UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 80402 / April 7, 2017

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-17907

In the Matter of

ANTHONY C. ZUFELT, 

Respondent.

ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICE OF HEARING 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the 

public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to 

Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Anthony C. Zufelt 

(“Respondent”). 

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

A. RESPONDENT

1. From June 2005 through September 2007, Anthony C. Zufelt, then a resident the 

State of Utah, was the sole owner of Zufelt Business Services, Inc. (d/b/a Zufelt, Inc.) (“Zufelt, 

Inc.”) and Silver Leaf Investment, Inc. (“Silver Leaf”). During the time in which he engaged in the 

conduct underlying the Complaint, as described below, Respondent acted as an unregistered broker

or dealer in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. 

B. ENTRY OF THE INJUNCTION

2. On January 4, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted 

partial summary judgment against Respondent in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange 

Commission v. Anthony C. Zufelt, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00574. In doing so, the Court found 

that Respondent acted as an unregistered broker-dealer in violation of Section 15(a) of the 
2

Exchange Act, and sold unregistered securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). On February 22, 2016, the Court entered a default 

judgment against Respondent on the remaining claims alleged against him, including securities 

fraud and aiding and abetting claims. On October 7, 2016, the Court entered Final Judgment 

against the Respondent and permanently enjoined the Respondent from future violations of Section 

10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 17(a), 5(a) and 5(c) of the 

Securities Act. In addition to enjoining Respondent from future violations of the foregoing 

securities law provisions, the Final Judgment also enjoined Respondent from participating directly 

or indirectly in the issuance, offer, or sale of certain securities. 

3. The Commission’s Complaint alleged that, from June 2005 through December 

2007, Respondent orchestrated and carried out two fraudulent Ponzi schemes through an array of 

corporate defendants he owned and controlled, including Zufelt, Inc. and Silver Leaf. As part of 

his schemes, Respondent made numerous false and misleading statements and omissions to 

investors, including the promise of extraordinary investment returns, the profitability of his 

business, and the use of investor funds. As a result of and through Respondent’s conduct, 

Respondent sold securities in Zufelt Inc. and Silver Leaf, soliciting approximately 46 investors into 

one or both of the companies, and defrauding them of approximately $2.4 million of their invested 

funds. Respondent acted as an unregistered broker or dealer when he solicited investors to 

purchase securities of Zufelt Inc. and Silver Leaf.

4. By virtue of the conduct alleged in the Complaint and on a motion for summary 

judgment, the Court found that Respondent violated Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act by 

acting as an unregistered broker-dealer. The Court also found that Respondent violated Section 

5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling to investors unregistered securities that did 

not qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements. The Court also entered a default 

against Respondent on the Commission’s claims that he committed fraud in violation of Section 

10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.

III.

In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 

necessary and appropriate in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted 

to determine:

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II hereof are true and, in connection 

therewith, to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; 

B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against 

Respondents pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act; 
3

IV.

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 

set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 

Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 

Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations 

contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 

of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220. 

If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly 

notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 

him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 

provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310.

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent as provided for in the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(a)(2), the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision 

no later than 75 days from the occurrence of one of the following events: (A) The completion of 

post-hearing briefing in a proceeding where the hearing has been completed; (B) Where the 

hearing officer has determined that no hearing is necessary, upon completion of briefing on a 

motion pursuant to Rule 250 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.250; or (C) 

The determination by the hearing officer that a party is deemed to be in default under Rule 155 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.155 and no hearing is necessary.

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 

in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 

proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 

or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 

the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 

provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary