Financial Fraud Case Study: The Alleged Fraud of Robynne Alexander & Its Impact on Defrauded Investors

TL;DR Summary of Allegations: Between 2018 and 2024, real estate developer Robynne Alexander is alleged by the Securities and Exchange Commission to have orchestrated a sprawling fraud, raising over $4 million from at least 28 investors for various property ventures in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Instead of using the funds as promised for property acquisition and renovation, she is accused of misappropriating the money on a massive scale. The SEC complaint details how she used investor cash to pay for her personal living expenses, fund international travel, make payments to investors in unrelated projects in a Ponzi-like fashion, and secretly transfer assets, ultimately rendering investments worthless and causing at least $3 million in losses.

The following article breaks down the specific methods of the alleged deceit and connects it to the systemic failures that allow such conduct to flourish.

Introduction: A System Primed for Predation

A promise of profit, built on a foundation of trust, is the bedrock of investment. For at least 28 individuals, that trust was placed in Robynne Alexander, a New Hampshire real estate developer and investment coach who presented a vision of revitalized properties and shared prosperity. The reality, was a six-year campaign of systematic fraud that siphoned millions from hopeful investors to fuel personal expenses and prop up a failing enterprise with money from new victims.

This case is more than a story of one person’s alleged misconduct. It is a stark illustration of a system where the complexities of financial vehicles and the weakness of regulatory safeguards create fertile ground for exploitation. The allegations against Alexander, involving a web of limited liability companies (LLCs), misleading legal documents, and Ponzi-like payments, reveal how the modern economic landscape, which champions profit maximization, can enable devastating financial harm with little initial oversight, leaving a trail of broken promises and shattered financial futures.

Inside the Allegations: A Pattern of Corporate Misconduct

The core of the SEC’s complaint against Robynne Alexander is that she engaged in a multi-year scheme to defraud investors across at least eight different real estate projects. She raised more than $4 million by telling investors their money would be used to purchase, renovate, and sell properties for a profit. The SEC alleges these representations were false from the start.

Instead of funding projects, Alexander is accused of treating investor funds as her personal bank account. She allegedly misappropriated a substantial amount of the money to pay fake investment returns to favored investors, repay lenders in unrelated projects, and cover her own living expenses. This conduct, a classic hallmark of a Ponzi scheme, creates an illusion of success by using new investor money to pay off earlier investors, luring more people into the fraudulent enterprise while the underlying business generates no actual profits.

The Raxx-LeMay Collapse: A Blueprint for Deceit

The most detailed allegations center on Raxx-LeMay, LLC, a company Alexander formed in 2018. She raised at least $2 million from 18 investors, many of whom were her students from a real estate investment coaching program, to purchase and develop two commercial buildings in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The investment documents, including a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM), set a clear condition: if a minimum of $2 million was not raised by the time the property sale closed, all investor funds were to be returned with interest.

According to the SEC, this condition was never met. By the closing date of July 27, 2018, Alexander had only raised $700,000. Under the terms of her own agreement, she was obligated to return every dollar. Instead, the complaint alleges she kept the money and proceeded to misuse it in flagrant violation of the investment terms.

The alleged misappropriation was immediate and extensive. Between July and November 2018, Alexander used Raxx-LeMay investor funds as collateral to obtain a $1.3 million line of credit for another one of her companies. She then allegedly used a portion of that credit line to pay back approximately $282,000 to investors from entirely different, unrelated projects. In essence, the new Raxx-LeMay investors were unknowingly funding the debts and obligations of past ventures.

The deceptions allegedly continued to escalate.

By July 2021, Alexander created a new entity, Signature on Elm, LLC. Without the knowledge or required approval of the majority of Raxx-LeMay investors, she transferred the sole asset of Raxx-LeMay—the Manchester properties—to this new company. This maneuver effectively stripped Raxx-LeMay of all its assets, rendering the investments of its 18 members completely worthless. The investors were left holding shares in a company that now owned nothing, a fact Alexander allegedly concealed.

