F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au g. 29, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1459 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 80 00 2- CV-DTKH COMM ODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISS ION, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAY M. LEVY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 29, 200 8) Before TJO FL AT and MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg es, and VIN SO N, District Judge. *L evy does not dispute any

of the district cour

t’s liability

finding s. 1 2 MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e: Jay M. Le vy appeals from

a final j udgm ent entered by the United State s D istri ct Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida a ft er abe nc h tr ia l, f

ind ing him lia ble f or m ult ipl e ac ts o f sol ic itatio n f ra ud i n vi olatio n of

S ec tio n 4c (b ) of

the Co m m odi ty E xc hange A ct

( “ CE A ”) , 7 U . S. C. § 6c (b ) (2 000) , and i m posi ng 1 vari ous sanc tio ns a ga ins t hi m . L ev y c ont en ds tha t the c ourt e rr ed in (1 ) m ult ipl y ing the m ax im

um c ivi l m one tary

pe na lty f or w hic h he w as li ab le by

the num be r of “ vio latio ns” pr ove d a t tri al , r athe r than by the num be r of “ co unt s” al le ge d inthe c om

pla int ; ( 2) im

posi ng a $60 0, 000 ci vil m one tary pe na lty a ga ins t him ; ( 3) aw ar din g r es tit

uti on t o th e ex te nt o f his c ust om er s’ los se s; ( 4) inc lud ing in the r es tit

uti on aw ar d $3 0, 000 inv es te d by his c ust om er s pr ior

to the ir int er ac tio ns w ithhim ; and ( 5) f re ez ing his a sse ts p en din g satis fa ct ionof the j udgm ent. A fter thorough review, we aff irm in all respects the district court’ s final j udgm en t e xc ep t i nsof

ar a s it m ad e anaw ar d of

r es tit uti on b as ed

on the a m ount

of th e v ic ti m s’ lo ss es rat he r th an on Levy’ s i ll -g ot te n g ai ns . As fo r th atm at te r, we re m an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. I. The e ssential facts adduced at trial and found by the district court are these:As an I B , U I G n e ve r a c c e pte d mo ne y fr om i ts c us tom e rs . Ins te a d, c us tom e rs se nt t he ir 2 chec ks directly

to UFHC. To make a tra de, a c ustomer place d his order w ith UI G; UI G proc essed the orde r at a

n order desk and f

orwa rded it alongto UFHC, whic h then executed the tr ade using the customer’ s available funds. An AP is “any

natura l person who is assoc iated . . . with . . . [a]n i ntroducingbroker . . . 3 in a ny c a pa c ity wh ic h invo lve s (i ) the so lic itatio n o r a c c e pta nc e of c us tom e rs ’ o r o pti on

c us tom e rs ’ or de rs (o the r t

ha n in a c le ri c a l c a

pacit y) o r ( ii) the su

pe rv isi on of any pe rs on or pe rs on s so eng ag ed[.] ” 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(a a)( 2). 3 U nit ed I nve stm en t G ro up ( “ U IG ”) is a Fl or ida c or por at ionloc at ed

in Bo ca Raton , Fl or ida . U IGis re gis te re d w iththe Co m m odi ty F uture s T ra din g C om

m iss ion (“ CFT C”) as an Introducing Broker (“ IB”) , which the Comm odityExchange A ct de fi ne s a s f

oll ow s: [A ] ny per son . . . e nga ge d insol ic iti ng o r in a cc ep tin g or de rs f or the pur ch as e or

sa le of any c om m odi ty f or f uture del ive ry

on o r subj ec t t o th e r u l e s o f a n y c o n t r a c t mark e t. . . w h o d o e s n o ta c c e p tan y m o n e y, securities, or proper t y . . . to m argin, guarantee, or secure any trades orco nt ract s t ha t re su ltor m ay res ul t t he refr om . 7 U. S. C. § 1a(23). P rior to the com m encem ent of this action bythe CFT C, UI G wa s engaged in th e business o f soliciting custom ers for the sale of com m oditi es optio ns throu gh Universal Financial H oldin g Com pany (“ UF HC” ), a Futures Co m m iss ionMe rc hant ( “ FC M” ). U IG , w hic h e m plo y ed A sso ci at ed

P er sons 2 (“ A Ps ”) to co nduc t and m an ag e its ope ratio ns, hir ed L ev y in thi s c ap ac ity

in 3 Aug us t 2 00 3. Be fo re r eg ist er ing a s an A P w ithU IG , L ev y w orke d a t f

our dif fe re nt o pti onsT h e N F Ai s a w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n tr e gu l at o r y o r g an i z at i o nf

o r th e U . S . f

utur e s i n d u s tr y. 4 Membership in the NF A is mandatory for a ll entities conductingbusiness on U.S. futures exchang es. 4 tr ad ing f irm s, thr ee of

w hic h w er e dis ci pli ne d by the N at ion al F uture s A sso ci at ion (“ NF A” ) as a r esult of sales practice violations. L evy him self has been the subjec t 4 of tw o N FABu sin es s C ondu ct Co m m itt ee c om

pla int s, both of

w hic h r es ult ed

in the assessm ent of a $20,000 fine against him along with three m onth s of enhanced superviso ry

procedures. In settling th e second of these com plaints, Le vy

consented to f ind ing s th at , w hil e se rv ing a s an A P at G ro up O ne F inanc ia l S er vic es , I nc . , he vio late d N FACo m

pli an ce Ru le 2- 2( a) , w hic h pr ovi de s th at no m em be r sha ll ch eat, de fr au d, or

de ce ive , or

a tte m pt t o c he at , de fr au d, or

de ce ive , any

c om m odi ty futures custom er. In fac t, L evy agree d that, in Marc h and April 2001, he m ade a nu m be r of m is le ad in g a ndde cep ti ve sal es so li ci ta ti on s t o aGroup On e cu st om er, specifically

telling th e custom er that a $17,000 investm ent in Japanese Yen optio ns couldsuddenl y

be w orth m ore than $300 ,000, and pressuring the custom er to in ve stimm ed ia te ly befo re t he m ark etco rrec te d i ts el f. The N FA ’ s Business Con duct Comm ittee found, and Le vy agree d, that

“ [t ] he re w as no r at ion al e” f or L ev y ’ s r ec om

m en da tio ns tha t the c ust om er pur ch as e ad dit ion al Y enput

opt ion s “ ex ce pt t o ge ne rate c om m iss ion s f

or G ro up O ne . ” T he Co m m itt ee a lso f

ound , and a ga in L ev y

a gr ee d, that hi s so lic itatio n “pa int ed aTh at Se c tio n o f t he CEApr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s: 5 No per son shall offe r t o enter into, enter into or confirm the ex ecution of, a ny transac tion involvi ngany commodity

regulated under this c hapter which is of the cha rac ter of, or

is commonly

known to the trade as, an “ option”, “privileg e”, “ indemnity ”, “bid”, “off er” , “put”, “call”, “adva

nce guara nty”, or “dec line gu ar an t y ”, contrary to any rule, re gulation, or order of the Commi ssion prohibiti ngany such transa ction or allowingany such transa ction under suc h terms and c onditions as the Comm ission shall prescribe. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b). In pertinent pa

rt, the CEA’s implementingregulations, drafte d by the CFTC, state: 6 It sh a ll b e un lawf ul f or any pe rs on dir e c tly or ind ir e c tly : (a) [t ]o cheat or de fra

ud or attempt to che at or de fra ud any other pe rson;

