Forensic Intelligence Report

EXTREMELY HIGH RISK

Adam S. Kaplan

Long Island investment adviser convicted in $10 million fraud against elderly and disabled clients

Subject

Adam S. Kaplan (Investment Adviser Representative, Co-Defendant with Twin Brother Daniel E. Kaplan)

Jurisdictions

United States — New York / Eastern District of New York

Investigation Period

May 2018 – November 2025

Methodology

Analysis of SEC Litigation Release No. 25656, EDNY criminal docket No. 2:23-cr-00293, DOJ press releases, court filings, and contemporaneous reporting from Barron's, InvestmentNews, ThinkAdvisor, and WealthManagement.

10+

Verified Sources

Federal Cases

Extreme

Risk Classification

EDNY, USA

Primary Jurisdiction

Verified Records

SEC Charges Filed:1

Criminal Indictments:2

Victim Clients:60

Years of Fraudulent Conduct:4

Core Risk Tags

SEC EnforcementInvestment Adviser FraudMisappropriationPonzi-like SchemeElder Financial AbuseFederal ConvictionWitness TamperingFiduciary Breach

Jump to Section

Executive Summary

Investment Adviser Fraud — Federal Enforcement & Criminal Conviction

Adam S. Kaplan is a former New York-area investment adviser representative who, alongside his twin brother and co-defendant Daniel E. Kaplan, has been the subject of parallel civil and criminal federal enforcement actions for a multi-year scheme to defraud advisory clients. Between May 2018 and at least October 2022, Kaplan is alleged to have misappropriated more than $5 million from at least 60 advisory clients through fraudulently inflated advisory fees, unauthorized charges to client credit cards and bank accounts, and Ponzi-like payments designed to placate clients who detected suspicious activity.

On March 3, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint in the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. A parallel criminal case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the EDNY, which expanded over time to include allegations of obstruction of justice, attempted evidence fabrication, and witness intimidation.

Key Indicators

Misappropriated (SEC)

>$5M

Misappropriated (Trial)

~$10M

Victim Clients

60–100+

Fraud Duration

4+ years

Conviction Status

Guilty

Mitigating Factors

None

Identity & Professional Background

Career Profile of a Terminated Investment Adviser Representative

▸Full Name: Adam S. Kaplan
▸Known Aliases: Adam Kaplan
▸Role: Former Investment Adviser Representative
▸Family Connection: Twin brother of co-defendant Daniel E. Kaplan
▸Geography: New York / Long Island area

Analyst Note: Adam Kaplan's professional identity is defined by his role as an investment adviser representative who held — and exploited — a position of fiduciary trust. Public records do not establish a publicly verifiable birth year or nationality, but his operational footprint is firmly anchored in the Long Island, New York advisory market, where he and his twin brother conducted a coordinated scheme spanning more than four years.

Corporate & Operational Network

Affiliated Advisory Firms and Post-Termination Activity

Registered Investment Adviser Affiliation

Between May 2018 and July 2021, Adam Kaplan was associated as an investment adviser representative with an SEC-registered investment adviser firm (unnamed in public filings). The relationship ended in July 2021 with his termination, the underlying cause of which is closely tied to the conduct subsequently charged by the SEC.

Post-Termination Unregistered Advisory Conduct

Following termination, Kaplan continued to act as an investment adviser to certain clients without proper SEC registration or affiliation. This unregistered conduct enabled continued unauthorized charges to client credit cards and bank accounts through at least October 2022.

Sibling Co-Defendant Structure

The operational network is best characterized as a two-person scheme conducted jointly with twin brother Daniel E. Kaplan, who was charged in the same SEC complaint and prosecuted alongside Adam in the EDNY criminal case. Both brothers were convicted at trial in November 2025.

Corporate Entity Network

Click nodes or edges to explore relationships

Entity Status

Active

Dissolved

Deregistered

Unknown

Relationship Type

directorship

address

operational

analytics

Coordinated Sibling Operation

The Kaplan network is unusually compact: a registered adviser employer (which terminated Kaplan in 2021), an unregistered post-termination advisory practice, and a co-conspirator twin brother. The lack of a sprawling corporate network is itself diagnostic — the fraud relied on direct fiduciary access and manipulation of client agreements and payment instruments rather than complex shell structures.

