1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-21887-GAYLES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANIEL FINGERHUT, 

DIGITAL PLATINUM, INC., 

DIGITAL PLATINUM, LTD.,

HUF MEDIYA (A.K.A. HOOF MEDIA), 

TAL VALARIOLA, and ITAY BARAK, 

Defendants, 

AICEL CARBONERO, 

Relief Defendant. 

________________________________________________/

TEMPORARY STATUTORY RESTRAINING ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission’s (the “Commission”) Motion for Statutory Restraining Order (“SRO”) with Notice

(the “Motion”) [ECF No. 58]. Pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the 

“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2012), and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. 

R. Civ. P.”) 65, the Commission moves for entry of an SRO with notice, freezing assets, allowing 

inspection of records, and prohibiting their destruction. Having reviewed the Motion and the record 

and having heard arguments from the parties at the hearing via videoconference on June 25, 2020,1

the Court finds that all Defendants save Huf Mediya (a.k.a. Hoof Media) (“Huf”) have received 

notice of the Motion and further finds that: 

 1 Counsel for all parties save Huf Mediya (a.k.a. Hoof Media) attended this hearing, see [ECF No. 122 at 4, 5, 29, and 

30], and the Court gave the parties an opportunity to call live witnesses, see [ECF No. 84].

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 1 of 17
2

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question 

jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions 

commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress).

Section 6c of the Act authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive relief against any person 

whenever it shall appear that such person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any 

act or practice that violates any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order promulgated 

thereunder.

2. Venue lies properly within this District pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. §13a-1(e) (2012).

3. The Commission has made a proper showing that Defendants Daniel Fingerhut 

(“Fingerhut”), Digital Platinum, Inc. (“DPI”), Digital Platinum, Ltd. (“DPL”), Huf, Tal Valariola 

(“Valariola”) and Itay Barak (“Barak”), by and through their agents, principals and control persons

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), violated the core anti-fraud provisions of the

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2012), by operating a fraudulent solicitation scheme involving binary 

options and digital assets. 

Binary Options Fraud

The Court also finds that there is good cause to believe that:

4. Between October 2013 and August 2018, Defendants, through Fingerhut and others 

at his direction (from June 2014 until August 2018), or others acting on behalf of Defendants,

scammed prospective customers by creating and/or disseminating fraudulent solicitations in binary 

options and digital asset affiliate marketing campaigns. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 40, 41, 75–76, 

79–80, 90, 94, 114; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 3, 23, 24; ECF No. 80-1 ¶¶ 2–6, 9].

5. The binary options fraud occurred between October 2013 and November 2016 (the 

“Binary Options Period”) through All In Publishing, LLC (“AIP”), a company in the United States. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 2 of 17
3

AIP conducted at least twenty-four affiliate marketing campaigns that involved soliciting at least

millions of prospective customers to open and fund off-exchange binary options trading accounts 

using false or misleading email, video, and website solicitations. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 38, 42, 

74, 77, 91–94; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 40–42].

6. During the Binary Options Period, Valariola, Barak, and DPL willfully aided and 

abetted AIP’s fraud by relying on AIP to manage the affiliate marketing while they handled certain 

logistics and back-end functions, including serving as an intermediary between AIP and brokers, 

supplying at least two fraudulent sales videos, managing funds from the scheme, and providing 

the marketed trading software. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 38, 40, 42–62, 74–77, 86; Ex. 2 

¶¶ 3–14, 40, 42; Ex. 4 at 51–58, 63–64, 76–81, 97, 189–92, 219–20, 230–31; Ex. 5 at 51:25–54, 

57–59, 64–69, 74–76, 79; Ex. 8; Ex. 11].

7. Between June 2014 and October 2016, Fingerhut worked on behalf of AIP and 

engaged in binary options fraud by knowingly creating and/or disseminating at least millions of 

fraudulent binary options solicitations that advised prospective customers to trade with a 

“recommended broker” using fool-proof Trading Systems that automatically traded for them in 

binary options involving foreign exchange currency pairings, metals, and other assets. [ECF No. 

71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 40, 42–62, 74–76; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 3–14, 40–42; Ex. 5 at 51:25–54, 57–59, 64–69, 

74–76, 79; Ex. 11].