A Timeline of Alleged Wrongdoing

The SEC complaint lays out a clear timeline of how these investment projects allegedly unraveled into fraud and foreclosure under Alexander’s management.

Date	Event	Alleged Misconduct
Feb 2018	Robynne Alexander forms Raxx-LeMay LLC to raise funds for two Manchester properties.	Begins soliciting investments based on documents with specific funding requirements.
Jul 27, 2018	Alexander purchases the Raxx-LeMay properties but has only raised $700,000 of the required $2 million.	Fails to return investor funds as mandated by the Private Placement Memorandum.
Sep-Oct 2018	money money money money	Uses Raxx-LeMay funds to pay back ~$282,000 to investors in other, unrelated projects.
Nov 26, 2019	Alexander receives a $120,000 investment for the “Four on Elm” project in Manchester.	Forms the first of two entities for the same property, creating confusion and enabling fund shuffling.
May-Jun 2021	After receiving a $750,000 investment for the 4 Elm St. property, Alexander allegedly diverts funds.	Uses ~$327,000 to repay earlier investors in the same project and ~$210,000 to pay investors in entirely unrelated projects.
Feb 2022	Alexander transfers the Raxx-LeMay properties to her new entity, Signature on Elm, LLC.	The transfer occurs without the knowledge or required approval of a majority of Raxx-LeMay investors, making their investments worthless.
May 2023	The 4 Elm St. property (Four on Elm / Elm and Baker) goes into foreclosure.	The project fails after funds were allegedly misappropriated, leaving investors with total losses.
Nov 2023	The 9 G St. property (HB9G, LLC) in Hampton goes into foreclosure.	Alexander allegedly fails to notify investors of the foreclosure and falsely claims she is securing new loans to repay them.
Oct-Nov 2023	Alexander allegedly misappropriates funds from the Legacy at Laconia project.	Uses at least $75,000 of a $250,000 investment for personal expenses, including travel to Paris, Barcelona, and Nassau.
Feb 5, 2024	Alexander uses a $100,000 investment intended for a property in Somerville, MA.	Wires $81,579 from the new investment to repay an investor from the failed Raxx-LeMay project.
Apr 21, 2024	The State of New Hampshire terminates the sale agreement for the Laconia Property.	The Legacy at Laconia project collapses after Alexander fails to secure financing, and the investor’s funds have already been partly misappropriated.

A Spreading Contagion of Deception

The alleged scheme was not limited to one project. The SEC complaint details a repeating pattern across multiple entities, showing a consistent method of operation.

• Elm and Baker, LLC: For a property at 4 Elm Street in Manchester, Alexander created two different LLCs and solicited investments for both. She allegedly used a $750,000 investment from one person in the second LLC to repay the initial investors in the first LLC, plus a fabricated return. Another $210,000 from that same investor was allegedly used to pay investors in completely separate projects. The property was never developed and fell into foreclosure in May 2023.
• HB9G, LLC: In Hampton, New Hampshire, three investors put in a total of $273,000 to develop a multifamily property. Alexander is accused of improperly using approximately $50,000 of this for other real estate expenses and personal costs. Years later, after the property had deteriorated and was heading for foreclosure, she allegedly lied to investors, telling them she was approved for a large institutional line of credit to repay them when no such financing existed.
• Legacy at Laconia, LLC: Alexander entered an agreement to purchase a 217-acre state-owned property in Laconia for a massive resort project. She secured a $250,000 investment through a promissory note but allegedly misappropriated at least $75,000 of it for personal uses, including nearly $5,000 on personal travel to Paris, Barcelona, Valencia, and Nassau. The deal to purchase the property collapsed, and the investor has not been repaid.

In another instance, an investor wired $100,000 for a project in Somerville, Massachusetts. Just three days later, Alexander allegedly wired over $81,000 of that money to an investor from the failed Raxx-LeMay project, using one person’s investment to quiet another’s complaints. This practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul is a defining feature of fraudulent schemes that are unsustainable by design.