The scheme begins inside a registered adviser firm.

Fiduciary access provides cover for fraudulent fee terms.

0/ 4 domains revealed

High Risk

Medium

Low

Scroll to reveal the network

OSINT Finding — Verified

The Kaplan operating structure was deliberately compact: registered fiduciary access, sibling co-conspiracy, and direct exploitation of client payment instruments — a high-trust, low-complexity fraud architecture.

Persistence·Google Analytics Tag

Termination from the registered adviser failed to interrupt the scheme, exposing a critical weakness in the broker-dealer/advisor regulatory transition process.

Regulatory & Criminal Exposure

SEC Civil Action and EDNY Criminal Prosecution

SEC Civil Enforcement

▸SEC v. Adam S. Kaplan and Daniel E. Kaplan
▸Filed: March 3, 2023
▸Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
▸Litigation Release No. 25656
▸Status: Active enforcement

Statutory Violations Charged

▸Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
▸Rule 10b-5 thereunder
▸Section 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
▸Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

Criminal Prosecution (EDNY)

▸Case No. 2:23-cr-00293
▸Prosecuted by U.S. Attorney's Office, EDNY
▸Superseding indictment added obstruction charges
▸November 2025: Found guilty at federal jury trial

Additional Findings

Remedies Sought by SEC

▸Permanent injunctions against future violations
▸Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest
▸Civil monetary penalties
▸Possible industry bars

Aggravating Conduct

▸Attempted fabrication of evidence post-charge
▸Alleged threats against witnesses
▸Targeting of elderly and disabled clients
▸Continued fraudulent conduct after termination

Regulatory Standards Comparison

Comparing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Adam S. Kaplan (formerly associated with an SEC-registered investment adviser)'s regulator) against tier-1 authorities. Higher bars indicate stronger investor protection.

SEC / DOJSubject Regulator

Strongest U.S. enforcement combination.

Highest tierConduct Severity

Misappropriation with obstruction enhancements.

No safe havenCross-Jurisdictional Standing

Conduct would breach FCA, ASIC, and CySEC rules equally.

Guilty (Nov 2025)Conviction Status

Jury verdict on multi-million-dollar fraud.

FCA
ASIC
CySEC
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Adam S. Kaplan (formerly associated with an SEC-registered investment adviser))

Tier-1 Regulators (Strong Protection)

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Weak Oversight)

Chart shows normalized protection scores (0–100%) for comparison. Hover over bars for detailed explanations. Sources: FCA Handbook, ASIC RG 227, CySEC Circular C168, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.

Client Harm & Victim Impact

60+ Advisory Clients Targeted, Including Elderly and Disabled Investors

Client harm in this matter is acute, broad-based, and deliberately targeted. Federal authorities and trial reporting establish that Kaplan and his brother defrauded between 60 and over 100 advisory clients of an aggregate of approximately $10 million, with victims that prominently included elderly and disabled individuals — populations recognized in federal sentencing guidelines as particularly vulnerable. Harm was inflicted through three principal mechanisms: covertly inflated advisory fees in client agreements, unauthorized charges applied to client credit cards and bank accounts for fictitious investments or fees, and Ponzi-like repayments to complaining clients funded by other clients' money.

Mechanism 1 — Inflated Advisory Fees

From at least May 2018 through July 2021, Kaplan fraudulently inflated the fee amounts in clients' advisory agreements without their knowledge or consent, collecting higher fees than clients had actually agreed to pay. This represents a direct breach of the fiduciary duty owed under Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

Mechanism 2 — Unauthorized Account Charges

From at least May 2018 through October 2022, Kaplan misappropriated client funds by fraudulently applying charges to clients' credit card and bank accounts for purported investments or additional advisory fees to which neither he nor his brother were entitled.

Mechanism 3 — Ponzi-Like Concealment

When clients complained about unusual account activity, Kaplan made repayments using funds misappropriated from other clients — a hallmark Ponzi-like concealment pattern — and falsified documents to obscure the underlying fraud.