8. All of AIP’s binary options campaigns, including the twenty that Fingerhut worked 

on and twenty-four that DPL, through Valariola and Barak aided and abetted, involved emails and 

sales videos on websites rife with materially false or misleading statements about the advertised 

Trading Systems that included fictional users and fake trading performance, fake accounts, and 

fabricated profits depicted as real. [See, e.g., ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 38–39, 42–62, 76–80; Ex. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 3 of 17
4

2 ¶¶ 5, 11–13; Ex. 4 at 20, 174–75, 343, 529; Ex. 5 at 90–93; Ex. 6 at 44, 146–48, 287, 324–25, 

550; Ex. 7 at 58–60, 66–68, 73–75].

9. During the Binary Options Period, at least millions of individuals received AIP’s 

fraudulent solicitations. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 90–91; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 40–42]. At least 51,917 of them 

opened and funded forex and metals binary options trading accounts with at least $12,979,250 in 

initial deposits from campaigns that DPL participated in; at least 42,945 of those customers joined 

while Fingerhut worked on behalf of AIP. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 40, 77, 97; Ex. 4 at 87–89].

10. During the Binary Options Period, AIP received over $27 million related to its 

binary options activities, at least $17,300,780.50 of which came from DPL. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 

1 ¶ 35]. Between June 2014 and October 2016, Fingerhut earned at least $154,956 from AIP. [ECF 

No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 23–24]. 

Digital Assets Fraud

There is also good cause to believe that:

11. Between October 2016 and August 2018 (the “Digital Asset Period”), Fingerhut, 

Valariola, and Barak, on behalf of DPL, DPI, and Huf engaged in a similar fraudulent solicitation 

scheme involving digital assets. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 86, 90–92; Ex. 2 ¶ 25; Ex. 5 at 88, 94, 

96, 101–102; Ex. 9 ¶¶ 17–20].

12. Beginning in approximately October 2016, Fingerhut began working for DPI and 

DPL and managed their digital asset campaigns from Florida. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 83, 

85–86, 88, 95; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 20–23; Ex. 3 at 149–50, 152–59; Ex. 9 ¶ 20]. Specifically, Fingerhut, with 

Valariola’s and Barak’s knowledge and consent, directly or indirectly created and/or disseminated 

at least millions of fraudulent solicitations advising customers and prospective customers to open 

and fund digital asset trading accounts. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 85, 90–91, 109; Ex. 3 at 

208–10, 213–14; Ex. 5 at 98].

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 4 of 17
5

13. The email and video solicitations that Fingerhut and his team created and/or 

disseminated included false or misleading statements about the marketed digital asset Trading 

Systems, including fictitious profits and performance results, to lure prospective customers to open

accounts and trade digital assets and/or digital asset options with a specific unregistered broker 

that agreed to pay DPL and DPI commissions. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 41, 77, 90; Ex. 3 at 

173–77, 190]. Like the email solicitations at AIP, the fraudulent solicitations Fingerhut and his 

team created and disseminated during the Digital Asset Period included fake testimonials from 

pretend users of the digital asset trading system. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 3 at 173–74, 189–90, 

197–98].

14. At least 8,043 customers opened and funded digital asset trading accounts in 

connection with this fraudulent scheme, depositing at least $2,010,750. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 

¶¶ 41, 97].

15. Huf paid DPI over $3.2 million for DPI’s digital asset marketing services, but that 

only represents a portion of the proceeds to DPI, DPL, Huf, Valariola, and Barak resulting from 

the fraudulent digital asset campaigns. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶ 37, Ex. W; ECF No. 80-1 ¶¶ 26, 

29, 32–33, 37–38].

16. During the Digital Asset Period, Fingerhut invoiced DPL, DPI and Huf for the 

affiliate marketing services he provided and they paid him at least $360,269.98 into bank accounts 

in the United States. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 25, 34, 105].

17. In total, Fingerhut earned over $630,000 for his fraudulent affiliate marketing 

services between June 2014 and August 2018. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 23–34]. He thereafter 

transferred the funds among accounts in the name of businesses that he owned and controlled. Id.

Fingerhut also paid off his mortgage with ill-gotten gains in July 2018 and then quit-claimed the 

deed to Relief Defendant Aicel Carbonero in August 2018. Id. ¶¶ 30–31.

