-1- 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: _______ - CivUNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HUNTER WISE COMMODITIES, LLC, 

HUNTER WISE SERVICES, LLC, HUNTER 

WISE CREDIT, LLC, HUNTER WISE 

TRADING, LLC, LLOYDS COMMODITIES, 

LLC, LLOYDS COMMODITIES CREDIT 

COMPANY, LLC, LLOYDS SERVICES, 

LLC, C.D. HOPKINS FINANCIAL, LLC, 

HARD ASSET LENDING GROUP, LLC, 

BLACKSTONE METALS GROUP, LLC, 

NEWBRIDGE ALLIANCE, INC., UNITED 

STATES CAPITAL TRUST, LLC, HAROLD 

EDWARD MARTIN, JR., FRED JAGER, 

JAMES BURBAGE, FRANK GAUDINO, 

BARIS KESER, CHADEWICK HOPKINS, 

JOHN KING, and DAVID A. MOORE, 

 

 Defendants. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND EQUITABLE RELIEF AND PENALTIES 

UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

The Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”), 

by its attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY 

1. Effective July 16, 2011, Section 742 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 

(2010), broadened the scope of the CFTC’s jurisdiction to include financed commodity 

transactions with retail customers. Specifically, this broadened jurisdiction required that these 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 1 of 48
-2- 

transactions be executed on an exchange and subjected these transactions to anti-fraud provisions 

as set forth in Sections 4(a) and 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), as amended by the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, Title XIII (the CFTC 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“CRA”)), §§ 13101-13204, 122 Stat. 1651 (enacted June 18, 

2008), and by the Dodd-Frank Act, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a), 6b, 9, and 15, and the 

Commission Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq. (2012). In addition, 

effective August 15, 2011, Section 753 of the Dodd Frank Act amended Section 6(c) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 15, broadening the CFTC’s anti-fraud jurisdiction as set out in Commission 

Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1. 

2. Since the day Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Act became effective, July 16, 2011 to the 

present (the “relevant period”), Defendants have engaged in illegal, off-exchange, financed 

commodity transactions with retail customers. In addition, Defendants have engaged in 

extensive fraud while doing so. The scope of Defendants’ illegal operation is significant: 

between July 16, 2011 and August 31, 2012 alone, Defendant Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 

the orchestrator of the scheme described in this complaint, received more than $46,000,000 in 

retail customer funds. 

3. Defendants claim to sell physical commodities, including gold, silver, platinum, 

palladium and copper, in off-exchange transactions to retail customers throughout the United 

States. The investment product touted is physical metal, not stocks in metal companies or 

exchange–traded commodity futures. Defendants make three highly material misrepresentations 

to customers. Defendants claim to: (1) sell and transfer ownership of physical metals to 

customers; (2) make loans to customers to purchase the physical metals; and (3) arrange for 

storage and store customers’ physical metals in independent depositories. In fact, Defendants do 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 2 of 48
-3- 

not deal in physical metal. In their financed transactions, Defendants do not sell or transfer 

ownership of any physical metals; they do not disburse any funds as loans; and they do not store 

physical metals in any depositories for or on behalf of customers. In effect, Defendants charge 

customers commissions for purchasing metal, charge interest on loans to buy metal, and charge 

storage and insurance fees for metal in connection with paper transactions that only provide retail 

customers a way to speculate on the price direction of metals. 

4. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, Defendants 

have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in conduct in violation Sections 4(a), 4b, 4d, 

and 6(c) of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a), 6b, 6d, 9, 15, and Commission Regulation 

180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a). 

5. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue 

engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this complaint or in similar acts and practices. 

6. Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful practices and to compel their compliance with 

the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. In addition, the CFTC seeks restitution, 

rescission, civil monetary penalties, and such other equitable relief as this Court may deem 

appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. Section 6c(a) of the Act authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive relief 

against any person whenever it shall appear to the Commission that such person has engaged, is 

engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Act or any 

rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 3 of 48
-4- 

8. The Commission has jurisdiction over the conduct and transactions at issue in this 

case pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(D). 

9. Venue properly lies with the Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, because 

Defendants transact business in this District and certain transactions, acts, practices, and business 

alleged in this Complaint occurred, are occurring, and/or are about to occur within this District. 

