Tagged: CFTC

Jan-Sept 2014 CFTC law suits (enforcement actions)

the following information was copied off the official CFTC website.

___________________________________

CFTC  TRADE COMMISSION

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Date

Enforcement Press Releases

See Also:

OpenGov Logo

CFTC’s Commitment to Open Government

Media Contacts in Office of Public Affairs

  • Steven Adamske
  • 202-418-5080
Orange CFTC Banner

Press Room Email Subscriptions

Advertisements

FOREX WARNING BLOG- do u want me to keep writing it? is it helping anyone?

I feel like no one cares. Like I’m wasting my time.

If you want me to keep going than please say so.

My whole goal is to try protect people from getting scammed by the whole change in the FOREX market from real to simulated. While 9 thousand people have visited my blog- most come to try put advertising in the comment sections.

I’ve had maybe 25 real comments. Is that all the real readers I’ve had?

If this blog has helped you- please let me know, Gathering the information takes a lot of time and is pointless if no one is making use of it.

COMMENT IF YOU WANT THIS BLOG TO BE CONTINUED….

CFTC makes $463 MILLION in 5 mos in fines while VICTIMS only get partial restitution.

The CFTC is a private agency that acts as industry regulators. They file actions against violators and collect money for the following 5 purposes-

  • restitution
  • loan payoff
  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • sanctions

Restitution and loan payoffs get paid out

The penalties, fines, and sanctions are kept by them.  I added up how much of this category of money they collected from Jan , 2013 to May 31, 2013 – a total of 5 months.

TOTAL MONEY COLLECTED FOR FINES  $462,907,959.00

THAT’S JUST SHY OF $463 MILLION in 5 months!  (can you imagine their pay checks!)

463 million that means they gross over 1 BILLION a year. Operating costs can’t justify this level of GREED.

At the same time- victims are getting shorted in restitution. The shortage is being taken by the CFTC. They often pay themselves equal to the victims-

This isn’t like collecting insurance money from an accident! Its acceptable for the lawyers to keep half because the money is being paid for suffering- it’s not a repayment of money lost. The CFTC is acting like its ok to short people of money that was stolen from them! This isn’t ok.

PROOF:  

Over and over cases read like this:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

  • funds involving at least $22.5 million.
  • pay restitution of $11,437,573 to defrauded customers.
  • civil monetary penalty of over $11.4 million

Customers lost 22.5 million but get back only half!  WHY? Because the CFTC TOOK THE OTHER 11.4 million for themselves! This is just wrong!!!

(http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6590-13)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

  • accepted more than $4.7 million from retail public customers
  • restitution of approximately $3.2 million to defrauded customers
  • a $1.5 million civil monetary penalty.

So why do the victims get shorted by 1.5 million ? Why does the CFTC get to take the 1.5 million that would have paid them back in full?  This is unjust!

(http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6653-13)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

  • solicited more than $1.3 million
  • pay $1,146,000 in restitution to their defrauded customers
  • and a $1,337,000 civil monetary penalty

That means customers were shorted by 154k while the CFTC kept 1.3 million. How is this acceptable? case link  (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6690-13)

August 30, 2013 Federal Court Orders Matthew Marshall Taylor to Pay $500,000 for Fraud for Fabricating and Concealing Trades from Goldman, Sachs & Co.

copied from cftc website

link http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6677-13

 

August 30, 2013

Federal Court Orders Matthew Marshall Taylor to Pay $500,000 for Fraud for Fabricating and Concealing Trades from Goldman, Sachs & Co., His Former Employer, and Obstructing Their Discovery

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Final Judgment and Consent Order for Permanent Injunction against Matthew Marshall Taylor (Taylor) for defrauding Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman), his former employer, in December 2007 by intentionally concealing from Goldman the true position size, as well as the risk and potential profits or losses (P&L) associated with the S&P 500 e-mini futures contracts (e-mini futures) position in a firm account traded by Taylor.

The Order finds that Taylor recorded multiple fabricated entries in a Manual Trade Entry System for e-mini futures trades that he never made in order to conceal and understate the true size of his e-mini futures position and risk in his trading account, as the fabricated sales functioned to offset portions of the Defendant’s actual e-mini futures purchases.