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 5 of 17
6

Fingerhut’s False Statements

There is also good cause to believe that:

18. Between August 2018 and May 2019, Fingerhut made materially false or 

misleading statements to the Commission to disguise his role in the fraud and prevent the 

Commission from discovering related evidence before he could destroy it. [See, e.g., ECF No. 

71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 99–105, 107–108, 110–16].

19. First, in August and September 2018, Fingerhut falsely told the Commission that 

the only email account he used to conduct business while working with DPI and DPL was 

dan@digitalplatinum.com. Id. ¶¶ 107–108, 114–15; Ex. 9 ¶ 22–24. In May 2019, Fingerhut 

similarly falsely testified until confronted with contradictory evidence. Compare ECF No. 71-1 at 

Ex. 3 ¶¶ 22–23, 105, 126, with id. ¶¶ 149, 150, 159–62, 177–85. In fact, Fingerhut regularly used 

two other email accounts to conduct DPI and DPL business: danhutbiz@gmail.com and 

dhut3@hotmail.com. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 81, 84, 115; Ex. 3 at 217–19; Ex. 9 ¶¶ 22–24; Exs. 

16–20].

20. After speaking with the Commission and receiving do not destroy letters and 

subpoenas from the Commission, Fingerhut deleted two email accounts that he used to conduct 

the binary options and digital assets solicitation fraud. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 111–12; Ex. 3 at 

53–55, 184–85]. Nonetheless, Fingerhut repeatedly falsely testified at his deposition that he did 

not delete or destroy any documents or communications that would be responsive to the 

Commission’s subpoenas. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 3 at 53–55, 133, 184–85]. The Commission is 

aware of other documents and sources of information currently in Fingerhut’s possession that may

contain evidence of his fraud. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 113–15]. Fingerhut continues to work in 

the online marketing business. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 3 at 20:8–21:15].

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 6 of 17
7

21. Fingerhut ran and managed the digital asset marketing campaigns at DPI, but he 

falsely and misleadingly described his role to the Commission as limited, low-level, and merely 

directed by Jay Passerino (“Passerino”). [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 88–90, 106–08; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 29, 

31, 34–35].

22. Fingerhut falsely testified in a related preliminary injunction hearing and during his 

deposition that he used a company laptop to conduct DPI and DPL business and that he returned 

it to Passerino when he resigned. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 3 at 34–38, 43–44; Ex. 5 at 103–105; Ex. 

2 ¶ 38]. In fact, Fingerhut’s laptop was not a company laptop and most importantly, he did not 

provide the laptop to Passerino when he resigned or at any other time. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 

¶¶ 87, 99]. Instead, on or about August 14, 2018, when Fingerhut learned that the Commission’s 

subpoena to DPI identified him, he told Passerino that he would throw his laptop in the ocean from 

his boat. [ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶ 100].

Other Material Facts

There is also good cause to believe that:

23. Defendants appear to continue to work in the online marketing industry. [ECF Nos. 

45-4 ¶ 3; 71-1 at Ex. 3 at 20:6–21:15; 113 at 22]. 

24. DPL, Valariola, and Barak have documents and information that they have not 

produced to the Commission or the Israeli Securities Authority (“ISA”) upon request; and 

Valariola and Barak refused to respond to almost all substantive questions during testimony in 

October 2019 by relying on the privilege against self-incrimination. [ECF No. 58-2 at Ex. 1 

¶¶ 9–12].

25. Further, Valariola, Barak, and DPL have taken action in Israel seeking to quash the 

ISA’s warrant for information by inaccurately claiming that they were cooperating with U.S.

authorities. [ECF No. 58-2 at Ex. 1 ¶ 9].

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 7 of 17
8

26. Finally, Fingerhut, DPL, DPI, Valariola, and Barak have failed to fully comply with 

the Court’s Orders appointing a Temporary Receiver, [ECF No. 33], and continuing the 

appointment of the Temporary Receiver, [ECF No. 76].

A Temporary Statutory Restraining Order Is Warranted

27. The standard to obtain temporary injunctive relief under the Act is lower than the 

standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. See U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n 

v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 749 F.3d 967, 974 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The Act enables district 

courts to issue permanent or temporary injunctions ‘[u]pon a proper showing’ and without bond.”) 