. . . (c ) [ t ]o deceive or

attempt to dece ive any

other pe rson by

any means whatsoeve r in or in connec tion with an offer to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of t he ex ecution of, or t he maintenance of, any commodity

option transaction. 17 C.F.R. § 33.10(a) and (c ). 5 m isl ea din g and o ve rl y

opt im ist ic pic tur e of

the pr of it pot en tia l of

tr ad ing Y enput opt ion s. ” Fi na lly , the Co nduc t C om m itt ee c onc lud ed

that L ev y ’ s so lic itatio ns inc lud ed no d isc uss ionof

the e nor m ous ri sks and s pe cu lativ e na tur e of opt ion s tr ad ing . O n January

3, 200 5, the CF T C c om

m en ce d th is i nj unc tiv e ac tio n a ga ins t U IGand f

ive of it s A Ps , inc lud ing L ev y

( co lle ct ive ly

“ the D ef en dants ”) , a sse rt ing that the D ef

en dants m isr ep re se nte d th e pr of it pot en tia l of

c om m odi tie s op tio ns i n vio latio n of

7 U . S. C. § 6c (b ) and 1 7 C . F. R. § 33 . 10 ( 2005 ). S pe ci fi ca lly , the 5 66

com plaint alleged, am ong o ther things , that the D efendants “ fraudulently solicited m em be rs of the pub lic to ope n [ ac co unt s] by m isr ep re se nti ng and f

ai lin g to dis cl ose m at er ia l f

ac ts c onc er

nin g . . . ( i) the li ke lih ood that a c ust om er w oul d re al iz e larg e pr of

its f ro m tr ad ing opt ion s; ( ii) the r isk s in vol ve d intr ad ing opt ion s; and (iii) the dism al perfor m ance r ecord of U IGcustom ers tra ding optio ns.” Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rttr i e dth i s c a s e wi th o u taju ry i nM ar c h 2 0 0 6 . Tw o d ays int o th e tr ia l, the CF T C e nte re d in to a Co nse nt D ec re e w itha ll of the D ef en dants except L evy , whose trial resum ed as scheduled. Soon after concludin g the trial as to Levy , the district court enter ed detailed finding s of fac t and conclusi ons of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federa l Rules of Civil Procedure, and then entered fi na l j udgm en t a ga ins t L ev y . T he c ourt f ound that, sin ce a t l ea st Augus t 20 03, L ev y ’ s r es pons ibi lit ie s at U IGinc lud ed sol ic iti ng i nve stm en ts f

ro m m em be rs of the ge ne ra l pu

bli c fo r the pur

pose of tr ad ing c om

m odi ty opt ion s. G en er al ly , the district court explained, a m ore j unio r A P w ouldcontact the potential custo m er an d m isr ep re se nt the r isk s and p ote nti al r ew ar ds a sso ci at ed w ithc om

m odi ty opt ion s tr ad ing be fo re tur nin g th e cu sto m er

ove r to L ev y

w ho, str es sin g hi s expe rt ise , w oul d gu ar ante e lof ty r et ur ns at l im ite d c ost

w ithli ttl e or

no r isk . A t tri al , L ev y

ve he m en tly

de nie d e nga gin g inany

of the se im pe rm iss ibl e sales ploy s; indeed, at one point, he suggest ed that every witness w ho testified7

ag ai nst him w as “ ab sol ute ly

ly ing . ” CF T C v . U nit ed I nve sto rs G ro up, I nc . , N o. 05- 8000 2, a t 7 (S . D . F la . 200 6) . F ar f ro m m isl ea din g c lie nts w ithta lk o f larg e pr of its and n on- ex ist en t r isk , he c la im ed to have r equir ed

that a ll of

his c lie nts acknowledge the significant risks asso ciated w ith comm odityoptio ns before pl aci ng tra de s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , f ound L ev y ’ s te sti m ony

“ inc re dib le , ” de sc ri bin g his m em or

y a s “ se le ct ive ” an d lam en tin g hi s pr of es se d in ab ili ty

to re ca ll “ any spe ci fi cs r eg ar din g th e ‘ fe w ’ im pr ope r sa le s so lic itatio ns h e adm itt ed to m ak ing , or the im proper sales solicitation s he reca lls witnessing at U IG .” United Investors Gr oup, Inc. , N o. 05-80002 , at 7. T he court added that Levy ’ s testim ony wa s “ rife w ithint er na l i nc onsi ste nc ie s tr ipp ed by his se lf se rv ing m em or ia liz at ion s of m at er ia l e ve nts . ” Id . T hus, f or e xam ple , L ev y ini tia lly de nie d c onse nti ng t o any finding s of fac t in resolvin g any claim brought by

the NF A’ s Business Con duct Co m m itt ee , be fo re f

ina lly a dm itt ing , a ft er

the e vid en ce w as squ ar el y pr es en te d, that a f ra udul en t and m isl ea din g e xc hange be tw ee n hi m se lf and a G ro up O ne custom er had ac tually

occurre d. Id. at 8. The tr ial court found that Levy wa s

“ evasive” about the am ountof m oney he ear ned during his tenure at UI G. Id. In particular, while L evy ’ s bank records indicated that “ he rec eived and endorsed ch ec ks t ota lin g $4 16, 691. 30 f ro m U IGbank a cc ount s, ” he una ba she dly arg ue d,8

w ith out f urthe r el ab or at ion , that he de ri ve d th es e am ount s f ro m oth er sourc es . I d. Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that L ev y ’ s te sti m ony

w as be lie d by

the te sti m ony of f ive U IGc ust om er s ( Sc ott A nde rs on, Carr ie A lls opp, D av id C uthbe rt son, Ch ar le s Je ff

re y T hom pson , and S er ge an t L an zy W ill iam s) w ho r ec ei ve d sa le s c al ls fro m hi m an d p ro vi de d asi ni st er ac co un t o f hi s s ol ic it at io n t act ic s. Id . T hus, f or e xam ple , A nde rs on, w ho w as f ull y c re dit ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt, te sti fi ed that he w as c ont ac te d inMarc h 20 04 b y T ony Bo bba , aU IGA P, w ho advis ed him that the w ar

in Ir aqw oul d c au se a

sub stanti al appr ec iatio n inthe value of unleaded gasoli ne calls. Rely ing up on thi s inform ation, A nderson op ened a tr ad ing a cc ount

w ithU FH C, thr oughw hic h he pur ch as ed $5, 000 w orth o f unl ea de d ga sol ine opt ion s. O n M ar ch29, 200 4, Bo bbac ont ac te d A nde rs on a ga in, onl y thi s ti m e to s et

up a c al l w ithL ev y

- - a “ co m

m odi tie s guru ” w ho, a cc or din g to Bo bba , li ve d inan a ff

lue nt n ei ghbo rh ood an d dr ove e xpe nsi ve c ar s. Bo bbatol d Anderson that Le vy

consistent ly

purchased Euro c urrency optio ns at a discount ed pr ic e be ca

use , in ad dit ionto buy ing in larg e quanti tie s, L ev y ha d c los e tie s w ith E ur ope ’ s f

