CFTC ANNOUNCES COURT ORDERED SANCTIONS AGAINST PRECOCIOUS METALS COMPANY

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Federal Court Orders More than $1.3 Million in Sanctions and Enters a Default Judgment Order against Florida-Based Gold Distributors, Inc. and Its Owner, Jordan Cain, for Engaging in Illegal, Off-Exchange Commodity Transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge William J. Zloch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an Order of default judgment against Defendants Gold Distributors, Inc. (GDI) of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and its sole owner Jordan Cain of Miami, Florida. The Order requires the Defendants to pay restitution in the amount of $337,266 and a civil monetary penalty of $1,011,800. The Order also imposes permanent trading, solicitation, and registration bans against the Defendants and prohibits them from violating provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as charged.

The Order, entered on November 24, 2014, stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on March 19, 2014, that charged the Defendants with engaging in illegal, off-exchange transactions in precious metals with retail customers on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis (see CFTC Press Release 6884-14).

Specifically, the Order finds that between January 2012 and February 2013, the Defendants offered to enter into, executed, and confirmed the execution of financed gold and silver transactions with persons who were not eligible contract participants as defined by the CEA. The Order further finds that the Defendants introduced 27 customers to AmeriFirst Management, LLC (AmeriFirst), a precious metals wholesaler and clearing firm that financed and purported to confirm the execution of customer precious metals transactions. The Defendants transferred at least $797,577 to AmeriFirst for the purchase of precious metals and received commissions and fees totaling at least $337,266 for the retail financed precious metals transactions executed through AmeriFirst, according to the Order. The Order also finds that Cain was liable, as GDI’s controlling person, for GDI’s violations of the CEA.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, financed transactions such as those conducted by GDI, are illegal off-exchange transactions unless they result in actual delivery of metal within 28 days. According to the Order, the Defendants and AmeriFirst never actually delivered any precious metals to any of the Defendants’ customers.

The CFTC cautions victims that restitution orders may not result in the recovery of money lost because the wrongdoers may not have sufficient funds or assets. The CFTC will continue to fight vigorously for the protection of customers and to ensure the wrongdoers are held accountable.

On July 29, 2013, the CFTC, in a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, charged AmeriFirst and its principals with fraud and other violations of the CEA. On September 18, 2013, the court found AmeriFirst and its principals liable for illegal, off-exchange precious metals transactions and fraud, and on, July 24, 2014, the court imposed sanctions of over $35 million against AmeriFirst and its principals (see CFTC Press Releases 6655-13 and 6973-14).

BILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT SCAMMER SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION  
Paul Greenwood Sentenced to 10 Years in Federal Prison for Billion-Dollar Investment Scam

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Paul Greenwood of North Salem, New York, who operated a $1.3 billion investment scam where he and a co-Defendant misappropriated at least $554 million from commodity pool participants, was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for charges related to his participation in the scam. Earlier, on July 28, 2010, Greenwood pled guilty to a six-count criminal indictment on the charges, including a commodities fraud charge in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

The criminal charges arose from Greenwood’s solicitation fraud and misappropriation of pool participant funds, as charged in a Complaint filed by the CFTC on February 25, 2009 (see CFTC Press Release 5621-09) and a companion Complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to findings in Consent Orders entered earlier in the CFTC case, from at least 1996 to 2009, Greenwood and a co-Defendant solicited more than $7.6 billion from institutional investors, including charitable and university foundations and pension and retirement plans through Westridge Capital Management, WG Trading Investors, LP, and other entities. The Defendants defrauded victims by falsely depicting that all pool participants’ funds would be employed in a single investment strategy that consisted of index arbitrage. However, pool participants’ funds were transferred to another entity from which Greenwood and the co-Defendant siphoned funds.

Of the approximately $554 million in pool participants’ funds misappropriated, over $130 million was used for Greenwood and the co-Defendant’s personal expenses, including purchasing rare books, horses, and Steiff teddy bears for as much as $80,000.

In a sentencing letter filed with the Court in the criminal proceeding, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York acknowledged that Greenwood had cooperated and had provided substantial assistance to the government and the court-appointed receiver in the CFTC and SEC cases. The receiver’s efforts to marshal assets to date have resulted in the recovery of over $900 million dollars, or close to 90 percent of investors’ claims.

