Ponzi scheme exposes $69M investor losses, court upholds prison term

Kenneth D. Courtright’s $69 million Ponzi scheme, built on false promises to investors, has landed him a 90-month prison sentence – court affirmed. 

Courtright’s pitch was simple: invest upfront and receive guaranteed, perpetual monthly payments, supposedly backed by advertising revenue from a stable of websites. Investors signed Consulting Performance Agreements, which promised either half the ad revenue from their assigned sites or a minimum monthly payout equal to 15% of their initial investment. The company, Today’s Growth Consultant (TGC), claimed it was financially sound and able to meet its obligations. 

But the numbers never added up. Between 2015 and 2019, TGC’s websites and business loans brought in just $27.8 million, while the company owed $49.3 million in mandatory payments. The real engine behind those “guaranteed” returns? New investors’ money. TGC collected $132.6 million in upfront fees, which it used to pay existing investors – classic Ponzi territory. 

The unraveling came quickly. TGC’s own controller, accountant, and an FBI forensic accountant testified that the company couldn’t survive without a steady stream of new investors. Even a bank loan officer said Courtright admitted to using new money to plug revenue gaps. When things got tight, Courtright scrambled for high-interest loans and even dipped into company funds for personal expenses, including his own mortgage. 

By 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission had stepped in, and a receiver was appointed to try to recover what was left for investors. Federal prosecutors charged Courtright with wire fraud, and a jury found him guilty on all counts. The district court calculated investor losses at $69.3 million, rejecting Courtright’s arguments for further deductions. 

On October 17, 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that Courtright had misled investors about how their money would be used and the true state of the company’s finances. The court also agreed with the lower court’s approach to calculating losses, noting that Courtright failed to show that any of the upfront fees were spent as promised.