III. PARTIES 

10. Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an 

independent federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with administering and enforcing 

the Act and the Commission Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1 et seq. (2012).

11. This Complaint alleges activities by three types of entities that work together to 

offer and execute the illegal transactions at issue in this Complaint: Hunter Wise, which executes 

and confirms the execution of the transactions; Lloyd’s Commodities, which serves as an 

intermediary between Hunter Wise and approximately thirty telemarketing firms based in Florida 

by accepting orders and relaying them to Hunter Wise; and four telemarketing firms (referred to 

as the “Dealer Defendants”) in the Hunter Wise network that solicit retail customers. 

A. The Hunter Wise Defendants 

12. Defendant Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC was formed as a California 

company in July 2007 and has been registered as a Nevada company since October 2010. It 

maintains business addresses in Las Vegas, Nevada and Irvine, California. Hunter Wise 

Commodities, LLC holds itself out as “a physical commodity trading company, wholesaler, 

market maker, back-office support service provider, and finance company” that offers offexchange financed commodity trading in physical metals. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 4 of 48
-5- 

13. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC has several wholly owned subsidiaries, 

including: Hunter Wise Credit, LLC (a Nevada registered LLC), Hunter Wise Trading, LLC

(a Nevada registered LLC) and Hunter Wise Services, LLC (a California registered LLC). 

Together, these companies operate as a common enterprise under common ownership and 

control, and are referred to in this complaint collectively as Hunter Wise. Hunter Wise has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

14. Defendants Harold Edward Martin and Fred Jager are the two principal 

owners of Hunter Wise. Jager resides in Laguna Niguel, California, and Martin resides in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. Jager is the Chief Executive Officer of Hunter Wise. Martin is the President 

and Chief Operating Officer of Hunter Wise. Martin and Jager control the operations of Hunter 

Wise, including executing contracts on behalf of Hunter Wise, controlling its bank accounts, and 

making hiring and firing decisions. 

B. The Lloyds Commodities Defendants 

15. Defendant Lloyds Commodities, LLC (“Lloyds Commodities”) is a Florida 

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 4880 Donald Ross Road, Suite 

225, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418. During the relevant period, Lloyds Commodities 

functioned as an intermediary between Hunter Wise and approximately thirty telemarketing 

firms, most of which were located in southern Florida. 

16. Lloyds Commodities has several corporate affiliates which operate as a common 

enterprise under common ownership and control, and are referred to in this complaint 

collectively as Lloyds Commodities. These affiliates include Defendant Lloyds Commodities 

Credit Company LLC, a Nevada limited liability company with a business address of 4966 

South Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 110, Las Vegas, Nevada 89118; and Defendant Lloyds 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 5 of 48
-6- 

Services, LLC, a Florida limited liability company with its principal office at 4880 Donald Ross 

Road, Suite 225, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418. 

17. Defendants James Burbage (“Burbage”) and Frank Gaudino (“Gaudino”) own 

Lloyds Commodities, and direct and control its operations. Gaudino and Burbage are identified 

as the Managers of Lloyds Commodities on its 2011 annual report filed with the state of Florida. 

Guadino and Burbage sign contracts on behalf of Lloyds Commodities. Burbage identifies 

himself as the President of Lloyds Commodities on contracts executed on behalf of the company. 

Gaudino and Burbage are authorized signatories on the Lloyds Commodities bank accounts. 

Gaudino and Burbage make hiring and firing decisions for Lloyds Commodities. Gaudino 

resides in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Burbage resides in Santa Monica, California. 

C. The Dealer Defendants 

18. Defendant C.D. Hopkins Financial, LLC d/b/a C.D. Hopkins Metals Division

(“CD Hopkins”) is a telemarketing firm that solicited retail customers to execute retail 

commodity transactions with Hunter Wise through Lloyds Commodities. CD Hopkins was 

organized as a California limited liability company which had offices in in West Palm Beach, 

Florida and Los Angeles, California. CD Hopkins operated between July 2011 and May 2012, 

when it transferred all of its customer accounts to Defendant Blackstone Metals Group, LLC. 