Aitan Goelman, the CFTC’s Director of Enforcement, stated: “The sentence in this case should serve as a warning that those who willfully violate the CEA face the very real chance of a significant term of imprisonment. The CFTC will continue its vigilance in protecting commodities and derivatives investors from fraud and other forms of financial crime.”

The CFTC greatly appreciates the assistance of the National Futures Association, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this matter: Patricia Gomersall, Kyong Koh, JonMarc Buffa, Peter Haas, Joan Manley, and Paul Hayeck.

FLORIDA COMPANY CHARGED WITH MAKING ILLEGAL, OFF-EXCHANGE PRECIOUS METALS TRANSACTIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

CFTC Charges Florida-Based Palm Beach Capital LLC and Lawrence Scott Spain with Engaging in Illegal, Off-Exchange Precious Metals Transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a civil injunctive enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Defendants Palm Beach Capital LLC (PBC) of Palm Beach, Florida, and its owner and manager, Lawrence Scott Spain, of Boca Raton, Florida. The CFTC Complaint charges the Defendants with engaging in illegal, off-exchange transactions in precious metals with retail customers on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis. The Complaint further alleges that Spain, as controlling person for PBC, is liable for PBC’s violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

According to the Complaint, since at least July 16, 2011 and continuing through at least August 2012, PBC, by and through its employees including Spain, solicited retail customers by telephone and on PBC’s website, to engage in leveraged, margined, or financed precious metals (including gold, silver, platinum and palladium) transactions. During that period, the Complaint alleges, approximately 39 of PBC’s customers paid at least $1.35 million to PBC in connection with precious metals transactions. The Complaint alleges that these customers lost at least $1.25 million of these funds to trading losses, commissions, fees, and other charges by PBC and other companies. PBC received commissions and fees totaling at least $526,000 in connection with these precious metals transactions, according to the Complaint.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, leveraged, margined, or financed transactions such as those conducted by PBC, are illegal off-exchange transactions unless they result in actual delivery of metal within 28 days. The Complaint alleges that metals were never actually delivered in connection with the leveraged, margined, or financed precious metals transactions made on behalf of PBC’s customers.

The Complaint further alleges that PBC executed the illegal precious metals transactions through Lloyds Commodities, LLC and associated entities (collectively, Lloyds Commodities) and Hunter Wise, LLC and associated entities (collectively, Hunter Wise). The CFTC filed enforcement actions against, among others, Lloyds Commodities and Hunter Wise in December 2012, charging both Lloyds Commodities and Hunter Wise with engaging in illegal, off-exchange precious metals transactions, and charging Hunter Wise with fraud and other violations (see CFTC Press Release 6447-12). On February 5, 2014, in a consent order resolving the Commission’s claims against Lloyds Commodities, the District Court found that the CFTC had jurisdiction over the transactions at issue pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the CEA and ordered Lloyds Commodities to pay over $5 million in restitution and penalties (see CFTC Press Release 6850-14).

On February 19, 2014, the District Court found that Hunter Wise had no actual metal to deliver to customers and held that Hunter Wise engaged in illegal precious metals transactions and was required to register as a futures commission merchant but did not do so and therefore violated Sections 4(a) and 4d of the CEA (see CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, et al., 12-81311-CIV (Order on the Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment). A bench trial against Hunter Wise on remaining charges, which allege fraud, was concluded on March 3, 2014, and the parties are awaiting the court’s final judgment. And on April 15, 2014, in CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction and held that the Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the CEA extends to the precious metals transactions at issue in the case and that no exception to the Commission’s jurisdiction applied.

In its continuing litigation against PBC and Spain, the CFTC seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution for the benefit of customers, civil monetary penalties, permanent registration and trading bans, and a permanent injunction from future violations of the CEA, as charged.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are R. Stephen Painter, Jr., Michael C. McLaughlin, David W. MacGregor, Lenel Hickson, Jr., and Manal M. Sultan.

FLORIDIAN FINED FOR MAKING FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS DURING CFTC INVESTIGATION

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Orders Sean R. Stropp to Pay $250,000 Penalty to Settle Charges of Making False and Misleading Statements During a CFTC Investigation

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an Order filing and settling charges against Sean R. Stropp (Stropp), formerly of Jupiter, Florida. Stropp is ordered to pay a $250,000 civil monetary penalty for making false and misleading statements of material fact, and omitting material facts, to CFTC staff during a CFTC Division of Enforcement (DOE) investigation. The Order enforces the false statements provision of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which was added by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

In addition to the $250,000 civil monetary penalty, the Order requires Stropp to cease and desist from violating the relevant provision of the CEA and permanently prohibits him from, directly or indirectly, engaging in trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity.