inanc ia l m ar

ke ts. The ne xtda y , Levy call edAnd ers on hi m se lf a ndm ov edinforth e k il l. He engaged in what the district court called “ a high-pressure sales solicitation .” United Investors Gr oup, Inc. , N o. 05-80002 , at 9. L evy said that he had9

connections in the European financial c omm unityand added that he was an e xpert in Euro curr ency

optio ns. L evy

stronglysuggest ed that Anderson purchase E uro currency optio ns as soon as possib le in lightof the upcom ing 20 04 presidenti al el ec tio n and the ong oin g w ar in Ir aq . L ev y

guarante ed

A nde rs on tha t hi s inv es tm en t w oul d so on tri ple , ir re spe ct ive of

any vol at ili ty in the m ar

ke ts, be ca use of L evy ’ s strategy

of hedging put and call opti ons. Le vy further told Anderson that

“ [I ] m ay sound l ike an a ss r igh t no w , but [ y ou] w ill thank [ m e] a ft er a ll of the m on ey [y ou ] m ad e.” Ba se d o n Lev y ’s rep res en ta ti on s, An de rs on , who by his own adm issio n had no fam iliarity with E uropean currency

m arkets, invested ano ther $22, 000 in M ar chand Apr il 2004 . O f the $27 , 000 A nde rs on i nve ste d th ro ugh UI G, only

$1,000 was ultim ately

returned to him . N otably , L evy never advised An d er s o n-- n o r, ap p ar en t l y, an y o f t h e o th ercu s t o m er s – th at1 0 0 % o f L ev y’ s cl ie nt s re al iz eda ne t l os s upo n c lo si ng th ei r UFHC acc ou nt s. Carr ie A lls opp, the se co nd v ic tim , r ec ount ed asim ilar expe ri en ce . S he rece ived a phon e call in Se ptem ber 2003 from

Duane H aughto n, another A P at U IG , w ho s ugge ste d th at she ope n an a cc ount

w ithU FH C f

or the pur pose of tr ad ing he at ing oil opt ion s. H au ght on c al cu late d th at , in lig ht o f the upc om ing w int er se as on and the ong oin g w ar in Ir aq , A lls opp w oul d e ar n pr ec ise ly

$4, 020 pe r opt ionf

or e ve ry pe nny inc re as e in the pr ic e of

abarr el of

oil . H au ght on a lso10

as sur ed he r that he w oul d e m

plo y ar isk -f re e inv es tm en t strate gy . Ba se d onthi s inf orm at ion , on J anuary

29, 200 4, A lls opp inv es te d $1 0, 000 in h eatin g oi l op tio ns th ro ug h h er UFHC ac co un t. Later that day , H aughto n toldAllsopp that Levy , a senior, exper ienced of fi ce r at U IGw ho h ad

don e w el l by

his c lie nts in the pa st, w as int er es te d in spe ak ing w ithhe r. Whe n L ev y c am e to the pho ne , he tol d A lls opp that the w ar in Ir aqw oul d c au se the U . S. D oll ar to de pr ec iate sig nif

ic an tly ove r the c om ing m onths. T o c ap ita liz e on this tr en d, L ev y r ec om m en de d th at

A lls opp pur ch as e E ur o c ur re nc y opt ion s a s so on a s po ssi ble . L ev y a lso sa id tha t A lls opp co uld expe ct to re ce ive $4, 020 pe r opt ionf or e ve ry c en t i nc re as e in the va lue of the Euro . Allsopp explain ed to Levy that she had received $40,000 in a legal se ttl em en t r es ult ing f

ro m he r daught er ' s tr ag ic de ath inac ar a cc ide nt, and tha t, un de r th e te rm s o f th e se tt le m en t, s he was h ol di ng th e p ro ceed s i n t ru stforhe r two oth er daught er s. L ev y

a ssure d A lls opp that, a s ar es ult of his e xpe rt

use of “ sto p los s” or de rs , the r isk s a sso ci at ed w ithE ur o c ur

re nc y inv es tm en ts w er e m ini m al . L ev y w en t so f ar a s to guarante e that, if

A lls opp inv es te d th e fu ll $40, 000, she w oul d r ec ei ve a t l ea st tha t am ount in re tur ns b y the e nd o f the w ee k. A ll in a ll, L ev y sa id h e expe ct ed

the ne t va lue of

A lls opp’ s in ve stm en t t o r ea ch$30 0, 000.11

Be fo re c onc lud ing , L ev y a dde d th at

an in ve stm en t i n E ur o op tio ns w as the be st way for A llsop p to ensure that her two living daug hters would alway s rem em ber the sacrific es of their dece ased sister. Based on Le vy ’ s recom

m endations , A llsop p invested $ 40,000 in Eur o currency optio ns throu gh her UF HC account. S everal w eeks later, Le vy inform ed A lls opp that sh e ha d ade bit ba lanc e on h er

a cc ount , and t old

he r that sh e shou ld rem it an additio nal $7,000. Of the approxim ately

$57,000 Allsop p invested through her U FH C acc ount , only $43 was returned to her. Allsopp, too, w as never to ldth atall of Lev y ’s cus to m ers su st ai ne d alo ss up on clo si ng th ei r UFHC acco un ts . D av id C uthbe rt son, vic tim thr ee , te sti fi ed

that, in Fe br

uary 200 4, he rece ived a call fr om

UI G A P Jerr

y Sipes, who sug gested that Cuthb ertson open an ac co unt w ithU FH C f

or the pur pose of tr ad ing he at ing oil opt ion s. S ipe s to ld Cu thb er tso n th at , in lig ht o f pol iti ca l unre st i n N ige ri a an d V en ez ue la , he c oul d expect to doub le or triple his investm ent in two or three w eeks, and added th at U IG ’ s st rate gy of he dgi ng p ut and c al l op tio ns a llo w ed it s c ust om er s to pr of

it ir re spe ct ive of

vol at ili ty in the f uture s m ar

ke ts. Ba se d onthi s in fo rm at ion , Cu thb er tso n in ve ste d $5 , 000 in h eatin g oi l op tio ns thr oughaU FH C a cc ount . Sh ortly the re af te r, S ipe s to ld C uthbe rt son that he w as c los e fr ie nds w itha12

