Charles Kokesh Net Worth: 2026 Estimate, Assets & Timeline

Charles R. Kokesh does not appear in any mainstream wealth tracker, Forbes list, or business press ranking with a verified net worth figure. What the public record does show, clearly and in detail, is a series of SEC enforcement actions and federal court judgments that are the most concrete financial data points available on him. Based on documented disgorgement orders, civil penalties, and the scale of alleged misappropriation from investor funds, any credible net worth estimate for Kokesh as of mid-2026 must be framed around those legal and financial events rather than a clean dollar figure. Our working estimate is that his accessible personal wealth is likely minimal to negligible, given outstanding or historically enforced court-ordered payments exceeding $10 million after appellate revision, with a low confidence level due to the absence of voluntary public financial disclosures.

Net worth snapshot

In one sentence: Charles R. Kokesh's net worth is not publicly documented, and the most reliable financial picture available comes from federal enforcement records showing court-ordered payments of approximately $10 million after appellate revision of an originally much larger judgment.

Who is Charles R. Kokesh? Career biography and income-relevant milestones

Charles R. Kokesh is identified in SEC court filings as a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, described at the time of the 2009 complaint as 61 years old. His career was built primarily around registered investment advisory firms. He controlled two entities: Technology Funding Ltd. (TFL), a California limited partnership headquartered in El Dorado Hills, California, and Technology Funding, Inc. (TFI), a Delaware corporation based in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Both firms were registered as investment advisers beginning May 11, 1987. TFL's registration lapsed January 9, 2007, and TFI's on January 3, 2007, marking the end of their formal regulatory standing.

Through these two advisory firms, Kokesh managed four Business Development Companies (BDCs): Technology Funding Medical Partners I, Technology Funding Partners III L.P., Technology Funding Partners IV L.P., and Technology Funding Partners V L.P. Collectively, those four funds raised approximately $128 million from at least 21,000 investors. BDCs are closed-end investment vehicles that typically target small and mid-sized businesses, and they carry fiduciary obligations to their investors. Managing four such funds across roughly two decades would have generated substantial advisory fees and management compensation, the SEC alleged much of which was improperly redirected.

The SEC's complaint, filed in 2009, alleged that from 1995 through July 2007 Kokesh systematically misappropriated approximately $45 million from those four BDCs. Documented payments to Kokesh cited in the complaint include approximately $5.8 million in bonuses paid out of BDC assets between 2000 and 2005 alone, alongside additional reimbursements and payments characterized as illegal. These figures represent the clearest documented income numbers attached to Kokesh in any public record, even though they are alleged to be improperly obtained.

Income streams and recurring revenue

Kokesh's income during his active advisory career would have derived from several streams tied to his investment management operations. Investment advisers typically earn management fees (commonly 1 to 2 percent of assets under management annually), performance-based fees or carried interest on fund returns, and reimbursements for business expenses. On a fund portfolio aggregating to $128 million raised, even conservative management fees would represent millions of dollars per year in gross revenue across the full operating period. The SEC's allegations, however, indicate that a significant portion of what Kokesh received went beyond standard advisory compensation and was instead taken without proper authorization.

• Investment advisory management fees from four BDCs (TFL and TFI as registered advisers)
• Performance fees or carried interest from BDC investment returns
• Expense reimbursements routed through the advisory firms
• Bonuses totaling approximately $5.8 million from BDC assets (2000–2005, per SEC complaint)
• Additional payments alleged as misappropriated: approximately $45 million total (1995–2007, per SEC complaint)

There is no public record of Kokesh holding significant equity in publicly traded companies, receiving royalties, drawing a pension, or operating active businesses after the advisory firms' registrations lapsed in early 2007. His income-generating capacity after 2007 is not documented in any available public source.

Major assets and liabilities

The table below reflects what can be inferred or documented from public court and SEC records. No real estate records, brokerage account disclosures, or voluntary financial statements for Kokesh are publicly available. Asset valuations are therefore either unknown or estimated from contextual public data.

How we arrived at this estimate: evidence, data, and methodology

Because Charles R. Kokesh has no presence in established wealth databases such as Forbes, Bloomberg Billionaires, or Celebrity Net Worth, and because he is a private individual rather than a public company executive required to disclose compensation, this profile relies entirely on primary legal and regulatory documents. That is actually a fairly common situation when researching financial figures connected to enforcement cases rather than voluntary corporate filings.