According to the Order, Stropp provided DOE staff a signed and notarized financial disclosure statement in connection with the CFTC’s investigation into potentially unlawful sales of off-exchange leveraged metals contracts by Stropp and his company Barclay Metals, Inc. (Barclay). In his statement, Stropp falsely represented that the statement included all his known assets and that the statement was true, correct, and complete, per the Order. Further, the Order finds that Stropp omitted material facts from the statement, including both his control of, and his spouse’s ownership interest in, another entity selling leveraged metals contracts and his ownership and control of two of that other entity's bank accounts.

CFTC DOE Acting Director Gretchen Lowe commented, “Lying or failing to disclose material information during a CFTC investigation is unacceptable, and those who do so must bear the consequences.”

CFTC Previously Settled with Stropp

On January 28, 2013, the Commission issued an Order finding that Stropp, Barclay, and others engaged in illegal, off-exchange metals transactions in violation of the CEA (see CFTC press release 6503-13, January 28, 2013).

Related Criminal Action

On August 20, 2013, the Manhattan (New York) District Attorney’s office announced Stropp’s indictment for operating a fraudulent investment scheme through the undisclosed leveraged metals entity at issue in the Order. According to the indictment, the scheme allegedly resulted in millions of dollars of customer losses. Stropp pleaded guilty to the charges on February 4, 2014 and was sentenced to one to three years in prison in New York, where he is currently incarcerated.

CFTC DOE staff responsible for this action are Jenny Chapin, Jeff Le Riche, Steve Turley, Charles Marvine, Rick Glaser, and Richard Wagner. The CFTC thanks the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for its assistance.

CFTC OFFICIAL'S TESTIMONY REGARDING FUTURES MARKET OVERSIGHT

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Testimony of Vincent McGonagle, Director Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Before the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

January 15, 2014

Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Vincent McGonagle and I am the Director of the Division of Market Oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Background on Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC Mission

The purpose of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is to serve the public interest by providing a means for managing and assuming price risks, discovering prices, or disseminating pricing information. Consistent with its mission statement and statutory charge under the CEA, the CFTC is tasked with protecting market participants and the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices and systemic risk related to derivatives – both futures and swaps – and to foster transparent, open, competitive and financially sound markets. In carrying out its mission and statutory charge, and to promote market integrity, the Commission polices derivatives markets for various abuses and works to ensure the protection of customer funds. Further, the agency seeks to lower the risk of the futures and swaps markets to the economy and the public. To fulfill these roles, the Commission oversees designated contract markets (DCMs), swap execution facilities (SEFs), derivatives clearing organizations, swap data repositories, swap dealers, futures commission merchants, commodity pool operators and other intermediaries.

The CEA has for many years required that any futures transaction, unless subject to an exemption, be conducted on or subject to the rules of a board of trade which has been designated by the CFTC as a DCM. Sections 5 and 6 of the CEA and Part 38 of the Commission’s regulations provide the legal framework for the Commission to designate DCMs, along with each DCM’s compliance requirements with respect to the trading of commodity futures contracts. With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), DCMs were also permitted to list swap contracts. Along with this expansion of product lines that can be listed on DCMs, the Dodd-Frank Act also amended various substantive DCM requirements, under CEA Section 5, and adopted a new regulatory category for exchanges that provide for the trading of swaps (SEFs).1 The Commission revised its DCM regulations to reflect these new requirements, and also adopted regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s SEF requirements.

Under the CEA and the Commission’s contract and rule review regulations, all new product terms and conditions, and subsequent associated amendments, are submitted to the Commission before implementation. In submitting new products and associated amendments, DCMs and SEFs are legally obligated to meet certain core principles; one of the most significant being the prohibition, in DCM and SEF Core Principle 3, on listing contracts that are readily susceptible to manipulation.2 DCMs and SEFs self-certify most of their products to the Commission, as allowed under the CEA,3 and self-certified contracts may be listed for trading shortly after submission.4 The Commission has provided Guidance to DCMs and SEFs on meeting Core Principle 3 in Appendix C to Part 38 of the Commission’s regulations. Failure of a DCM or SEF to adopt and maintain practices that adhere to these requirements may lead to the Commission’s initiation of proceedings to secure compliance.