U IGe xe cu tiv e (L ev y ) w ho w as an e xpe rt in E ur o c ur

re nc y opt ion s. Whe n L ev y cam e to the pho ne , he de sc ri be d hi m se lf a s aspe ci al ist

in curr en cy

opt ion s tr ad ing , an d, not ab ly , a dde d th at

his c ust om er s r ar el y

los t any m one y be ca use of his uni que investm ent strategy , which inv olved pu rchasing both put and call opti ons in an ef fo rt to he dge the E ur o m ar

ke t. L ev y a lso tol d C uthbe rt son that hi s in ve stm en t w oul d tr ipl e in v al ue w ith in t enday s. Whe n C uthbe rt son ag re ed to inv es t $5 , 000 in Euro futures options , L evy assured him

that the investm ent would be worth as m uc h a s $2 1, 000 w ith in tw o w ee ks. O f the $13 , 650 Cu thb er tso n ul tim at el y i n v e s t e dth r o u g h h i s U F H C a c c o u n t , o n l y $ 1 , 0 0 0 w a s r e tu rn e dt o h i m. Ec hoin g these grim

accounts of Le vy ’ s sales practices, Charles Jef frey T hom pson , the f

ourth v ic tim , te sti fi ed

that, on M ar ch10, 200 4, he r ec ei ve d ac al l fr om U IGA P V inc e Mon ti, w ho s ugge ste d th at T hom psonc oul d e ar

n asig nif ic an t profit by investin g in un leaded gasoline op tions . S pecifically , Monti said that T hom psonc oul d r ea liz e a re tur n of te n ti m es the va lue of

his inv es tm en t w ith

“ virtually no risk.” Ba sed on thi s inform ation, T hom pson m ade an initial investm ent of $5,000 throu gh a UF HC account. O ne we ek later, Monti ph oned T hom psonand t old

him that “ som ethin g r ea lly

hug e [w as ] goi ng o n inthe m arket. ” Monti added that a senior official at U IG(L evy ), who ty pically handled onlylarge institutio nal clients, had agree d to speak briefly with T hom

pson . L ater13

that day , L ev y

c ont ac te d T hom

psonand d es cr ibe d hi m se lf a s ase lf -m ad e m ill ion ai re . L ev y

e ch oe d M ont i’ s pi tc h th at “ som ethin g bi g” w as ha

ppe nin g inthe E ur o c ur re nc y m ar ke t. L ev y a ske d T hom

psonw he the r he w an te d to “be r ic h” and even said Thom

pson could earn “ hund reds of thousand s of dollars.” L evy added that his research and m arket inform ation allowed him to invest in the Eur o curr en cy m ar ke t f re e of r isk . O f the $57 , 750 T hom psoninv es te d w ithU FH C, he l o s tal l b u t$ 2 3 ,0 0 0 . Th o m p s o n , l i k e t h e o th er s , wa s n ev ert o l dth atal l o f L ev y’ s cu st om ers su ffer eda ne t l os s af te r cl os in g t he ir UFHC acco un ts . The C FT C’ s final victim

witness, United States Arm y Ser geant Lanzy W ill iam s, te sti fi ed

that, upo n hi s r et

ur n f ro m atour of duty in Ir aq , he r ec ei ve d a ca ll fr om U IGA P G re g A tz , w ho s ugge ste d th at S er ge an t W ill iam s in ve st i n heating oil optio ns as soon as possib le. Atz said he could “ alm ost gu arantee [] ” that W illiam s’ investm ent would triple or quadruple in abo ut thirty to forty day s. Ba sed uponthi s r ec om

m en da tio n, S er ge an t W ill iam s in ve ste d $5 , 000 thr oughan a cc ount he ope ne d w ithU FH C. S om e tim e late r, A tz sug ge ste d th at W ill iam s sp eak w ith Le vy , a m an who, accor ding to Atz, could m ake a lot of m oney in a very short pe ri od o f tim e. A tz the n pa sse d th e phon e to L ev y w ho s ai d th at

W ill iam s c oul d quadrupl e his investm ent in thirty to sixtyday s by

investin g in European curre ncy m ar ke ts. L ev y

did not dis cu ss any

of the r isk s a sso ci at ed

w ithc ur re nc y opt ion s14

tr ad ing , de spi te W ill iam s’ a dm oni tio n th at he w as loo kin g f

or sta ble inv es tm en ts. Inf ac t, S er ge an t W ill iam s wro te on s om e pa pe rw ork r ev ie w ed

by L ev y that hi s goa l f or the a cc ount

w as “ lon g- te rm

f inanc ia l st ab ili ty . ” Be ca

use S er ge an t W illiam s did no t have addition al cash on hand, L evy urged him

to withdraw m one y f ro m his 401 (k ) plan, w hic h w as “ j ust sittin g th er e an d no t do ing anythi ng, ” in o rd er

to fund an in ve stm en t i n E ur o c ur re nc y opt ion s. Ba se d on L ev y ’ s m isr ep re se ntatio ns, S er ge an t W ill iam s in ve ste d a ppr oxi m at el y

$17 , 000 in Euro cur rency optio ns throu gh an account at UFH C. In total, W illiam s invested $22, 000 w ithU FH C and l ost a ll of it . A ll tol d, the f

ive te sti fy ing c ust om er s lo st $ 146, 350. 88 a s ar es ult of the ir inv es tm en ts w ithU FH C, $11 6, 350. 88 o f w hic h are dir ec tly a ttr ibu ta ble to m is rep res en ta ti on s m ad e b y Levy. L ev y

a dm itt ed a t tri al that he use d da ily e qui ty runs to determ ine the postu re of e ach of his clients’ investm ents, and the district court found th at L evy

knew pre cisely

how m uch m oney

each of his clients was losin g. D espite this, Le vy never once inform ed any of the five testify ing custo m ers that 10 0% of

his c lie nts r ea liz ed

alos s whe n th ey

c los ed out the ir inv es tm en ts with U FH C. T he c ust om er s’ te sti m ony w as c or ro bor at ed by an audi ota

pe r ec or din g of one of Le vy ’ s sales solicitatio ns, w hich hig hligh ted his prop ensity for im proper,15

high -pressure sales tac tics. O n the tape, L evy can be hear d telling “ Jerry ,” an unde rc ove r inf

orm an t, that he w oul d m ak e a gr eat de al of m one y by inv es tin g in oil f uture s. L ev y

a dde d th at

his “pe rf ec t” str at eg y

of pur ch as ing both pu t and c al l optio ns ensured that Jerry would profit irrespective of volatility in the futures m ar ke ts. L ev y

de sc ri be d hi s in ve stm en t t ec hni que s a s “ co nse rv at ive ” an d sugg es te d th at

Je rr y w oul d th an k hi m

in the lon g r

un. Whe n Je rr

y r es ist ed , L ev y asked whether S hapiro (the UI G A P who had in itiated Jerry ’ s solicitatio n) had advised Jerry

against wasting Levy ’ s tim e. In response, Jer ry acknowledged that he kne wL ev y ’ s ti m e w as va lua ble and c om

m itt ed him se lf to a siz ea ble in ve st m en t. The district court w as also persuaded by the adm issio n into evidence of a sa le s m anua l e nti tle d “ Sa le s S uc ce ss: T he Co m ple te G uid e to S el lin g I nve stm en ts Ar oundthe W orld,” which was found in Levy ’ s UI G off ice. The m anual includes num er ous sc ri pts f

or sa le s so lic itatio ns, inc lud ing se ve ra l tha t are r em ar kably sim ilar to the te ch nique s de sc ri be d by the te sti fy ing c ust om er s at tri al . T hus, f or exam ple, a salesm an in the m anual recites the f ollowing p itch: “ [M] y

com pany has targ et ed an in ve stm en t tha t w e be lie ve c oul d do ubl e or tr ipl e y our

m one y in the ne xt 3 0 to 60 d ay s. ” Ase co nd d oc um en t f ound in L ev y ’ s de sk, e nti tle d “ W orkin g w ithO the r Br oke rs , ” fe at ur es the f oll ow ing pit ch : “ L ist en , the pr es ide nt o f the16

com pany is taking every one off the phones in a fe w m inutes. The top brok er her e is g ivi ng an e m er ge nc y

