Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DANIEL J. SHELLEY, JOHN M. ROWLEY, AND SAM H. LA MANTIA (LAMANTIA) 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96 

DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1960 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

NOTE: SOMETIMES SPELLED AS LAMANTIA AND SOMETIMES AS LA MANTIA 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Daniel J. Shelley, John M. Rowley, and Sam H. La Mantia, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 96 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing Under Section 6b of the Commodity Exchange 

Act 

There is reason to believe that respondents, Daniel J. Shelley, John M. 

Rowley, and Sam H. La Mantia, have violated the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

1958 ed., Chapter 1) and the rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, and in 

accordance with the provisions of section 6b of the said act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., 

§ 9), this complaint and notice of hearing is issued stating the charges in that 

respect as follows: 

I 

Respondent Daniel J. Shelley, an individual whose address is Care of Trading 

Floor, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times material to this complaint a 

registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act (hereinafter called the 

act), and a member of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago (hereinafter 

called the Chicago Board of Trade). 

II 

Respondent John M. Rowley, an individual whose address is Room 1690, 141 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times material to 

this complaint a registered floor broker under the act and a member of the 

Chicago Board of Trade. 

III 

Respondent Sam H. La Mantia, an individual whose address is Room 1036, 141 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times 

material to this complaint a registered floor broker under the act and a member 

of the Chicago Board of Trade. 

IV 

The Chicago Board of Trade is now and was at all times material to this 

complaint a duly designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

V 

On May 19, 1960, respondent Daniel J. Shelley, in his capacity as floor 

broker, had received and had in his possession for execution on behalf of 

various registered futures commission merchants orders to buy a total of 140,000 

bushels of May 1960 wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade and other orders 
Page 2 

to sell a total of 140,000 bushels of such futures on the said exchange. The 

contracts resulting 

from the execution of such orders were capable of being used for hedging a 

transaction in interstate commerce in wheat or the products or by-products 

thereof, or for determining the price basis of a transaction in interstate 

commerce in wheat, or for delivering wheat sold, shipped, or received in 

interstate commerce. 

VI 

On May 19, 1960, respondent Shelley executed the orders described in 

paragraph V by means of non-competitive trades with respondent John M. Rowley, 

in which respondent Shelley bought from respondent Rowley 140,000 bushels of May 

1960 wheat futures at $ 1.94 per bushel and sold to respondent Rowley the same 

quantity of the same future at $ 1.93 per bushel, with respondent Rowley making 

the corresponding sale and purchase for his own account. By reason of such 

trades, respondent Shelley filled orders of his customers for the purchase of 

futures by offset against other orders of his customers for the sale of futures, 

in willful violation of section 4b(D) of the act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 6b(D)), 

and cheated or defrauded his customers in willful violation of section 4b(A) of 

the act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 6b(A)); respondent Rowley entered into 

accommodation trades in willful violation of section 4c(A) of the act (7 U.S.C. 

1958 ed., 6c(A)); and respondents Shelley and Rowley executed purchases and 

sales of a commodity for future delivery 

in a manner which was not open and competitive, as required by section 1.38 of 

the rules and regulations (17 CFR 1.38), and in willful violation thereof. 

VII 

In recording the execution of the trades described in paragraph VI, 

respondent Shelley entered on his trading card the aforesaid purchase from 

respondent Rowley at $ 1.94 per bushel, but did not enter on his trading card 

the aforesaid sale to respondent Rowley at $ 1.93 per bushel. Instead, 

respondent Shelley requested respondents La Mantia and Rowley to record the said 

sale on their respective trading cards as though such sale had been made by 

respondent La Mantia to respondent Rowley. In compliance with such request, 

respondent La Mantia entered on his trading cards a sale of 140,000 bushels of 

May 1960 wheat futures to respondent Rowley at $ 1.93 per bushel, and respondent 

Rowley entered on his trading card a purchase of 140,000 bushels of the said 

future from respondent La Mantia at $ 1.93 per bushel. By reason of such acts, 

respondents Shelley and La Mantia, in connection with the disposition or 

execution of orders to sell a commodity for future delivery, willfully deceived 

the persons from whom such orders had been received, in violation of section 

4b(C) of the act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 6b(C)); and all of 

the respondents willfully caused false reports to be made and false records to 

be entered in connection with the execution of such orders, in violation of 

section 4b(B) of the act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 6b(B)), and failed to keep full 

and complete records of futures transactions, as required by section 1.35 of the 

rules and regulations and section 4g of the act (17 CFR 1.35; 7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., 

§ 6g), and in willful violation thereof. 

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

served upon the said respondents. The respondents will have twenty (20) days 

after the receipt of this notice of hearing in which to file with the Hearing 

Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D. C., an answer 

with an original and six copies, fully and completely stating the nature of the 

defense and admitting or denying, specifically and in detail, each material and 
Page 3 

relevant allegation of this complaint. Allegations not answered will be deemed 

admitted for the purpose of this proceeding. Failure to file an answer will 

constitute an admission of all the material allegations of this complaint and a 

waiver of hearing. The respondents are hereby notified that unless hearing is 

waived, either expressly or by failure to file an answer and request a hearing, 

a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m., local time, on the 24th day of January 

1961, in Chicago, Illinois, at a place therein to be specified later, 

before a referee designated to conduct such hearing. At such hearing the 

respondents will have the right to appear and show cause, if any there be, why 

an order should not be made suspending or revoking their registrations as floor 

brokers under the act, and directing that all contract markets refuse all 

trading privileges to the said respondents for such period of time as may be 

determined. 

It is ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be served on each of 

the said respondents at least twenty (20) days prior to the date set for 

hearing. 

Done at Washington, D. C., 

December 15, 1960. 

/s/ Clarence L. Miller 

Clarence L. Miller 

Acting Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 4