The explosive growth in the futures industry provides many benefits to the U.S. economy, but the risk of fraud and manipulation is always present. The trend toward electronic trading platforms and the expanding complexity of trading instruments have challenged the Commission to reconfigure its ability to identify, investigate, and take action against parties involved in violating applicable laws and regulations. If evidence of criminal activity is found, matters are referred to state or Federal authorities for criminal prosecution.
STRATEGIC GOAL TWO Protect market users |
|||||||
FY 2010 Investment | FY 2010 Performance Results | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY 2010 Actual |
Change (+/-) from FY 2009 |
Targets: | Exceeded | Met | Not Met | Results Not Demonstrated |
|
Cost: | $39.3 Million | +$5.6 Million | Results: | 2 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
Staffing: | 140 FTE | +26 FTE | Total Number of Results: 12 |
The table below provides a summary of selected performance measures to demonstrate the Commission’s performance towards protecting market users and the public. For a detailed analysis of all performance measures, please refer to the Performance Section of the PAR located at http://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCReports/.
Outcome Objective 2.1 Violations of Federal commodities laws are detected and prevented. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Measures | FY 2010 Target |
FY 2010 Actual |
FY 2010 Met or Not Met |
Performance Trends FY 2006 – FY 2010 |
Comment | ||||||||||||||||||
2.1.1 Number of enforcement investigations opened during the fiscal year. | 195 | 419 | Met |
|
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 of Ponzi schemes due to the financial downturn. | ||||||||||||||||||
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.) | 98% | 100% | Met |
|
Enforcement views this as an important metric in protecting market users by deterring future violations. | ||||||||||||||||||
Outcome Objective 2.3 Customer complaints against persons or firms registered under the CEA are handled effectively and expeditiously. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.1(a) Percentage of filed complaints resolved within one year of the filing date for voluntary proceedings. | 90% | 71% | Not Met |
|
Normally, voluntary cases tend to take less time because of the non-appealable and informal nature of the proceedings. The cases that exceeded one year in FY 2010 included three related cases that consisted of uncooperative and non-responsive respondents. | ||||||||||||||||||
2.3.1(b) Percentage of filed complaints resolved within one year and six months of the filing date for summary proceedings. | 90% | 77% | Not Met |
|
Although the Office of Proceedings undertook a number of actions to improve the speed of resolution, including resolving deficiencies more quickly during the complaint phase and allowing electronic filing of documents, the factors affecting this outcome can vary from case to case. Often external factors, including complaint deficiencies, requests for extension of time, and discovery issues, may impact the ability to resolve the complaint in a speedy manner. | ||||||||||||||||||
2.3.1(c) Percentage of filed complaints resolved within one year and six months of the filing date for formal proceedings. | 95% | 75% | Not Met |
|
All of these cases were resolved within one year and six months, except two cases that took over two years to resolve. One case involved the filing of 15 related cases that were eventually consolidated and assigned to one judge. This case was stayed by the Commission for approximately seven months because of the numerous filings submitted by the attorneys regarding how the cases should be assigned and adjudicated. The second case encountered several delays because of events not under the judge’s control and procedural complexities. |