United States: 2014 CFTC Enforcement Year-In-Review, And A Look Forward

Introduction

In 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC" or the "Commission") filed 67 new enforcement cases—fewer than any year since 2010—but obtained a record $3.27 billion in monetary sanctions, nearly double the previous record of $1.7 billion set in 2013.1 Roughly half of this amount was recovered in foreign-exchange ("FX") manipulation settlements with five major banks.2 The Commission's enforcement record in 2014 continues the recent trend of a decline in the overall number of enforcement cases filed annually, but with a greater focus on complex, high-profile cases and the imposition of significantly higher sanctions. In addition, as expected, the Commission began to flex its use of the new enforcement powers provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 ("Dodd-Frank").3 Although the agency has undergone a change in leadership with the arrival of three new Commissioners and a new Director of the Division of Enforcement ("Division"), we expect these trends to continue through 2015. We also expect to see a greater focus on market structure and high-frequency trading issues, as part of the Commission's core market integrity mission.

New Leadership and Budgetary Pressures

The Commission and its senior Staff experienced significant change in 2014. Since the beginning of the year, three new Commissioners took office: Chairman Timothy G. Massad, Sharon Y. Bowen, and J. Christopher Giancarlo. Commissioner Mark P. Wetjen, appointed in 2011, is the Commission's only continuing member; the agency's fifth seat currently remains unoccupied. Additionally, the Chairman appointed Aitan D. Goelman, a former federal prosecutor, as the Commission's new Director of Enforcement.

While Dodd-Frank greatly expanded the CFTC's responsibilities, Congress has not provided the Commission with the significant budget increases requested by the agency to meet its expanded mission.4 The Division's employment base has not been correspondingly increased either.5 The Commission itself noted, in its annual financial report, that the Division was operating with approximately 3% fewer staff than it had the previous year.6 Further, as noted by Chairman Massad, the Division currently has fewer staff than it did in 2002, when the agency's responsibilities were limited to the futures markets.7

CFTC officials have stated that these funding constraints will have an impact on the Division's ability to investigate and file new enforcement cases. Division Director Goelman also has stated that the Division intends to file more enforcement cases before administrative law judges in order to avoid the resource-intensive discovery process that is associated with litigation in federal court.8

The President has proposed increasing the agency's budget by nearly a third for fiscal year 2016, which would provide funding for approximately 150 new staff members.9 Whether the Commission's final budget is increased or current constraints continue, we anticipate that the Commission will continue to bring high-profile complex cases and will continue to seek higher penalties.

Enforcement Activity

Below we discuss several notable highlights in 2014 CFTC enforcement activity.

Benchmark Manipulation

The CFTC's focus on benchmark manipulation continued in 2014. As noted above, the most high-profile actions involved the Commission's ongoing investigations into manipulation of FX benchmark rates. In November 2014, the CFTC filed and settled actions against five major banks for allegedly attempting to manipulate benchmark FX rates. These matters resulted in more than $1.4 billion in penalties.10 The orders find that traders at these banks coordinated trading through private chat rooms in an attempt to manipulate the World Markets/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in certain currencies to benefit their positions.11 Though not quantified by the CFTC, the agency credited the banks' "significant cooperation" in the matter, including their self-disclosures of the underlying misconduct.12

The Commission also filed two additional settlement orders regarding manipulation of benchmark interest rates involving Lloyds Bank13 and RP Martin Holdings Limited14 for allegedly manipulating and attempting to manipulate LIBOR benchmark interest rates.15 As part of its settled action, Lloyds agreed to pay a $105 million fine.16 At the same time, Lloyds entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, in which it admitted to wrongdoing and agreed to pay an additional $86 million criminal penalty.17 It also entered into agreements with the Bank of England and the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority.18 As part of its settled action with the Commission, RP Martin agreed to pay a $1.2 million fine for allegedly disseminating false and misleading information regarding Yen borrowing rates.19 Together, these settlements added $106 million to the $1.77 billion in penalties the Commission previously recovered through benchmark interest rate investigations.20 This figure excludes penalties obtained by the Department of Justice or foreign regulators.