Regulatory Capture & Loopholes: A System Enabling Harm

This case highlights a critical vulnerability in the American economic system: the gap between the theoretical protection of securities laws and the practical reality of enforcing them against small-scale, private offerings. The structure of modern capitalism, particularly under a neoliberal framework that favors deregulation, often creates an environment where such fraudulent activities can fester long before being detected. The use of private placements and LLCs, while legitimate financial tools, also serves to obscure activities from public view and from the immediate notice of regulators.

For years, Robynne Alexander allegedly operated through a series of distinct LLCs for each project. This common business practice, while legal, also serves to compartmentalize liability and makes it exceedingly difficult for an investor in one project to see that their funds are being used to pay off debts in another. There is no central, publicly accessible database that would allow an investor to see that a developer is simultaneously managing multiple, failing projects. This opacity is a feature, not a bug, of a system that prioritizes the ease of capital formation over transparent accountability.

Furthermore, Alexander was not just some mere housing developer; she was a “real estate investment coach.” This position of authority and trust, particularly with her own students, adds a layer of predatory conduct to the allegations.

The system has few safeguards to prevent such an abuse of a mentorship role, where personalized advice blurs into fraudulent solicitation. Investors, especially those new to the field, are taught to trust their coach, creating a power imbalance that is ripe for exploitation. The SEC’s eventual intervention demonstrates that a regulatory body can act, but the fact that the alleged fraud continued for six years and involved eight projects before a formal complaint was filed speaks to the reactive, rather than proactive, nature of regulatory oversight in this space.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Core Incentive

The narrative laid out by the SEC is a textbook example of the profit-maximization principle pushed to its most destructive conclusion. In a healthy market, the profit motive drives innovation and value creation.

In the distorted version allegedly practiced by Alexander, it became a justification for deception, misappropriation, and the systematic violation of contractual and fiduciary duties. Every action described in the SEC legal complaint appears geared toward one goal: maintaining the inflow of capital, regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying business.

The alleged decision to not return the initial $700,000 to Raxx-LeMay investors, despite failing to meet the minimum funding requirement, is a pivotal example. A legitimate business operation would have aborted the project and returned the funds. An operation focused solely on capturing capital at any cost does exactly what Alexander is accused of doing: keeping the money and violating the agreement, likely calculating that the risk of future legal trouble was worth the immediate financial gain.

This incentive structure is further reflected in the alleged use of new investor money to pay off old investors. These Ponzi-like payments were not designed to generate sustainable, long-term value for the business or its stakeholders. Their purpose was purely functional: to create the illusion of profitability and success long enough to entice the next round of investors.

This is the logic of a system where the appearance of profit becomes more important than the actual generation of it, a phenomenon endemic to speculative bubbles and fraudulent schemes that flourish under late-stage capitalism.

The promised returns—12% or 15% per annum on some promissory notes—were tantalizingly high, preying on the desire for significant returns in a low-interest-rate world and reflecting a business model built on unsustainable promises rather than sound financial planning.

The Economic Fallout: A Trail of Financial Ruin

The direct economic consequence of this financial fraud is a loss of at least $3 million for the investors. This represents retirement savings, personal loans, and capital that individuals trusted to a developer for their financial betterment. The SEC’s legal complaint makes clear that for many, these investments are now worthless, with the underlying properties either foreclosed upon or transferred away into entities in which they have no stake.

The fallout extends beyond the direct investors. The failure of these projects leaves a scar on the communities where they were located. Properties in Manchester and Hampton that were slated for renovation instead fell into foreclosure, becoming sources of blight rather than engines of local economic growth.

The planned development of the large Laconia property, which was promoted as a “world class resort,” collapsed, representing a significant loss of potential economic activity and development for the region. The State of New Hampshire was forced to terminate the sale and find another buyer, delaying the productive use of a major public asset.

This is the tangible, on-the-ground impact when capital is misallocated due to fraud. It not only destroys private wealth but also stifles public progress, leaving behind a wake of financial devastation and unrealized community potential. The system, in this instance, did not efficiently allocate resources to their most productive use; it allowed them to be allegedly concentrated and then destroyed for personal gain.