(citing 7 U.S.C. § 13a–1(b)) (alteration in original); see also CFTC v. Muller, 570 F.2d 1296, 1300 

(5th Cir. 1978) (“In actions for a statutory injunction, the agency need not prove irreparable injury

or the inadequacy of other remedies as required in private injunctive suits.”). 

28. To obtain a temporary statutory restraining order, the Commission need only 

demonstrate good cause to believe that Defendants have engaged, are engaging, or are about to 

engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Act or Commission Regulations and 

that absent a temporary statutory restraining order, the Court’s ability to grant effective final relief 

will be impaired. See 7 U.S.C. §13a-1(a); see, e.g., CFTC v. Gutterman, No. 12-21047-CIV, 2012 

WL 1632350 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2012) (applying the “good cause” standard). 

29. In the Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 101], the Commission alleges the following: 

a. Count I: Fingerhut, DPL, Valariola, and Barak violated: (1) Section 4c(b) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), which makes it unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, 

enter into, or confirm the execution of any transaction involving any commodity regulated under 

the Act which is of the character of or is commonly known to the trade as, inter alia, an “option,” 

“bid,” “offer,” “put,” or “call,” contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission 

prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction under such terms and conditions 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 8 of 17
9

as the Commission shall prescribe; and (2) Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019), which 

provides that, in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of 

the execution of any commodity option transaction, it shall be unlawful for any person directly or 

indirectly: (a) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; (b) to make or 

cause to be made to any other person any false report or statement thereof or cause to be entered 

for any person any false record thereof; or (c) to deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by 

any means whatsoever.

b. Count II: Fingerhut violated Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) 

(2018), which makes it unlawful for a Commodity Trading Advisor (“CTA”)2 or associated person 

of a CTA using the instrumentalities of interstate commerce directly or indirectly: (a) to employ 

any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or 

participant; or (b) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a 

fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant.

c. Count III: Fingerhut, Valariola, Barak, DPI, DPL, and Huf violated: 

(1) Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful 

for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ or attempt to use or employ, in connection 

with any swap, or a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery 

on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or 

contrivance, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the as the Commission shall 

promulgate[;]” and (2) Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2019), which 

provides, in relevant part, that it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in 

 2 Section 1a(12)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12)(A)(i) (2018), in relevant part, defines a CTA as any person who “for 

compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications, writings, or 

electronic media, as to the value of or advisability of trading in” any commodity option and/or any contract of sale of 

a commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or swap.

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 9 of 17
10

connection with any swap or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce or contract 

for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) use or employ or attempt to use or employ any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to 

defraud; (2) make or attempt to make any untrue or misleading statement of materials fact or to 

omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made not untrue or 

misleading; (3) engage or attempt to engage in any act, practice, or course of business, which 

operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

d. Count IV: Fingerhut violated Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) 

(2018), which provides, in relevant part, that it shall be unlawful for any person to make any false 

or misleading statement of a material fact to the Commission, including any other information 

relating to a swap or a contract of sale of a commodity in interstate commerce or for future delivery 

on or subject to the rules of any registered entity or to omit to state in any such statement any 

material fact that is necessary to make any statement of a material fact made not misleading in any 

material respect, if the person knew or reasonably should have known the statement to be false or 

misleading.

30. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there is good cause to believe that 

Defendants engaged in, are engaging in, or are about to engage in fraud in violation of: Section 

4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019); Section 

4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2018); Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), and 

Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2019); and Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 9(2) (2018). 

31. There is also good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to the 

Court’s ability to grant effective final relief for customers in the form of monetary or other redress 

will occur from the withdrawal, transfer, removal, dissipation or other disposition of funds, assets 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 10 of 17
11

or other property, and/or the destruction, alteration or disposition of books and records and other 

documents (“records”) by Defendants, unless Defendants are immediately restrained and enjoined 

by Order of the Court.

32. Therefore, there is good cause for the Court to freeze funds, assets or other property 

owned, controlled, managed, or held by Defendants.

33. There is also good cause for the Court to prohibit Defendants from altering or 

destroying records and/or denying agents of the Commission access to inspect and copy records, 

when and as requested, to ensure that Commission representatives have immediate and complete 

access to those records.

34. In summary, there is a sufficient basis to freeze assets, to allow inspection of 

records, and to prohibit their destruction because the Commission is likely to succeed on the merits.