Looking ahead, we believe benchmark integrity will continue to be a high priority area for the Division. Chairman Massad has stated that the agency will continue to investigate and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that price benchmarks are free from manipulation.21 Division officials have stated they are continuing to look into the integrity of price benchmarks.22 In 2015, we may see additional enforcement actions stemming from the Commission's ongoing investigations into interest rate and FX benchmarks, and further cooperative efforts with other domestic and foreign regulatory agencies.23

Other Manipulation Cases

In 2014, the CFTC settled several manipulation and attempted manipulation cases that had been pending for several years. In CFTC v. Moncada, 24 the Commission obtained a federal consent order imposing a $1.56 million civil penalty and trading restrictions as a result of defendant Eric Moncada's alleged attempted manipulation of the wheat futures market. According to the order, Moncada intended to create misleading impressions of rising liquidity by electronically entering and immediately canceling large-lot orders in the CBOT wheat futures market. In CFTC v. Parnon Energy, Inc., 25 the Commission obtained a federal consent order imposing a $13 million civil penalty against Parnon Energy, two affiliates, and two individuals for allegedly manipulating and attempting to manipulate spreads in crude oil futures by concentrated buying and selling in the physical market. In CFTC v. Hunter,26 the Commission obtained a federal consent order imposing a $750,000 civil penalty against trader Brian Hunter for allegedly marking the close in natural gas futures to benefit larger positions in natural gas-related swaps.

As the conduct in these cases occurred prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these manipulation cases were all brought under the pre-Dodd-Frank provisions in the Commodity Exchange Act that prohibit the manipulation or attempted manipulation of the price of any commodity or futures contract.27 However, we expect that the Commission will bring future manipulation cases involving more recent conduct under the new powers provided by Section 6(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Regulation 180.1, which prohibit the use or attempted use of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance," or any "scheme, or artifice to defraud," with respect to any swap, cash contract, or futures contract. While the Commission has, to date, only relied on this new authority in cases involving fraudulent conduct,28 we expect that the Division will continue to seek cases to expand its use of its new enforcement authority and will test the boundaries of this new authority in both fraud and manipulation cases.

Disruptive Trading Practices

The CFTC has encouraged self-regulatory authorities to make greater efforts to police disruptive trading practices. Most prominently, the Commission recommended that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") "develop strategies to identify instances of spoofing and, as appropriate, pursue actions against perpetrators."29 In addition, the CME has issued new Rule 575 specifically to prevent spoofing and other disruptive trading practices.30 Similarly, ICE Futures US has amended its rules prohibiting disruptive trading practices and has issued guidance on their application.31

Based on a referral from the Commission, the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois brought criminal charges against Michael Coscia for spoofing certain futures contracts.32 This same activity served as the basis for the Commission's own settled action against Coscia and his firm in 2013.33

Position Limits

In 2014, the CFTC brought a number of actions, and obtained substantial civil penalties, against parties that allegedly exceeded position limits established pursuant to Section 4a of the Commodities Exchange Act.34 In the largest case, the CFTC fined a father and son $525,000 for allegedly exceeding the CME's speculative position limit for live cattle futures contracts.35

Enforcement of speculative position limits has been a traditional component of the Commission's enforcement program. This aspect of the Commission's enforcement efforts will likely take on broader significance when the Commission finalizes its speculative position limit rule, which will also apply position limits to the swaps market.36 Commissioner Bowen has stated that finalizing this rule is a priority for 2015 and all market participants will need to be vigilant to ensure that they comply with the new rules.37

Failure to Supervise and Gatekeeper Liability

In addition to policing substantive violations, the Commission has prioritized bringing actions against individuals and entities that failed to properly supervise their employees. During the past year, the Commission brought a number of actions against futures commission merchants for violations of Regulation 166.3, which imposes a duty on CFTC registrants to "diligently supervise" the activities of its affiliates and employees.38 These actions have involved alleged deficiencies in processing of exchange and clearing fees,39 maintaining records of segregated funds,40 and "know your customer" procedures.41 In one action, the Commission charged a firm for failing to reasonably supervise compliance with another agency's regulations.42 Relatedly, the Commission charged a Florida attorney who allegedly knowingly and repeatedly aided and abetted his clients' fraudulent off-exchange transactions.43

