UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICO OMAR COX,

Defendant.

 Case No: 0:22-cv-61024

 Judge:

COMPLAINT AGAINST RICO OMAR COX FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES 

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”), an 

independent federal agency, by and through its attorneys, for its Complaint against Defendant 

Rico Omar Cox alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Beginning in at least December 2019 and continuing through the present (the 

“Relevant Period”), Rico Omar Cox (“Cox”), has operated a fraudulent scheme in which he has 

solicited and accepted funds for participation in a commodity pool (“Pool”) that he proceeded to 

lose trading or misappropriated for personal use. Cox has persuaded at least fourteen individuals 

(“Pool Participants”) to transfer at least $842,900 to him or others for the purpose of trading 

commodity futures.

2. In the course of soliciting funds as well as after receiving Pool Participant funds, 

Cox knowingly has made fraudulent and material misrepresentations and/or omitted material 

facts about the use of Pool Participants’ funds and the profits and balances of the Pool.

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 1 of 19
2

3. Rather than use all of the Pool Participants’ funds to trade commodity futures, 

Cox has traded only a portion and instead misappropriated another portion of Pool Participants’ 

funds. What trading Cox did was unsuccessful, and resulted in trading losses of at least 

$312,906. 

4. Cox is no stranger to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

On June 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final 

judgment by default against Cox. See CFTC v. Cox, No. 16-60226-civ-WJZ (S.D. Fla. June 1, 

2016), ECF 13 (“2016 Order”), requiring restitution of $381,000 and imposing a $560,000 civil 

monetary penalty against Cox for defrauding his customers in connection with a scheme almost 

identical to the one alleged here (the primary difference being that the first time around Cox lost 

the bulk of participant funds trading, whereas in the instant case Cox misappropriated a 

significant amount of the Pool Participants’ funds for direct personal benefit). The 2016 Order 

permanently enjoined Cox from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or 

“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, as charged, and imposed permanent trading and registration bans on 

him. 

5. Because Cox has solicited funds for the purpose of trading futures in a pooled 

account and otherwise operated a commodity pool, he acted as a commodity pool operator 

(“CPO”) without being registered or exempt from registration with the Commission as a CPO, as 

required by the Act and CFTC Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 (2021). When 

soliciting Pool Participants, Cox used or is using the mails, telephone services, or other 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce to engage in business of commodity futures trading and 

operating a commodity pool.

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 2 of 19
3

6. Through the acts and practices described herein, Cox has engaged, is engaging, or 

is about to engage in fraudulent acts and practices in violation of Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) and 

4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A)-(B), and failed to register as a 

CPO in violation of Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

7. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Cox is likely to continue to engage 

in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, or in similar acts and practices.

8. Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, to enjoin 

Cox’s unlawful acts and practices and to compel his compliance with the Act and Regulations. 

In addition, the CFTC seeks disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, restitution, and such 

equitable relief as this Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (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). This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and Cox

pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), which 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 constituting a violation of any provision 

of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

10. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(e), in that Cox is found in, inhabits, and transacted business in this District, and Cox’s 

acts and practices in violation of this Act have occurred, are occurring, and/or are about to occur 

within this District, among other places. 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 3 of 19
4

III. PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act and 

the Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

12. Defendant Rico Cox resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In addition to being 

subject to the previously described 2016 Order, in April 2013, Cox was convicted of third-degree 

felony fraud and acting as an unlicensed mortgage broker in Broward County, Florida and was 

sentenced to five years’ probation. See Florida v. Cox, Case No. 12016762CF10A (Fla. 

Broward County Ct., Apr. 18, 2013). Later the same month, Cox was separately convicted of: 

(a) a felony scheme to defraud and operating as a broker/sales associate without a license; and 

(b) felony grand theft and operating as a broker/sales associate without a license, in Palm Beach 

County, Florida, and was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment and five years’ probation. See 

Florida v. Cox, Case Nos. 2012CF005665AXXX, and 2013CF001453AXXX (Fla. Palm Beach 

County Ct., Apr. 30, 2013). Cox has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

IV. OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY

13. Smart Edge Investments LLC (“Smart Edge”) was a Florida limited liability 

company with its business address in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Smart Edge’s articles of 

organization were filed with the State of Florida on March 7, 2016. According to documents on 

file with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations, Smart Edge’s registered agent and 

manager is Cox’s wife, Jennifer Cox. According to records of the State of Florida, the last 

annual report filed for Smart Edge was on March 12, 2020. Smart Edge is currently an inactive 

company, and administratively dissolved. At least $262,000 of Pool Participant funds were 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 4 of 19
5

deposited into bank accounts in the name of Smart Edge. Smart Edge has never been registered 

with the Commission in any capacity. 

V. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

14. A commodity pool is defined in Section 1(a)(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(10), 

in relevant part, as any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the 

purpose of trading in commodity interests. 

15. A CPO is defined in relevant parts of Section 1a(11) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(11)(A)(i), and Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021), as any person engaged in a business 

that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of 

enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other 

forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests. 

16. A “participant” is defined in Regulation 4.10(c), 17 C.F.R. § 4.10(c) (2021), as 

any person that has any direct financial interest in a pool. 

17. Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), in relevant part, makes 

it unlawful for CPOs to make use of the mails or any other means of interstate commerce, 

directly or indirectly, to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any client or 

participant or prospective client or participant, or to engage in any transaction, practice, or course 

of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client 

or participant.

18. A futures commission merchant (“FCM”) is defined in Section la(28)(A) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(28)(A), in relevant part, as an individual, association, partnership, corporation, 

or trust that is: (i) engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for regulated transactions,

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 5 of 19
6

including futures, swaps, commodity options, or retail forex or commodity transactions, or 

(ii) acts as a counterparty to retail forex or commodity transactions; and which, in connection 

with these activities, “accepts any money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu 

thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result 

therefrom.” 

VI. FACTS

A. Overview

19. During the Relevant Period, Cox solicited and accepted $842,900 in funds from 

Pool Participants for the purported purpose of trading commodity futures contracts. Only 

$478,600 of the funds went into a futures account for trading. The remaining $364,300 was 

deposited into bank accounts controlled by Cox. Of the $478,600 that went into the trading 

account, Cox lost $312,906 of the Pool Participant funds trading. Of the $529,994 in Pool 

Participant funds that remained after the losses in trading, $162,015 was used for Ponzi-type 

payments to Pool Participants and the remaining $367,979 was misappropriated by Cox. In 

order to conceal his misappropriation and trading losses, Cox created and distributed to at least 

some Pool Participants fraudulent account statements and/or screen shots that falsely reported 

trading profits, balances of the futures account he was trading on behalf of Pool Participants, and 

transfers and cash balances in bank accounts. 

B. Pool Participant 1

20. Through a friend, Cox met a prospective Pool Participant (hereinafter “Pool 

Participant 1”), who attended the same religious congregation as Cox.

21. Cox represented to Pool Participant 1 that he was an experienced and successful 

commodity futures trader. On December 2, 2019, Pool Participant 1 deposited funds into a bank

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 6 of 19
7

account in the name of Cox that were to be used to trade commodity futures for the benefit of 

Pool Participant 1. 

22. Cox later told Pool Participant 1 the funds would be traded in a futures account in 

the name of Smart Edge, that Cox managed and controlled. 

23. Cox told Pool Participant 1 that because the futures account was carried in the 

name of Smart Edge, any funds had to be deposited to a bank account in the name of Smart Edge 

or his wife. 

24. On information and belief, no futures account in the name of Rico Cox, Smart 

Edge, or Jennifer Cox existed during the Relevant Period. 

25. Nonetheless, Cox reported profitable trading to Pool Participant 1, and Pool 

Participant 1 told family and friends about the profits. 

C. Depositing of Funds and Account Opening at FCM

26. Beginning in January 2020, family and friends of Pool Participant 1 began to 

deposit funds, either directly with Cox or through Pool Participant 1, to be traded by Cox. 

27. Pool Participant 1 accepted funds from other Pool Participants and then deposited 

the funds into his personal bank account. As instructed by Cox, Pool Participant 1 then 

transferred the Pool Participant funds to bank accounts in the name of Cox, Cox’s wife, or Smart 

Edge through cash deposits, inter-account transfers, or wire transfers. When other Pool 

Participants deposited their funds directly with Cox, they did so through bank accounts in the 

name of Cox, Jennifer Cox, or Smart Edge.