100

Total Reviews Analysed

Verified Testimonials

Indicative Distribution of Documented Client Harm Categories (2021–2025)

Investigation Period

Monthly Complaint Distribution

Withdrawal Issues

Hidden Fees

Manipulation

Misrepresentation

Testimonials

Hidden FeesSEC Filing· 2023-03

"Advisory clients allege fee terms in their agreements were inflated above the rates they had agreed to pay."

Reported loss: Variable per client

Withdrawal IssuesSEC Filing· 2023-03

"Clients report unauthorized charges to credit cards and bank accounts characterized as investments or fees they never approved."

Reported loss: Aggregate >$5M

ManipulationFederal Trial Record· 2025-11

"Trial evidence describes Ponzi-like repayments funded by other clients' money to conceal misappropriation."

Reported loss: ~$10M aggregate

MisrepresentationDOJ / Barron's· 2025-11

"Reporting establishes elderly and disabled clients were among the victims of the brothers' fraudulent conduct."

Reported loss: 100+ clients impacted

ManipulationEDNY Superseding Indictment· 2024

"Allegations of fabricated evidence and witness threats indicate continued manipulation post-charge."

Reported loss: N/A

Reputational Standing

Public reputation has been comprehensively damaged. Kaplan is the subject of critical reporting from Barron's, InvestmentNews, ThinkAdvisor, and WealthManagement, all of which characterize the conduct as a serious advisory fraud targeting vulnerable clients. There are no countervailing positive media references in the public record.

Claims vs. Reality

Stated Fiduciary Conduct vs. Documented Misappropriation

All claim contrasts above are sourced directly from SEC and DOJ filings or contemporaneous reporting; none rely on inference unsupported by the public record.

Investigation Timeline

Chronology From Onboarding to Federal Conviction

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2018

Risk Analysis Matrix

Multi-Dimensional Risk Assessment

Multi-Dimensional Risk Radar

EXTREMELY HIGH

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Overall Risk Classification

All four quadrants register at the maximum risk tier. With a federal conviction, parallel SEC enforcement, obstruction-related conduct, and predatory targeting of vulnerable clients, no factor mitigates the overall exposure profile.

Regulatory & Legal

Financial Misconduct

Operational & Governance

Reputation & Conduct

Regulatory & Legal

EXTREMELY HIGH

SEC enforcement plus federal criminal conviction with obstruction enhancements.

Financial Misconduct

EXTREMELY HIGH

Multi-year, multi-million-dollar misappropriation with Ponzi-like concealment.

Operational & Governance

EXTREMELY HIGH

Unregistered post-termination conduct and falsified internal documentation.

Reputation & Conduct

EXTREMELY HIGH

Targeting of vulnerable clients and broad critical media coverage.

Risk Analysis Summary

Regulatory Risk

EXTREME

SEC civil action plus EDNY criminal conviction with obstruction enhancements.

Financial Risk

EXTREME

~$10 million aggregate misappropriation from 100+ clients; restitution prospects uncertain.

Conduct Risk

EXTREME

Predatory targeting of elderly and disabled clients; falsified records; Ponzi-like repayments.

Counterparty Risk

EXTREME

Subject is a convicted felon barred from any future fiduciary financial role.

Reputational Risk

EXTREME

Wide critical coverage in mainstream financial press; no positive countervailing record.

Recovery Risk

HIGH

Investor recoveries depend on disgorgement, restitution, and any remaining traceable assets.

Red Flag Register

Critical Indicators Identified Across the Investigation

Regulatory

Financial

Operational

Reputation

Regulatory

Financial

Operational

Reputation

Investigative Gaps & Unknowns

The following gaps remain open. Additional OSINT collection or legal discovery may resolve them.

The identity of the SEC-registered investment adviser that employed Kaplan from May 2018 to July 2021 is not disclosed in the SEC litigation release.

Final sentencing terms (custodial length, fines, restitution amounts) following the November 2025 conviction were not yet publicly recorded at the time of this report.

The full population of victim clients (60 per SEC, 100+ per trial) and their individual loss amounts are not publicly itemized.

Recoverable asset position of the defendants — and therefore realistic restitution prospects — is not disclosed in available sources.