Among other things, a DCM or SEF that lists a contract that is settled by physical delivery should design its contracts in such a way as to avoid any impediments to the delivery of the commodity in order to promote convergence between the price of the futures contract and the cash market value of the commodity at the time of delivery. The specified terms and conditions considered as a whole should result in a deliverable supply that is sufficient to ensure that the contract is not susceptible to price manipulation or distortion.5 The contract terms and conditions should describe or define all of the economically significant characteristics or attributes of the commodity underlying the contract, including: quality standards that reflect those used in transactions in the commodity in normal cash marketing channels; delivery points at a location or locations where the underlying cash commodity is normally transacted or stored; conditions that delivery facility operators must meet in order to be eligible for delivery, including considerations of the extent to which ownership of such facilities is concentrated and whether the level of concentration would render the futures contract susceptible to manipulation; delivery procedures that seek to minimize or eliminate any impediment to making or taking delivery by both deliverers and takers of delivery to help ensure convergence of cash and futures at the expiration of a futures delivery month.

Commission staff utilizes considerable discretion and can request that DCMs and SEFs provide full explanations of their compliance with the Commission’s product requirements. Commission staff may ask a DCM or SEF at any time for a detailed justification of its continuing compliance with core principles, including information demonstrating that any contract certified to the Commission for listing on that exchange meets the requirements of the Act and DCM or SEF Core Principle 3.

Expansion of CFTC Enforcement Authority Under Dodd-Frank

The Commission’s responsibilities under the CEA include mandates to prevent and deter fraud and manipulation. The Dodd-Frank Act enhanced the Commission’s enforcement authority by expanding it to the swaps markets. The Commission adopted a rule to implement its new authorities to police against fraud and manipulative schemes. In the past, the CFTC had the ability to prosecute manipulation, but to prevail, it had to prove the specific intent of the accused to affect prices and the existence of an artificial price. Under the new law and rules implementing it, the Commission’s anti-manipulation reach is extended to prohibit the reckless use of manipulative schemes. Specifically, Section 6(c)(3) of the CEA now makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity. In addition, Section 4c(a) of the CEA now explicitly prohibits disruptive trading practices and the Commission has issued an Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement on Disruptive Practices.6

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act established a registration regime for any foreign board of trade (FBOT) and associated clearing organization who seeks to offer U.S. customers direct access to its electronic trading and order matching system. Applicants for FBOT registration must demonstrate, among other things, that they are subject to comprehensive supervision and regulation by the appropriate governmental authorities in their home country or countries that is comparable to the comprehensive supervision and regulation to which Commission-designated contract markets and registered derivatives clearing organizations are respectively subject.

CFTC Coordination with Foreign and Domestic Regulators

The Commission recognizes that commodity markets are international in nature and, accordingly, regularly consults with other countries’ regulators. In particular, staff regularly consult with staff of the FCA (the LME’s home regulatory authority) as to market conditions with respect to products of mutual interest, including the LME’s recent introduction of warehouse reforms. The two agencies also participate in mutual information-sharing agreements for both market surveillance and enforcement purposes.

Similarly, the Commission formally and informally consults and coordinates with other domestic financial regulators. For example, the CFTC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place since 2005 that provides for information exchange related to oversight or investigations. Earlier this month, FERC and the CFTC signed two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to address circumstances of overlapping jurisdiction and to share information in connection with market surveillance and investigations into potential market manipulation, fraud or abuse. The MOUs allow the agencies to promote effective and efficient regulation to protect the nation’s energy markets and increased cooperation between the agencies.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

1 In addition to the provisions regarding listing of swaps on DCMs and SEFs, the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, unless a clearing exception applies and is elected, a swap that is subject to a clearing requirement must be executed on a DCM, SEF, or SEF that is exempt from registration under CEA, unless no such DCM or SEF makes the swap available to trade.

2 DCM and SEF Core Principle 3 states, “Contract Not Readily Subject to Manipulation—The board of trade shall list on the contract market only contracts that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.”

3 For example, while contracts can be submitted for approval, of the almost 5,000 contracts submitted by DCMs and SEFs since the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, all were submitted on a self-certification basis, and over 2,000 contracts were certified in calendar year 2013 alone.