These actions further the CFTC's apparent push to increase the accountability of gatekeepers, such as compliance officers and attorneys, and supervisors for activities within their areas of responsibility. This approach in enforcement actions also is consistent with the Commission's increased emphasis on the importance and responsibilities of compliance personnel in its regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, although the Commission's adopting release is somewhat unclear, the agency's rulemaking requiring swap dealers to establish a Chief Compliance Officer ("CCO") indicates that the Commission views the duties of a swap dealer CCO as going beyond the "customary and traditional [advisory] role" of a compliance officer.44

Customer Protection

The Commission also brought five actions for alleged violations of various customer protection rules.45 Unlike the Commission's actions against MF Global46 and Peregrine Financial Group in 2013,47 these actions did not involve significant client losses or fraud. Instead, these actions suggest that the Commission is aggressively pursuing violations of customer protection regulations, even in the absence of customer harm. We expect this trend to continue in 2015.

What to Expect in 2015

Over the next year, we expect the Commission will focus on the following:

Market Structure and High-Frequency Trading

We expect that the Commission's focus on market structure issues and high-frequency trading will continue in 2015.48 Further, we expect the Commission to bring increasingly sophisticated investigative techniques to bear in these matters as it develops and enhances its technological resources and institutional knowledge.49

In parallel, the CFTC is fully "examining the issues surrounding automated trading," which may result in some type of "regulatory action to improve market structure."50 In particular, the Commission continues to evaluate comments regarding its Concept Release on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for Automated Trading Environments that was released last year.51 While the Commission has not proposed any new rules, the agency appears to be contemplating whether a rule requiring pre-trade risk controls and related supervisory reviews, similar to the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") Market Access Rule, should be adopted for the futures and swaps markets or if these markets require a different approach.52 If such a rule is adopted, we expect the Commission to bring enforcement actions in similar situations as the SEC has done under the Market Access Rule.53

We also expect that the Commission will aggressively police the swaps markets. Many of the Dodd-Frank rulemakings are now several years old, and we expect that the Division will vigilantly enforce compliance with the swaps regulatory regime.

Inter-Agency Coordination and Parallel Criminal Proceedings

We expect the CFTC to continue its cooperation and coordination with other federal regulators, such as Department of Justice, and its foreign counterparts. Many of the agency's major cases in 2014 were brought with the coordination of one or more other investigating agencies. For example, the FX manipulation cases resulted in enforcement actions by the CFTC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority.54 In other recent matters, the Commission has cooperated with the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets,55 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,56 and the SEC.57 Further, in the past year, the Commission has entered memoranda of understanding agreeing to cooperate with regulators in Australia, Canada, and Japan.58

The Commission has also prioritized criminal referrals in appropriate matters. While the agency has the authority charge individuals civilly, Chairman Massad has indicated that the CFTC will also refer willful violations of the Commodity Exchange Act to the Department of Justice to maximize deterrence of future misconduct.59 As noted above, this policy led to the criminal indictment of Michael Coscia in October.

We think that these trends will continue in 2015.

Whistleblower Program

In May 2014, the Commission issued its first award under the whistleblower program implemented under Dodd-Frank.60 Chairman Massad has indicated that this program is still "ramping up," and we believe it will become an increasingly important aspect of the CFTC's enforcement program in the coming years.61

Administrative Enforcement Proceedings

According to Division Director Goelman, the Commission plans to resume bringing contested enforcement actions in its own adjudicatory forum, rather than as litigated actions in federal district court.62 This initiative appears primarily designed to conserve resources,63 but it will also give the Commission the opportunity to interpret the Commodity Exchange Act and develop its own precedent.

This plan will represent a significant shift from the Commission's current practice. While the SEC brings approximately 40% of its enforcement actions as administrative proceedings,64 the CFTC has not instituted a contested administrative proceeding since 2001.65 Further, while we expect the Commission will dust off its Rules of Practice,66 these rules may need to be updated to reflect advances in technology since they were last used extensively.

This plan may also raise some concerns for the subjects of CFTC investigations. A number of commentators have raised questions about whether the SEC's use of administrative proceedings give the agency an unfair home-field advantage.67 For example, the administrative forum provides much more limited rules of discovery and respondents are given much less time to prepare their cases than would be available in federal court. However, some potential respondents may be more willing to litigate before an agency judge than in federal court, as the public spotlight may be less intense. Additionally, the CFTC's past experience with the administrative enforcement process demonstrates that the administrative process can be quite lengthy, particularly in complex cases, and that the Commission's decisions in these cases often depart from the positions taken by the Division.