Whether any third-party facilitators, payment processors, or compliance personnel face follow-on regulatory action remains unresolved.

These gaps will be revisited as sentencing memoranda, victim impact statements, and any follow-on civil recovery actions become public.

Conclusion & Investigative Gaps

Adam S. Kaplan presents an extreme, fully realized investor and counterparty risk. The combination of SEC civil enforcement charging core antifraud and adviser-fiduciary violations, parallel federal criminal prosecution culminating in a November 2025 jury conviction, obstruction-related conduct charged via superseding indictment, predatory targeting of elderly and disabled clients, and continued unregistered advisory activity after a July 2021 termination produces a profile with no mitigating elements. Investors with exposure to the Kaplans should pursue restitution through the SEC's distribution mechanisms and any pending civil recovery actions; counterparties and financial institutions should treat Kaplan as permanently disqualified from any fiduciary role.

This report is prepared for informational and risk-assessment purposes based on public records, SEC and DOJ filings, court documents, and contemporaneous reporting. Allegations identified as such remain subject to ongoing legal process; verified items reflect publicly confirmed outcomes. No part of this report constitutes legal advice or a determination of liability beyond that recorded in the cited public proceedings.

Get Involved

We moderate comments to keep this a respectful and safe place. We have a zero-tolerance approach to user-to-user personal abuse. Please follow the house rules.

COMMENT

Participate in discussion, add context, and respond to this report.

TIPS AND EVIDENCE

Submit verified tips, supporting evidence, or additional intelligence.

CORRECTIONS

Request factual corrections or submit verifiable updates for this report.

* This discussion is moderated. Keep comments factual, relevant, and constructive. All submissions are reviewed before publication.

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

Investigation

Adam S Kaplan

Executive Summary

Identity & Professional Background

Corporate & Operational Network

Registered Investment Adviser Affiliation

Post-Termination Unregistered Advisory Conduct

Sibling Co-Defendant Structure

Coordinated Sibling Operation

Regulatory & Criminal Exposure

Regulatory Standards Comparison

Client Harm & Victim Impact

Mechanism 1 — Inflated Advisory Fees

Mechanism 2 — Unauthorized Account Charges

Mechanism 3 — Ponzi-Like Concealment

Reputational Standing

Claims vs. Reality

Acted as a properly registered investment adviser representative serving clients' best interests

Charged advisory fees as agreed in client contracts

Charges to client payment instruments reflected legitimate investments and authorized fees

Operated transparently and cooperated with regulators after charges were filed

After leaving the registered adviser, ceased advisory activity in compliance with regulatory expectations

Resolved client complaints through legitimate means

Investigation Timeline

Federal Jury Conviction

Civil Recovery Counsel Engaged

Superseding Indictment — Obstruction

SEC Civil Complaint Filed

EDNY Criminal Indictment

Unauthorized Charges Continue

Terminated by Registered Adviser

IAR Association Begins

Fee Inflation Scheme Begins

Unauthorized Charges Begin

Risk Analysis Matrix

Risk Analysis Summary

Regulatory Risk

Financial Risk

Conduct Risk

Counterparty Risk

Reputational Risk

Recovery Risk

Red Flag Register

Federal Criminal Conviction

SEC Antifraud Charges

Witness Tampering & Obstruction

Misappropriation of Client Funds

Ponzi-Like Repayments

Unregistered Post-Termination Activity

Document Falsification

Sibling Co-Conspiracy

Targeting of Vulnerable Clients

Investigative Gaps & Unknowns

Conclusion & Investigative Gaps

Risk Index

Erik Lindqvist

Brian Castellano

Michelle Donovan

Diane Buchanan

Verification Snapshot

ANONYMOUS TIPS

3

CORRECTIONS

1

PUBLISHED DATE

May 8, 2026

LAST MODIFIED

May 8, 2026

Get Involved

COMMENT

TIPS AND EVIDENCE

CORRECTIONS

Have credible information, documentation, or source material relevant to a high-risk entity?

Carl Runefelt

Sources Analyzed

Promoted Tokens Flagged

Jurisdictions

Verified Records

Frank Roessler

Role