SEC Sues DEBT Box Over Alleged $200M Ponzi Scheme

Published October 29, 2026, 9:50 PM PKT. Based on Bloomberg Law reporting published October 29, 2026 on a complaint filed October 28, 2026 (primary source for the new complaint), and CoinTelegraph, BeInCrypto, Law360 and Justia court records for the history of the original 2023 case (secondary sources below). Bloomberg Law's full report is paywalled, so this article reports only the facts its accessible text establishes about the new complaint, and says plainly where that reporting stops.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has sued the operators of the cryptocurrency investment platform DEBT Box, alleging they raised more than $200 million from over 100,000 investors by falsely claiming that commodity royalties backed their digital tokens and by using investor funds in a Ponzi-like scheme to simulate revenue, Bloomberg Law reported on October 29, 2026. The complaint, filed on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, names joint venture partners Blox Lending LLC and Digital Licensing Inc. and three of their principals, and alleges they violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in connection with the sale of unregistered securities, according to Bloomberg Law.

The $200 million allegation: commodity royalties and simulated revenue

The two pillars of the new allegation are the backing claim and the revenue claim. First, the SEC alleges the tokens were sold on a false promise that commodity royalties stood behind them, giving investors a reason to believe their money was tied to real, income producing assets. Second, the agency alleges investor funds were recycled in a Ponzi-like fashion to simulate revenue, making the operation look profitable when, on the SEC's account, the returns were not coming from the claimed business at all. Those are the facts Bloomberg Law's accessible report establishes. It does not name the court where the complaint was filed, the three principals, the period the alleged scheme covered, or the relief the SEC is seeking, and no SEC press release or full filing text was publicly accessible at the time of publication. MABOnChain will update this story when the filing itself becomes public.

The scale alone sets this complaint apart from the original case. The 2023 action alleged about $50 million raised from hundreds of investors. The new complaint alleges more than $200 million from over 100,000 investors, roughly four times the money and a far larger victim count. Whether that reflects a longer alleged period, a wider investor base, or both is not something the accessible reporting says, and this article does not guess. What is certain is that the SEC has chosen to go back to court against the same enterprise it failed to shut down three years ago, and with a much bigger number attached.

The 2023 case: $50 million, a frozen TRO, and sanctions against the SEC

The original case began on July 26, 2023, when the SEC filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Utah against Digital Licensing Inc., doing business as DEBT Box, its four principals, Jason Anderson, his brother Jacob Anderson, Schad Brannon and Roydon Nelson, and 13 relief defendants, including Blox Lending. The agency alleged the firm sold unregistered securities in the form of "node licenses" from March 2021, promising investors daily rewards from crypto mining and from revenue generating businesses, while in fact creating the tokens' total supply instantly with blockchain code. The SEC obtained a temporary restraining order, an asset freeze and a receiver on an emergency, one sided application.

That emergency order then collapsed. Defendants showed the court that bank accounts the SEC said they had closed to move money overseas had in fact been closed by the banks, not by the defendants, and that the agency's account of asset flight did not hold up. Judge Robert Shelby found the SEC had engaged in bad faith conduct, sanctioned the agency, and in May 2024 ordered it to pay about $1.8 million in attorney and receiver fees, according to Law360. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the SEC could refile, but on a condition set by Judge Shelby: any refiled action against some or all of the defendants had to be filed in the District of Utah before him. The SEC's own lawyers on the case resigned after the sanctions order, and the agency later closed its Salt Lake Regional Office, citing significant attrition, according to reporting on the closure.

What a second case changes

A refiled case matters for three reasons that go beyond the headline number. One, it tests whether the SEC can prosecute the same enterprise cleanly after a court found its first attempt was built on misleading evidence, and every filing choice in the new complaint will be read against that history. Two, the 2024 dismissal order's venue condition means the natural forum for a refile is Judge Shelby's courtroom in Utah, so confirmation of the filing court will immediately show whether the agency followed its own judge's instruction. Three, the victim count of over 100,000 turns this from a niche enforcement story into one of the largest alleged crypto frauds by investor count in the SEC's docket, which raises the stakes for restitution if the agency wins and for the defendants' response if the new allegations also fail to hold up.

For investors, the practical lesson is unchanged from 2023 and worth restating. Tokens pitched as backed by commodity royalties, mining output, or any other real world revenue stream deserve the same question every time: where is the audited proof that the revenue exists and flows to token holders. DEBT Box's original pitch, software mining licenses generating tokens plus business revenues pushing token values up, sounded concrete and turned out, on the SEC's 2023 account, to be a facade. The new complaint alleges the same pattern at a far larger scale, and readers should treat any revived DEBT Box promotion with the same skepticism until the filing is public.

What to watch next

Four things will fill in the gaps in this story. First, the filing itself, which will name the court, the three principals, the alleged period, and the relief sought. Second, whether the case lands before Judge Shelby in Utah, as the 2024 dismissal order required for any refile. Third, an SEC press release or statement, which usually accompanies a case of this size and has not yet appeared in accessible sources. Fourth, the defendants' response, which in 2023 was vigorous and ultimately vindicated on the sanctions question. MABOnChain will update this article as each of those pieces becomes public, and will correct it if the full filing contradicts any detail reported here.

This article is news reporting and is not investment advice.

Sources

• Bloomberg Law, SEC Alleges $200 Million Crypto-Based Commodities Ponzi Scheme (October 29, 2026), primary source for the new complaint, the $200 million and 100,000 investor figures, the Blox Lending and Digital Licensing defendants, and the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 allegations
• CoinTelegraph, SEC freezes assets of DEBT Box, alleging $50M node license sham (August 2023), secondary source for the 2023 complaint, the node license allegations, and the four principals
• BeInCrypto, Utah Crypto Scammers Lied to Investors About Virtually Everything, Claims SEC (August 2023), secondary source for the 2023 scheme, the March 2021 start, and the Utah filing
• Law360, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Digital Licensing et al case page, secondary source for the May 2024 order that the SEC pay $1.8 million over the sanctions episode
• Justia, Memorandum Decision and Order, SEC v. Digital Licensing (D. Utah), secondary source for the dismissal without prejudice and the condition that any refile be filed in the District of Utah before Judge Shelby