We expect a number of issues regarding the fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the administrative process will be the subject of intense focus if the CFTC increases its use of administrative proceedings in 2015.

Conclusion

Despite the budgetary constraints that the Commission faced in 2014, the agency maintained its aggressive enforcement approach and obtained another year of record fines. We can expect this trend to continue or accelerate as the agency focuses on compliance with its Dodd-Frank rules and tests and expands its new enforcement powers. Further, we expect to see the Commission bring increasingly complex matters as it further enhances its technological capabilities and its relationships with its international counterparts.

Footnotes

1 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N, AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT: FISCAL YEAR 2014, at 2 (2014) [hereinafter CFTC 2014 REPORT]; see also Paul M. Architzel et al., 2013 CFTC Enforcement Year-in-Review, and a Look Forward (Feb. 6, 2014) (noting that Commission brought 82 enforcement actions in FY 2013, and 102 enforcement actions in FY 2012).

2 See Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 Billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates (November 12, 2014); see also CFTC 2014 REPORT at 38.

3 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, H.R. 4173 § 753 (July 21, 2010) (amending the Commodity Exchange Act (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.)).

4 See, e.g., Sharon Bowen, Comm'r, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Remarks at the Futures Industry Association Expo 2014 (Nov. 5, 2014) ("Our budget is insufficient, and the Commission and staff consistently have to make difficult choices about how to allocate scarce resources amongst our many regulatory priorities.").

5 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Effective Enforcement and the Future of Derivatives Regulation: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry, 113th Cong. 23 (Dec. 10, 2014) (statement of Timothy Massad, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n) [hereinafter Massad Senate Testimony] (noting that agency staff "is no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010").

6 CFTC 2014 REPORT at 2.

7 Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 113th Cong. 8 (March 6, 2014) (statement of Mark P. Wetjen, Acting Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n) [hereinafter Wetjen Senate Testimony] (noting that the Division currently has 149 employees, compared to 154 employees in 2002).

8 Stephanie Russell-Kraft, Cash-Strapped CFTC Faces Troubled Return to Admin Court, LAW360, Nov. 14, 2014.

9 See Ed Beeson, SEC, CFTC Budgets See Hefty Raises Under Obama Plan, LAW360, Feb. 2, 2015.

10 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 Billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates (Nov. 12, 2014). At the same time, the Financial Conduct Authority separately settled actions against each of the five banks for $1.7 billion. Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 Billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates (Nov. 12, 2014). The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority and the OCC also brought related actions.

11 See id.

12 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 Billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates (Nov. 12, 2014).

13 See In re Lloyds Banking Group plc, CFTC Docket No. 14-18 (July 28, 2014).

14 See also In re RP Martin Holdings Limited, CFTC Docket No. 14-16 (May 15, 2014).

15 Lloyds Banking Group plc, CFTC Docket No. 14-18.

16 Id.

17 Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Lloyds Banking Group Admits Wrongdoing in LIBOR Investigation, Agrees to Pay $86 Million Criminal Penalty (July 28, 2014).

18 Chad Bray, Lloyds Bank to Pay $380 Million to Resolve Rate Manipulation Inquiries, N.Y. TIMES, July 29, 2014, at B3.

19 RP Martin Holdings Limited, CFTC Docket No. 14-16.

20 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Charges Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds Bank with Manipulation, Attempted Manipulation, and False Reporting of LIBOR (July 28, 2014).

21 Massad Senate Testimony at 21.

22 See CFTC 2014 REPORT at 38 (noting that the Commission continues to investigate whether other firms manipulated or attempted to manipulate LIBOR and ICAP ISDAFIX interest rates).

23 See id. (noting continued cooperation with "domestic and foreign regulators and agencies").

24 Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Eric Moncada, CFTC v. Moncada, No. 12-cv-8791 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2014).

25 Final Consent Order of Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty, and Other Relief, CFTC v. Parnon Energy Inc., No. 11 Civ. 3543 (S.D.N.Y. August 4, 2014).

