Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ELLIOTT ALKOW 

CITATION: 31 Agric. Dec. 1353 

DOCKET NUMBER: 189 

DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER 

(No. 14,843) 

In re ELLIOTT ALKOW. CEA Docket No. 189. Decided November 3, 1972. 

Customer's account -- Orders placed without prior knowledge and consent of 

customer -- Net loss to customer -- Stipulation -- Denial of trading privileges

Where respondent violated the Act as found herein, and the stipulation filed 

by him has been accepted, respondent is denied trading privileges on all 

contract markets for a period of 120 days. 

Richard W. Davis, Jr., for complainant. 

Ira Rubin, New York, New York, for respondent. 

Decision by Donald A. Campbell, Judicial Officer

DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. Chapter 1, 1970), instituted by a complaint 

and notice of hearing issued on May 12, 1972, under section 6(b) and 6(c) of the 

said Act (7 U.S.C. 9 and 13b). The respondent is charged with violating section 

4b of the said Act (7 U.S.C. 6b). 

No hearing has been held in this proceeding. On October 18, 1972, the 

respondent filed a stipulation under section 0.4(b) of the rules of practice (17 

CFR 0.4(b)), in which he (1) withdrew his answer previously filed by him, (2) 

admits the facts hereinafter set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the Findings 

of Fact, (3) consents, for the purposes of this proceeding and for such purposes 

only, to a finding of the remaining facts set forth in the Findings of Fact, 

while neither admitting nor denying such facts for any other purpose, and (4) 

waives the report of the Referee and consents to the entry of the order 

contained herein. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The respondent Elliott Alkow, an individual whose address is 200 Linwood 

Avenue, Apartment 21 V, Ft. Lee, New Jersey, was at all times material herein 

employed by Rittenhouse Investments, Inc., to handle commodity customer accounts 

in its Bayonne, New Jersey office. The said firm was at all times material 

herein a registered futures commission merchant under the Commodity Exchange 

Act, with membership privileges on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the 

Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., both duly designated 

contract markets under the Commodity Exchange Act. 
Page 2 

2. At all times material herein, John Wagner maintained a commodity futures 

account at Rittenhouse Investments, Inc., and at all such times the respondent 

personally handled the trading in such account. 

3. The futures transactions, hereinafter referred to, relate to the purchase 

and sale of July 1970 frozen concentrated orange juice futures contracts on or 

subject to the rules of the Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, 

Inc. Such transactions could have been used for (a) hedging transactions in 

interstate commerce in orange juice, (b) determining the price basis of 

transactions in interstate commerce in orange juice and (c) delivering orange 

juice sold, shipped or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment of 

such futures contracts. 

4. Acting without the knowledge or consent of John Wagner, the respondent, on 

the dates specified below, placed July 1970 frozen 

concentrated orange juice futures contracts in his account at Rittenhouse 

Investments, Inc., as follows: 

Date Purchase Sale 

1970 (No. of contracts) 

April 30 5 

May 6 1 May 7 5 May 8 11

May 11 10 

May 13 10 

Such transactions resulted in a net loss of $ 7,342.50 to John Wagner's account. 

CONCLUSIONS

By reason of the facts set forth in the Findings of Fact, it is concluded 

that the respondent has violated section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. 6b). The complainant states that the administrative officials of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority have carefully considered the stipulation and the 

terms of the proposed order and they believe that the entry of such an order 

without further proceedings would constitute a satisfactory disposition of this 

case, serve the public interest and effectuate the purposes of the Commodity 

Exchange Act. The complainant, therefore, recommends that the stipulation be 

accepted and the proposed order be issued, terminating this proceeding. It is 

concluded that the complainant's recommendation should be adopted. 

ORDER

1. Effective on the date of service of this order upon him, respondent 

Elliott Alkow shall cease and desist from placing or causing to be placed in any 

customer's account, any commodity futures transactions, without the prior 

knowledge and consent of such customers. 

2. Effective on the thirtieth day after the date this order is issued, 

respondent Elliott Alkow is prohibited from trading in any commodity on any 

contract market subject to the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act for 120 

days and all contract markets shall deny trading privileges to the respondent 

for that period. Such prohibition and refusal shall apply to all trading done 

and positions held directly by the said respondent, either for his own account 

or as the agent or representative of any other 

person or firm, and also to all trading done and positions held indirectly 

through persons or firms owned or controlled by the said respondent, or 

otherwise. 
Page 3 

3. A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties 

and on each contract market. 

LOAD-DATE: June 9, 2008 
Page 4