Moreover, there is a reasonable likelihood that Defendants may transfer or dissipate assets or 

destroy or alter records. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Order, the following definitions apply:

35. The term “funds, assets, or other property” encompasses any legal or equitable 

interest in, right to, or claim to, any real or personal property, whether individually or jointly, 

directly or indirectly controlled, and wherever located, including, but not limited to: chattels, 

goods, instruments, equipment, fixtures, general intangibles, effects, leaseholds, mail or other 

deliveries, inventory, checks, notes, accounts (including, but not limited to, bank accounts and 

accounts at other financial institutions), credits, receivables, lines of credit, contracts (including 

spot, futures, options, or swaps contracts), insurance policies, and all cash, wherever located, 

whether in the United States or outside the United States. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 11 of 17
12

36. The term “document” and “electronically stored information” are synonymous in 

meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the term in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), and includes, but is 

not limited to, all writings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data 

or other data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained or 

translated, if necessary, into reasonable usable form. The terms “document” and “electronically 

stored information” refer to each and every such item in Defendants’ actual or constructive 

possession, including, but not limited to: (i) all such items within the custody or control of any 

agents, employers, employees, or partners of Defendants; and (ii) all items which Defendants have 

a legal or equitable right to obtain from another person. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate 

item within the meaning of the term. A document also includes the file and folder tabs associated 

with each original and copy.

RELIEF GRANTED

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, unless prohibited by any foreign 

state’s or country’s laws, which the Court will determine after Defendants petition the Court 

for relief:

I. Asset Freeze Order Prohibiting the Transfer, Removal, Dissipation and Disposal of 

Assets

37. Defendants are immediately restrained and enjoined, except as otherwise ordered 

by the Court, from directly or indirectly withdrawing, transferring, removing, dissipating, or 

otherwise disposing of any funds, assets, or other property, wherever located, including 

Defendants’ assets or other property held outside the United States.

38. The funds, assets or other property affected by this Order shall include existing 

funds, assets or other property and funds, assets or other property acquired after the effective date 

of this Order.

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 12 of 17
13

II. Maintenance of and Access to All Records Which Relate to the Business Activities 

and Business and Personal Finances

39. Defendants are restrained from directly or indirectly destroying, mutilating, 

erasing, altering, concealing or disposing of any documents that refer or relate in any manner to 

any transaction or matter described in the Amended Complaint in this case, including the business 

practices or business or personal finances of any Defendant.

40. Representatives of the Commission shall be immediately allowed to inspect the 

records that relate or refer to the business and personal finances of Defendants, including, but not 

limited to, both hard-copy and electronically stored information, wherever they may be situated 

and whether they are in the possession of Defendants or others. To ensure preservation and 

facilitate meaningful inspection and review of records, Defendants shall allow representatives of 

the Commission to make copies or forensic images of said documents and electronically stored 

information, and if on-site copying of documents and electronically stored information is not 

practicable, representatives may make such copies off site. After any such off-site copying, the 

Commission shall promptly return the original documents and devices upon which electronic 

information is stored.

41. To further facilitate meaningful inspection and review, Defendants shall, absent a 

valid assertion of their individual rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment that 

identifies the specific basis for invoking the right, promptly provide Commission staff with:

a. the location of all records relating or referring to the business activities and 

business and personal finances of Defendants; and 

b. all identification numbers and other identifying information for websites, 

cloud storage services, email and smartphone accounts, and all accounts at any bank, financial 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 13 of 17
14

institution or brokerage firm (including any introducing broker or futures commission merchant) 

owned, controlled or operated by Defendants, or to which Defendants have access; and 

c. all passwords to, and the location, make and model of, all computers and/or 

mobile electronic devices owned and/or used by Defendants in connection with their business 

activities and business and personal finances.

42. When inspecting records that are subject to this Order, including those contained 

on computer(s) and/or other electronic device(s), the Commission should undertake reasonable 

measures to prevent review of Defendants’ privileged communications and/or other nonbusiness, 

nonfinancial materials by the Commission’s attorneys and other staff who are part of the litigation 

team in this matter. Moreover, Defendants (or their counsel) shall promptly contact the 

Commission’s counsel to assert any claims of privilege (or other legal objections) relating to the 

contents of any records that are subject to this Order and promptly cooperate with the 

Commission’s counsel to develop reasonable protocols to isolate and prevent disclosure of claimed 

privileged and/or other nonbusiness, nonfinancial materials to the Commission’s attorneys and 

other staff who are part of the litigation team in this matter. However, nothing herein shall excuse 

Defendants from full and immediate compliance with the Court’s Order permitting the 

Commission to inspect the books and records which relate to Defendants’ business activities and 

their business and personal finances.