26 Consent Order for Civil Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Brian Hunter, CFTC v. Hunter, No. 07 Civ. 6682 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2014).

27 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(2) (2013).

28 7 U.S.C. § 9 (2013); 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2014); see also Complaint, CFTC v. Considine, No. 1:14-cv-07556 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2014); Final Judgment and Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief against Defendant John Aaron Brooks, CFTC v. Brooks, No. 13-cv-6879 (August 1, 2014); Complaint, CFTC v. Southern Trust Metals, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-22739 (July 23, 2014); Complaint, CFTC v. Miklovich, No. 3:14-cv-00594 (March 19, 2014). For a discussion of the similarities and differences between these two enforcement provisions, see Paul M. Architzel et al., The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Issues Sweeping New Rules to Prohibit Fraud and Manipulation in the Swaps, Cash, and Futures Markets (July 28, 2011).

29 Massad Senate Testimony at 21; see also Nick Baker & Sam Mamudi, CME Market Surveillance Found Lacking by Its Chief Regulator, BLOOMBERG, Nov. 25, 2014.

30 See CME Rule 575; CME Market Regulation Advisory Notice: Disruptive Practices Prohibited (Sept. 15, 2014).

31 See ICE Futures US, Notice, Amendments to Rule 4.02 and new FAQ regarding Disruptive Trading Practices, Dec. 29, 2014.

32 Indictment, United States v. Michael Coscia, 14-CR-551 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2014); see also Massad Senate Testimony at 21 (noting that indictment was based on Commission referral). Coscia has moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the grounds that the anti-spoofing provision provided in Dodd-Frank is unconstitutionally vague. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Michael Coscia, 14-CR-551 (Dec. 15, 2014). As of the date of publication, his motion is still pending.

33 In re Panther Energy Trading LLC, CFTC Docket No. 13-26 (July 22, 2013).

34 7 U.S.C. § 6a (2013); see, e.g., Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc., CFTC Docket No. 14-10 (March 24, 2014).

35 In re Thrasher, CFTC Docket No. 14-29 (Sept. 24, 2014). In April 2014, the Commission obtained a $130,000 civil penalty against another individual trader for violating the CME's live cattle speculative position limits. See Final Judgment and Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and other Equitable Relief Against Defendant James C. Yadgir, CFTC v. Yadgir, No. 1:13-cv-07948 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2014).

36 Position Limits for Derivatives and Aggregation of Positions, 79 Fed. Reg. 71973 (Dec. 4, 2014) (extending time for commenting on proposed position limit rules).

37 Sharon Bowen, Comm'r, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Remarks at the Futures Industry Association Expo 2014 (Nov. 5, 2014) ("These rules have been discussed for years now, and it is time for the Commission to make the decisions it needs to make to get the rules finalized. I hope we can finalize this rule in a way that both realizes Congressional intent in mandating position limits and maintains companies' ability to manage their commercial risks.").

38 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2014).

39 In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, CFTC Docket No. 14-22 (Aug. 26, 2014).

40 In re Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, CFTC Docket No. 14-11 (March 27, 2014).

41 In re Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, CFTC Docket No. 14-25 (Sept. 15, 2014).

42 In re Zulutrade, Inc., CFTC Docket No. 14-24 (Sept. 9, 2014) (failure to follow OFAC guidance when screening account holders from countries subject to US sanctions).

43 Complaint, CFTC v. Grossman, No. 14-CV-62061 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2014).

44 See Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker Conflicts of Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants, 77 Fed. Reg. 20128, 20162 (Apr. 3, 2012); see also Dan M. Berkovitz & Gail Bernstein, Swap Dealer Chief Compliance Officer Requirements – First Year in Review, 47 REV. OF SECS. & COMMODS. REG. 195 (Sept. 3, 2014).

45 In re FXDirectDealer, LLC, CFTC Docket No. 14-28 (Sept. 24, 2014) (violation of minimum net capital requirements); In re Global Futures & Forex, Ltd., CFTC Docket No. 14-17 (May 19, 2014) (violation of minimum net capital requirements); Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Tunney & Associates, P.C. & Michael Tunney, CFTC v. Tunney & Associates, P.C., No. 1:13-cv-02919 (April 28, 2014) (failure to conduct audit in compliance with GAAP); In re Capital Market Services, CFTC Docket No. 14-12 (April 7, 2014) (violation of minimum net capital requirements); In re Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, CFTC Docket No. 14-11 (March 27, 2014) (failure to maintain adequate records of secured and segregated funds).

