Follow Us:

Table of Contents >

• In re Citigroup Private Bank GP, Inc.
  
  On October 1, 2009, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against registered CPO Citigroup Private Bank GP, Inc. (CPBG) finding that, for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2004 - 2007, CPBG failed to file one or more of its commodity pools’ annual reports with the National Futures Association in a timely manner. The Commission assessed sanctions including: a cease and desist order; and a $100,000 civil monetary penalty. In re Citigroup Private Bank GP, Inc., CFTC Docket No. 10-01 (CFTC filed Oct. 1, 2009).
  
  
• In re MF Global Inc.
  
  On December 17, 2009, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against registered FCM MF Global Inc. and its predecessor corporation, Man Financial Inc. (collectively, MF Global) finding risk supervision failures in four separate instances between 2003 and 2008. Specifically, the order finds that:
  
  
  • MF Global failed to diligently supervise the trading activities of an AP on February 26-27, 2008, resulting in wheat futures trading losses by MF Global of more than $141 million. MF Global further failed to provide appropriate supervisory training to the Branch Office supervisors in the office where the trading losses occurred.
    
    
  • From approximately May 2003 until April 2007, MF Global provided a customer with voice brokerage services in its natural gas derivatives trading business, which generated commissions for MF Global. MF Global failed to implement procedures to ensure appropriate transmission of price indications to the MF Global customer for certain natural gas options. In particular, MF Global failed to have procedures to ensure that the price indications transmitted by its broker “reflect a consensus taken on [a particular] date and time” and were derived “from different sources in the market place.”
    
    
  • In two other instances, the CFTC order finds that MF Global failed to diligently supervise the proper and accurate preparation of trading cards and failed to maintain appropriate written authorization to conduct trades.
  
  The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a cease and desist order; $10 million civil monetary penalty; and an order to comply with certain undertakings, including enacting policies and procedures to enhance risk monitoring procedures, training, compliance procedures and compliance audit procedures. MF Global will also undertake an Independent Review and Assessment, which will among other things, review the effectiveness of existing and future risk management, supervisory and compliance policies and procedures at MF Global. The Commission received cooperation from the CME Group and the NYMEX in connection with this matter. In re MF Global Inc., CFTC Docket No. 10-03 (CFTC filed Dec. 17, 2009).
  
  
• CFTC v. Fin. Investments, Inc.
  
  On March 5, 2010, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action charging registered CPO Financial Investments, Inc. (FII) with repeatedly failing to distribute and file its commodity pool’s annual reports in a timely manner for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 within 90 calendar days after the pool’s fiscal year ended. On August 2, 2010, the court entered a consent order settling this enforcement action, which imposed a $130,000 civil monetary penalty. CFTC v. Fin. Investments, Inc., No. 1:10 cv 214 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2010).
  
  
• CFTC v. New World Holding, LLC, et al.
  
  On July 22, 2010, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action charging: registered IB and CTA New World Holdings, LLC (NWH) with destroying business records and failing to diligently supervise employees; NWH’s principal and AP Steven David Erdman and its branch manager and AP Grace Elizabeth Reisinger with aiding and abetting NWH’s failure to keep proper business records; and Erdman also with failing to diligently supervise employees. Specifically, Reisinger and her supervisor Erdman aided and abetted NWH‘s violations by knowingly falsifying and destroying records, the complaint charges. In sworn testimony before the Commission, Erdman and Reisinger admitted knowing that purported proprietary trading accounts were actually funded by a number of undisclosed third parties in Australia and elsewhere and further admitted that they should have never introduced these accounts as proprietary accounts, according to the complaint. The CFTC received the cooperation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in connection with this matter. CFTC v. New Worl Holding, LLC, et al., No. 1:10-cv-04557 (N.D. Ill. filed July 22, 2010).
  
  
• In re Alaron Trading Corp.
  
  On September 30, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against registered FCM and CTA Alaron Trading Corporation (Alaron) finding that, from at least January 2008 to at least October 2008, Alaron failed to supervise diligently its employees’ handling of commodity interest accounts. Specifically, the order finds that Alaron had inadequate procedures for managing risks associated with customer accounts trading via “give-up agreements,” which are arrangements in which trades for a customer are handled by an “executing broker” and then “given up” to the “clearing broker” carrying the customer’s account, such as Alaron. The order concludes that, as a result of Alaron’s supervisory failures, an Alaron customer was able to incur an approximate $4 million debit in July 2008. This debit caused Alaron to become under-segregated and fall below its net capital requirement. The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a permanent registration ban and a $260,000 civil monetary penalty. The Commission received cooperation from the CME Group in connection with this matter. In re Alaron Trading Corp., CFTC Docket No. 10-19 (CFTC filed Sept. 30, 2010).
  