Environmental & Public Health Risks: The Failure of a “Sustainable” Vision

While the legal filings do not detail direct environmental contamination, they paint a picture of broken promises that carry an ecological and social cost. The most ambitious of the alleged schemes, the Legacy at Laconia project, was marketed as a progressive and sustainable development. Its website described a plan to “create a first in the world, innovative, world class resort implementing universal design with barrier free accessibility within an all-in-one sustainable village”.

This vision of a forward-thinking, eco-conscious community was allegedly used as a lure for investment. The ultimate failure of the project, which culminated in the State of New Hampshire terminating the purchase agreement for the 217-acre property, means the land remains undeveloped. This represents a failure to deliver on a promised public good and a classic example of “greenwashing,” where the language of sustainability is used as a tool for capital acquisition without any genuine commitment to execution.

Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined

The impact of these failed projects ripples beyond the investors’ bank accounts and directly into the communities of New Hampshire. Properties in Manchester and Hampton, which were supposed to be renovated and revitalized, instead became financial casualties. The building at 4 Elm Street in Manchester and the multifamily property at 9 G Street in Hampton both ended up in foreclosure, turning from potential assets into community liabilities.

Foreclosed properties can depress local real estate values, create safety hazards, and strain municipal resources. The collapse of the Legacy at Laconia project is an even larger blow to community aspirations. The 217-acre tract of land, sold by the State of New Hampshire itself, represented a significant opportunity for economic development in the Lakes Region. Its failure after a substantial investment was allegedly solicited and misappropriated means a delay in progress and a loss of public confidence.

The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics

A key element of the alleged fraud was a sophisticated use of public relations and spin to cultivate an image of expertise and legitimacy.

Like I said earlier, Robynne Alexander was not just a developer; she positioned herself as a “real estate investment coach,” a title that inherently builds trust and implies a duty to guide her students toward success. Many of the investors in her first major project, Raxx-LeMay, were her own students, demonstrating a direct conversion of educational authority into investment capital.

The spin extended to the projects themselves. The Legacy at Laconia website was a masterclass in marketing, promising a utopian, “world class resort”. This grand vision was presented while Alexander was allegedly unable to secure the necessary financing to even close the purchase of the property.

When investors began to question the lack of progress, the spin machine allegedly shifted to damage control. In emails to worried investors in the foreclosed HB9G project, Alexander made false representations about new funding. She claimed to be working with lenders on a “$40M loan” and later to be “fully approved for a large institutional line of credit” that could be used to repay them. According to the SEC, these claims were false; she had not been approved for such a credit line, but the promises served to delay legal action and maintain a facade of control.

Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: Profiting from Deceit

At its heart, the SEC complaint alleges a stark transfer of wealth driven by corporate greed. While at least 28 investors lost a collective total of at least $3 million, Robynne Alexander allegedly used their funds to finance her personal lifestyle and business operations. The legal filing accuses her of using investor money as her “primary means of paying her personal expenses”.

This was not limited to minor costs. After receiving a $250,000 investment for the Legacy at Laconia project, Alexander is accused of misappropriating at least $75,000 for personal use. This included nearly $5,000 on personal travel expenses in Paris, Barcelona, Valencia, Nassau, Florida, and New Orleans in just two months. Investor funds intended for real estate development in New Hampshire were instead allegedly spent on international tourism, a galling illustration of the disconnect between her promises and her actions.

This pattern repeated across projects, with investor money allegedly used for “personal expenses such as grocery bills”. The alleged scheme represents a microcosm of wealth extraction, where capital is not used to create value but is diverted from its intended purpose to enrich a single individual at the expense of many.

Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

The alleged actions of Robynne Alexander are not an isolated phenomenon but reflect a recurring pattern of real estate investment fraud seen across the globe. In systems that prioritize the rapid and often opaque movement of capital, individuals can exploit legal structures like LLCs and private placements to create an illusion of legitimacy. This pattern is a hallmark of misconduct in deregulated markets, where the due diligence burden falls heavily on individual investors who often lack the resources to vet complex projects or the people behind them.