m ee tin g onthe m ar

ke ts. T his doe sn’ t ha

ppe n of te n bu t w he n it doe s it ’ s us ua lly

som ethin g bi g. ” T he sc ri pt c ont inu es a lon g th es e lin es , instructin g the first broker to call the custom er and inform him that a second, m ore s en i o r b ro k eri s p re p ar edt o s p ea kwi th h i m as a f av o r, d es p i t e t h e s en i o r b ro k er ’s us ua l p ract ic e o f de al in g o nl y wit h i ns ti tu ti on al cli en ts . A ft er f ind ing thi s e vid en ce c re dib le , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that L ev y ha d “ m ad e m isr ep re se ntatio ns, m isl ea din g st at em en ts, and d ec ep tiv e om iss ion s regarding [the] profit potential and risk s of trading opti ons”; that he had “ acted wit h s ci en te r”; an d t ha t h is “ m is rep res en ta ti on s an d o m is si on s wer e m at eri al .” United Investors Gr oup, Inc. , N o. 05-80002 , at 22, 24, and 25. I ndeed, the district court charac terized L evy ’ s conduct as “ brazen and intentional.” Id. at 31. T he trial co urt the n de te rm ine d th at L ev y ha d c om m itt ed f ive vio latio ns o f the CE Aw ith re spe ct to ea chof

the f ive te sti fy ing c ust om er s, f or atot al of tw en ty -f ive violatio ns. Id. at 30. T he court observed that “ Section 6c of the [C EA ] , together w ithCF T C R eg ulatio n 14 3. 8[ (a )] (2 )( ii) , 17 C . F. R. § 14 3. 8[ (a )] (2 )( ii) , pe rm its im posit ion of a civil m onetary penalty . . . of up to the greater of $120 ,000 per vio latio n or

tr ipl e the m one tary

ga in t o th e vio lator . ” Id . a t 29 . H ow ev er , ins te ad of

“ unbu ndl[ing ] ” the violation s, the district court treated Le vy ’ s dealings with eachThe district cour t specifica lly

ref used to impose a civil monetar y penalty based on the 7 t otal number of violations committed by L evy ag ainst all of his customers, which w ould have included both customers who testified at trial a nd those who did not. On Fe bruar

y 25, 2005, a mag istrate judg e re commended that, in light of the amount of 8 money at stake a nd L evy ’s re cord of

nefa rious business prac tices, an a sset fre eze was ne cessa ry to preve nt the pre-

judgme nt dissipation of funds. The district court a dopted this Report and Recommendation on J une 9, 2005. 17 cu sto m er a s asin gle vio latio n and i m pose d ac ivi l m one tary

pe na lty of $60 0, 000. Id . a t 31 -3 2. 7 Ina ddi tio n, the c ourt or de re d L ev y to pay ar es tit uti on aw ar d inthe a m ount of $14 6, 350. 88 a s “ an ci llary e qui ta ble r el ie f” to co m

pe nsate e ac h of

the f ive t es t i fyi n g cu s t o m er s fo r t h e mon i es th ey l o s t“ as a c o n s eq u en ce o f L ev y’ s m i s co n du ct .” Id . a t2 7 -2 8 . F i n al l y, af t erfi n d i n g a “cl ea r n ex u s ” b et we en Le v y’ s bank a cc ount s and h is “ fr au dul en t tra din g a ct ivi ty , ” the dis tr ic t c ourt “ co nti nue [d ] the a sse t f

re ez e” it ha d im pose d a t the be ginnin g of the li tig at ionpe ndi ng c om ple te sa tis fa ct ionof

it s j udgm en t. I d. a t 26 -2 7. T his ti m el y appe al f oll ow ed . 8 II. W e re view f

or clear err or findings of fac t m ade by the district judge af

ter a be nc h tr ia l, Mo rr iss ette -B ro w n v. Mo bil e In fi rm ar y Me d. Ctr. , 506 F . 3d 1 317, 1319 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) , and w e re vie wde nov o qu es tio ns o f law , inc lud ing statutory interpretation. United States v. Ma upin , 520 F. 3d 13 04, 1306 (11t h Cir.18

2008 ) (p er

c ur iam ) (c iti ng Unit ed

S tate s v. Joh nson , 399 F . 3d 1 297, 129 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ). Ci vil pe na lty a sse ssm en ts are r ev ie w ed onl y f or abuse of dis cr et ion . United States v. Nat’ l Fin. S ervs., Inc. , 98 F. 3d 13 1, 140 (4th Cir. 1996); United St at es v. Re ad er's Dig es t As s’n, 6 62 F.2d95 5, 9 67 (3dCir . 19 81 ). Mor eo ve r, “ [w ] e w ill not dis tur b th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c hoi ce of an e qui ta ble re m edy e xc ep t f or abuse of dis cr et ion . ” CF T C v . S ido ti, 178 F . 3d 1 132, 113 7 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . But, to the e xte nt the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se le ct ionof an e qui ta ble rem edy invol ves an elem ent of statutory interpretation, its conclusion s are re vie w ed de nov o. S ee P edra za

v. U nit ed G uar. Co rp . , 313 F . 3d 1 323, 132 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 2) ( “ T he e xe rc ise of the c ourt’ s inhe re nt p ow er s is r ev ie w ed f or abuse of discretion. H owever , a

determ ination as to the scope of those powers is a legal co n cl u s i o n , a n das s u ch i s re v i ew edd e n o v o .” ) ( ci t at i o no m i t t ed ). Fi n al l y, “ [w ]e re v i ew as s etfr ee ze s fo r ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o nb u td o n o td ef ert o th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s le ga l ana ly sis . ” L ev i S tr au ss & Co . v. S unr ise I nt’ l T ra din g I nc . , 51 F . 3d 9 82, 986 - 87 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). A. Fi rs t, L ev y

arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in m ult ipl y ing the m ax im

um civil m onetary

penalty for which he is liable bythe num ber of “ violatio ns” proved at trial, rather than by

the num ber of “ counts” alleged in th e CFT C’ s com plaint. In19

oth er w or ds, L ev y

say s th at the CF T C’ s c om

pla int , w hic h c ont ai ne d on ly asin gle count of sol icitation fraud, can y ield onlyone “ violatio n” of the CE A. W e ar e unpe rs ua de d. T o be ginw ith , the Co m

m odi ty E xc hange A ct

e m pow er s di str ic t c ourts t o puni sh “ any

vio latio n” of

it s pr ovi sio ns. I t say s: “ Inany a ct ionbr ough t un de r thi s section, the Com

m issio n m ay

seek and the court shall have jur isdictio n to im pose, on a pr ope r show ing , on any

pe rs on f ound in the a ct ionto have c om m itt ed any vio latio n ac ivi l pe na lty