Further, the Order finds that Taylor violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by concealing his position, risk and P&L from Goldman and requires Taylor to pay a $500,000 civil monetary penalty. Additionally, the Order imposes permanent trading and registration bans on Taylor and prohibits him from violating the CEA, as charged. Taylor resides in Florida.

The Court’s Order, dated August 28, 2013, stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on November 8, 2012, that charged Taylor with fraud for fabricating and concealing trades from his employer and obstructing their discovery (see CFTC Press Release 6409-12).

In a related criminal proceeding based on substantially the same facts, Taylor pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to one count of wire fraud before the Honorable William H. Pauley III.

The CFTC thanks the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for its assistance.

CFTC staff members responsible for this case are Janine Gargiulo, Trevor Kokal, Michael Geiser, Judith Slowly, David Acevedo, Lenel Hickson, Stephen Obie, and Vincent McGonagle.

 

Last Updated: August 30, 2013

August 26, 2013 Federal Court in Maryland Orders Sidney J. Charles, Jr, The Borrowing Station, LLC, to pay over $600,000 to Settle CFTC Forex Fraud Action

copied from cftc website

resource link  http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6676-13

August 26, 2013

Federal Court in Maryland Orders Sidney J. Charles, Jr. and his Company, The Borrowing Station, LLC, to pay over $600,000 to Settle CFTC Forex Fraud Action

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court consent Order of permanent injunction requiring Defendants Sidney J. Charles, Jr., formerly of Bowie, Maryland, and his company, The Borrowing Station, LLC (Borrowing Station) of Bowie, Maryland, jointly and severally to pay $254,236 in restitution and a $350,000 civil monetary penalty in connection with an off-exchange leveraged foreign currency (forex) Ponzi scheme.

The Order, entered on August 23, 2013, by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland, also imposes permanent registration and trading bans against both Defendants and prohibits them from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC Regulations, as charged. The court’s Order stems from a CFTC complaint filed on April 23, 2012, that charged Defendants with solicitation fraud, misappropriation, issuing false statements, and registration violations (see CFTC Press Release 6247-12).

The Order finds that, from at least October 2009 through at least July 2011, Defendants fraudulently solicited $369,326 from 18 individuals or entities for participation in a pooled investment vehicle managed by Borrowing Station, through Charles, that traded forex. According to the Order, Defendants solicited pool participants directly and through a website. In their solicitations, Defendants promised substantial investment returns such as 25 percent per year or 10 percent per month, and falsely claimed that pool participant funds were guaranteed against trading losses. The Order finds that Defendants deposited only a portion of pool participant funds into trading accounts and lost a majority of those funds unsuccessfully trading forex.

The Order also finds that Defendants issued checks to pool participants that represented purported “monthly returns” or “return on investment.” However, any purported profits that Defendants paid to pool participants came from the principal of other pool participants in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. In addition, Charles misappropriated pool participant funds to pay for personal expenses and to fund Borrowing Station’s operations, according to the Order.

The Order further finds that Borrowing Station and Charles failed to register as a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and Associated Person of a CPO, respectively, as required under the CEA and CFTC Regulations.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Kara Mucha, Kassra Goudarzi, Michael Solinsky, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

 

Last Updated: August 26, 2013

August 22, 2013 CFTC Files to Revoke Registration of Prestige Capital Advisors, LLC, ordered to pay $6.9M in penalties, $4.1M restitution.

copied from cftc website

resource link:http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6671-13

 

August 22, 2013

CFTC Files Action to Revoke Registration of Commodity Trading Advisor Prestige Capital Advisors, LLC

Washington, DC– The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a Notice of Intent (Notice) to revoke the registration of Prestige Capital Advisors, LLC (Prestige) of Charlotte, North Carolina, as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA).

The CFTC Notice alleges that Prestige is subject to statutory disqualification from CFTC registration based on an Order of default judgment and permanent injunction entered against Prestige in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on January 25, 2013 (see CFTC Press Release 6615-13). The Order finds that Prestige fraudulently solicited and accepted more than $4.7 million from multiple pool participants for investment in one or more commodity pools that traded among other things, commodities and futures contracts. The Order also finds that Prestige misappropriated pool participant funds, posted false trading returns on a website called BarclayHedge (where fund managers could post unverified historical returns for prospective clients to view), sent false trading results to at least one Prestige pool participant, and issued false account statements. As a result, Prestige was ordered to pay approximately $6.9 million in civil monetary penalties and restitution of over $4.1 million.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Eugenia Vroustouris, Daniel Jordan, Michael Loconte, Erica Bodin, Rick Glaser, and Richard Wagner.