4 A DCM or SEF need wait only one full business day after the contract has been submitted to list the contract for trading.

5 Deliverable supply means the quantity of the commodity meeting the contract’s delivery specification that reasonably can be expected to be readily available to short traders and salable by long traders at its market value in normal cash marketing channels at the contract’s delivery points during the specified delivery period, barring abnormal movement in interstate commerce.

6 Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 78 FR 31890 (May 28, 2013),


Last Updated: January 15, 2014

FLORIDA COURTS ORDERS OVER $ 8 MILLION IN SANCTIONS IN COMMODITY POOL FRAUD CASE

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Federal Court in Florida Orders More than $8 Million in Sanctions against Defendants Philip Leon and Paul Rangel for Commodity Pool Fraud and Misappropriation

In a Parallel Criminal Action, Leon Pleaded Guilty to Mail and Wire Fraud

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained federal court Orders requiring Defendants Philip Leon, of Altamonte Springs, Florida, to pay a $4 million civil monetary penalty and $1,598,343 in disgorgement and Paul Rangel, of Apopka, Florida, to pay a $1.7 million civil monetary penalty and $819,781 in disgorgement to settle CFTC charges related to a fraudulent commodity pool scheme. The consent Orders of permanent injunction, both entered on December 17, 2013 by Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, also impose permanent trading and registration bans against Leon and Rangel and prohibit them from violating provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC Regulation, as charged.

The Orders stem from a CFTC Complaint filed on July 16, 2012 against Leon and Rangel, as well as Defendants John G. Wilkins and their company Altamont Global Partners LLC (see CFTC Press Release 6315-12).

The Orders find that, from approximately March 2009 to at least June 22, 2012, Leon and Rangel operated a fraudulent scheme that solicited at least $18 million from approximately 241 commodity pool participants to trade, among other things, commodity futures contracts, options on futures, and off-exchange foreign currency contracts. The Orders further find that Leon and Rangel misappropriated a combined total of more than $2.4 million of pool participants’ funds and issued false statements to pool participants regarding the profitability and value of their accounts. Specifically, Leon misappropriated nearly $1.6 million and Rangel nearly $819,000 of pool participants’ funds as “loans” and “advances” from the commodity pools, designed to disguise their misappropriation, the Orders find.

In a related criminal action, on November 6, 2013, Leon pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud (see United States v. Leon, No. 13-cr-249 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2013)). Leon has not yet been sentenced.

The CFTC’s litigation continues against Altamont Global Partners and Wilkins.

The CFTC thanks the National Futures Association for its assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Rachel Hayes, Peter Riggs, Stephen Turley, Charles Marvine, Rick Glaser, and Richard Wagner.

CFTC TAKES ACTION AGAINST OWNER AND COMPANY ENGAGED IN OFF-EXCHANGE PRECIOUS METALS TRANSACTIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Charges New York-Based The Yorkshire Group Inc. and Its Owner, Scott Platto with Engaging in Illegal, Off-Exchange Precious Metals Transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a civil injunctive enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Defendants The Yorkshire Group Inc. (Yorkshire) of Staten Island, New York, and its sole owner, Scott Platto, also of Staten Island. The CFTC Complaint, filed on September 25, 2013, charges the Defendants with engaging in illegal, off-exchange financed transactions in precious metals with retail customers. The Complaint further alleges that Platto, as the owner, operator, and controlling person of Yorkshire, is liable for Yorkshire’s violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)

According to the Complaint, between September 2011 and August 2012, the Defendants solicited retail customers by telephone to buy physical precious metals such as silver and palladium in off-exchange leverage transactions. Retail customers engaging in financed transaction with Yorkshire were allegedly told that they were borrowing money to purchase precious metals. Customers paid Yorkshire a portion of the purchase price for the metals, and Yorkshire financed the remainder of the purchase price, while charging the customers interest on the amount they purportedly loaned to customers. The Complaint further alleges that Yorkshire’s customers never took delivery of the precious metals they purportedly purchased and that the Defendants neither bought, sold, loaned, stored, or transferred any physical metals for these transactions.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which expanded the CFTC’s jurisdiction over retail commodity transactions like these, prohibits fraud in connection with such transactions, and requires that these transactions be executed on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, exchange, or contract market. Thus, since Yorkshire’s and Platto’s transactions were executed off exchange, they were illegal, according to the Complaint.