19. Defendant Chadewick Hopkins (“Chad Hopkins”) was the sole member of CD 

Hopkins. Chad Hopkins owned, directed and controlled the operations of CD Hopkins. He 

controlled the CD Hopkins bank accounts, made hiring and firing decisions for the company, and 

had control over the content of the CD Hopkins website. On a daily basis, he personally 

performed market research, reviewed customer account activity, discussed customer 

performance with CD Hopkins staff, and monitored his staff’s phone communications with 

customers. Chad Hopkins resides in California. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 6 of 48
-7- 

20. Defendant Hard Asset Lending Group, LLC (“Hard Asset”) is a corporate 

affiliate of CD Hopkins and operated as a part of the same common enterprise. Chad Hopkins is 

the sole member and manager of Hard Asset. Hard Asset is a Florida limited liability company 

with its principal office located at 80 Southwest 8th Street, 20th Floor, Miami, Florida, 33130. 

Hard Asset purportedly made loans to customers of CD Hopkins for the purchase of physical 

metals on a financed basis. Chad Hopkins received payments for commissions, fees and mark 

ups on the price of metals sold to CD Hopkins customers from Lloyds Commodities in a bank 

account in the name of Hard Asset. 

21. Defendant Blackstone Metals Group, LLC (“Blackstone”) is a telemarketing 

firm that solicits retail customers to execute retail commodity transactions with Hunter Wise 

through Lloyds Commodities. Blackstone is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principal address at 801 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 75, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407. 

22. Defendant Baris Keser (“Keser”) is the managing member of Blackstone. Keser 

owned, directed and controlled the operations of Blackstone during the relevant period. Keser 

controlled the bank accounts of Blackstone. Keser is responsible for paying Blackstone’s 

employees and contractors, and he made hiring and firing decisions for Blackstone. Keser either 

personally approved or authored the content of Blackstone’s website, and he approved all of 

Blackstone’s promotional materials. Keser also runs the Compliance Department for 

Blackstone. Keser resides in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

23. Defendant Newbridge Alliance, Inc. (“Newbridge”) is a telemarketing firm that 

solicits retail customers to execute retail commodity transactions with Hunter Wise through 

Lloyds Commodities. Its office is located at 2161 Palm Beach Lakes, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 7 of 48
-8- 

24. Defendant John King (“King”) is the sole member and manager of Newbridge. 

King had sole control over Newbridge’s bank accounts. King made hiring and firing decisions 

for Newbridge. King administers and is responsible for the content of the Newbridge website. 

King is also responsible for compliance functions at Newbridge, including creating compliance 

policies. King resides in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

25. Defendant United States Capital Trust, LLC (“USCT”) is a telemarketing firm 

that solicits retail customers to execute retail commodity transactions with Hunter Wise through 

Lloyd’s Commodities. USCT is a Florida limited liability company with is principal address at 

660 Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, Florida. 

26. Defendant David A. Moore (“Moore”) is the managing member of USCT. 

Moore owned, directed and controlled the operations of USCT during the relevant period. 

Moore runs the day to day operations of USCT, including general supervision of the firm’s 

operations and sales solicitations. He personally sends out information to customers using the 

email address: info@uscaptrust.com. Moore is the compliance department at USCT. Moore 

controlled the bank accounts of USCT. Moore made hiring and firing decisions for USCT. 

Moore created and had control over the content on USCT’s website. Moore resides in Staten 

Island, New York. 

IV. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 

27. Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(D), applies to “any agreement, contract, or transaction in any commodity” that is 

entered into with, or offered to, a non-eligible contract participant (“ECP”) “on a leveraged or 

margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with 

the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis,” with respect to conduct occurring on or after 

July 16, 2011, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here. Such retail commodity 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 8 of 48
-9- 

transactions are subject to Sections 4(a), 4(b), and 4b of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a), 6(b), 6b, “as 

if” they are a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(iii). 

28. The Act defines an ECP, in relevant part, as an individual who has amounts 

invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which exceeds $10 million, or $5 million if the 

individual enters into the transaction to manage the risk associated with an asset owned or 

liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the individual. 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(18)(xi). 

29. Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a), in relevant part, makes it unlawful for any 

person to offer to enter into, execute, confirm the execution of, or conduct any office or business 

anywhere in the United States for the purpose of soliciting, accepting any order for, or otherwise 

dealing in any transaction in, or in connection with, a contract for the purchase or sale of a 

commodity for future delivery unless the transaction is conducted on or subject to the rules of a 

board of trade that has been designated or registered by the Commission as a contract market. 

