Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JEFFREY L. SILVERMAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 210 

DATE: MARCH 13, 1973 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Jeffrey L. Silverman Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 210 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act 

There is reason to believe that the respondent, Jeffrey L. Silverman, has 

violated the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and this complaint and 

notice of hearing is issued stating the charges in that respect as follows: 

I 

The respondent, Jeffrey L. Silverman, an individual whose business address is 

141 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois, was during the period from July 1969 

through October 1970, employed as a solicitor for the firm of Woodstock, Inc., 

in Chicago, Illinois and was from on or about October 23, 1971 through March 13, 

1972, employed as an account executive at Conti-Commodity Services, 2 Broadway, 

New York, New York. At all times material herein, both Woodstock, Inc. and 

Conti-Commodity Services, were registered futures commission merchants under the 

Commodity Exchange Act. 

II 

During September and October 1970, Donald Stengel, Tom R. and Barbara A. 

Borgers, and Karoly Tuczai each maintained a commodity futures 

account at Woodstock, Inc., and at all times material herein the respondent 

handled the trading in such accounts. 

III 

During March 1972, Raymond J. Barbiere and Thomas McGuire each maintained a 

commodity futures account at Conti-Commodity Services, and at all times material 

herein the respondent handled the trading in such accounts. 

IV 

The futures transactions, tabulated below, were in eggs, hogs, and pork 

bellies futures on or subject to the rules of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a 

duly designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. Such 

transactions could have been used for (a) hedging transactions in interstate 

commerce in such commodities or the products or byproducts thereof, or (b) 

determining the price basis of any transaction in interstate commerce in such 

commodities, or (c) delivering any such commodities sold, shipped, or received 

in interstate commerce for the fulfillment of such futures contracts. 

V 
Page 2 

Acting without the knowledge or consent of the customers listed below, the 

respondent made unauthorized trades for the said accounts of customers as 

follows: 

See original document-page 2 

Customer Date Unauthorized Trades 

Donald Stengel 10-2-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Mt. Morris, Ill. 10-2-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-5-70 Bought 1 Dec. 1970 hogs 

10-6-70 Bought 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-6-70 Sold 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Tom R. and 9-30-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Barbara A. 10-1-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Borgers 10-1-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Arcata, Calif. 10-1-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-1-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-2-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-6-70 Bought 3 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-6-70 Sold 3 Nov. 1970 eggs Karoly Tuczai 10-1-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

Rochester, 10-1-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

New York 10-2-70 Bought 1 Nov. 1970 eggs 

10-2-70 Sold 1 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-6-70 Bought 2 Jan. 1971 eggs 

10-6-70 Sold 2 Nov. 1970 eggs 

 

Raymond J. 3-13-72 Sold 2 May 1972 pork bellies 

Barbiere Edison, New Jersey 

 Thomas McGuire 3-10-72 Bought 2 May 1972 pork bellies 

New York, 3-13-72 Sold 2 May 1972 pork bellies 

New York 3-13-72 Sold 2 May 1972 pork bellies 

VI 

By reason of the facts alleged in this complaint, the respondent wilfully 

violated section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (/ U.S.C. 6b). 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be 

served upon the respondent and this proceeding shall be 

governed by sections 0.1, 0.2, 0.4(b), 0.5 through 0.22 and 0.28 of the rules of 

practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR 0.1, 0.2, 0.4(b), 0.5 through 

0.22, 0.28). The respondent will have twenty (20) days after the receipt of 

this complaint in which to file with the Hearing Clerk, United States Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, an answer with an original and three 

copies, fully and completely stating the nature of the defense and admitting or 

denying, specifically and in detail, each allegation of this complaint. 

Allegations not answered will be deemed admitted for the purposes of this 

proceeding. Failure to file an answer will constitute an admission of all the 

allegations of this complaint and a waiver of hearing. The filing of an answer 

in which all of the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint are 

admitted likewise shall constitute a waiver of hearing unless a hearing is 

requested. The respondent is hereby notified that unless hearing is waived, a 

hearing will be held in Chicago, Illinois, at a place therein and date to be 

specified later, before a referee designated to conduct such hearing. At such 

hearing, the respondent will have the right to appear and show cause, if any 

there be, why an appropriate order should not be issued in accordance with the 

Commodity Exchange Act, (1) prohibiting the respondent from trading on or 

subject 
Page 3 

to the rules of any contract market, and directing that all contract markets 

refuse all trading privileges to the respondent for such period of time as may 

be determined, and (2) directing that the respondent shall cease and desist from 

violating the Act and regulations in the manner alleged herein. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

March 13, 1973. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

CLAYTON YEUTTER 

Assistant Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 4