The SEC complaint filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico is the foundational document. It names the defendant as Charles R. Kokesh, age 61, Santa Fe resident, and details the alleged misappropriation of approximately $45 million across 12 years. The March 30, 2015, Memorandum Opinion and Final Judgment from that district court ordered disgorgement of $34,927,329 plus prejudgment interest of $18,077,103.37 and a civil penalty of $2,354,593, a combined liability of approximately $55.4 million. That figure was widely reported by the SEC in Litigation Release No. 23228 on April 2, 2015.

The figure changed dramatically after Kokesh appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Kokesh v. SEC (137 S. Ct. 1635, 2017), the Court unanimously held that SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty subject to the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. That ruling required courts to discard disgorgement amounts stemming from conduct more than five years before the complaint's filing date. On remand, the amended final judgment entered by the district court and affirmed by the Tenth Circuit on December 6, 2019 (No. SEC v. Kokesh, Order and Judgment (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Dec. 6, 2019) affirms the district court's amended final judgment SEC v. Kokesh, Order and Judgment (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Dec. 6, 2019) affirms the district court's amended final judgment.. 19-2000), reduced disgorgement to $5,004,773 plus prejudgment interest of $2,646,466.25 and retained the civil penalty of $2,354,593. Total court-ordered liability after appeal: approximately $10,005,832.

To estimate net worth, I subtract known liabilities from plausible income. Kokesh's documented bonus receipts alone from BDC assets reached roughly $5.8 million between 2000 and 2005. Additional advisory fees over a 20-year advisory career managing $128 million in investor funds could reasonably have generated further millions in legitimate management fees, though those figures are not broken out in public documents. Against that, the court-ordered payments of approximately $10 million represent a substantial offset. Without voluntary disclosures, real estate records, or asset filings, any precise net worth figure would be speculative. The honest answer is: not enough public data exists to produce a defensible positive net worth number.

Net worth timeline and notable financial events

1. 1987: TFL and TFI both register as investment advisers; advisory fee income begins across four BDCs that collectively raised ~$128 million from ~21,000 investors
2. 1995–2007: SEC alleged systematic misappropriation of ~$45 million from the four BDCs during this period; documented bonuses of ~$5.8 million paid 2000–2005
3. Jan 2007: Both advisory firm registrations (TFL and TFI) lapse, ending formal advisory operations
4. 2009: SEC files civil complaint in U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, alleging fraud and misappropriation
5. March 30, 2015: District court enters final judgment — disgorgement + interest ~$53 million, civil penalty ~$2.35 million (~$55.4 million total court-ordered liability)
6. April 2, 2015: SEC issues Litigation Release No. 23228 announcing the judgment publicly
7. June 5, 2017: U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously in Kokesh v. SEC that SEC disgorgement is a penalty subject to a 5-year limitations period — a landmark ruling that significantly reduced Kokesh's liability on remand
8. December 6, 2019: Tenth Circuit affirms amended final judgment — disgorgement reduced to $5,004,773 + $2,646,466 interest + $2,354,593 civil penalty (~$10 million total)

Legal, regulatory, and tax events affecting net worth

The SEC enforcement case is by far the dominant legal event in Kokesh's financial life based on available public records. The original 2015 judgment represented a liability of roughly $55.4 million, which would have overwhelmed virtually any private wealth accumulated through legitimate advisory fees. The Supreme Court's 2017 ruling was a significant turning point: by establishing that SEC disgorgement is a penalty under the five-year limitations statute, the Court's decision cut Kokesh's court-ordered liability by more than 80 percent, from roughly $53 million in disgorgement to just over $5 million. That ruling has since become one of the most cited securities-law precedents of the past decade, reshaping how the SEC pursues disgorgement in all enforcement cases.

The financial impact of the amended judgment ($10,005,832 total) is more manageable than the original order but still substantial for any private individual. Whether Kokesh satisfied those payments, negotiated a settlement arrangement, or faces ongoing collection proceedings is not documented in publicly available sources as of July 2026. Court judgments of this type can also generate secondary tax consequences: disgorgement amounts are generally not deductible, and civil penalties are definitively not tax-deductible under U.S. tax law, meaning the after-tax cost of these payments exceeds the face amounts for any taxpayer.

No criminal charges appear in the public record related to the conduct alleged in the SEC complaint. The enforcement action was civil, not criminal, which is a meaningful distinction for understanding Kokesh's situation and the mechanisms available to the government for collection.