30. Section 4b(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)(2), in relevant part, 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 for future delivery that is made, or to be made, for, on behalf of, or with any 

other person, other than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market: (A) to cheat 

or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; (B) willfully to make or cause to be 

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; 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 contact for, on behalf of, or with the other person. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 9 of 48
-10- 

V. FACTS 

A. The Defendants’ Illegal Retail Commodity Transactions 

i. Overview of the Defendants’ Retail Commodity Transactions 

31. Defendants offer retail customers two types of transactions: (1) the purchase or 

sale of physical metals such as coins and bars after full payment for actual delivery, and (2) offexchange trading of gold, silver, platinum, palladium and copper on a leveraged, margined or 

financed basis (“Retail Commodity Transactions”) in which a retail customer purportedly 

purchases physical commodities and pays only a portion of the purchase price. Retail 

Commodity Transactions constitute the vast majority of Defendants’ business. It is only 

Defendants’ Retail Commodity Transactions that are at issue in this complaint. 

32. The Dealer Defendants’ marketing materials and websites represent that: 

(1) retail customers can purchase physical commodities, including gold, silver, copper, platinum, 

and palladium, by paying as little as 20-to-25% of the purchase price; (2) the Dealer Defendants 

will lend the customer the remaining portion of the purchase price and charge the customer 

interest on the loan; (3) the customer receives title to the physical commodity after the purchase; 

and (4) the Dealer Defendants will store the physical commodities at an independent depository 

on the customer’s behalf. 

33. After depositing funds with the Dealer Defendants, customers can place either 

long (buy) or short (sell) trades to speculate on the price movement of metals. Customers are 

charged a commission (up to 38% of the funds sent to Defendants), a price spread (a 3-5% markup or mark-down from the current price of the metal), interest on the purported loan (at an annual 

rate of approximately 9.5%) and other fees (such as a “service fee” of approximately 7% 

annually on the total market value of the account) until the long or short trading position is 

offset. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 10 of 48
-11- 

34. The retail customer’s equity increases or decreases as prices of metals fluctuate, 

while also subject to depletion on a daily basis by interest and service fees. When a customer’s 

equity falls below 15% of the value of the total trading position, the customer receives a margin 

call, requiring the customer to deposit additional funds in order to maintain the trading position. 

If the customer’s equity drops to 9%, any open trading positions are liquidated. 

ii. CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT Solicit Customers for Illegal 

Retail Commodity Transactions 

35. The four Dealer Defendants contact prospective customers by telephone and 

through their websites and market Retail Commodity Transactions as a safe, secure and 

profitable investment. 

36. After the Dealer Defendants convince a retail customer to open an account, they 

then solicit the customer to enter into a Retail Commodity Transaction. In turn, once the 

customer agrees to place an order to purchase or sell metals, the Dealer Defendants contact 

Hunter Wise through Lloyds Commodities to enter a trade for the customer. 

37. The Dealer Defendants collect the customer’s funds, and send them to Hunter 

Wise through Lloyds Commodities. The Dealer Defendants receive commissions from Hunter 

Wise and Lloyds Commodities based on the dollar value of the transactions entered for 

customers. Hunter Wise also compensates the Dealer Defendants with a portion of the price 

spread, interest, and service fees charged to retail customers for Retail Commodity Transactions. 

38. The Dealer Defendants never have possession of, or title to, any physical metals 

in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions.

39. The principals of the four Dealer Defendants manage and run the day-to-day 

operations of the firms, including communicating with Lloyds Commodities about Retail 

Commodity Transactions. In addition, Chad Hopkins, King, and Moore each signed contracts 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 11 of 48
-12- 

with Lloyds Commodities relating to the Retail Commodity Transactions on behalf of CD 

Hopkins, Newbridge, and USCT respectively. Keser was responsible for managing Blackstone’s 

relationship with Lloyds Commodities. 

iii. Lloyds Commodities Accepts Orders for Illegal Retail Commodity Transactions 

40. Lloyds Commodities holds itself out to the public on its website as a “leading 

wholesaler of precious metals” that specializes in the “leveraging of precious metals such as 

gold, silver, platinum, palladium and copper.” In fact, Lloyds Commodities functions principally 

to accept orders and retail customer funds for Retail Commodity Transactions from the Dealer 

Defendants and other similar telemarketing firms, and to transmit the orders and funds to Hunter 

Wise. Hunter Wise and Lloyds Commodities refer to these telemarketing firms as “dealers.” 