When Yorkshire and Platto allegedly engaged in these illegal transactions, they were acting as a dealer for metals merchant Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC (Hunter Wise), which the CFTC charged with fraud and other violations in federal court in Florida on December 5, 2012 (see CFTC Press Release 6447-12). On February 25, 2013, the court granted a preliminary injunction against Hunter Wise, froze the firm’s assets, and appointed a corporate monitor to assume control over those assets (see CFTC Press Release 6522-13).

In its continuing litigation against Yorkshire and Platto, the CFTC seeks restitution to defrauded customers, a return of ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against further violations of the CEA, as charged.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are Karin N. Roth, Philip Rix, David W. MacGregor, Lenel Hickson, Jr., Stephen J. Obie, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

CFTC’s Precious Metals Fraud Advisory

In January 2012, the CFTC issued a Precious Metals Consumer Fraud Advisory to alert customers to precious metals fraud. The Advisory states that the CFTC had seen an increase in the number of companies offering customers the opportunity to buy or invest in precious metals. The CFTC’s Advisory specifically warns that companies often fail to purchase any physical metals for their customers, instead simply keeping the customer’s funds. The Advisory further cautions consumers that leveraged commodity transactions are unlawful unless executed on a regulated exchange.

CFTC CHARGES MISSOURI RESIDENT AND COMPANY WITH VIOLATING COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND FOREX REGULATIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Files Enforcement Action Charging Missouri Resident Daniel K. Steele and His Foreign Currency  Firm with Violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and Forex Regulations
Court enters Order freezing Defendants’ assets and protecting books and records

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the filing of a civil Complaint against Defendants Daniel K. Steele of Rolla, Missouri, and his firm Champion Management International, LLC (Champion Management).  The CFTC’s Complaint charges Steele with, among other things, engaging in an act or practice which operated as a fraud or deceit under Section 4o(1)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) for failing to disclose material information, including that defendants were acting as unregistered Commodity Pool Operators (CPO) for at least two commodity pools engaging in off-exchange retail foreign currency transactions (forex).  The Complaint also charges Steele with failing to disclose that the counterparty to the retail forex transactions that were offered or entered into with the respective pools was not registered as a Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer (RFED).  The Complaint charges Champion Management with acting as an unregistered CPO in connection with a third forex pool. The Complaint further alleges that neither Defendant has ever been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

The complaint, filed on September 25, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division, alleges that from at least February 28, 2011 through the present (relevant period), Steele individually and acting as an agent of Champion Management, solicited at least $1.7 million from at least 24 pool participants to participate in three forex pools.  The Complaint further alleges that Steele, during the relevant period, failed to disclose material information to pool participants, which operated as a fraud in that neither he nor Champion Management were properly registered with the CFTC and that he misappropriated a portion of pool participants’ funds.

On September 25, 2013, the same day the complaint was filed, Judge Rodney W. Sippel, of the U.S. District Court for the for the Eastern District of Missouri, entered under seal an emergency order freezing the defendants’ assets and prohibiting the destruction or alteration of books and records.  The judge set a hearing date on the CFTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction for October 7, 2013.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks a return of ill-gotten gains, restitution, civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against further violations of the federal commodities laws.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are: Eugene Smith, Melanie Devoe, George Malas, Kyong J. Koh, Peter M. Haas, and Paul G. Hayeck.

CFTC OBTAINS COURT ORDER FOR REPAYMENT OF DEFRAUDED CUSTOMERS IN COMMODITY CONTRACT POOL SCHEME

FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
April 15, 2013

Federal Court in California Orders National Equity Holdings, Inc. and Its Principal, Robert J. Cannone, to Pay over $3.6 Million to Settle Fraud Charges in CFTC Action

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court Order against Defendants National Equity Holdings, Inc. (National Equity) and its Principal, Robert J. Cannone, both of Orange County, California, requiring them to pay restitution to defrauded customers in accordance with restitution set in a related criminal action at $1,059,096 (U.S. v. Cannone, SACR 11-263). The Consent Order of Permanent Injunction also imposes civil monetary penalties of $2.8 million on National Equity and $800,000 on Cannone. The Order also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against the Defendants and prohibits them from violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as charged.

The Order, entered on April 11, 2013, by the Honorable James Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on November 8, 2011, charging National Equity, Cannone, Francis Franco, and Thomas B. Breen with fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and registration violations.

