Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2032 (2026)

Cease and desist orders; civil penalty; injunctions; civil restitution; prosecutions for violations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If it appears to the commission, either on complaint or otherwise, that any person has engaged in, is engaging in or is about to engage in any act, practice or transaction that constitutes a violation of this chapter, or any rule or order of the commission under this chapter, the commission, in its discretion may:

1. Issue an order directing such person to cease and desist from engaging in the act, practice or transaction, or doing any other act in furtherance of the act, practice or transaction, and to take appropriate affirmative action within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by the commission, to correct the conditions resulting from the act, practice or transaction including, without limitation, a requirement to provide restitution as prescribed by rules of the commission. If a person fails to comply with an order issued under this paragraph, the superior court in Maricopa county, on application by the commission, shall:

(a) Issue an order to show cause why the person has not complied with the commission's order. On a showing that the person has violated the commission's order, the court may exercise its contempt powers and impose a civil penalty of not more than twenty thousand dollars for each violation as the court considers to be just and proper.

(b) Award reasonable costs, including attorney fees, to the commission, unless other circumstances make an award of costs unjust. Any costs, including attorney fees, collected pursuant to this paragraph shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the state general fund.

2. Apply to the superior court in Maricopa county or any federal court for an injunction restraining the person from the violation, and on a showing by the commission that the person has engaged in, is engaging in or is about to engage in an act, practice or transaction in violation of this chapter or any rule or order of the commission, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or permanent injunction shall be granted without bond. Process in those actions may be served on the defendant in any county of this state in which the defendant transacts business or is found.

3. Apply to the superior court in Maricopa county or any federal court for an order restoring to any person in interest any monies or property, real or personal, that may have been acquired or transferred in violation of this chapter.

4. Petition the superior court in Maricopa county or transmit any evidence available concerning the act, practice or transaction to the attorney general and the attorney general may petition the superior court in Maricopa county for the appointment of a conservator to reorganize the affairs of, or a receiver to wind up the affairs of, the violator. Process in those actions may be served on the defendant in any county in this state where the defendant transacts business or may be found.

5. Transmit any evidence available concerning the act, practice or transaction to a county attorney, the attorney general or the United States attorney who may, with or without the transmittal, directly institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceedings as the evidence warrants.

6. If the joinder authorized by section 44-2031 or 44-3291 is inapplicable because the defendant and the defendant's spouse are divorced, apply to the superior court in Maricopa county or any federal court for an order restoring to any person in interest that former spouse's portion of any monies or property, real or personal, including noncash proceeds as defined in section 47-9102, that may have been acquired or transferred by the defendant in violation of this chapter. Any order issued pursuant to this paragraph must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 18× “§ 44-2032 limits the amount of restitution that can be ordered to the benefits “pocketed” by the wrongdoer; on the contrary, the statute specifically states the relief is “without limitation,” and grants the Commission abundant discretion in fashioning a remedy that may…”

Jennings v. Woods, 982 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 8× “The commission may issue cease and desist orders to securities licensees pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-2032 on the appearance of a violation of our Blue Sky laws.”

Stand. Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 44-2032; see also A.R.S. §§ 44-2036, 44-2037.”

Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-2032 (Supp. 1974-1984). By stark contrast, the Mortgage Brokers Act, A.”

People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust, 618 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Thus, under A.R.S. § 44-2032, the Corporation Commission is empowered to order a violator to halt all illegal activities or seek the assistance of the courts or the attorney general in pursuit of this end.”

Grand v. Nacchio, 217 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “6, citing A.R.S. §§ 44-2032, 44-2036, 44-2037. 7 . Under A.”

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich, 726 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “In defining any act in furtherance of the violation, the trial court in this case looked to A.R.S. § 44-1991 which prohibits anyone from omitting “to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made in light of the circumstances” not misleading.”

Stevenson v. Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “He argues that (1) the Commission improperly defined “restitution” as it is used in A.R.S. § 44-2032(1), leading to an incorrect calculation of the award, (2) the amount imposed violates constitutional protections against excessive fines, and (3) the applicable statutes and…”

Wales v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2032(1). The goal is to restore the purchasers to their original position.”

Ventures 7000 v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 44-2003(A); see also A.R.S. § 44-2032. Our supreme court has recognized the sweeping authority granted by A.”

Grand v. Nacchio Mcmaster Qwest Commc'ns (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “6, citing A.R.S. §§ 44-2032, 44-2036, 44-2037. 7 Under A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2032(1) — 3 cases

Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 44-2032 limits the amount of restitution that can be ordered to the benefits “pocketed” by the wrongdoer; on the contrary, the statute specifically states the relief is “without limitation,” and grants the Commission abundant discretion in fashioning a remedy that may…”

Stevenson v. Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “He argues that (1) the Commission improperly defined “restitution” as it is used in A.R.S. § 44-2032(1), leading to an incorrect calculation of the award, (2) the amount imposed violates constitutional protections against excessive fines, and (3) the applicable statutes and…”

Wales v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “A.R.S. § 44-2032(1). The goal is to restore the purchasers to their original position.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2032(2) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich, 726 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “In defining any act in furtherance of the violation, the trial court in this case looked to A.R.S. § 44-1991 which prohibits anyone from omitting “to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made in light of the circumstances” not misleading.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.