COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

________________________________________________
)
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, ) Civil Case No. 99-00653
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
vs. ) AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
) AND FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER
DAVID T. MARANTETTE, III and ) THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT,
TROUBADOUR, INC., ) AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. § 1 ET SEQ.

Defendants.

)
________________________________________________ )

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

AND FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT,

AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. § 1 ET SEQ.

I.

SUMMARY

1. Since 1995, Defendants David T. Marantette, III ("Marantette") and Troubadour, Inc. (together with Marantette, the "Defendants") have solicited and received money from members of the public to invest in two Kauai-based commodity pools, "Troubadour I - a limited partnership" ("Troubadour I") and "Troubadour II," by means of fraudulent advertising and without being registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or "CFTC") as commodity pool operators. Since 1998, Defendant Marantette has solicited and received money from members of the public to invest in "Cycles in Gold," an off-shore commodity pool which trades futures on American futures exchanges, by means of fraudulent advertising and without being registered with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator. In addition, since at least 1999, Defendants have acted as commodity trading advisors and fraudulently advertised their commodity trading advisory activities. In conducting these activities, Defendants have engaged, are engaging, and are about to engage in various acts or practices in violation of Sections 4b(a)(i) and (iii), 4c(b), 4m(1) and 4o(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(i) and (iii), 6c(b), 6m(1), and 6o(1) (1994), and Regulations 4.41(a) and (b) and 33.10(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a) and (b) and 33.10(a) and (c) (1999). These violations include, inter alia:

a. operating Troubadour I , Troubadour II, and Cycles in Gold without being registered with the Commission as commodity pool operators;

b. falsely characterizing or implying that Defendants' hypothetical past trading results were actual profitable results, in solicitation materials for Troubadour I, Troubadour II, and Cycles in Gold, and for Defendants' commodity trading advisory business;

c. falsely representing on the href="http://www.cftc.gov/exit/index.htm?http://www.goldstock.com/" target="_top" shape="rect">www.goldstock.com website that the Defendants' two commodity futures trading accounts had made substantial gains over the course of six months; and

d. soliciting and obtaining funds from members of the public for Troubadour I and Troubadour II through material omissions concerning Marantette's background.

2. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (1994), Plaintiff Commission brings this action to restrain and enjoin such acts and practices, and to compel compliance with the Act and the Regulations thereunder. In addition, the Commission seeks disgorgement of unlawfully obtained funds, restitution, a civil monetary penalty, an accounting, and other ancillary equitable relief. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. are likely to continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, in violation of the Act.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (1994), which provides that whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Act or any rule, Regulation, or order thereunder, the Commission may bring an action against such person in the proper District Court of the United States to enjoin such practice, to enforce compliance with the Act, to remove any danger of violation of the Act, and for civil penalties.

4. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (1994), in that the Defendants are found in, inhabit, and transact or transacted business in this District, and the acts and practices in violation of the Act have occurred, are occurring, and are likely to continue to occur within this District, among other places.

III.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent federal regulatory agency of the United States of America, is empowered to enforce the provisions of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (1994), and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R §§ 1.1 et seq. (1999).

6. Defendant David T. Marantette, III is an individual residing at 3647 Kaweonui Road, Princeville, Hawaii 96722. He is not now, nor has he ever been, registered with the Commission in any capacity, including as a commodity pool operator. In 1992, Marantette was permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

7. Defendant Troubadour, Inc. is a Hawaii corporation. Its principal place of business is 3647 Kaweonui Road, Princeville, Hawaii 96722 and its mailing address is P.O. Box 1490, Hanalei, Hawaii 96714. It is not now, nor has it ever been, registered with the Commission in any capacity, including as a commodity pool operator. Defendant Marantette appears to be Troubadour,  Inc.'s President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Director, and primary shareholder.

IV.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

8. A commodity pool is any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests. See Commission Regulation 4.10(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.10(d)(1) (1999).

9. A commodity pool operator is any person engaged in a business that is of the nature of an investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market, except as otherwise specified by the Commission by rule, regulation or order. See Section 1a(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(4) (1994).

10. A commodity trading advisor is any person who, for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic media, as to the value of or the advisability of trading in: (a) any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery made or to be made on or subject to the rules of a contract market; (b) any commodity option authorized under Section 4c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c (1994); (c) any leverage transaction authorized under Section 19 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 23 (1994); or (d) a person who for compensation or profit, and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning any of the activities referred to above. See Section 1a(5) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(5) (1994).

V.

FACTS

A. Prior SEC Actions Against Marantette

11. In 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") imposed a temporary suspension against Defendant Marantette from being registered as a broker-dealer or associated with any registered broker-dealer or affiliate thereof for a period of four weeks. In the Matter of Marantette & Co., David T. Marantette, III, and David T. Marantette, Sr., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-4391, 1974 SEC LEXIS 1490 (April 12, 1974). Marantette was the subject of another SEC administrative proceeding in 1980. In the Matter of David T. Marantette III, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-5809, 1980 SEC LEXIS 1709 (April 8, 1980).