  
• In re Rosenthal Collins Group, L.L.C.
  
  On September 30, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against registered FCM Rosenthal Collins Group, L.L.C. (RCG) finding that it failed to supervise diligently its employees’ handling of accounts held at RCG in the name of George D. Hudgins. In May 2008, the CFTC sued Hudgins, of Nacogdoches, Texas, for fraudulently soliciting the general public to invest millions of dollars in a commodity pool that traded futures contracts in accounts at RCG. CFTC v. George Hudgins, et al., No. 6:08cv187 (E.D. Tex.). Specifically, the order finds that, at various times from July 2005 through May 2008, despite having received warning signals, RCG’s employees did not enforce diligently RCG’s internal compliance procedures that imposed on them a continuing duty to “know their customer,” i.e., obtain information about their customer’s identity, background, investment objectives, income source, assets and other information. RCG’s employees also failed to enforce RCG’s compliance procedures when they failed to investigate and report activity regarding Hudgins’ accounts that should have been recognized as suspicious, according to the order. These red flags included the fact that Hudgins’ losses for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 totaled $30 million by May 2008 — an amount representing 300 percent of his original stated net worth. The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a cease and deist order; a $780,000 civil monetary penalty; and an order to pay disgorgement in the amount of $618,526. The court-appointed receiver in the Commission’s Hudgins litigation will distribute the disgorgement funds to persons defrauded by Hudgins. In re Rosenthal Collins Group, L.L.C., CFTC Docket No. 10-21 (CFTC filed Sept. 30, 2010).
  
  
• In re Triland USA Inc
  
  On September 30, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against registered FCM Triland USA Inc. (Triland) finding that it failed to follow regulations governing secured funds of foreign futures and option customers. The order finds that Triland also failed to obtain acknowledgement from a depository institution that the secured funds were being held for customers in accordance with Commission regulations and failed to provide timely notice to the Commission that Triland had a deficiency in the amount of its secured funds. Additionally, the order concludes that Triland failed to supervise diligently the handling by its employees of matters relating to its secured accounts. The Commission assessed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and a $725,000 civil monetary penalty. In re Triland USA Inc., CFTC Docket No. 10-22 (CFTC filed Sept. 30, 2010).

• In re Noble Americas Corp.
  
  On May 3, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against Noble Americas Corp. (Noble Americas) for entering into commodity futures trades and exchange for physical (EFP) trades in heating oil and gasoline on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and Globex that were wash and fictitious sales on several occasions during the period of March 30, 2007, through July 30, 2007. These wash and fictitious sales trades were for the same contract, quantity and same or similar price, with Noble Americas on both sides of each trade. The CFTC order imposed a $130,000 civil monetary penalty on Noble Americas and also required that Noble Americas institute internal controls, policies and procedures necessary to ensure that transactions by Noble Americas on U.S. commodity futures and options markets comply with federal commodity laws, and rules and regulations governing such markets. Additionally, Noble Americas was ordered to cease and desist from violating the Commodity Exchange Act.
  
  According to the order, in certain instances, Noble Americas prearranged the execution of these trades on NYMEX through an FCM. In other instances, Noble Americas used EFP transactions to transfer positions from one Noble Americas trader to another. Noble described the trades to the FCM as “Noble-Noble EFP.” Noble Americas also effectuated wash sales trade directly by entering virtually simultaneous buy and sell orders on Globex with Noble Americas on both sides of the trades. The order found that because Noble Americas intended to negate market risk and price competition, and thereby avoid a bona fide market transaction and produce a virtual financial nullity, the trades constituted wash sales, fictitious sales, and non-competitive transactions and caused non-bona fide prices to be reported in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The CFTC received cooperation from the NYMEX in connection with this matter. In re Noble Americas Corp., CFTC Docket No. 10-12 (CFTC filed May 3, 2010).
  
  
• In re San Diego Gas & Elec. Co.
  
  On April 22, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), an investor-owned, regulated utility, in San Diego, California, finding that it engaged in wash sales of NYMEX natural gas futures contracts. The CFTC order found that, from January 26, 2006, through February 2, 2006, SDG&E placed market orders through an introducing broker to simultaneously buy and sell natural gas futures contracts. In each instance, SDG&E gave the instruction to place the order to sell and the order to buy the futures contracts for delivery months August through October 2006, on the same phone call, the order found. Further, the order found that SDG&E was aware that the introducing broker placed each of the orders with the NYMEX floor brokers together and requested that the prices relevant to each of the buy and sell orders be at or near the same price. The orders were then executed by brokers on the NYMEX trading floor at or about the same price and approximately at the same time. This had the effect of liquidating and immediately re-establishing NYMEX futures contracts previously held by SDG&E. Finally, the CFTC order found that these transactions constituted prohibited wash sales. The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a cease and desist order; an $80,000 civil monetary penalty; and an order to comply with certain undertakings, including agreeing to implement procedures that ensure that transactions it makes on U.S. futures markets fully comply with the rules and regulations of those markets. In re San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., CFTC Docket No. 10-08 (CFTC filed Apr. 22, 2010).
  