. . . . ” 7 U . S. C. § 13 a- 1( d) (1 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) . T hus, contrary to Levy ’ s sugg estion, the CE A does not say , e xpressly or otherwise, that each all eg at io n i n t he CFTC’s co m pl ai ntm us t b e se pa rat edin to di st in ctco un ts . Mo reo ve r, th e CFTC’s en fo rcem en t re gu la ti on s, fo un d i n 1 7 C .F.R. § 143.8(a)(2), proscribe only “ violatio ns” of the CE A - - again, without requiring th at ea cha lle ga tio n be se parate d in to d if fe re nt c ount s. I n pe rt ine nt p ar t, the r eg ulatio ns state : “ [F ] or

e ac h vi olatio n [ of

the CE A ] , ” the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay im pose ac ivi l m onetary penalty of “ not m ore than the greater of $120,000 o r triple the m onetary ga in t o su chpe rs on f

or e ac h su chvio latio n[ . ] ” 17 C . F. R. § 14 3. 8( a) (2 )( ii) (em ph as is ad de d) . The C FT C’ s com

plaint alleged plain ly

and unam

bigu ouslythat it was ch ar gin g L ev y

w ithm ult ipl e vio latio ns o f the Co m m odi ty E xc hange A ct . I nde ed ,20

the com plaint expl icitly

said: “ Ea ch m aterial r epresentation and om issio n of UI G an d it s A Ps , inc lud ing , but not li m ite d to , tho se spe ci fi ca lly a lle ge d he re in, is a se parate and d ist inc t vi olatio n of S ec tio n 4c (b ) of

the A ct , 7 U . S. C. § 6c (b ), and Se ct ion33. 10( a) and ( c) of the Re gul at ion s . . . . ” (e m pha sis a dde d) . T ha t the CF T C e le ct ed

to inc lud e m

ult ipl e vio latio ns o f the CE Aand the r eg ulatio ns pr om ulg at ed the re unde r in a

sin gle c ount

in no w ay

li m its the c harg e to the co m m iss ionof

onl y one vio latio n. I t i s un de nia ble that the c om

pla int f ai rl y inf orm ed L ev y that he w as be ing c harg ed w ithe ac h m at er ia l m isr ep re se ntatio n an d om iss iona s ase parate and d ist inc t vi olatio n of the CE Aand i ts i m

ple m en tin g reg ul at io ns . Le vy insists , how ever, that Slusser v. C FT C, 210 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2000 ), supp orts h is p osi tio n. W e dis ag re e. I n th at c as e, S lus se r an d th e en tit ie s he co ntr oll ed

r ai se d $2 9 m ill ionby

m ak ing f ra udul en t m isr ep re se ntatio ns t o apoo l of G er m aninv es tor s. I d. at 78 3- 84. T he CF T C’ s c om pla int c harg ed S lus se r w ithsix counts o f fr aud, fa ilure to abide by contractual lim itations , and failure to register as a “ com m oditypool o perator. ” Id. at 784. A fter tr ial, the C FT C banned Slusser fr om U . S. f uture s m ar

ke ts and f ine d hi m $10 m ill ion . I d. Apane l of the S ev en th Ci rc uit va cate d and r em an de d, obs er vin g th at the CF T C’ s c om

pla int li ste d si x counts andcharged only

one violatio n per count. Id. at 786. T he court held thatAs noted, the district cour t actually found that L evy

had committed twenty -five violations 9 of the CEA -- five with r espec t to eac h testifying customer. Howeve r, exercisingits discretion, the court e lected to tre at a l l o f L ev y ’s violations with respec t to each c ustomer as a single violation, there by decr easing the number of violations by a multiple of five. The CFTC has not cr oss-appe aled this ruling. 21 “ [j ] ust as the sentence in a crim inal case is lim ited by the num ber of counts alleged in an in dic tm en t . . . so the pe na lty in ana dm ini str at ive pr ose cu tio n is li m ite d by the num ber of violations alleged in the com plaint tim es the m axim

um fine per vio latio n. ” Id . ( em

pha sis a dde d) . I n th e ab se nc e of som e ch ar gin g langua ge ind ic at ing that e ac h c ount in fa ct r ep re se nte d m

ult ipl e vio latio ns, “ [a ] r ea sona ble person in Sluss er’ s posi tion wouldhave assum ed that his m axim um exposure was $600 ,000 and financed his defense accordingly .” Id. The c ourt’ s concern w as that the CF T C h ad

not f ai rl y and a de quate ly

not if ie d S lus se r as to the pr ec ise a m ount of his expos ure. H er e, by c ontra st, the CF T C d id n ot c harg e L ev y w ithonl y

one vio latio n, but rather m ade explicit on the face of its com plaint th at “ [e] ach m aterial re pr es en tatio n and o m iss ionof U IGand i ts A Ps , inc lud ing . . . tho se spe ci fi ca lly al le ge d [ in the c om

pla int ] , is a se parate and d ist inc t vi olatio n of ” the CE A . T hus, af te r fi ndi ng tha t L ev y

ha d c om m itt ed a t l ea st f ive vio latio ns o f the Co m m odi ty an d E xc hange A ct , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y m ult ipl ie d th e m ax im

um c ivi l m onetary penalty of $120,000 b y

five. Slusser suggests nothi ng m ore. 922 B. L ev y a lso say s th at , e ve n if

the $60 0, 000 ci vil m one tary pe na lty is pe rm iss ibl e unde r the Co m m odi ty E xc hange A ct , the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s discretion anyway , bec ause the aggregate penalty is excessive. L evy

observes that the f ive te sti fy ing c ust om er s lo st a tot al of $14 6, 350. 88, of

w hic h he him se lf earn ed onl y $19 , 520. L ev y

arg ue s th at , li ke his se ttl ing c o- de fe ndants , he sho uld ha ve be en pe na li zedon ly to t he ex te ntof h is pro fit s. Ag ai n, we d is ag ree. T he e xpr es s langua ge of

the CE A ’ s e nf

or ce m en t r eg ulatio ns p er

m its a dis tr ic t c ourt t o a sse ss a

c ivi l m one tary

pe na lty of $12 0, 000 fo r “ ea chvio latio n” of the statut e. 17 C . F. R. § 14 3. 8( a) (2 ). W e have not ha d oc ca sio n to de te rm ine w he n, or how , adis tr ic t c ourt m ay abuse it s di sc re tio n inim posi ng a pe na lty that, al tho ugh the or et ic al ly

pe rm iss ibl e unde r the statut e, m ay be e xc es siv e unde r the ci rc um stanc es . T w o of

our sis te r ci rc uit s, how ev er , r equir e onl y that a c ivi l m one tary pe na lty be r at ion al ly

r el at ed to the of fe nse c harg ed

or the ne ed f or deterre nce. R&W

Te chnical Ser

vs. L td. v. CFT C, 205 F.3d 165 , 177 (5th Cir. 2000 ) (“ Sanc tio ns are r ev ie w ed und er the abuse of

dis cr et ionstandard . T he standard is that the sanc tio n m

ust be r at ion al ly

r el at ed to the of fe nse . ”) ( fo otn ote om itted); Monieson v. CF TC , 996 F. 2d 85 2, 862 (7th Cir. 1993) (“ [S] anctions m ay be m odi fi ed

or r ev er se d whe re the r em edy se le ct ed ha s no r ea sona

ble r el at ionto23

the pr ac tic e fo und to e xis t. ”) ( quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). I n j ust if

y ing thi s pe rm iss ive standard , the S ev en th C ir cu it ha s sa id: [I] f the order o f an adm inistrative agency finding a vio lation of a statut or y pr ovi sio n is va li d an d th e pe na lty f ixe d f or the vio latio n is w ith in the li m its of