12. In 1992, in an injunctive action filed by the SEC, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered a Final Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction by consent against Defendant Marantette, permanently enjoining Marantette from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, and the reporting, books and records, and proxy provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The complaint in the SEC's action alleged that Marantette engaged in fraudulent conduct.

13. In 1992, in another SEC administrative proceeding, Marantette agreed to a permanent ban from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, investment company or securities dealer. In the Matter of David T. Marantette, III, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-7842, 1992 SEC LEXIS 2192 (September 2, 1992). In the SEC order, Marantette consented to findings that he and his companies engaged in a fraudulent scheme.

B. Defendants' Activities as Commodity Trading Advisors and Use of a Fraudulent Track Record

14. Since approximately 1974, and continuing to the present, Defendant Marantette has published, for compensation, a weekly newsletter called the "Goldstock Letter," in which he recommends gold and silver futures contracts trades to subscribers. Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. solicit subscriptions for this newsletter on their website href="http://www.cftc.gov/exit/index.htm?http://www.goldstock.com/" target="_top" shape="rect"> www.goldstock.com, falsely claiming that by trading pursuant to the commodity futures trade recommendations published in the Goldstock Letter, Marantette made actual, substantial and consistent profits (261.49% per year over the past twelve years for his gold futures recommendations, 322.02% per year over the past nine years for his silver futures recommendations). In fact, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. did not make most of the trades listed in the Goldstock Letter.

15. Since approximately 1976, Defendant Marantette has published, for compensation, the weekly newsletter, "Dear Dow Letter," in which Marantette recommends S&P 500 futures contracts trades to subscribers. Defendants solicit subscriptions for this newsletter on their website www.deardow.com, falsely claiming that by trading pursuant to the futures trade recommendations published in the Dear Dow Letter, Marantette made actual, substantial and consistent profits, for a total of 486% profit in 1998, and that the Dear Dow Letter recommendations made similar profits in other years. In fact, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. did not make many of the trades listed in the Dear Dow Letter.

16. Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. also use the false track records to solicit customers for their other futures-related products and services, and in the course of soliciting participants for their commodity pools.

17. In soliciting customers for their commodity trading advisory activities, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. also falsely represented on the www.goldstock.com website that their two commodity futures trading accounts made substantial gains due to their trading activity over the first six months of 1998, when in fact most of the gain was due to new capital contributions. The Defendants claimed that their Troubadour I account posted a $46,924 gain between February 19, 1998 and July 1, 1998, when in fact $30,000 of that purported gain consisted of new capital contributions that Marantette made to the account, and, for the January to June 1998 period, the Troubadour I account posted only $12,348.27 in profits. They also misrepresented that their Troubadour II trading account posted a $35,556 gain between January 22, 1998 and July 1, 1998, when in fact $20,000 of that purported gain consisted of new capital contributions that Marantette made to the account, and, for the January to June 1998 period, the Troubadour II account posted only $527.70 in profits.

18. Since at least April 1999, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. also have offered trading advice to members of the public through two telephone services. Marantette's personal trading advice is available to members of the public by telephone for a $600 per hour consultation fee. The second telephone service, for which customers are charged $2.25 per minute, provides a recorded message which gives updates to the trade recommendations published in the weekly Goldstock Letter and Dear Dow Letter.

19. In engaging in the activities alleged above, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour,  Inc. acted as commodity trading advisors.

C. Defendants' Unlawful Operation of Commodity Pools Without Being Registered as Commodity Pool Operators

20. In September 1995, Defendant Marantette organized the commodity pool Troubadour I under the Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Hawaii, to engage in speculative trading of commodity futures contracts, other commodity investments (including options on futures), and gold mining securities. Defendant Troubadour, Inc. is the general partner of Troubadour I. As of December 31, 1998, Defendants claimed that Troubadour I had thirty-one limited partners and 108.29 units outstanding at $31,530.97 net asset value per unit, for a total of $3,414,488.74 in pool funds.

21. In May 1996, Defendant Marantette organized the commodity pool Troubadour II as a sub-chapter S corporation under the statutes of the State of Hawaii, to research cyclic analysis and to profit from the speculative trading of commodity futures contracts and other commodity investments. Defendant Troubadour, Inc. is Troubadour II's trading advisor. As of December 31, 1998, Defendants claimed that Troubadour II has thirty-three shareholders and 649,500 shares outstanding at a net asset value of $2.36 per share, for a total of $1,532,820 in pool funds.

