Vincent J. Camarda, a Long Island investment adviser who ran A.G. Morgan Financial Advisors, LLC, pleaded guilty in Central Islip federal court to securities fraud and investment adviser fraud after raising at least $138 million from more than 430 investors through what regulators describe as an offering fraud. The scheme, which began around June 2020, funneled client money into instruments tied to Par Funding, a company that itself pleaded guilty to defrauding investors. Camarda now faces restitution of at least $160,022,836.81 and forfeiture of $6,639,498.17, underscoring the scale of the losses attributed to the misconduct.
How A.G. Morgan’s registration masked the Par Funding pipeline
A.G. Morgan Financial Advisors operated as a registered investment adviser, a status that carries fiduciary duties and requires periodic disclosure through Form ADV filings. The firm and its principals, Camarda and James E. McArthur, used that registered status to raise at least $138 million from at least 431 investors in what the SEC calls an offering fraud. The concentration of client assets in Par Funding promissory notes created a conflict that standard disclosure filings did not adequately flag for investors, leaving many unaware of the true risks and dependencies embedded in their portfolios.
The SEC had already brought an earlier enforcement action against the same defendants for unlawfully offering and selling securities connected to Par Funding, formally known as Complete Business Solutions Group Inc. That prior case established the agency’s view that A.G. Morgan’s sales activity violated registration and disclosure rules by steering advisory clients into high-risk, illiquid instruments without sufficient transparency. The newer criminal charges escalate the matter from civil violations to a scheme that spanned years and affected hundreds of people who believed they were working with a conventional, fiduciary-bound advisory firm.
Par Funding’s own guilty plea to defrauding investors removes any doubt about the quality of the instruments A.G. Morgan was selling. When the entity at the other end of the transaction admits to fraud, the advisory firm that channeled client capital into those instruments faces a straightforward question: did it know, and did it tell clients? The criminal plea from Camarda answers the first part by acknowledging fraudulent conduct tied to those investments. The gap in Form ADV disclosures, as highlighted by regulators, speaks to the second, suggesting that clients were not given a fair picture of the risks or the conflicts of interest involved.
Criminal plea and restitution figures from the Eastern District
Camarda’s guilty plea in the Eastern District of New York carries concrete financial consequences. The Department of Justice listed restitution at $160,022,836.81 and forfeiture at $6,639,498.17, amounts that reflect both the principal raised and additional losses borne by investors. The restitution figure exceeds the $138 million the SEC cited, which suggests that fees, interest, or unrecovered gains pushed the total harm beyond the initial capital contributions.
The criminal case and the SEC’s civil action run in parallel but target different outcomes. The SEC complaint, filed as Litigation Release No. 26520, seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties aimed at deterring future violations. The criminal case aims for incarceration, mandatory restitution to victims, and forfeiture of assets traceable to the fraud. Both proceedings name Camarda and McArthur, though the criminal guilty plea so far applies to Camarda alone, leaving McArthur’s ultimate exposure to be resolved through the civil process or any subsequent criminal developments.
Camarda’s registration records in the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database tie him directly to A.G. Morgan under CRD number 2463703, while the firm itself carries its own identifier in the same system. Those registrations, maintained through the SEC’s electronic filing infrastructure and tools such as the EDGAR filer management portal, gave A.G. Morgan an appearance of regulatory legitimacy even as it concentrated client funds in a single, undisclosed pipeline to Par Funding. For investors and compliance professionals, the case illustrates how formal registration and routine filings can be misused to cloak high-risk, conflicted strategies, and why careful scrutiny of disclosures is essential even when an adviser appears fully registered and in good standing.
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