28. On March 27, 2020, at the direction of Cox, Pool Participant 1 opened a futures 

trading account at an FCM in his own name (“Futures Account”). 

29. After the Futures Account opened, Pool Participant 1 accepted funds from other 

Pool Participants and either transferred the funds directly to the Futures Account that Cox 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 7 of 19
8

managed and controlled or sent them to a bank account in the name of Smart Edge. Other Pool 

Participants continued to send their funds directly to Cox to be traded by Cox. 

30. In or around March 2020, when opening the Futures Account, Cox instructed Pool 

Participant 1 to answer “no” to an account application question of whether anyone other than the 

account owner would have authority to trade the Futures Account and not to disclose to the FCM 

that Cox would be trading the account. Cox also instructed Pool Participant 1 to answer “no” to 

a question whether anyone else’s funds besides his own would be traded, and not to disclose that 

most of the funds deposited to the account would belong to other Pool Participants. Cox told 

Pool Participant 1 that he, Cox, needed the username and password for the account in order for 

him to trade the account. Using Pool Participant 1’s account login credentials, Cox began 

trading the account in or around May 2020. 

31. Cox’s trading the Futures Account in this fashion concealed Cox’s identity and 

involvement from the FCM. In addition, it allowed Cox to assuage Pool Participants’ concerns 

by telling Pool Participants he was only able to trade and could not take any money directly from 

their account.

D. Cox Misappropriated Pool Participant Fund

32. Excluding Pool Participant funds that were lost in trading and sent to Pool 

Participants as Ponzi-type payments, the remainder of Pool Participant funds deposited with Cox 

for trading have been misappropriated. 

33. Cox has misappropriated at least $367,979 of Pool Participant funds, for personal 

expenses. For example, Cox has used Pool Participant funds to pay for hotels, restaurants, and 

retail and online purchases, including furniture. 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 8 of 19
9

E. Cox’s Fraudulent Solicitation and Misrepresentations About Trading 

Experience and Profit

34. Cox has knowingly made fraudulent and material misrepresentations and omitted 

material facts in soliciting Pool Participants. For example, Cox told at least Pool Participant 1 

that he was a successful trader with years of experience trading mainly in crude oil futures 

contracts. Cox did not achieve the profits he represented to Pool Participants, was never a 

successful futures trader, and cannot substantiate any of the touted returns. Additionally, when 

soliciting Pool Participants, Cox has failed to disclose the 2016 Order, which permanently 

banned him from commodity trading, as well as his 2013 felony fraud and theft convictions in 

Florida. 

35. Cox has made promises of quick profits from trading to some Pool Participants. 

For example, on December 2, 2019, Cox sent a text message to Pool Participant 1 asking him to 

deposit $2,000 for futures trading, and Cox claimed he could turn that amount into a $1,000 

profit by January 3, 2020. Cox also told some Pool Participants that he would give them their 

principal and profits at the end of six months. Cox’s promises of quick returns were false 

statements. Cox has lost most of the amounts he traded for the Pool Participants. 

F. Unprofitable Trading and False Statements

36. Starting at least in June 2020 and continuing through November 2020, Cox sent 

Pool Participant 1 reports on a nearly weekly basis concerning the trading of the Futures 

Account. Cox sent Pool Participant 1 the reports via email. These reports were narrative in 

form, and provided an update on the purported performance of Cox’s trading on behalf of the 

Pool Participants. 

37. For example, on June 28, 2020 Cox sent an email to Pool Participant 1 with the 

“weekly report” stating “[b]asically, we made 100K in a day, we are holding the trade with profit 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 9 of 19
10

and there is extreme potential for much more profit.” In fact, the Futures Account did not make

a $100,000 profit in a day, and as of June 30, 2020, it had a net loss of $41,000.

38. Cox also created and sent Pool Participant 1 false account statements showing

large account balances and monthly profits. For example, a statement dated January 8, 2021 

showed an ending monthly cash balance of approximately $ 1,389,091. These statements were 

false and in fact the account was never profitable, and by the end of August 2020 Cox was no 

longer providing the Pool Participants any distribution of purported profits or returning their 

principal investment. The balance for the Futures Account was virtually nothing, less than $500,

by November 2020, within less than a year of when Cox began to solicit funds.