22. In November 1998, Defendant Marantette organized the commodity pool Cycles in Gold as a corporation under the laws of Nevis. (Nevis and St. Kitts islands comprise a two-island nation in the Eastern Caribbean.) The stated investment approach of Cycles in Gold is to invest in securities and derivatives within the precious metals industry, including futures contracts on gold and other precious metals listed on the U.S. stock and commodities exchanges. Defendant Marantette is the investment advisor of Cycle Systems Limited, which is in turn the investment manager of the Cycles in Gold pool. As of March 1999, Cycles in Gold had two shareholders who had invested a total of over $72,000.

23. In connection with their business as commodity pool operators, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have made use of the mails and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including interstate telephone and telefacsimile communications.

24. At no time during the period of their operation of the commodity pools Troubadour I, Troubadour II and Cycles in Gold have Defendants Marantette or Troubadour, Inc. been registered with the Commission as commodity pool operators.

D. Defendants' Fraudulent Solicitations of Participants in their Commodity Pools

25. At various times from December 1998 to date, Marantette and Troubadour, Inc., by use of the mails and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, have solicited participants for the Troubadour I, Troubadour II and Cycles in Gold commodity pools by means of "Private Offering Memoranda" providing detailed information regarding the investments.

26. In the Private Offering Memoranda for Troubadour I and Troubadour II, Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. made the following misrepresentations and omissions to prospective pool participants:

(1) they attached as exhibits to the Private Offering Memoranda purported track records of their commodity futures trading, as set forth above, misrepresenting that they had achieved actual, substantial and consistent profits, when, in fact, neither Marantette nor any entity under his control made many of the trades; and

(2) they solely stated in pool solicitation materials that "there have been no material administrative, civil or criminal actions against Troubadour, Inc." and failed to disclose Marantette's past disciplinary problems and the permanent ban from the securities industry imposed on him by the SEC, as alleged above.

27. In the Private Offering Memorandum for Cycles in Gold, Marantette attached as exhibits purported track records of his futures trading, misrepresenting that he had achieved actual, substantial and consistent profits, when in fact, neither he nor any entity under his control made many of the trades recommended in his newsletters.

28. Defendants Marantette's and Troubadour, Inc.'s false representations on the www.goldstock.com website concerning the profitability for the first six months of 1998 of the Troubadour I and Troubadour II trading accounts, as alleged above, also were made intentionally and willfully to induce members of the public to invest in Defendants' commodity pools.

VI.

VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF SECTION 4b(a)(i) and (iii) OF THE ACT, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(i) and (iii):
FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH COMMODITY FUTURES CONTRACTS

29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

30. From at least October 1995 to date, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have violated Section 4b(a)(i) and (iii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(i) and (iii) (1994), in that they cheated, defrauded, attempted to cheat or defraud, willfully deceived, or attempted to deceive clients and pool participants and prospective clients and pool participants by making the false representations and the omissions described herein. Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. made such false representations and omissions in or in connection with orders to make, or the making of, contracts of sale of commodities for future delivery, made, or to be made, for or on behalf of other persons, where such contracts for future delivery were or could have been used for (A) hedging any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity or the products or byproducts thereof, or (B) determining the price basis of any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or (C) delivering any such commodity sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment thereof.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF SECTION 4o(1)(A) and (B) OF THE ACT, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B):
FRAUD BY A COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR AND COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR

31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged and incorporated herein.

32. From at least October 1995 to date, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have violated Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) (1994), in that while acting as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor, by reason of making the false representations and omissions described herein, and by use of the mails or other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, have employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud their clients, prospective clients, pool participants and prospective pool participants; and/or have engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon their clients, prospective clients, pool participants and/or prospective pool participants.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF SECTION 4c(b) AND CFTC REGULATION 33.10(a) and (c),
7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) AND 17 C.F.R. § 33.10(a) and (c):
FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH COMMODITY OPTION TRANSACTIONS

33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are realleged and incorporated herein.

34. From at least October 1995 to date, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have violated Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (1994), and Regulation 33.10(a) and (c) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 33.10(a) and (c) (1999), in that they have directly or indirectly cheated or defrauded, attempted to cheat or defraud, deceived, or attempted to deceive, other persons, by any means whatsoever, in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, a commodity option transaction.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF CFTC REGULATION 4.41(a) AND (b),
17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) and (b):
ADVERTISING IN A FRAUDULENT MANNER

35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are realleged and incorporated herein.

36. From at least October 1995 to date, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have violated CFTC Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (1999), in that, while acting as commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors, they advertised in a manner which employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud pool participants, prospective pool participants, clients, prospective clients, and newsletter subscribers. Further, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. violated CFTC Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (1999), in that while acting as commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors, they advertised in a manner which involved a transaction, practice or course of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon pool participants, prospective pool participants, clients, prospective clients, and newsletter subscribers.

37. From at least October 1995 to date, Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. have violated CFTC Regulation 4.41(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) (1999), in that they presented the past hypothetical performance of the Goldstock Letter and Dear Dow Letter trade recommendations as trades which were actually made, and the hypothetical profits arising from those trades as actual profits.