III. Notice to Financial Institutions and Others that Hold or Control Assets or Records

43. To ensure the effectiveness of the asset freeze and pending further Order of the

Court, any financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person that receives actual notice 

of this Order and holds, controls, or maintains custody of any account or asset or other property of 

Defendants’ shall not, in active concert or participation with Defendants, permit Defendants or 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 14 of 17
15

other persons to withdraw, transfer, remove, dissipate, or otherwise dispose of any of Defendants’ 

assets, except as directed by further order of the Court; and

44. Any financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person that receives 

notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise shall not, in active concert or participation 

with any Defendants, directly or indirectly destroy, alter, or dispose of, in any manner, any records 

relating to the business activities and business and personal finances of any Defendant.

45. Furthermore, any such financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person 

that receives actual notice of this Order and holds, controls, or maintains custody of any account 

or asset titled in the name of, held for the benefit of, or otherwise under the control of any 

Defendant, or has held, controlled, or maintained custody of any such account or asset of any 

Defendant at any time since October 2013, shall not, in active concert or participation with 

Defendants deny a request by the Commission to inspect all records pertaining to every account 

or asset owned, controlled, managed, or held by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of Defendant(s), 

including, but not limited to, originals or copies of account applications, account statements, 

signature cards, checks, drafts, deposit tickets, transfers to and from the accounts, all other debit 

and credit instruments or slips, currency transaction reports, 1099 forms, and safe deposit box logs.

As an alternative to allowing inspection of records, a financial or brokerage institution, business 

entity or other person may provide copies of records requested by the Commission. 

IV. Persons Bound By this Order

46. This Order is binding on any person who receives actual notice of this Order by 

personal service or otherwise and is acting in the capacity of an officer, agent, servant, employee, 

or attorney of Defendants or is in active concert or participation with Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 15 of 17
16

V. Bond Not Required of the Commission

47. As the Commission has made a proper showing under Section 6c(b) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. 13a-1(b) (2012), it is not required to post any bond in connection with this Order.

VI. Service of Order and Assistance of U.S. Marshals Service and/or Other Law 

Enforcement Personnel

48. Copies of this Order may be served by any means, including via email or facsimile 

transmission, upon any financial institution or other entity or person that may have possession, 

custody, or control of any records or assets of any Defendant or that may be otherwise subject to 

any provision of this Order.

49. Staff of the Division of Enforcement and representatives of the United States 

Marshal Service are specially appointed by the Court to effect service.

50. The United States Marshal’s Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and local 

law enforcement are authorized to: (a) accompany the Commission’s representatives in the 

execution of this Order on Defendants, and (b) help maintain lawful order while Commission 

representatives inspect records as provided in this Order.

VII. Service on the Commission

51. Defendants shall comply with all electronic filing rules and requirements of the 

U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and shall serve all pleadings, 

correspondence, notices required by this Order, and other materials on the Commission by 

delivering a copy to Allison V. Passman, Senior Trial Attorney, Division of Enforcement, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 

60661, apassman@cftc.gov, by electronic filing or e-mail. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 16 of 17
17

VIII. Further Proceedings

52. The Commission’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, [ECF No. 11], is set for 

hearing on July 28, 2020, at 10:00 AM in the Miami Division before Judge Darrin P. Gayles. The 

hearing will be conducted using Zoom, and the Court will provide the parties with the necessary 

information prior to the hearing. The Court has allotted up to 2 hours for the hearing. The parties 

shall notify the Court if they need additional time. The parties shall submit witness and exhibit 

lists to the Court on or before July 24, 2020, at 5:00 PM. If the parties intend to call live witnesses, 

they shall notify the Court on or before July 24, 2020, at 5:00 PM. During the hearing, the parties 

may refer to exhibits already filed on CM/ECF by their corresponding docket numbers. Any 

additional exhibits presented at the hearing shall be sequentially numbered.

IX. Force and Effect

53. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the Court, and 

the Court retains jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of July, 2020.

_______________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 17 of 17