The Fallout of Clemency: Jonathan Braun Back in Prison

A convicted drug trafficker whose prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump is back behind bars, having been sentenced to 27 months for violating the terms of his release. The saga of Jonathan Braun, once a high-ranking member of an international drug smuggling operation, has become a high-profile case of recidivism. For members of the Revenue-Based Financing (RBF) and Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) industry who align themselves with the President, Braun’s journey creates an inescapable political and ethical conflict.

Key Points: Clemency, Crimes, and Consequences

Jonathan Braun’s legal troubles span multiple sectors, from large-scale narcotics to small business lending. The key developments in his case are:

• Original Conviction: Braun was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in 2019 after pleading guilty to drug-related charges, specifically for his role in smuggling over 100,000 kilograms of marijuana from Canada into the United States.

  
  

• Presidential Clemency: Braun served roughly one year of his sentence before President Trump commuted his term in the final days of his administration in January 2021. The clemency freed him from prison, though the balance of his sentence remained, requiring that he adhere to the terms of his supervised release.

  
  

• Return to Crime: Following his release, Braun was arrested and charged with multiple new crimes, violating the terms of his clemency. These actions led to him being ordered back into custody.

  
  

• Violations: The charges used to justify his return to prison included a series of disturbing allegations, such as assaulting a 3-year-old child, groping his family's nanny, swinging an IV pole at a hospital nurse while threatening her, menacing a fellow synagogue member, and evading bridge tolls in his luxury cars.

  
  

• The Sentencing: A federal judge sentenced Braun to 27 months back in prison for his multiple violations, noting that the acts demonstrated a continued danger to the community.

The MCA Conflict: A Test of Loyalty and Integrity

Jonathan Braun is not just a convicted drug dealer; he is an infamous figure in the Merchant Cash Advance space. Before his drug sentence, Braun operated RCG Advances (formerly Richmond Capital Group), a company that became synonymous with predatory lending practices and illegal debt collection.

The New York Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) both pursued legal action against Braun and his company. The FTC, in a landmark case, secured a $20.3 million judgment against Braun for knowingly deceiving small businesses, illegally seizing assets, and engaging in appalling collection tactics—including threatening physical violence and using vile profanity against business owners. He has been permanently banned from the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries.

This history places a heavy ethical weight on members of the RBF/MCA industry who are also staunch supporters of President Trump.

To MCA professionals who support the President, the Braun situation presents a direct conflict:

You stand with a President you believe supports your business interests and values, yet that leader used his highest executive power to free a man who represents the absolute worst, most predatory, and criminally accused practices within your own industry.

The industry already faces intense public scrutiny and regulatory threats. When a symbol of its dark side, a man permanently banned for predatory behavior and who allegedly threatened small business owners with violence, is chosen for a high-profile presidential clemency, it forces a difficult question:

• How do you reconcile supporting a political decision that elevates an individual whose actions actively undermine your industry’s reputation for legitimate funding?

The pardon of Jonathan Braun, a notorious, white-collar predator within the financing sector who then demonstrated a stunning lack of regard for the rule of law by committing new crimes, creates a significant liability. It allows critics to argue that political favoritism, rather than justice or reform, was the basis for the clemency, thereby making it harder for every reputable broker and funding company to argue for the legitimacy and value of the RBF product.

For those who advocate for reform and clean business practices within the MCA world, Braun’s case serves as a powerful reminder that the fight for industry integrity must transcend political loyalties.