39. Cox created and sent some Pool Participants account screen shots that he 

distributed via text that falsely reported trading profits and balances of the futures account he 

was trading on behalf of Pool Participants. Cox knew that his representations were false while 

making these representations.

40. Cox created and sent Pool Participant 1 at least one false confirmation statement 

from a bank purporting to show a transfer from an account for Smart Edge, to Pool Participant 1

in the amount of $281,000. According to the statement, funds were to be transferred to Pool 

Participant 1 on February 1, 2021. Pool Participant 1 never received the funds. 

G. The Unraveling

41. By creating false account statements and/or account screen shots that he issued to

Pool Participant 1 via text or email, Cox sought to conceal his trading losses and to reflect that he 

was making a profit trading the Pool Participants’ funds. Cox knew that his representations were 

false. 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 10 of 19
11

42. At the end of August 2020, Pool Participant 1 informed Cox that all the Pool 

Participants expected to be repaid at the conclusion of their six-month investment term. Cox told 

Pool Participant 1 he would prepare for the withdrawals. 

43. Throughout the fall of 2020, Cox promised to pay the Pool Participants their

principle investment plus the trading profits. However, none of the Pool Participants ever 

received the promised payouts.

44. Cox offered a myriad of excuses as to why he could not provide the Pool 

Participants their payouts. For example, Cox told Pool Participant 1 that the banks were holding 

up the transfers and that the accounts were frozen pending the finalizing of his divorce. Further, 

in an effort to assuage Pool Participant 1’s concerns, on or around December 27, 2020, Cox 

made false representations by sharing a video with Pool Participant 1 in which he purported to 

show up-to-date trading information including trade orders and a balance of $1.4 million. In 

fact, the Futures Account was closed in November 2020 and there were no funds remaining in 

the Futures Account.

45. As an additional part of his efforts to create an illusion that Pool Participant funds 

were still available, Cox created and sent Pool Participant 1 at least one false email, addressed to 

Smart Edge, dated January 11, 2021. According to the email, Smart Edge purportedly requested 

a wire in the amount of $500,000 in funds which was purportedly approved and submitted to the 

FCM. Cox intended to mislead the Pool Participants by creating the impression that there was 

$500,000 in the Futures Account at the FCM by falsely representing that he had made a request 

to redeem the funds from the FCM. 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 11 of 19
12

VII. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION 

REGULATIONS

Count I

Violation of Section 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A), (C),

Fraud by Making False Misrepresentations and Omissions and Misappropriating Funds

46. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

47. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C) makes it unlawful for any person, in or in 

connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity in 

interstate commerce or for future delivery that is made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules 

of a designated contract market, for or on behalf of any other person: (A) to cheat or defraud or 

attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; or (C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive the 

other person by any means whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the disposition or 

execution of any order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency performed, with respect to 

any order or contract for the other person.

48. During the Relevant Period, Cox has violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C) by

knowingly making false representations of material fact, and knowingly omitting to disclose 

material facts, to Pool Participants. Among other things, Cox misrepresented that he was a

successful trader with years of experience trading futures, misrepresented that all Pool 

Participant deposits would be used to trade commodity futures contracts in the Pool, and 

misrepresented the performance of the Pool, including by providing false information and 

statements regarding the profits and balances of the Futures Account and the Pool. In addition, 

Cox omitted to disclose material facts to Pool Participants, including, among other things, that 

their funds were misappropriated for Cox’s personal use, the existence of the 2016 Order which 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 12 of 19
13

permanently banned him from commodity trading, and the existence of his felony fraud and theft 

criminal convictions in Florida in 2013.

49. Each act of misappropriation, misrepresentation or omission of a material fact

made during all relevant times, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is 

alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C).

Count II

Violation of Section 4(b)(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B):

Fraud by Making False Reports/Statements

50. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

51. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B) makes it unlawful for any person, in or in connection with 

any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate 

commerce or for future delivery that is made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market, for or on behalf of any other person . . . “willfully to make or cause 

to made to the other person any false report or statement or willfully to enter or cause to be 

entered for the other person any false record.” 