46 See Final Consent Order Of Restitution, Civil Monetary Penalty, And Ancillary Relief, CFTC v. MF Global Inc., No. 11-CIV-7866 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2013) ($100 million fine).

47 A default judgment was entered against Peregrine in February 2013. See Default Judgment Order of Permanent Injunction and Other Ancillary Relief, CFTC v. Peregrine Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05383 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2013). The firm's owner Wasendorf also was charged criminally and pled guilty; he was sentenced to 50 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $215 million in restitution. See United States v. Wasendorf, No. 12-CR-2021 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 23, 2013).

48 E.g., In re Panther Energy Trading LLC, CFTC Docket No. 13-26 (July 22, 2013).

49 See Wetjen Senate Testimony at 6 (noting agency is devoting "millions of dollars [to] new and sophisticated analytical systems that will assist the Commission in its efforts to ensure market integrity").

50 Scott D. O'Malia, Comm'r, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Keynote Address at Derivatives 2014: A Market in Transition – A TabbForum Event (May 6, 2014).

51 Concept Release on Risk Controls and System Safeguards for Automated Trading Environments, 78 Fed. Reg. 56,542 (Sept. 12, 2013).

52 High Frequency and Automated Trading in Futures Markets: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry, 113th Cong. (May 13, 2014) (statement of Vincent McGonagle, Director of the Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n); Scott D. O'Malia, Comm'r, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Keynote Address at Derivatives 2014: A Market in Transition – A TabbForum Event (May 6, 2014).

53 See, e.g., In re Knight Cap. Americas LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 70,694 (Oct. 16, 2013).

54 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Orders Five Banks to Pay over $1.4 Billion in Penalties for Attempted Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates (Nov. 12, 2014).

55 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Obtains Default Judgment against Texas-Based Financial Robotics, Inc. for Fraudulent Forex Scheme (Oct. 24, 2014).

56 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Federal Court Orders Brian Hunter of Calgary, Alberta to Pay a $750,000 Civil Fine in CFTC Action Alleging Attempted Manipulation of Natural Gas Futures Prices during the Expiry on Two Trading Days (Sept. 15, 2014).

57 See Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Charges MF Global Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd., Former CEO Jon S. Corzine, and Former Employee Edith O'Brien for MF Global's Unlawful Misuse of Nearly One Billion Dollars of Customer Funds and Related Violations (June 27, 2013).

58 Memorandum of Understanding between CFTC and Australian Securities and Investments Comm'n (Sept. 24, 2014); Memorandum of Understanding between CFTC and Reserve Bank of Australia and Australian Securities and Investments Comm'n (June 5, 2014); Memorandum of Understanding between CFTC and Alberta Securities Commission, British Columbia Securities Commission, Ontario Securities Commission and Autorite de marches financeirs (March 25, 2014); Memorandum of Understanding between CFTC and Fin. Servs. Agency of Japan (March 10, 2014).

59 Massad Senate Testimony at 22.

60 Press Release, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, CFTC Issues First Whistleblower Award (May 20, 2014).

61 Massad Senate Testimony at 22.

62 Jean Eaglesham, CFTC Turns Toward Administrative Judges, WALL ST. J., Nov. 9, 2014.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 In re DiPlacido, CFTC Docket No. 01-23 (Aug. 21, 2001). While the underlying conduct occurred in 1998, the Commission did not fully resolve this matter until 2008. Opinion and Order, In re DiPlacido, CFTC Docket No. 01-23 (Nov. 5, 2008). The Second Circuit affirmed the Commission's order in October 2009. See CFTC v. DiPlacido, 364 Fed. App'x 657 (2d. Cir. 2009).

66 See 17 C.F.R. pt. 10 (2014).

67 E.g., Jean Eaglesham, SEC is Steering More Trials to Judge It Appoints, WALL ST. J., Oct. 21, 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Douglas J. Davison
Elizabeth Mitchell
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Emails

From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.