  
• CFTC v. Marat Yunusov
  
  On June 11, 2010, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois charging Marat Yunusov with engaging in fictitious transactions and trading noncompetitively on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Globex electronic trading platform. Yunusov, who has never been registered with the CFTC, had held himself out to be a Russian national and also used the name Ayrat Yunusov. On June 14, 2010, the court issued a restraining order freezing certain of Yunusov’s assets and prohibiting the destruction of documents. Specifically, the CFTC complaint alleged that, during the evening of June 3 and the morning hours of June 4, 2010, Yunusov engaged in a series of unlawful commodity futures transactions on the CME’s Globex electronic trading platform, buying and selling thousands of futures contracts, the vast majority of which were in back-month, illiquid markets. Using separate accounts carried at two different registered futures commission merchants, Open E Cry LLC and Velocity Futures, LLC, Yunusov’s trading resulted in more than $7.8 million in losses to his Open E Cry account and an approximate $7.2 million profit to his Velocity account, after commissions and fees. Open E Cry has had to cover the losses from its own proprietary funds, according to the complaint. The Commission received cooperation from the CME Group, Inc., the parent of the CME, Open E Cry LLC and Velocity Futures in connection with this matter. CFTC v. Marat Yunusov, No. 1:10-cv-03619 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2010).
  
  
• CFTC v. Carmine Garofalo
  
  On April 20, 2010, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action charging Carmine Garofalo, an Italian citizen, with options fraud, engaging in fictitious transactions and trading noncompetitively in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. Garofalo has never been registered with the CFTC. On the same day the complaint was filed, the courts entered a restraining order freezing certain of the defendant’s assets and prohibiting him from destroying documents and denying CFTC staff access to books and records. The CFTC complaint alleged that on March 5, 2010, Garofalo engaged in a series of unlawful commodity options transactions involving E-mini S&P 500 and Euro/U.S. Dollar European Style Premium option contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). Garofalo allegedly fraudulently accessed an account of a Luxemborg-based investment fund and, without permission, executed trades to the investment fund’s detriment. Through this allegedly unlawful scheme, Garofalo repeatedly made non-competitive, fictitious trades between his personal account and an account of the investment fund. As a result, Garofalo’s personal account profited by more than $614,000 through the illegal scheme, while the investment fund’s account lost a corresponding amount, according to the CFTC complaint. The CFTC received the cooperation of the CME Group, Inc., the parent of the CME, and Interactive Brokers, LLC in connection with this matter. CFTC v. Carmine Garofalo, No. 1:10-cv-02417 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 20, 2010).
  
  
• CFTC v. Kuen Cheol Song
  
  On April 6, 2010, the Commission charged Kuen Cheol Song, a citizen of Singapore, with engaging in fictitious transactions and trading noncompetitively in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. Song has never been registered with the CFTC. On the same date the complaint was filed, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a restraining order freezing certain of defendant’s assets and prohibiting him from destroying documents and denying CFTC staff access to books and records. The CFTC complaint alleged that, since at least August 28, 2009, defendant Song engaged in a series of unlawful commodity futures transactions involving natural gas and heating oil futures contracts on the NYMEX. Through this allegedly unlawful scheme, Song repeatedly made non-competitive, fictitious trades between his personal account and the hedge fund account of his employer, Singapore-based Woori Absolute Partners, where he is a director. Since August 28, 2009, according to the complaint, Song’s personal account has profited by more than $348,000 through this illegal scheme of non-competitive, fictitious trades, while Woori’s account has lost a corresponding amount. The CFTC received cooperation from the CME Group, Inc., the parent of the NYMEX, in connection with this matter. CFTC v. Kuen Cheol Song, No. 10 CIV 2931 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 6, 2010).
  
  
• In re Pinemore, L.P., et al.
  
  On January 28, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against Pinemore, L.P. (Pinemore) and Birchmore, L.P. (Birchmore), two limited partnerships controlled by the same general partner and with substantially identical ownership, finding that they engaged in unlawful wash sales in the NYMEX natural gas futures contract during November and December of 2006. The Commission assessed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and civil monetary penalties (Pinemore $250,000, and Birchmore $250,000). The Commission received cooperation from the NYMEX and the Alberta Securities Commission in connection with this matter. In re Pinemore, L.P., et al., CFTC Docket No. 10-04 (CFTC filed Jan. 28, 2010).
  
