A $25,000 deposit was supposed to put a truck to work

The pitch turned commercial trucking into what was presented as a passive income machine. From at least May 2023 through approximately May 2025, the SEC says investors were told their money would buy semi-trucks at auction, prepare the vehicles for service, and place them into freight operations.

Lunsford formed both Georgia companies in 2023 and was their sole member, according to the complaint. The SEC says he controlled their bank accounts, signed agreements for both businesses, and managed deposits, withdrawals, and transfers.

The promised $1,250 weekly net return represented approximately 5% of the typical initial investment every week, or 260% annually, for a five-year term. Lunsford also allegedly promised consistent returns when an assigned truck was out of service, provided a specified portion of the wider fleet remained active.

“Low Risk” and “Fast Returns”Language the SEC says appeared in an investor presentation

Investors did not select or inspect trucks, find drivers, source cargo, negotiate with carriers, or handle maintenance. The complaint says they often created limited liability companies at Lunsford’s direction, signed the required documents, and wired money. The SEC classifies the arrangements as investment contracts because any profit depended on the defendants’ work, not the investors’ management.

The pitch moved from nightlife to social media

The SEC describes a recruitment system that mixed personal selling with online promotion. Early investors included people Lunsford knew or met at bars and nightclubs in the Tampa area. He also allegedly presented the program to approximately 20 prospective investors at a Central Florida barbershop.

The operation later expanded through external sales agents using Facebook advertisements, Instagram posts, YouTube videos, virtual meetings, and prepared presentations. The complaint says Lunsford supplied information for offering materials, edited and approved PowerPoint presentations, directed sales activity, and frequently joined calls with prospective investors.

One recruited agent posted a YouTube video suggesting investors could make a 108% return. Other materials and representations described a net annual return of about 260%. Whatever figure prospective investors encountered, the core message was similar: a passive investment tied to operating trucks could produce unusually large, dependable returns.

The bank records allegedly told a different story

The SEC says the commercial operation incurred significant losses and did not generate enough business revenue to support the payments going to investors. Less than $3 million in the defendants’ accounts during the relevant period appeared to come from legitimate business revenue or proceeds, according to the complaint.

Instead, the agency alleges, at least $52 million in investor funds went to earlier investors. That amounted to approximately 40% of investor deposits and was never disclosed to the people supplying the money.

At least $33 million allegedly went to personal use

Because Lunsford alone controlled the companies’ bank accounts, the complaint attributes the movement of investor funds directly to him. The personal-use total includes several categories identified from bank records:

• Almost $10 million in ATM and over-the-counter cash withdrawals.
• Approximately $3.5 million on travel.
• Approximately $2.7 million at bars and nightclubs.
• Approximately $1.9 million in casino gambling expenses.

Those listed categories do not account for the entire $33 million the SEC says was diverted. The complaint does not provide a complete category-by-category breakdown of the remaining alleged personal spending.

The 2,000-truck claim met a VIN problem

A large fleet made the promised returns sound connected to a large operating business. The defendants and their sales agents allegedly told investors that AKL Transport operated approximately 2,000 trucks.

The SEC says the companies’ own records identified far fewer vehicles, while the lease agreements reflected only a small portion of the advertised fleet. More strikingly, numerous agreements given to different investors contained the same vehicle identification numbers.

The complaint does not state the actual number of trucks AKL operated, identify how many agreements contained duplicated VINs, or establish what happened with every vehicle supposedly assigned to an investor. It alleges that the fleet claim was materially overstated.

Payments stopped, and investors could not get the trucks

For investors, the alleged breakdown became visible through missed payments. Many stopped receiving money in March 2025. Some then asked to take possession of the trucks described in their lease agreements, but the complaint says those requests produced no result.

The complaint does not calculate investors’ total net losses, state how many recovered any money, or say whether trucks or other assets remain available for recovery. It does establish the consequence alleged for many participants: the weekly income stopped, and requests for the underlying vehicles went unanswered.

What the SEC wants, and what has not been decided

The SEC accuses Lunsford, AKL Transport, and Southern Truck Leasing of violating federal securities antifraud provisions. Some counts allege knowing or reckless conduct, while others allege negligent material misstatements or fraudulent business practices.

The agency asks the federal court for permanent antifraud injunctions, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. It also seeks an order barring Lunsford from participating in securities offerings or sales through an entity he owns or controls, while allowing transactions for his personal account.

Those are requested remedies, not penalties already imposed. The supplied complaint contains no answer from the defendants and no judicial finding that the alleged scheme or securities violations occurred.

The trucks made the promise tangible. Control of the money remained elsewhere.

The structure gave investors contracts, assigned vehicles, maintenance promises, and a business explanation for the returns. Yet the complaint says investors had no operational role and no independent control over the assets or revenue on which those returns supposedly depended.

That gap is central to the SEC’s case. Investors were told their income came from freight fees generated by trucks. The agency alleges that the available bank and company records instead show inadequate business revenue, repeated vehicle identifiers, payments funded by later investors, and millions diverted to personal spending. Whether the SEC can prove those allegations remains for the court to decide.