The Order finds that between June 2009 to April 2010, Cannone, by and through National Equity, fraudulently solicited and accepted over $1.4 million to trade commodity futures contracts through a pool. In their solicitations, Cannone, by and through National Equity, (1) falsely claimed to have a successful and experienced trader (Franco) for the pool, (2) misrepresented the likelihood of profits and the risks associated with trading commodity futures, (3) failed to disclose that they were not properly registered with the CFTC to operate a pool, and (4) failed to disclose their intended uses of pool participant funds.

The Order further finds that Cannone and National Equity traded only a portion of the pool participant funds in proprietary accounts and sustained overall and significant losses. Cannone misappropriated the majority of the pool participant funds to make so-called returns to participants in monthly payments that Cannone, through National Equity, claimed were the profitable proceeds of their trading, the Order finds. Cannone also misappropriated pool participant funds for personal use, according to the Order.

Cannone and National Equity concealed their fraud and trading losses from the pool participants by issuing false account statements reflecting profits, the Order finds. A year after commencing their fraudulent scheme, their trading losses and misappropriation had depleted pool participant funds, but at meetings with several pool participants, the Defendants made promises and sometimes gave written guarantees to return the funds invested, according to the Order.

The Order also finds that National Equity failed to register with the CFTC as a Commodity Pool Operator and Cannone failed to register as an Associated Person of National Equity, as required.

The CFTC’s litigation continues against the remaining Defendant Breen. On July 12, 2012, the court entered a permanent injunction Order against Defendant Franco, barring him from further violations of the CEA, as charged, and from engaging in certain commodity-related activities, including trading for others and registration; however, the litigation continues to determine the appropriate amount of a civil monetary penalty to be imposed and the whether a personal trading ban should be imposed on Franco.

In related criminal actions, Cannone, as well as Breen and Franco, pled guilty to criminal violations of the CEA, as amended. Cannone was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison and ordered to pay the $1,059,096 million in restitution jointly with Breen and Franco.

The CFTC thanks the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Orange County Office) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (Santa Ana Office) for their assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Michelle S. Bougas, Heather Johnson, James H. Holl, III, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent McGonagle.

"iTRADE" STUDENTS LEARN HARD "iLESSON" ABOUT INVESTMENT ADVISOR FRAUD

FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

CFTC Settles Charges against Virginia Resident Alexander Giap for Engaging in Two Fraudulent Commodity Futures Trading Schemes

Federal Court in Virginia orders Giap to pay over $700,000 in restitution and penalties and permanently bars him from the commodities industry

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court order requiring defendant Alexander Giap of Falls Church, Va., to pay $456,743 in restitution to defrauded customers and a $250,000 civil monetary penalty for violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) (see CFTC Press Release 6191-12, February 27, 2012, as a Related Link). The consent order of permanent injunction, entered on December 17, 2012, by the Honorable Claude M. Hilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Giap and prohibits him from violating the CEA, as charged.

The order finds that Giap engaged in two schemes in which he acted as an unregistered Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). In the first scheme, which took place in 2009, Giap solicited customers to participate in iTRADE, a purported "school" that Giap used to conduct his CTA business, according to the order. iTRADE "students" provided Giap with "tuition" ranging from $4,000 to $20,000 and traded under Giap’s direction, the order finds. Giap and iTRADE offered a money back guarantee under which the iTRADE students would retain all profits from trading until they had recovered their initial deposit, the order finds. However, Giap’s trading resulted in substantial losses, losing money seven out of the nine months from January 2009 through September 2009, according to the order.

Furthermore, the order finds that Giap made a number of material misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts when he solicited customers to engage his services, including that he was a convicted felon who still owed restitution relating to his criminal conviction and was subject to Internal Revenue Service liens for delinquent taxes. Giap also failed to disclose the full extent of his history of losses incurred trading commodity futures, that he was not registered with the CFTC as a CTA, and that he had never traded commodity futures prior to January 2009, according to the order.

In Giap’s second commodity futures trading scheme, which began in October 2009, he defrauded three additional customers through the same material omissions as his first scheme, and his trading resulted in substantial financial losses to customers, according to the order.

The CFTC thanks the Virginia Corporation Commission for its assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Allison Baker Shealy, Jason Mahoney, Timothy J. Mulreany, George Malas, Rainey Perez, John Einstman, Paul G. Hayeck, and Joan Manley.