 

Last Updated: August 22, 2013

8, 13, 2013,civil injunction filed against Worth Group Inc, Andrew Wilshire, Eugenia Mildner, who took more than 73 million. Defrauded precious metals customers.,

copied from the cftc website

resource link: http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6666-13

_______________________________________________________

August 13, 2013

CFTC Charges Florida-Based Worth Group Inc. and Its Principals, Andrew Wilshire and Eugenia Mildner, in Multi-Million Dollar Fraudulent Precious Metals Scheme

CFTC alleges that Defendants, who took in more than $73 million, defrauded customers in connection with precious metals transactions and engaged in illegal off-exchange commodity transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that on August 13, 2013, it filed a civil injunctive enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Worth Group Inc. (Worth), as well as its owner, Andrew Wilshire, and its sole officer and director, Eugenia Mildner, all of Jupiter, Florida. The CFTC’s Complaint charges that Defendants defrauded retail precious metals customers and engaged in illegal, off-exchange retail commodity transactions from July 16, 2011, through the present.

According to the Complaint, Worth purported to sell physical metal, including gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, on a fully-paid basis, as well as on a financed basis, to hundreds of retail customers located throughout the United States. The Complaint alleges that Worth falsely represented to customers that, within 28 days of a customer’s purchase, Worth would deliver metal either to the customers directly or to a depository that would hold the metal for the customer. The Complaint alleges that pursuant to the scheme, Worth took in over $73 million in customer funds between July 18, 2011, and December 31, 2012.

As alleged, in connection with fully-paid transactions, customers paid the full purchase price to Worth for metals, having been told that Worth would deliver metal in return. The Complaint alleges that from at least August 15, 2011, through November 8, 2012, however, Worth did not actually deliver metal to most customers. Instead, rather than deliver actual metal, Worth’s typical practice after receiving customer money was to purchase metals derivatives in accounts owned by Worth. These derivatives purportedly “covered” customer transactions, but, contrary to Worth’s representations to customers, did not involve the purchase, transfer, or physical delivery of precious metals to Worth, let alone to its retail customers.

Retail customers engaging in financed transactions with Worth were told that they were borrowing money to purchase precious metals. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), a financed transaction such as that conducted by Worth is an illegal off-exchange transaction unless it results in actual delivery of metal within 28 days. The Complaint alleges that Worth often failed to make such delivery on a timely basis. Worth thus defrauded its customers and subjected them to undisclosed exposure to Worth’s credit, as they were left with only Worth’s commitment to deliver metal rather than the promised metal itself.

The Complaint further alleges that as persons controlling Worth’s precious metals operations, Wilshire and Mildner are liable for Worth’s violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC Regulation.

In its continuing litigation against Defendants, the CFTC seeks preliminary and permanent civil injunctions in addition to other remedial relief, including restitution, civil monetary penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

This is the third action the CFTC has brought against entities and individuals who purport to buy precious metals and transfer ownership of those metals to customers, when insufficient metal, or no metal at all, is in fact purchased and delivered (see CFTC Press Releases 6447-12 and 6655-13).

David Meister, the CFTC’s Enforcement Director, stated: “The rules of the new Dodd-Frank law are simple: Companies and individuals who purport to sell precious metals to the retail public, and who say they are supplying real metal, must actually deliver real metal. As today’s case shows, along with previously filed Complaints against Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC and AmeriFirst Management, LLC, we will not hesitate to pursue wrongdoers who say they are providing investments in real precious metals to the American public when in fact they are providing nothing of the sort.”

The CFTC thanks the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority for its assistance in this matter.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Theodore Z. Polley III, Melissa Glasbrenner, William P. Janulis, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard B. Wagner.

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 customers that leveraged commodity transactions are unlawful unless executed on a regulated exchange.

Last Updated: August 13, 2013