United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Brown, No. 2:2012cv02513 - Document 44 (D. Ariz. 2014)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT Entering judgment in favor of the CFTC and against defendant on Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint; Imposing damages against defendant pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), in the amount of $1,131,941.98; Imposing a civil mon etary penalty against defendant pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d) (2012) and 17 C.F.R. § 143.8(a)(1)(ii)(D) in the amount of $140,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PERMANENTLY ENJOINING DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS: Defendant is permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or indirectly:(a) using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or prospective cl ient or participant, or to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any commodity trading client or commodity pool participant or prospective client or participant in violation of 7 U.S.C. &# 167; 6o (2012);(b) acting as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor, as those terms are defined under 7 U.S.C. § 1a (2012), in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m (2012). Defendant is also permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or indirectly: (a) trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, as that term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a (2012). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/21/2014. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Brown 1 Doc. 44 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 United States Commodity Futures Trading) ) Commission, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Ray Thomas Brown, ) ) Defendant. ) ) No. CV-12-2513-PHX-FJM FINAL JUDGMENT 16 17 This court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States Commodity 18 Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and against defendant Ray Thomas Brown on the 19 CFTC’s claims that defendant violated the antifraud and registration provisions of the 20 Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m, 6o (the “Act”). We concluded that restitution 21 damages in the amount of $1,131,941.98, a civil monetary penalty in the amount of 22 $140,000, and permanent injunctive relief are appropriate. We now enter judgment in 23 accordance with that Order: 24 IT IS ORDERED: 25 1. Entering judgment in favor of the CFTC and against defendant on Counts 1, 26 2, and 3 of the Complaint; 27 2. Imposing damages against defendant pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), in 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 the amount of $1,131,941.98; 3. Imposing a civil monetary penalty against defendant pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d) (2012) and 17 C.F.R. § 143.8(a)(1)(ii)(D) in the amount of $140,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PERMANENTLY ENJOINING DEFENDANT 5 AS FOLLOWS: 6 1. 7 indirectly: 8 (a) Defendant is permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly 9 or indirectly, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant 10 or prospective client or participant, or to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of 11 business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any commodity trading client or 12 commodity pool participant or prospective client or participant in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o 13 (2012); 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (b) acting as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor, as those terms are defined under 7 U.S.C. § 1a (2012), in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m (2012). 2. Defendant is also permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or indirectly: (a) trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, as that term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a (2012); (b) entering into any transactions involving commodity futures, options on 21 commodity futures, commodity options (as that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(hh) 22 (2012)) (“commodity options”), security futures products, swaps (as that term is defined in 23 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(2012)), and/or foreign currency (as described in 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(B) 24 and 2(c)(2)(C)(i) (2012)) (“forex contracts”) for his own personal account or for any account 25 in which he has a direct or indirect interest; 26 27 28 (c) having any commodity futures, options on commodity futures, commodity options, security futures products, swaps and/or forex contracts traded on his behalf; (d) controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or -2- 1 entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account involving commodity 2 futures, options on commodity futures, commodity options, security futures products, swaps 3 and/or forex contracts; 4 (e) soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose 5 of purchasing or selling any commodity futures, options on commodity futures, commodity 6 options, security futures products, swaps and/or forex contracts; 7 (f) applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 8 CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such registration or exemption 9 from registration with the CFTC, except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2013), 10 11 and/or; (g) acting as a principal (as that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2013)), agent 12 or any other officer or employee of any person (as that term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a 13 (2012)), registered, exempted from registration or required to be registered with the CFTC 14 except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2013). 15 DATED this 21st day of January, 2014. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