the stat ute the a ge nc y

ha s m ad e ana llo w ab le j udgm en t in its ch oic e of re m edy an d or din ar ily the Co ur t o f Appe al s ha s no r igh t t o c ha ng e the pe na lty be ca use the a ge nc y

m igh t have i mp o s e dad i f

f e r e n tp e n a l ty. Mon ie son, 996 F . 2d at 86 2 ( quot ing G . H . Mi lle r & C o. v. U nit ed S tate s, 260 F . 2d 28 6, 2 96 (7t h C ir. 1 95 8) (en ba nc )). L ev y c onc ed es that a

r at ion al ly

r el at ed standard sho uld li ke w ise appl y

to ci vil pe na lti es im

pose d by dis tr ic t c ourts, and w e can se no v al id r ea son to h old otherwise. Ac cordingly , w e agre e w ith ou r sister cir cuits that a rationally relate d standard a de quate ly

a cc ount s f

or the br oa d di sc re tio n di str ic t c ourts ty pic al ly e x e r c i s e i nc a l c u l a t i n g ac i v i l mo n e t ary p e n a l ty. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that “ L ev y

m ad e m isr ep re se ntatio ns and m is le ad in g s ta te m en ts th at. . . ex ag ge rat edpro fit po te nt ia l an d d own pl ay edris k,” an d th at he “ re pe at ed ly

pr om ise d c ust om er s th at the y w oul d a t l ea st d oubl e or tr ipl e the ir

inv es tm en ts i n le ss than af ewm onths, e ve n th oughhis tor ic al ly 100 pe rc en t of

[ his ] c ust om er s lo st s om e or a ll of the m one y

the y use d to pur ch as e opt ion s th ro ugh him . ” U nit ed I nve sto rs G ro up, I nc . , N o. 05- 8002 , a t 22 .24

Specifica lly , the c ourt poin ted out th at L evy is a rec idivi st who wa s not deterred by his pr ior se ttl em en ts w iththe CF T C; L ev y w as una pol oge tic a t tri al , a s, f

or ex am ple , w he n he c la im ed

that e ac h of

the te sti fy ing c ust om er s w as “ ab sol ute ly ly ing ”; L ev y ’ s own te sti m ony w as m en da ci ous an d in cr ed ibl e, and h is p ortr ay al of the events in qu estion sm acked of a “ selective m em ory ”; L evy wa s an integral play er in U IG ’ s sales solicitatio n schem e; L evy prey ed on uns ophi sticated i n v e s t o r s an dp r o f

i t e df r o m h i s f r au du l e n ts o l i c i t a t i o n s ; Le v y a c t e di n t e n t i o n a l l y; and the five testify ing custo m ers who int erac ted with L evy lost m ore than $1 00 ,00 0 a s a r es ul t o f hi s re pe at edm is rep res en ta ti on s. T he r ec or d stro ngl y

sup ports the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat a c ivi l m one tary pe na lty in the a m ount

of $60 0, 000 is r at ion al ly

r el at ed and p ro portio na te to L ev y ’ s m

ult ipl e of fe nse s and the und en ia

ble ne ed to de te r him

f ro m c om m itt ing sim ilar vio latio ns i n th e futur e. L ev y ’ s su gge sti on tha t he , li ke his c o- w orke rs , shou ld h av e be enpe na liz ed onl y to the e xte nt o f his pr of

its utt er ly f ai ls t o a cc ount fo r th e b raze n, re pe at ed , andin te nt io na l n atur e o f hi s v io la ti on s. Acc or di ng ly, we have li ttl e dif

fi cu lty c onc lud ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in im po si ng a $6 00 ,00 0 c iv il m on et ary pe na lt y un de r th e st atut e. C. The district court also ordere d Levy to pay $146 ,350.88 in restitutio n “ as25

an ci llary e qui ta ble r el ie f” to co m

pe nsate the f

ive te sti fy ing c ust om er s ( A nde rs on, A lls opp, Cuthb er

tso n, T hom

pson , and W ill iam s) f

or the ir los se s. L ev y

c ont en ds that the district court, sitting in equity , w as without power to im pose restitutio n as a m eans of com

pensating victim s for their losses, bec ause “ restitution as co m p en s at i o n ” i s es s en t i al l y a l eg al re m ed y b eyo n dth e s co p e o f a neq u i ty co u rt ’s j ur isd ic tio n. A t m ost , L ev y say s, the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d have or de re d hi m to dis gor ge the $19 , 520 he e ar ne d a s ar es ult

of his f ra udul en t so lic itatio ns - - that i s, e n t e r e dano r d e r

f o r r e s t i tu t i o ni ne qu i ty. Re sol uti on o f thi s is sue is fo re cl ose d by our r ec en t de ci sio n inCF T C v . W ilshire Investm ent Managem ent Corp., 531 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. June 26, 2008). In W ilshire, w e acknowledged that “ a court’ s jur isdictio n und er § 13a-1 includes equit ab le r em ed ie s . . . . ” Id . a t 13 44. Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , w e sa id tha t “ the unqu alified grant of statutory authority to issu e an inj unction under § 13a-1 carr ies w ithit the f ull r an ge of

e qui ta ble r em ed ie s, a m ong w hic h is the pow er to gr an t re sti tut ion . ” Id . A t the sam e tim e, w e he ld tha t “ [t ] he e qui ta ble r em edy

of restitution does not take in to consid eration the plaintiff’ s losses, but on ly focuses on the defendant’s unj ust enrichm ent.” Id. at 1345 . I n ligh t of W ilshire, w e ar e re qui re d to c onc lud e that L ev y c anonl y be li ab le in re sti tut ionto the e xte nt o f hisOf c ourse, be cause none of the amounts invested by the five te stifying c ustomers ca n be 10 incorpora ted into the restitution awar d, we e x press no opinion as to whethe r the district cour t err ed by including in its restitution order a subset of those investments -- spe cifica lly , the $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 i n v e s t e d

b y th e s e c u s t o m e r s p r i o r t o th e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i thL e v y. 26 unj ust e nr ic hm en t. A cc or din gly , w e va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r es tit uti on o rd er

of 10 $146 , 350. 88, and r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs t o de te rm ine w ha t i f any dis gor ge m en t am ount

sho uld be im pose d. D. Finally , L evy

raises tw o challenges to th e scope of the district court’ s asset fr ee ze . F ir st, he arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in fr ee zi ng a ll of

his a sse ts be ca use onl y his W ac hovi a ac co unt , N o. 998 5017 012, c ont ai ns the c om m iss ion s he e ar ne d f or the inv es tm en ts h e sol ic ite d f ro m the f ive te sti fy ing c ust om er s. H ow ev er , unt il the dis tr ic t c ourt ha s ha d an op portun ity to quanti fy

L ev y ’ s il lgotte n ga ins , se e Se ct ionI I. C. , sup ra , it w oul d be pr em at

ur e fo r us t o r

ule on the sc op e o f th e as se t fr eeze . It is undis puted th at the Com m odityExchange A ct drapes the district court w ithbr oa d e qui ta

ble pow er . I n pe rt ine nt p ar t, the statut e pr ovi de s: W h e n e v e r

i ts h a l l ap p e ar

t o th e C o m

m i s s i o nth a tan y

r e g i s t e r e de n tit y or oth er pe rs on h as e nga ge d, is en ga gin g, or is ab out to enga ge in any act or pra ctice constitutin g a violation of a n y p rovisio n of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, . . . t h e Co mm i ssion m ay br ing an a ct ionin the p ro pe r dis tr ic t c ourt of the U nit ed