  
• In re Scotia Capital Inc.
  
  On January 28, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against Scotia Capital Inc. (SCI) finding that it prearranged trades for its customers in the NYMEX natural gas futures contract during November and December of 2006. The Commission assessed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and a $250,000 civil monetary penalty. The Commission received cooperation from the NYMEX in connection with this matter. In re Scotia Capital Inc., CFTC Docket No. 10-05 (CFTC filed Jan. 28, 2010).
  
  
• In re UBS AG
  
  On February 24, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against UBS AG (UBS) finding that it exceeded the NYMEX position limits on certain NYMEX natural gas, heating oil and platinum futures contracts on more than one occasion from in or about December 2006 through in or about March 2008. In settling this matter, the Commission took into account the cooperation of UBS. The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a cease and desist order; and a $130,000 civil monetary penalty. The Commission received cooperation from the NYMEX in connection with this matter. In re UBS AG, CFTC Docket No. 10-07 (CFTC filed Feb. 24, 2010).
  
  
• In re ConAgra Trade Group, Inc.
  
  On August 16, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against ConAgra Trade Group, Inc. (CTG) finding that it caused a non-bona fide price to be reported in the NYMEX crude oil futures contract on January 2, 2008. Specifically, the order finds that on January 2, 2008, CTG was the first to purchase NYMEX crude oil futures contracts at the then-historic price (also known as a “print”) of $100; as a result, CTG caused a non-bona fide price to be reported. At the time, NYMEX’s electronic market was trading approximately 40 cents lower. The Commission assessed sanctions, including: a cease and desist order; a $12 million civil monetary penalty; and an order to comply with certain undertakings regarding its compliance and ethics program, including appointing an independent person to the Board of Directors, forming a Compliance Committee of the Board and providing enhanced compliance training. The Commission received cooperation from the NYMEX in connection with this matter. In re ConAgra Trade Group, Inc., CFTC Docket No. 10-14 (CFTC filed Aug. 16, 2010).
  
  
• In re Neuman
  
  On August 30, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against former floor broker John Lee Neuman finding that he engaged in fraud and unauthorized trading. Specifically, the order finds that on June 22, 2007, Neuman, then a CBOT member and a trader in the corn options pit, engaged in unauthorized trading in the account of another corn options trader. The order further finds that Neuman altered trade data in a risk monitoring system used by the account owner to monitor Neuman’s trading and issued false statements to the account owner. Ultimately, as a result of Neuman’s conduct, the account owner suffered approximately $4 million in trading losses. The Commission imposed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and permanent trading and registration bans. The Commission received cooperation from the CBOT in connection with this matter. In re Neuman, CFTC Docket No. 10-15 (CFTC filed Aug. 30, 2010).
  
  
• In re Bealko
  
  On September 20, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against Daniel J. Bealko, General Motors Corporation’s (GM) former global commodity manager for lightweight metals, for knowingly engaging in unauthorized futures and options trading as part of his criminal scheme to defraud GM. Specifically, the order finds that, between 1996 and 2003, Bealko was responsible for devising and implementing GM’s aluminum hedging strategies. Between June 2003 and December 7, 2003, Bealko used the commodity markets subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction to defraud GM, the order finds. Specifically, Bealko, without GM’s knowledge or consent, caused negotiable warrants for GM-owned aluminum to be delivered and put on deposit with a brokerage account held in the name of a third party. The third party then gave Bealko power-of-attorney and full authority to manage and conduct transactions in the account. Bealko used the account to sell NYMEX aluminum futures contracts and options on NYMEX aluminum futures contracts to personally profit in the amount of $6.5 million from GM’s sale of surplus aluminum, the order further finds. The Commission assessed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and permanent registration and trading bans. The Commission received cooperation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with this matter. In re Bealko, CFTC Docket No. 10-18 (CFTC filed Sept. 20, 2010).
  
  
• In re McCormick
  
  On September 30, 2010, the Commission simultaneously filed and settled an administrative enforcement action against Kevin McCormick, a former CME member and a former floor trader in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Price Index (S&P) futures pit. The order finds that, from September 10, 2004 through October 18, 2004, McCormick knowingly recorded and submitted false and fictitious commodity futures transactions on his trading cards to conceal trading losses for a period of several weeks. According to the order, when McCormick’s trades were cleared on October 19, 2004, his account had a significant short position of S&P contracts that, when liquidated, resulted in his account having a debit balance of approximately $386,000, an amount that he could not cover and which his clearing firm had to cover. The Commission assessed sanctions, including a cease and desist order and permanent trading and registration bans. In re McCormick, CFTC Docket No. 10-20 (CFTC filed Sept. 30, 2010).

< Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page >