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….
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
|Trade account #:||02064349||Created at:||Jul 19, 2013 3:02:46 AM||Status:||Active||Base currency:||USD|
|Ticket #||Symbol||Volume||Date||Sold||Bought||Gross P/L||Comm||Rollover||Adj||Net P/L||Condition||Created By|
|83549612||EUR/CHF||400,000||8/21/13 3:33 PM||1.23231||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/27/13 3:46 AM||1.23111||521.63||0.00||-19.20||0.00||502.43||LE||d172060948001|
|83684611||NZD/USD||300,000||8/23/13 10:32 AM||0.77980||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/27/13 4:05 AM||0.77739||723.00||0.00||-37.80||0.00||685.20||LE||d172060948001|
|83703931||EUR/JPY||400,000||8/23/13 3:51 PM||131.946||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/27/13 4:05 AM||130.803||4,672.24||0.00||-2.40||0.00||4,669.84||LE||d172060948001|
|83864653||EUR/JPY||400,000||8/27/13 4:07 PM||130.031||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 1:43 AM||130.138||439.86||0.00||0.80||0.00||440.66||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83864768||NZD/USD||400,000||8/27/13 4:11 PM||0.77973||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 12:07 PM||0.78009||144.00||0.00||11.60||0.00||155.60||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83865050||USD/JPY||400,000||8/27/13 4:32 PM||97.060||LE||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 1:43 AM||97.280||904.61||0.00||0.40||0.00||905.01||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83891327||EUR/JPY||400,000||8/28/13 1:44 AM||130.133||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 2:06 AM||130.106||111.06||0.00||0.00||0.00||111.06||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83891573||USD/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 1:50 AM||97.280||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 2:18 AM||97.324||271.26||0.00||0.00||0.00||271.26||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83892368||EUR/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 2:07 AM||130.114||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 2:10 AM||130.231||721.33||0.00||0.00||0.00||721.33||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83892492||AUD/USD||400,000||8/28/13 2:10 AM||0.89254||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 2:41 AM||0.89133||484.00||0.00||0.00||0.00||484.00||LE||d172060948001|
|83892529||EUR/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 2:11 AM||130.216||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 2:13 AM||130.194||135.65||0.00||0.00||0.00||135.65||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83892632||EUR/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 2:13 AM||130.197||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 3:35 AM||130.392||1,200.13||0.00||0.00||0.00||1,200.13||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83893187||USD/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 2:28 AM||97.329||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 3:35 AM||97.485||960.15||0.00||0.00||0.00||960.15||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83896199||EUR/JPY||600,000||8/28/13 3:36 AM||130.381||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 3:49 AM||130.539||-971.82||0.00||0.00||0.00||-971.82||Mkt||d172060948001|
|83896291||EUR/USD||300,000||8/28/13 3:38 AM||1.33768||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 3:49 AM||1.33795||81.00||0.00||0.00||0.00||81.00||LE||d172060948001|
|83896455||AUD/JPY||100,000||8/28/13 3:42 AM||86.968||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 6:30 AM||86.852||119.16||0.00||0.00||0.00||119.16||LE||d172060948001|
|83904972||AUD/JPY||500,000||8/28/13 3:42 AM||86.968||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 6:34 AM||86.799||867.97||0.00||0.00||0.00||867.97||LE||d172060948001|
|83896638||AUD/JPY||100,000||8/28/13 3:46 AM||87.025||Mkt||d172060948001|
|8/28/13 6:34 AM||86.799||232.14||0.00||0.00||0.00||232.14||LE||d172060948001|
|Posted at statement period of time:||11,617.37||0.00||-10.50||0.00|
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
copied from the CFTC website
July 30, 2013
CFTC Charges Florida-Based AmeriFirst Management LLC and Its Owners, John P. D’Onofrio, George E. Sarafianos, and Scott D. Piccininni, in Multi-Million Dollar Fraudulent Precious Metals Scheme
CFTC alleges that the Defendants engaged in illegal, off-exchange commodity transactions and deceived retail customers regarding financed 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 AmeriFirst Management LLC (AML) of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and its owners, John P. D’Onofrio of Fort Lauderdale, George E. Sarafianos of Lighthouse Point, Florida, and Scott D. Piccininni of Fort Lauderdale. The CFTC Complaint charges the Defendants with operating a precious metals scheme where the Defendants marketed illegal, off-exchange financed commodity transactions and fraudulently misrepresented the nature of those transactions.
According to the Complaint, filed on July 29, 2013, AML held itself out as a precious metals wholesaler and clearing firm, operating through a network of more than 30 precious metals dealers. As alleged, these dealers solicited retail customers to invest in financed precious metals transactions, where a customer gave a percentage deposit of the total value of the metal, typically 20%, and the dealer supposedly made a loan to the customer for the remaining 80%, supposedly sold the customer the total metal amount, and supposedly allocated the total metal amount at a depository to be held for the customer.
The Complaint alleges that AML created customer documents that represented that the dealer had in fact made such a loan and sold and allocated the total metal amount to the customer. However, these documents were false because the dealer never made a loan to the customer, nor did the dealer sell or allocate any metal to the customer, according to the Complaint. Further, the Complaint alleges that although there was no loan and no metal was allocated to the customer, AML charged the customer finance and storage fees.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 expanded the CFTC’s jurisdiction over transactions like these and requires that such transactions be executed on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, exchange, or commodity market, according to the Complaint. This new requirement took effect on July 16, 2011. The Complaint alleges that all of the Defendants’ financed commodity transactions took place after this date and were illegal. The Complaint also alleges that the Defendants defrauded customers in these financed commodity transactions.
In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks a permanent injunction from future violations of federal commodities laws, permanent registration and trading bans, restitution to defrauded customers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil monetary penalties.
The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are David Chu, Mary Beth Spear, Eugene Smith, Patricia Gomersall, Ava Gould, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard 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 the companies simply keep the customers’ funds. The Advisory further cautions consumers that leveraged commodity transactions are unlawful unless executed on a regulated exchange.
Last Updated: July 30, 2013
COPIED FROM THE CFTC WEBSITE
July 25, 2013
Federal Court in Illinois Orders Michael Peskin to Pay More Than $480,000 and Imposes Other Sanctions to Settle Charges that Peskin Violated A Permanent Trading Ban
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge John F. Grady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a Consent Order permanently enjoining Michael Peskin from trading in violation of a CFTC trading ban. The Order was entered on July 24, 2013 and arises out of an enforcement action filed against Peskin in CFTC v. Michael Peskin, No. 13 cv 5211 (N. D. Illinois July 22, 2013), a case stemming from charges that Peskin had violated a permanent trading ban. The Court also ordered Peskin to pay disgorgement of $239,339.78 and a civil monetary penalty of $250,000.
The Commission imposed a trading ban against Peskin in 1993 as a sanction after finding that Peskin had fraudulently allocated trades to benefit himself at the expense of his customers in an administrative proceeding entitled In the Matter of Peskin, CFTC Docket No. 89-1 [1992-1994 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 25,660 (CFTC Feb. 9, 1993).
The CFTC complaint alleges that Peskin violated a permanent trading ban entered against him in 1993 by trading for himself through the individual trading accounts of others from at least February 2006 through December 2012. The complaint also alleged that Peskin profited by $239,339.78 by trading in violation of the ban.
The Order finds that, beginning in at least February 2006, Peskin arranged with other persons to assume the identity of these other persons in order to trade for himself, both telephonically and electronically, through the accounts of those other persons.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Susan Padove, Judy McCorkle, Elizabeth M. Streit, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.
Last Updated: July 25, 2013