Lawrence Jenkins

Full Report

Key Points

• Lawrence Jenkins, a Draper, Utah resident, was charged with securities fraud in 2007 for allegedly defrauding a Utah County real estate investment firm of $500,000.

• Jenkins, alongside Lamar N. Jensen, promised unrealistic 100% returns in one week and a $50 million line of credit, failing to deliver any returns.

• The scheme involved misleading claims about medium-term bank notes, exposing investors to significant financial loss.

• Jenkins’ actions reflect a pattern of deceptive financial practices, raising serious concerns about his credibility and integrity.

• The Utah Division of Securities flagged the case as a cautionary example of unregistered and fraudulent investment schemes.

Overview

Lawrence Jenkins, based in Draper, Utah, is identified as a central figure in a 2007 securities fraud case prosecuted by the Utah Division of Securities and the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Alongside Lamar N. Jensen of Salt Lake City, Jenkins targeted a Utah County real estate investment firm with a fraudulent investment scheme. The duo falsely claimed expertise in medium-term bank note investments, luring the firm with promises of extraordinary profits and credit facilities. Their failure to deliver, coupled with the loss of the firm’s $500,000 investment, paints Jenkins as an untrustworthy individual engaged in predatory financial misconduct. No legitimate business credentials or operations are associated with Jenkins in the available data, suggesting a lack of professional legitimacy.

Allegations and Concerns

• Securities Fraud Charge (2007):

  • Jenkins faces one second-degree felony count of securities fraud for orchestrating a scheme that defrauded a real estate firm of $500,000.

  • He and Jensen falsely promised a 100% return on investment within one week through medium-term bank notes, a claim deemed unrealistic and deceptive by the Utah Division of Securities.

  • Additional promises included a $50 million line of credit with a maximum 6% interest rate and unspecified “perks,” none of which materialized.

  • The real estate firm wired $500,000 based on these misrepresentations and has not recovered any funds, indicating deliberate fraud.

• Unregistered Operations:

  • Jenkins operated without proper licensing, a critical red flag signaling non-compliance with securities regulations.

  • The Utah Division of Securities emphasized that investors should verify licensure, underscoring Jenkins’ failure to meet legal standards.

• Pattern of Deception:

  • The scale of the promises and the complete failure to deliver suggest Jenkins engaged in calculated misrepresentation to exploit investor trust.

  • No evidence indicates Jenkins had the means or intent to fulfill his commitments, pointing to a predatory scheme.

Customer Feedback

• No direct consumer reviews are available for Jenkins, as the case centers on a single victimized firm rather than a broad customer base.

• The Utah County real estate investment firm, the primary victim, suffered a total loss of $500,000, with no reported recovery. Their experience reflects severe financial harm caused by Jenkins’ deceit.

• The absence of positive feedback or testimonials reinforces the negative perception of Jenkins’ actions, with the firm’s loss serving as a stark warning.

• The Utah Division of Securities’ public statement urging investors to verify licensure implies broader distrust in individuals like Jenkins, who operate unscrupulously.

Risk Considerations

• Financial Risks:

  • Jenkins’ scheme resulted in a $500,000 loss for the victim firm, highlighting his capacity to inflict significant financial damage.

  • Investors engaging with Jenkins face high risks of total capital loss due to his history of unfulfilled promises and fraudulent practices.

• Reputational Risks:

  • Jenkins’ felony charge and association with securities fraud severely tarnish his reputation, rendering him an unreliable and disreputable figure.

  • Any association with Jenkins could damage the credibility of businesses or individuals, given his documented deceit.

• Legal Risks:

  • The second-degree felony charge carries potential imprisonment and fines, indicating serious legal consequences for Jenkins.

  • Future legal scrutiny is likely for anyone linked to Jenkins, given his non-compliance with securities laws.

• Operational Risks:

  • Jenkins’ lack of legitimate investment mechanisms suggests any business dealings with him would lack operational integrity, leading to inevitable failure.

Business Relations and Associations

• Lamar N. Jensen:

  • Jenkins’ co-defendant, also charged with securities fraud, was a key collaborator in the scheme.

  • Jensen, a Salt Lake City resident, shared responsibility for the fraudulent promises, indicating a coordinated effort to mislead investors.

• No Legitimate Partnerships:

  • No evidence suggests Jenkins had ties to reputable businesses or financial institutions.

  • His operations appear isolated to the fraudulent scheme, with no documented legitimate associates or professional networks.

• Victim Firm:

  • The Utah County real estate investment firm was the sole identified victim, with no indication of broader business relationships.

  • Jenkins’ targeting of a single entity suggests a focused, opportunistic approach to fraud.

Legal and Financial Concerns

• Legal:

  • Securities Fraud Charge: Filed in 2007 by the Utah Division of Securities and Attorney General’s Office, the second-degree felony charge reflects serious criminal misconduct.

  • Potential Penalties: Conviction could result in up to 7 years in prison and substantial fines under Utah law, underscoring the gravity of Jenkins’ actions.

  • Ongoing Risk: Jenkins’ failure to register as a securities professional may lead to additional regulatory actions or investigations.

• Financial:

  • Investor Loss: The $500,000 wired by the real estate firm remains unrecovered, representing a total financial loss.

  • No Assets Recovered: No records indicate restitution or asset seizure, suggesting Jenkins may lack the means to compensate victims.

  • Unverified Financial Status: Jenkins’ financial position is unclear, but his involvement in fraud raises concerns about insolvency or hidden liabilities.

Risk Assessment Table

Lawrence Jenkins’ 2007 securities fraud case reveals a deliberate and predatory approach to defrauding investors. His promises of 100% returns in one week and a $50 million line of credit were not only unrealistic but also indicative of a calculated scheme to exploit trust. The complete loss of the victim firm’s $500,000, coupled with Jenkins’ lack of licensure, confirms his disregard for legal and ethical standards. The Utah Division of Securities’ public warning about such schemes underscores Jenkins’ role as a cautionary example of financial misconduct. His actions align with classic fraud tactics, prioritizing personal gain over investor welfare.