52. During the Relevant Period, Cox has violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B) by willfully 

providing some Pool Participants with the following:

(a) account statements showing Cox’s profitable trading activity of Pool Participant 

funds, when in reality, such statements were false account statements;

(b) screen shots of profitable trading activity and overstated account balances that 

Cox created himself, when in reality Cox’s trading of Pool Participant funds 

caused losses of most of the principal;

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 13 of 19
14

(c) reports sent via email concerning the trading of the Futures Account claiming 

profitable trading activity of Pool Participant funds, when in fact the account was 

never profitable; and

(d) a false confirmation statement from a bank purporting to show a transfer to Pool 

Participant 1 when Pool Participant 1 never received the funds. 

53. Each act of providing a false statement or report to Pool Participants including 

without limitation those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation 

of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B).

Count III

Violations of Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B):

Fraud by a Commodity Pool Operator

54. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

55. During the Relevant Period, Cox acted as a CPO because he solicited and 

accepted funds for participation in the Pool and otherwise operated the Pool. 

56. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1), in relevant part, makes it unlawful for CPOs, and their

associated persons, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, 

directly or indirectly, (A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any participant; or 

(B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit 

upon any participant. As provided in Regulation 4.15, 17 C.F.R. § 4.15 (2021), 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)

applies to all CPOs and their associated persons, whether registered, required to be registered, or 

exempted from registration. 

57. Cox has violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) in that, by use of the mails or any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, he, among other things, has misrepresented the 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 14 of 19
15

performance of the Pool and provided false information and statements regarding profits and 

balances of the Futures Account and Pool, misappropriated Pool Participant funds, and failed to 

disclose to Pool Participants the 2016 Order which permanently banned him from commodity

trading, and his felony fraud and theft criminal convictions in Florida in 2013.

58. Each fraudulent or deceptive act, act of misappropriation, misrepresentation or 

omission of a material fact, and making of a false account statement and/or report made during 

all relevant times, including without limitation those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

Count IV

Violations of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1)

Failure to Register as a CPO

59. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

60. With certain specified exceptions and exemptions not applicable here, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6m(1) makes it unlawful for any CPO to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality 

of interstate commerce in connection with its business unless it is registered with the CFTC.

61. During the Relevant Period, Cox has acted as a CPO within the meaning of 

Section 1a(11) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11), and Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021), and 

violated 7 U.S.C. § 6(m)(1) by using of the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce in connection with his business as a CPO without being registered with the 

Commission as such. 

62. Each use by Cox of the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce in connection with his business as a CPO without registration with the Commission, 

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 15 of 19
16

including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and 

distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as authorized by 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers: 

A. Find that Cox violated Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4o(1)(A)-(B), and 4m(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A)-(B), and 6m(1);

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Cox, and his affiliates, agents, 

servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with

them, who receive actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from 

engaging in the conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 

6o(1)(A)-(B) and 6m(1);

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Cox, and his 

affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in 

active concert with them, from directly or indirectly:

(1) Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40));

(2) Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that 

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)), for accounts held in 

Cox’s name or for accounts in which Cox has a direct or indirect interest;

(3) Having any commodity interests traded on Cox’s behalf;

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 16 of 19
17

(4) Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account involving 

commodity interests;

(5) Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests;

(6) Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such registration or 

exemption from registration with the CFTC, except as provided for in 

Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and/or

(7) Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2021)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person

registered, exempt from registration with the Commission, or required to be 

registered with the CFTC except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

D. Enter an order directing that Cox, as well as any third-party transferee and/or 

successors thereof, to disgorge pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all 

benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, 

revenues, and trading profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which

constitute violations of the Act and the Regulations as described herein, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

E. Enter an order requiring Cox, as well as any successors thereof, to make full

restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations 

described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 17 of 19
18

F. Enter an order requiring Cox to pay a civil monetary penalty assessed by the 

Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–74, , tit. VII, § 701,

129 Stat. 584, 599-600, see Commission Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2021), for 

each violation of the Act, as described herein;

G. Enter an order requiring Cox to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2); and

H. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as this Court may deem 

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Date: May 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION

/s/ Cristina Covarrubias

Trial Attorney

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 800

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 596-0587

ccovarrubias@cftc.gov

David A. Terrell

Chief Trial Attorney

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 800

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 596-0539

dterrell@cftc.gov

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 18 of 19
19

Scott R. Williamson

Deputy Regional Counsel

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 800

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 596-0560

swilliamson@cftc.gov

Case 0:22-cv-61024-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 19 of 19