Related Charles profiles and disambiguation

One important disambiguation note: Adam Charles Kokesh (born February 1, 1982) is a public political activist and broadcaster who shares the Kokesh surname but is a completely separate individual. Adam Kokesh has his own public profile and is not related to the SEC enforcement matter described here. If you searched for 'Kokesh net worth' looking for Adam, this is not the right profile.

Within this site's broader collection of Charles financial profiles, several figures offer useful comparison points when thinking about wealth built through finance, investment, and business leadership. Charles F. Knight built a decades-long career as a publicly traded industrial CEO with well-documented compensation history, representing a very different model of wealth accumulation compared to private fund management. For a directly comparable profile, see our Charles F. Knight net worth page for a documented example of wealth accumulated via public-company executive compensation. Charles Karsten's wealth profile involves entrepreneurial business ownership, while Charles Kerbeck's profile centers on high-volume automotive retail. See the Charles Kerbeck net worth profile for details on his automotive-retail wealth. See the related profile on Charles Karsten net worth for his wealth details. Charles Corky Cost represents yet another distinct path. Each of these profiles illustrates how dramatically the 'how did they build it?' story varies even among people who share a first name, and how the quality of available financial data differs depending on whether someone was subject to public company reporting requirements.

Common questions and clarifications

Is any net worth figure for Charles Kokesh verified?

No verified net worth figure exists in any mainstream wealth database or credible business publication. The only verified financial figures connected to Charles R. Kokesh are court-ordered payments documented in federal court records and SEC litigation releases.

How current is this estimate?

This profile reflects publicly available information as of July 2026. The most recent court document referenced is the Tenth Circuit's December 6, 2019, affirmation of the amended final judgment. No new public financial data on Kokesh has emerged in available sources since that date.

Why is the estimate described as 'minimal to negligible' rather than a specific number?

Private individuals with no public company filings, no self-reported wealth disclosures, and no real estate records in publicly accessible databases cannot be reliably assigned a specific net worth figure. Publishing a specific number without documentary support would be misleading. The honest answer is that public data is insufficient for a defensible calculation.

How does the Supreme Court ruling affect what Kokesh actually owed?

The 2017 Kokesh v. SEC Supreme Court ruling applied the five-year statute of limitations to SEC disgorgement claims, which meant that any disgorgement tied to conduct before five years prior to the 2009 complaint filing (i.e., before 2004) was time-barred. That cut the disgorgement amount from roughly $35 million to just over $5 million, reducing total court-ordered liability from approximately $55 million to approximately $10 million.

Is Charles Kokesh the same person as Adam Kokesh?

No. Charles R. Kokesh, the subject of the SEC enforcement case, and Adam Charles Kokesh, the political activist and broadcaster born in 1982, are two distinct individuals. They share a surname but have separate identities, careers, and public records.

Sources, further reading, and suggested images

The following primary sources form the evidentiary basis for this profile. Readers who want to verify individual claims should reference these documents directly. SEC Litigation Release No. 23228 – Charles R. Kokesh (April 2, 2015) is the SEC's public release summarizing the March 30, 2015 memorandum opinion and final judgment SEC Litigation Release No. 23228 – Charles R. Kokesh (April 2, 2015) — used as primary public financial disclosure for Kokesh.

• SEC Complaint: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles R. Kokesh, U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico (filed 2009) — foundational document establishing alleged misappropriation, firm history, and investor impact
• Memorandum Opinion and Final Judgment, SEC v. Kokesh, U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico (March 30, 2015) — specifies disgorgement of $34,927,329, prejudgment interest of $18,077,103.37, and civil penalty of $2,354,593
• SEC Litigation Release No. 23228 (April 2, 2015) — SEC public announcement of the 2015 district court judgment
• Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 5, 2017) — unanimous ruling that SEC disgorgement is a penalty subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2462 five-year limitations period
• SEC v. Kokesh, Order and Judgment, No. 19-2000 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, December 6, 2019) — affirms amended final judgment: disgorgement $5,004,773, interest $2,646,466.25, penalty $2,354,593
• Adam Kokesh biographical entry — Wikipedia (disambiguation reference confirming Adam Kokesh is a separate individual)

Suggested images for this profile: a neutral headshot placeholder labeled 'Charles R. Kokesh, no verified public image available'; a net worth timeline chart showing the dramatic shift in court-ordered liability from the 2015 judgment (~$55 million) to the post-appeal amended judgment (~$10 million) with the 2017 Supreme Court ruling marked as the inflection point; and an illustration of the BDC fund structure showing TFL and TFI as advisers to the four Technology Funding partnerships.