Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2036 (2026)

Administrative penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person who, in an administrative action, is found to have violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or order of the commission may be assessed an administrative penalty by the commission, after a hearing, in an amount of not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation.

B. Any penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the state general fund.

C. If judicial review has not been sought under title 12, chapter 7, article 6, a certified copy of any commission order requiring the payment of restitution or administrative penalties may be filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court in any county of this state. The clerk shall treat the commission order in the same manner as a judgment of the superior court. A commission order so filed has the same effect as a judgment of the superior court and may be recorded, enforced or satisfied in like manner. No filing fee is required under this section.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604 (Ariz. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 10× “In any criminal prosecution brought under A.R.S. § 44-2036 for a violation of A.R.S.”
Stand. Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 44-2032; see also A.R.S. §§ 44-2036, 44-2037. 7 . SC asserts that PW waived its argument for JNOV on breach of fiduciary duty by failing to raise it in a motion for directed verdict.”
State v. O'BRIEN, 601 P.2d 341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2036 (since amended, effective October 1, 1978).”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶ 34 The Commission is authorized by A.R.S. § 44-2036(a) to assess an administrative penalty against a person found to have violated the ASA, or other rule or order of the Commission, “in an amount [] not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation.”
Jennings v. Woods, 982 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 2× “" Additionally, section 44-2032 allows the commission to apply for an injunction in superior court, which can be issued permanently to halt a securities licensee's unlawful sales activities.”
Mullet v. Miller, 816 P.2d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “It is irrelevant whether A.R.S. § 44-2036(C), as amended in 1990, is applicable to the Commission’s order.”
Polaris Int'l Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 652 P.2d 1023 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 2× “Appellants seek this relief so that they cannot be prosecuted under A.R.S. § 44-2036 (which provides a penalty for violation of Commission orders) if they make a stock sale within the A.”
State v. Tarzian, 665 P.2d 582 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Prior to their 1978 amendments, A.R.S. §§ 44-2036 and 44r-1995 provided that anyone who willfully violated § 44-1992 was guilty of a felony.”
State v. Cook, 870 P.2d 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2036. We find no merit in the state’s attempt to classify the administrative penalty as non-punitive by invoking the general “remedial” purpose behind the securities laws.”
State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “44-1995, prior to its amendment in 1978, stated: “A person violating a provision of this article is guilty of a felony punishable as provided in subsection A of § 44-2036.” Sec. 44-2036(A) 3 imposed criminal liability if the violation was willful.”
Geiler v. Arizona Bank, 537 P.2d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable as prescribed by subsection A of § 44-2036. 2 . § 44-1991. Fraud in purchase or sale of securities.”
Shudak v. Azcc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “In fact, given the “four frauds” discussed above, and the number of investors properly implicated by each of those frauds, the maximum penalty authorized under A.R.S. § 44-2036 far exceeded $150,000. Accordingly, Shudak has shown no error in the administrative penalty imposed by…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2036(A) — 1 case
State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604 (Ariz. 1980). “In any criminal prosecution brought under A.R.S. § 44-2036 for a violation of A.R.S.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2036(C) — 1 case
Mullet v. Miller, 816 P.2d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “It is irrelevant whether A.R.S. § 44-2036(C), as amended in 1990, is applicable to the Commission’s order.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2036(a) — 1 case
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “¶ 34 The Commission is authorized by A.R.S. § 44-2036(a) to assess an administrative penalty against a person found to have violated the ASA, or other rule or order of the Commission, “in an amount [] not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation.”
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.