Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Showing posts with label U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION. Show all posts

Saturday, June 9, 2012

CFTC CHARGES MAN AND COMPANY WITH RUNNING A SILVER BULLION PONZI SCHEME

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Charges Ronnie Gene Wilson of South Carolina and His Company, Atlantic Bullion & Coin, Inc., with Operating a $90 Million Silver Bullion Ponzi Scheme

Defendants are allegedly to have fraudulently sold contracts of sale of silver in a nationwide scheme
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced the filing of a federal civil enforcement action charging defendants Ronnie Gene Wilson (Wilson) and Atlantic Bullion & Coin, Inc. (AB&C), both of Easley, S.C., with fraud in connection with operating a $90 million Ponzi scheme, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations.

The CFTC’s complaint charges violations under the agency’s new Dodd-Frank authority prohibiting the use of any manipulative or deceptive device, scheme, or contrivance to defraud in connection with a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the CEA, as amended, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 15 and the CFTC’s implementing Regulation 180.1 (a). The complaint was filed on June 6, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South Carolina, Anderson Division.

According to the complaint, since at least 2001 through February 29, 2012, Wilson and AB&C operated a Ponzi scheme, and, as part of the scheme, fraudulently offered contracts of sale of silver, a commodity in interstate commerce. Through their 11-year long scheme, the defendants allegedly fraudulently obtained at least $90.1 million from at least 945 investors for the purchase of silver.

From August 15, 2011, through February 29, 2012 – the time period during which the CFTC has had jurisdiction over the defendants’ actions under new provisions contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 – the defendants allegedly fraudulently obtained at least $11.53 million from at least 237 investors in 16 states for the purchase of contracts of sale of silver. The complaint further alleges that during this period, the defendants failed to purchase any silver whatsoever. Instead, the defendants allegedly misappropriated all of the investors’ funds and to conceal their fraud, issued phony account statements to investors.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks restitution to defrauded investors, a return of ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against further violations of the federal commodities laws.

The CFTC appreciates the cooperation and assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Greenville, S.C., and the U.S. Secret Service.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are A. Daniel Ullman II, George H. Malas, Antoinette Chance, John Einstman, Richard Foelber, Paul G. Hayeck, and Joan M. Manley.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

MORGAN STANLEY ORDERED BY CFTC TO PAY $5 MILLION PENALTY

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Orders Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC to Pay $5 Million Civil Monetary Penalty for Unlawful Noncompetitive Trades
Morgan Stanley had inadequate supervisory systems and controls to detect and deter the unlawful conduct that occurred repeatedly over 18-months
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an order filing and settling charges that, over an 18-month period, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (Morgan Stanley), a registered futures commission merchant (FCM), unlawfully executed, processed, and reported numerous off-exchange futures trades to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) as exchanges for related positions (EFRPs). The CFTC order requires Morgan Stanley to pay a $5 million civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, as charged.

According to the CFTC order, because the futures trades were executed noncompetitively and not in accordance with exchange rules governing EFRPs, they constituted “fictitious sales” and resulted in the reporting of non-bona fide prices, in violation of the CEA and CFTC regulations. The order also finds that Morgan Stanley had related supervisory and recordkeeping violations.

The commodity futures trading laws generally require that futures trades be executed on a futures exchange. The laws allow for exceptions to that requirement, such as when the futures trade is part of an EFRP, which is where parties exchange futures contracts for a related cash or over-the-counter (OTC) derivative position, such as an option or a swap. As long as the legal requirements are met, parties are permitted to execute EFRPs away from an exchange but then must report their EFRPs to an exchange after execution.
“The laws requiring that futures trades be executed on an exchange serve important price discovery and transparency principles,” said David Meister, Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement. “As today’s action should demonstrate, when an FCM reports that it properly conducted an off-exchange futures trade as part of an EFRP, that report had better be accurate. In all cases, firms must have appropriate systems and controls in place designed to detect and prevent the conduct described in the order.”
According to the CFTC’s order, from at least April 18, 2008 through October 29, 2009, Morgan Stanley noncompetitively executed numerous futures trades and improperly reported them as EFRPs, since they did not have the required corresponding cash or OTC derivative positions.

The order finds that Morgan Stanley’s supervisory systems and internal controls were not adequate to detect and deter the noncompetitive trading of futures contracts improperly designated as EFRPs. For example, although Morgan Stanley’s Futures Operations department had the responsibility to report EFRPs to the CME and CBOT, that department was not required to verify that the EFRPs had the required corresponding related cash or OTC derivative positions, nor was any other operations department required to do so. The order further finds that Morgan Stanley failed to ensure that its employees involved in the execution, handling and processing of EFRPs understood the requirements for executing bona fide EFRPs. Moreover, the order finds that Morgan Stanley lacked sufficient surveillance systems to identify trades improperly designated as EFRPs. The order also finds that Morgan Stanley failed to designate the trades as EFRPs on all orders, records, and memoranda pertaining to EFRPs, as required.

The order recognizes Morgan Stanley’s significant cooperation in the Division of Enforcement’s investigation of this matter.

In a related proceeding, the CME Group is issuing a notice of disciplinary action against Morgan Stanley today. The CFTC thanks the CME Group for its assistance.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Brian G. Mulherin, Timothy M. Kirby, Brandon T. Tasco, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

Friday, June 1, 2012

CFTC FILES CLAIM IN MF GLOBAL LIQUIDATION

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Files a General Creditor Claim in the Liquidation of MF Global
Washington, DC – On June 1, 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) filed a general creditor claim in the liquidation of MF Global, Inc., No. 11-02790 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The Commission took this action in relation to the Division of Enforcement’s ongoing investigation related to the failure of MF Global, Inc. If that investigation results in an enforcement action against MF Global, Inc., the Commission could pursue a restitution award for the benefit of commodity customers, which in turn could be the basis for a Commission claim as a general creditor against the MF Global, Inc. estate.  The Commission’s claim as a general creditor would not have priority over customer claims.  It has been filed solely to preserve all possible options for recovering funds for the benefit of commodity customers.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

CFTC SETTLES FRAUD CHARGES WITH MAN SELLING SOFTWARE TRADING SYSTEM

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURE TRADING COMMISSION

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed and simultaneously settled charges that Ghassan Tawachi of Coral Gables, Fla., defrauded customers through sales of his software trading systems by falsely claiming expertise as a successful professional trader and by misappropriating $40,000 from one customer.  Tawachi is a registered Commodity Trading Advisor.

The CFTC order requires Tawachi to pay a $140,000 civil monetary penalty and restitution of $140,839.70.  The order also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Tawachi.
According to the order, from July 2010 until at least September 30, 2011, Tawachi marketed the “Bentley Automated Trading Systems” and the “Avanti Automated Trading System” through two Internet websites.  In his marketing for both systems, Tawachi claimed that he formulated his trading software based upon his purported substantial professional trading experience, the order finds. 
On both websites, Tawachi maintained that as a “Professional trader,” he had developed his trading systems based upon “more than 10 years of professional experience.”  Instead, the order finds that Tawachi had no professional trading experience, and his trading background was limited to a single personal futures account opened three years earlier, through which he had conducted limited and unsuccessful trading.
The order further finds that Tawachi accepted $40,000 directly from one of his software customers to be traded in his personal futures account pursuant to his trading system, and that he claimed to have made up to $100,000 as a result of his successful trading.  The order further finds that Tawachi guaranteed the customer a 20 percent monthly return if the customer committed to a 90-day investment period.  The order finds that Tawachi subsequently failed to return any of the customer’s funds, and account records demonstrated that none of the customer’s funds were deposited into Tawachi’s futures trading accounts.