From Florida to Spain, similar schemes have emerged where charismatic project leaders raise millions for ambitious developments that never materialize. The funds disappear into a maze of corporate entities and are used for personal enrichment or to pay off earlier investors. The case against Alexander serves as a local example of a global problem inherent in a capitalist system where robust, proactive oversight often lags behind the speed of financial innovation and predation.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The intervention by the SEC represents a form of accountability, yet it also highlights the system’s inherent limitations. The alleged fraud began as early as 2018, but the complaint was not filed until mid-2025, allowing the scheme to operate and ensnare new investors for six years. This delay is a critical failure for the public, as timely intervention could have prevented millions of dollars in losses.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the SEC—disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, and an officer-and-director bar—do not guarantee that victims will be made whole . Disgorgement depends on the defendant having recoverable assets. Often, by the time a scheme collapses, the money is long gone.

This case shows that accountability in the current system is often punitive rather than restorative. It can punish a wrongdoer after the fact, but it struggles to prevent the harm in the first place or fully repair the financial damage inflicted upon the public.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

The vulnerabilities exposed by this case suggest several potential pathways for reform. A system that truly protects investors would require greater transparency and proactive oversight, moving beyond the current model of self-reporting and after-the-fact enforcement.

Potential reforms could include a public registry for managers of private offerings, linking individuals across all LLCs they control. This would prevent developers from hiding a pattern of failure behind a series of disconnected corporate shells. Additionally, regulations could impose stricter standards and a fiduciary duty on individuals who market themselves as “investment coaches,” ensuring their advice is in the best interest of their students, not their own investment schemes. Finally, simplifying the disclosure documents for private placements could make them more accessible to the average investor, who may not have the legal expertise to parse a 66-page operating agreement.

This Is the System Working as Intended

One could argue that the financial system did not fail here; it worked precisely as designed. Neoliberal capitalism (like our current economic system) prioritizes the velocity of capital and the minimization of regulatory friction. Within that framework, complex legal instruments like LLCs and private placement memorandums are tools to facilitate investment with maximum efficiency and minimum oversight.

The financial fraud of Robynne Alexander is a predictable byproduct of this environment. It exploits the very features intended to promote investment: corporate opacity, the sanctity of private contracts (even when violated), and the assumption that investors are sophisticated enough to protect themselves. From this perspective, the $3 million in lost savings is the collateral damage of a system that structurally favors the dealmaker over the investor and profit over protection.

Conclusion: The Human Cost of a Flawed System

The legal document filed by the SEC against Robynne Alexander is is a chronicle of trust betrayed and futures compromised. It tells the story of at least 28 people who invested their capital based on promises of professional management, transparency, and profitable returns. They were allegedly met with the opposite: misappropriation, secrecy, and devastating losses that totaled at least $3 million.

This case serves as a powerful indictment of a system where financial complexity can be weaponized and regulatory oversight arrives too late. It underscores the profound human cost when the pursuit of personal enrichment is allowed to eclipse all ethical and fiduciary duties. The trail of foreclosed properties and worthless investments is a testament to the urgent need for a more transparent, accountable, and just financial system that protects the public from the devastating consequences of unchecked corporate greed.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

This is a serious lawsuit. The 23-page complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission is detailed, specific, and substantiated with numerous factual allegations, including dates, dollar amounts, and the names of the corporate entities involved.

The gravity of the allegations, which include misappropriation of funds, Ponzi-like payments, and direct misrepresentations to investors, and the depth of the evidence presented, mark this as a significant legal action aimed at addressing profound and systemic financial misconduct!

You can read the legal complaint made by the SEC by visiting this link: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26336.pdf

There is also a press release on the SEC’s website about this scam that ran thru New Hampshire: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26336

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

1. The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
2. Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
3. The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
4. My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....