as separate pots. A forfeiture judgment is what the court says the owner must give up; restitution is what he must repay victims; the estate's cash is what the bankruptcy can pay creditors. Only the last two can end in money to a borrower, and we found no order on either. The first plan's own liquidation analysis put cash at $1,980,622 and a wind-down budget at $1,000,000 (the court's decision of March 28, 2025), which shows how small the estate was compared with the claims, though that analysis predates the plan administrator's 2026 lawsuits.

The court also noted a request by the debtor to find that the company was an “advance fee/Ponzi scheme” and declined to put it in the confirmation order: it was “not convinced that a Ponzi scheme determination should be included in confirmation at this time.” That is not a finding either way; the plea release describes using money from newer clients to repay prior ones, and we use that description, not a label.

The criminal case, step by step

The two co-conspirators, whom we do not name, each pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy. The Justice Department's sentencing release of April 3, 2026 lists their sentencing dates as April 16, 2026 and May 28, 2026; we found no release reporting the sentences, so we do not state them.

What a reader can do with this

• If you paid a deposit and have not filed: look up case 24-11029 on PACER (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.), read the latest plan and any claims notice, and ask a bankruptcy lawyer whether a late claim is possible. We could not see a claims deadline in the documents available to us.
• Register as a victim: ask the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York how to submit a loss for restitution. Keep the wire confirmations, the credit agreement and any emails promising a refund.
• If you received money from the company: in a liquidating Chapter 11 the estate can sue people who were paid by the debtor, so check the 24-11029 docket for suits in your name and ask a lawyer now, not after a default.
• Before you wire a deposit to any commercial lender: ask who holds the money, in what account, and whether the lender will agree in writing to hold it with an independent title or escrow company. The Minnesota company's $5 million went to an account the Justice Department says the owner controlled, even though a deposit agreement called for it to be held as a “trust fund.”
• Check the lender first: our page on how to check a DSCR lender shows which licenses and records exist for 20 names, and our private money lender page shows how to check the person and the money. A lender that asks for a seven-figure deposit before it shows a signed term sheet and a funded loan program is asking you to be the funding source.
• Compare lenders that fund at closing: see hard money lenders in 2026 for how licensed lenders compare. For a different lender collapse, with Form D and Chapter 11 numbers, see what happened to Pacific Private Money Group.

If you still need financing for a deal, you can compare lenders that fund loans at closing.

FAQ

This is analysis of public documents, not investment, legal or tax advice.

Sources, read on November 13, 2026: U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of New York, press releases of May 31, 2024 (arrest), September 19, 2024 (indictment), June 13, 2025 (superseding indictment), November 13, 2025 (guilty plea) and April 3, 2026 (sentence); Memorandum-Decision and Order, No. 1:24-cv-00055 (N.D.N.Y., Doc 160, March 19, 2024) and Doc 56 (January 24, 2024); Memorandum-Decision and Order, No. 1:24-cv-00939 (N.D.N.Y., Doc 21, August 15, 2024); Memorandum Decision and Order, In re Prime Capital Ventures, LLC, No. 24-10531 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y., Doc 85, July 23, 2024); Memorandum Decisions and Orders, No. 24-11029 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y., Doc 122, January 10, 2025, and Doc 178, March 28, 2025); Albany Times Union reports of April 23, 2024 and August 22, 2024 on the receiver's fourth report and the filed claims. We name only the defendant charged by the Justice Department; borrowers, plaintiffs and co-conspirators are not named. Allegations are those of the parties and prosecutors until a court rules. Compiled by CrowdfundedWealth.