38. Defendants Marantette and Troubadour, Inc. failed to include the mandatory disclosure, as set forth in Regulation 4.41(b), that:

"Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading. Also, since the trades have not actually been executed, the results may have under- or over-compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. Simulated trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown"

or a similar statement as prescribed pursuant to rules promulgated by a registered futures association pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 21(j).

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF SECTION 4m(1) OF THE ACT, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1),
ACTING AS AN UNREGISTERED COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR

39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein.

40. From at least October 1995 to date, Marantette and Troubadour, Inc., while not registered with the Commission as a commodity pool operator, have made use of the mails or other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce by soliciting, accepting, or receiving funds from members of the public to participate in a commodity pool formed and operated for the purpose of trading in commodities for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market, in violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (1994).

VII.

RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter:

A. An Order of Permanent Injunction, enjoining Defendants, and all persons insofar as they are acting in the capacity of officers, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, or attorneys of Defendants, and all persons insofar as they are acting in active concert or participation with Defendants, who receive actual notice of such orders by personal service or otherwise, including by facsimile transmission, from directly or indirectly:

(1) Cheating, defrauding, attempting to cheat or defraud, willfully deceiving, or attempting to willfully deceive, other persons, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future delivery, made, or to be made, for or on behalf of any other person if such contract for future delivery is or may be used for (A) hedging any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity or the products or byproducts thereof, or (B) determining the price basis of any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or (C) delivering any such commodity sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment thereof, in violation of Section 4b(a)(i) and (iii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(i) and (iii) (1994);

(2) While acting as a commodity pool operator or as a commodity trading advisor, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, (A) employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any pool participant, prospective participant, client, or prospective client, or (B) engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any pool participant, prospective participant, client, or prospective client, in violation of Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (1994);

(3) Cheating or defrauding, attempting to cheat or defraud, deceiving, or attempting to deceive, any other person by any means whatsoever, in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, any commodity option transaction, in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (1994), and Regulation 33.10(a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. § 33.10(a) and (c) (1999);

(4) While acting as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor, advertising in a manner which (1) employs any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any participant or client or prospective participant or client; or (2) involves any transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any participant or client or any prospective participant or client; in violation of Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (1999);

(5) Presenting the performance of any simulated or hypothetical commodity interest account, transaction in a commodity interest or series of transactions in a commodity interest of a commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or any principal thereof, unless such performance is accompanied by either the mandatory disclosure statement set forth in Regulation 4.41(b)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(i) (1999), or a disclosure statement which complies with Regulation 4.41(b)(ii), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(ii) (1999);

(6) Acting as a commodity pool operator, by making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, to solicit, accept, or receive funds from members of the public to participate in commodity pools formed and operated for the purpose of trading commodity futures contracts on contract markets while not registered as a commodity pool operator with the Commission, in violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (1994);

(7) Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds in connection with the purchase or sale of any commodity futures contract or option on a futures contract;

(8) Controlling or directing the trading for any commodity futures or commodity options account for or on behalf of any other person or entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise; and

(9) Acting in any capacity for which registration with the Commission is required or for which exemption from registration with the Commission may be claimed under the Act.

B. An order directing that an accounting be made to both the Court and Plaintiff of all assets and liabilities of Defendants, together with all funds received from and paid out by either of them to commodity pool participants, clients and other persons in connection with commodity futures transactions or purported commodity futures transactions, and all disbursements for any purpose whatsoever of funds received from commodity pool participants, clients and other persons, including salaries, commissions, fees, loans, and other disbursements or money and property of any kind, from the date Defendants first commenced operating as commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisors, to and including the date of such accounting;

C. An order directing Defendants to disgorge all benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act or Regulations, as described herein, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such amounts;

D. An order of restitution directing Defendants to make whole each and every participant or client whose funds they received or utilized in violation of the provisions of the Act or Regulations, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such amounts;

E. An order imposing a civil monetary penalty on Defendants in an amount not more than the higher of: (1) $110,000 (for each violation which occurred after November 27, 1996) or $100,000 (for each violation which occurred on or before November 27, 1996), or (2) triple the monetary gain to Defendant for each violation of the Act or Regulations;

F. An order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2); and

G. Such other equitable relief as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.

Date: September 22, 1999 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
.
JOHN T. WISE
Regional Counsel
LOUIS V. TRAEGER
Deputy Regional Counsel

FAYE CHEN BARNOUW

BARBARA Y.K. CHUN
Trial Attorneys

.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
10900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90024
(310) 235-6783

.

STEPHEN S. ALM
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
MICHAEL CHUN

Chief, Civil Division

.

6-100 PJKK Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96850
(808) 541-2850

.

By: Faye Chen Barnouw
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION