Follow Us:

Outcome Objective 2.1

Table of Contents >

Outcome Objective 2.1: Violations of Federal commodities laws are detected and prevented.

Performance Measure 2.1.1



Performance Measure 2.1.1: Number of enforcement investigations opened during the fiscal year.
Status: Effective
Data Source: Agency documentation and reports maintained in the DOE eLaw system.
Verification: Internal reports on investigations and litigation documented and maintained in the DOE eLaw system.
ACTUAL
FY 2007
ACTUAL
FY 2008
ACTUAL
FY 2009
ACTUAL
FY 2010
PLAN
FY 2010
99 215 251 419 195

Lead Program Office

Division of Enforcement

FY 2010 Performance Results

419

Performance Analysis & Review

DOE met the performance target for FY 2010. Commencing in 2002, the complexity of the Commission’s investigations has increased substantially over prior fiscal years (e.g., the Commission’s investigation of alleged energy market manipulation). As a result of these investigations, the complexity of the Commission’s cases filed and litigated also has increased substantially since FY 2002. The Commission’s FY 2010 Plan target for this performance measure took into account these factors, and historical performance and staffing constraints of DOE. Despite these factors and constraints, the Commission exceeded its target for this performance measure. The number of investigations opened has risen sharply due to a combination of factors including the clarification of the Commission’s authority over off-exchange traded forex, cooperative enforcement efforts, and the exposure to Ponzi schemes due to the financial downturn.

Performance Highlights

The Commission conducts enforcement investigations on a confidential basis.

Performance Measure 2.1.2



Performance Measure 2.1.2: Number of enforcement cases filed during the fiscal year.
Status: Effective
Data Source: Agency documentation and reports maintained in the DOE eLaw system.
Verification: Final complaints for each litigation are recorded in the DOE eLaw system and made public via the Commission’s Web site.
ACTUAL
FY 2007
ACTUAL
FY 2008
ACTUAL
FY 2009
ACTUAL
FY 2010
PLAN
FY 2010
41 40 50 57 51

Lead Program Office

Division of Enforcement

FY 2010 Performance Results

57

Performance Analysis & Review

DOE met the performance target for FY 2010. Commencing in 2002, the complexity of the Commission investigations has increased substantially over prior fiscal years (e.g., the Commission’s investigation of alleged energy market manipulation). As a result of these investigations, the complexity of the Commission’s cases filed and litigated also has increased substantially since FY 2002. The Commission’s FY 2010 Plan target for this performance measure took into account these factors, DOE’s historical performance, and DOE’s staffing constraints.

Performance Highlights

Among the significant enforcement actions filed by the Commission, during FY 2010, are the following:

Performance Measure 2.1.3



Performance Measure 2.1.3: Percentage of enforcement cases closed during the fiscal year in which the Commission obtained sanctions (e.g., civil monetary penalties, restitution and disgorgement, cease and desist orders, permanent injunctions, trading bans, and registration restrictions).
Status: Effective
Data Source: Agency documentation and reports maintained in the Monthly Status Report, DOE eLaw system, Commission Proceedings Bulletin, and press releases.
Verification: Final orders for each litigation recorded in the DOE eLaw system.
ACTUAL
FY 2007
ACTUAL
FY 2008
ACTUAL
FY 2009
ACTUAL
FY 2010
PLAN
FY 2010
98% 97% 98% 100% 98%

Lead Program Office

Division of Enforcement

FY 2010 Performance Results

100%

Performance Analysis & Review

Performance target was met for FY 2010. During FY 2010, DOE closed a total of 38 enforcement cases. In all of these closed cases, the Commission obtained sanctions (e.g., civil monetary penalties, restitution and disgorgement, cease and desist orders, permanent injunctions, trading bans, and registration restrictions) against one or more of the respondents/defendants.

Staff is required to submit all final orders for each litigation as part of closing activities for their files. These orders are recorded in the internal DOE eLaw system.

Performance Highlights

Among the significant enforcement actions closed by the Commission, during FY 2010, are the following:

Performance Measure 2.1.4



Performance Measure 2.1.4: Cases filed by other criminal and civil law enforcement authorities during the fiscal year that included cooperative assistance from the Commission.
Status: Effective
Data Source: Cooperating authorities provide notice to DOE of related civil complaints, criminal information, and indictments. Cooperative enforcement matters are noted in the DOE eLaw system.
Verification: Internal DOE eLaw system and the U.S. Judiciary Public Access to Court Electronic Records Services Center.
ACTUAL
FY 2007
ACTUAL
FY 2008
ACTUAL
FY 2009
ACTUAL
FY 2010
PLAN
FY 2010
24 31 44 25 25

Lead Program Office

Division of Enforcement

FY 2010 Performance Results

25

Performance Analysis & Review

Performance target was met for FY 2010. The Commission believes that its performance in cooperative criminal and civil enforcement was effective. During the rating period, the Commission continued to devote significant resources to cooperative enforcement with other criminal and civil law enforcement authorities. The performance of DOE, during FY 2010, was influenced by the recent and current financial downturn, which has revealed a number of fraudulent schemes, including Ponzi schemes that could stay afloat only during periods of rising asset values.

Performance Highlights

Among the significant enforcement actions filed by the Commission during FY 2010 that included related action by other civil and/or criminal authorities are the following:

 

< Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page >