N.J. Stat. » Title 49 — SALE OF SECURITIES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 49:3-52 (2026)

Unlawful activities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading;

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person;

(d) To fail to deliver the prospectus filed under the "Securities Act of 1933" to each purchaser of a security registered under that act, in accordance with the prospectus delivery requirements of that act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp., 775 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp., 775 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1991). · cites it 19× “Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on Count V of the First Amended Complaint The plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on Count V of the First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Ancillary Equitable Relief under N.J.S.A. § 49:3-52 (1989). The plaintiffs…”
In Re Nat'l Century Fin. Enter., Inc., Inv. Litig., 541 F. Supp. 2d 986 (S.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 3× “In both cases, there is a provision describing the prohibited conduct, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 49:3-52 , Or. Rev.Stat.”
Robert P. BIGGANS, Appellant, v. BACHE HALSEY STUART SHIELDS, INC., F/T/A Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 638 F.2d 605 (3d Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “There, as here, the defendants' acts were the subject of potential injunctive and criminal action, see N.J.S.A. 49:3-52, 3-69, 3-70, but were not the predicate upon which a private claim could be based.”
A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bureau of Sec., Appellant, 163 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Bureau can prohibit fraud in the offer, sale and purchase of securities, N.J.S.A. 49:3-52; it can prohibit misleading filings, N.”
Zola v. Gordon, 685 F. Supp. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “1984); see N.J.Stat.Ann. § 49:3-52 (West 1970 & Supp.”
Kronfeld v. First Jersey Nat'l Bank, 638 F. Supp. 1454 (D.N.J. 1986). “N.J.S.A. 49:3-52, which follows the language of Rule 10b-5 and makes it un *1474 lawful “for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, .”
In re Nat'l Century Fin. Enter., Inc., Inv. Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2012). “§ 44-1991(A)(1) (primary violator can be any person who employs a scheme to defraud in connection with the sale of securities); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 49:3-52 (a) (same). Based on the evidence of record, a jury could reasonably find that National Century or one of the note programs…”
Harvey Ex Rel. Widmann v. Lewandowski (In Re Lewandowski), 325 B.R. 700 (Bankr. M.D. Penn. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 49:3-60 ; (2) Employing unregistered agents — N.J. Stat. Ann. § 49:3-56 (b); (3) Acting as agents without registering — N.”
In Re Brown, 851 A.2d 1278 (D.C. 2004). “…of a material fact or the omission of a material fact in circumstances that made the statement misleading. See N.J.S.A. § 49:3-52(b).”
Matter of FD Roberts Sec., Inc., 115 B.R. 485 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1990). “49:3-56 and N.J.S.A. 49:3-52, and (2) engaged in acts and practices in violation of the New Jersey Racketeering Law, N.”
Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (N.D. Ga. 2014). “§ 56:8-2 , (10) trademark infringement, (11) patent infringement, (12) unjust enrichment, (13) quantum meruit, (14) prima facie tort, (15) violation of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 49:3-52 , - 71, (16) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities…”
In the Matter of Samuel K. Burlum & Extreme Energy Solutions Inc. (new Jersey Dep't of Law & Pub. Saf.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 11× “The Bureau Chief concluded that making misrepresentations or material omissions of fact is a strict liability violation, N.J.S.A. 49:3-52. He wrote that it is not necessary to show that "defendants intended to deceive the investor, [but] only that [they] misrepresented or…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
N.J. Stat. § 49:3-52(a): 2 cases
Frantatoro v. Grabato (D.N.J. 2023).
Matthew J. Platkin, Etc. v. Owusu A. Kizito (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
N.J. Stat. § 49:3-52(b): 5 cases
In Re Brown, 851 A.2d 1278 (D.C. 2004). “…of a material fact or the omission of a material fact in circumstances that made the statement misleading. See N.J.S.A. § 49:3-52(b).”
In the Matter of Samuel K. Burlum & Extreme Energy Solutions Inc. (new Jersey Dep't of Law & Pub. Saf.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “The Bureau Chief concluded that making misrepresentations or material omissions of fact is a strict liability violation, N.J.S.A. 49:3-52. He wrote that it is not necessary to show that "defendants intended to deceive the investor, [but] only that [they] misrepresented or…”
In the Matter of Eric J. Bruno (new Jersey Dep't of Law & Pub. Saf.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
State of New Jersey v. Thomas Fagan (13-05-0098, Mercer Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
Matthew J. Platkin, Etc. v. Owusu A. Kizito (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
N.J. Stat. § 49:3-52(c): 2 cases
State of New Jersey v. Thomas Fagan (13-05-0098, Mercer Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
Matthew J. Platkin, Etc. v. Owusu A. Kizito (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
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.