S tate s . . . to e n j o i ns u c h a c to r

p r a c t i c e , o r

t o e n f o r c e c o m

p l i an c e w i th thisIn pertinent pa rt, Section 205(a) of the Emer g ency Price Control Act of 1942 pr ovided as 11 fo llo ws : Whe ne ve r i n th e jud g me nt o f the Ad min istra tor any pe rs on ha s e ng a g e d o r i s about to eng ag e in any

acts or pr actice s which constitute or will constitute a vio latio n o f a

ny pr ov isi on of se c tio n 4 of thi s A c t, h e may make a pp lic atio n to the appropr iate court for an order enjoining such acts or prac tic es , o r f o r an order enfor cingcompliance with such provision, and upon a showingby the Administrator that such person has eng ag ed or is a bout to eng ag e in any

such acts or pr actice s a per

manent or te mporary i n

j u n ction, restra ining or der, or other orde r shall be grante d without bond. Pub. L . No. 77-26, § 205(a ), 56 Stat. 23, 33 (1942) (r epea led 1947). 27 ch ap te r, or

any r ule , reg ulatio n or

or de r the re unde r, and s ai d c ourts sh al l h av e juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in su ch act io ns . . . . 7 U. S. C. § 13a-1(a). Interpre ting a sim ilarly broad provisi on of the Em ergency Pr ic e Co ntr ol A ct m any y ears a go, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t, “ [u ] nle ss a 11 statut e in s o m any

w or ds, or

by ane ce ssary

and i ne sc ap ab le inf

er en ce , r es tr ic ts the court’ s jur isdictio n in equit y , the f ull scope of that jurisdiction is to be rec ogni zed an d a ppl ie d. ” Po rt er , 328 U . S. a t 39 8. P ut s im ply , “ w he re . . . the e qui ta ble j ur isd ic tio n of

the c ourt ha s pr ope rl y

be eninv oke d f

or inj unc tiv e pur

pose s, the co urt ha s th e pow er

to de ci de a ll re le vant m atte rs in dis put e an d to aw ar d c om ple te rel ie f . . . .” Id. at39 9. Mo reo ve r, whe re, as he re, t he publ ic in te res t i s i nv ol ve d, a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s “ equit ab le pow er s a ssum e ane ve n br oa de r an d m or e fl ex ibl e ch ar ac te r than whe n on ly apr ivate c ontro ve rs y

is at stake . ” Id . a t 39 8; s ee a lso AT &T Broadband v. T ech Com m c’ ns, Inc. , 381 F. 3d 13 09, 1316 (11t h Cir. 2004 ).28

Iti s u n s u rp ri s i n g , t h er ef

o re , t h ata d i s tri ctco u rtm ay fr ee ze a d ef en d an t ’s as se ts to en su re t he ad equa cy of adi sg or ge m en t re m ed y . See, e.g ., SEC v. ETS Pay phon es , I nc . , 408 F . 3d 7 27, 734 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( “ [T ] he a sse t f re ez e is j ust if ie d a s am eans o f pr es er

vin g f unds f or the e qui ta

ble r em edy

of dis gor gm en t. ”) ; C FT C v . Mu lle r, 570 F . 2d 1 296, 130 1 ( 5thCi r. 197 8) ( “ T his te m por ar y f re ez e of de fe ndant’ s a sse ts w as r ea sona bly ne ce ssary

to as sur e that the co urt’ s j ur isd ic tio n w oul d no t be de fe at ed by the de fe ndant’ s di spos iti on o f as se ts in the e ve nt the c ourt sh oul d ul tim at el y or de r dis gor ge m en t of

the a lle ge dly m isappropriated funds .” ). At this point, we cannot be sure whether the district co urt w ill or de r a dis gor ge m en t r em edy - - an d, if it doe s, in w ha t am ount . A cc or din gly , w e de cl ine to se t a sid e the a sse t f re ez e at thi s ti m e. S ee CF T C v . A m er . Me ta ls E xc h. Co rp . , 991 F . 2d 7 1, 79 ( 3d C ir . 199 3) ( “ Be ca use af re ez e is de sig ne d to pr es er

ve the status quo by

pr ev en tin g th e dis sip at ionand d ive rs ionof assets, w e w ill allow the fr eeze to rem ain in effec t until th e district court de te rm ine s whe the r it can m ak e aninf orm ed de te rm inatio n of

the a m ount

of unlawful proceeds re tained by Maxwe ll, and, if it can, what that am ountm ay approxim ate. ”) ( citation om itted). L ev y a lso arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d auth or ity to pla ce af

re ez e on his a sse ts p en din g satis fa ct ionof the c ivi l m one tary

pe na lti es a sse sse d a ga ins t29

him . I n e ff

ec t, L ev y say s th at adis tr ic t c ourt c anonl y

f re ez e a de fe ndant’ s a sse ts to ensure the sufficiency

of an equitable rem edy . B ecause the civil m onetary pe na lti es im

pose d inthi s c as e ar e le ga l i n natur e, L ev y c ont en ds tha t the y

c annot form the basis for an asset fr eeze . F or its part, the C FT C never urged the district court to free ze L evy ’ s assets in order to secure satisfac tion o f any civil m onetary pe na lti es the c ourt m igh t i m pose . Rathe r, it

arg ue d th at

“ [s ] uf fi ci en t l eg al and ev ide nti ar

y ba se s e xis t f

or c ont inu ing the a sse t f

re ez e in this c as e pe ndi ng s at i s fa ct i o no f a n y eq u i t ab l e r es t i tu t i o naw ar dre n d er edi nth i s ca s e. ” P l ai n t i ff ’s Pro po se d F in di ng s o f Fac t an d C on cl us io ns of Law, at24 (em ph as is ad de d) . Now, the CF T C s ay s th e m atte r is n ot y et r ipe f or a dj udi catio n. I t su gge sts : “ Whe the r the fr ee ze c oul d pr ope rl y

be m ai nta ine d w er e the r es tit uti on aw ar ds p ai d, but

not the ci vil m one tary

pe na lty , is a pr em at

ur e, spe cu lativ e iss ue that i s no t be fo re thi s co urt. ” Br ie f of

Appe lle e at

35. W e ag re e that the que sti on i s no t r ipe and d ec lin e t o a d dr e s s th e i s s u e u n t i l th e d i s tr i c tc o u rth a s d e t e rmi n e d , f i r s t , wh a t , i f

an y, disgo rgem ent rem edy

it m ay im pose (and in what am ount ) and, second, how m uch Lev y ’s fro zen ass et s m ay be wort h. III . A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t i n a ll re spe ct s, e xc ep t ins of ar a s th e co urt or de re d L ev y to pay r es tit uti on i n th e am ount

of $14 6, 350. 88.30

As f or this iss ue, w e vacate the district court’ s order and rem and for further pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. A F F IRM ED IN P A R T, V A C A TE D IN P A R T, A N D REM A N D ED IN PA RT.