41. Lloyds Commodities enters into contracts with dealers, including the Dealer 

Defendants, pursuant to which it claims to provide services including the purchase, sale and 

delivery of physical precious metals, financing, and data processing services. In reality, Lloyds 

Commodities is just an intermediary between these dealers and Hunter Wise, which executes, 

records and tracks the Retail Commodity Transactions. 

42. Lloyds Commodities is compensated by Hunter Wise based on a percentage of the 

price spread, interest and service fees charged to retail customers for transactions solicited by 

Lloyds Commodities or the dealers including the Dealer Defendants that funnel Retail 

Commodity Transactions through Lloyds to Hunter Wise. 

43. Lloyds Commodities never has possession of, or title to, any physical metals in 

connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

44. Burbage signed contracts on behalf of Lloyds Commodities with Hunter Wise 

relating to the Retail Commodity Transactions. Gaudino manages the day-to-day 

communications between Lloyds Commodities and Hunter Wise, frequently accepting orders for 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 12 of 48
-13- 

Retail Commodity Transactions by telephone and relaying these orders by telephone to Hunter 

Wise. 

iv. Hunter Wise Executes Illegal Retail Commodity Transactions 

45. Hunter Wise claims to supply physical metals to, and provide financing for, Retail 

Commodity Transactions marketed by dealers, including the Dealer Defendants. 

46. Hunter Wise does not actually buy, sell, loan, store, or transfer physical metals in 

connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. Instead, Hunter Wise records and tracks 

customer orders and trading positions, and then manages its exposure to these retail customer 

trading positions by trading derivatives such as futures, forwards and rolling spot contracts in its 

own margin trading accounts. 

47. Hunter Wise allows retail customers to take “long” trading positions through 

purported purchases of metals, and “short” trading positions through what it calls “commodity 

loans.” When it receives an order from the Dealer Defendants and the necessary retail customer 

funds through Lloyds Commodities, Hunter Wise makes a book entry in a database reflecting the 

retail customer’s transaction. 

48. Hunter Wise aggregates the funds it receives from Lloyds Commodities, the 

Dealer Defendants and similar intermediaries and telemarketing firms and deposits them in its 

own bank accounts. Hunter Wise then deposits a portion of those funds in margin trading 

accounts in the name of Hunter Wise at one or more of the following: (1) A-Mark Precious 

Metals, Inc.; (2) Standard Bank Plc; (3) Natixis Commodity Markets Ltd.; (4) R.J. O’Brien; and 

(5) OANDA. Either Martin, Jager, or both of them signed each of the trading account 

agreements with these firms on behalf of Hunter Wise. 

49. Hunter Wise does not have an inventory of physical metal that it sells or loans to 

customers in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. Hunter Wise does not pay in full 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 13 of 48
-14- 

for the purchase of commodities through its margin trading accounts. Instead, Hunter Wise 

deposits funds with these trading institutions as margin in order to trade metals futures or 

forward contracts. Hunter Wise trades in its margin accounts to manage its exposure to customer 

orders. 

50. Hunter Wise’s trading in its margin accounts does not involve the shipment, 

receipt or storage of physical metals. The trading firms with which Hunter Wise places its 

margin trades do not actually deliver any physical commodities to Hunter Wise. 

51. Hunter Wise does not own, possess, or have title to any metals as a result of its 

margin trades, and neither do Hunter Wise’s customers. 

52. Hunter Wise does not actually deliver any physical commodities to any of its 

intermediaries (including but not limited to Lloyds Commodities), dealers (including but not 

limited to the Dealer Defendants), or any retail customers in connection with Retail Commodity 

Transactions. 

B. Material Misrepresentations Made to Retail Customers 

i. Misrepresentations about the Purchase and Delivery of Physical Metals 

53. The Dealer Defendants misrepresent that they purchase, sell, loan, store and 

deliver physical precious metals in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

1. Misrepresentations on Websites 

54. On their websites, after identifying themselves as retail dealers of physical 

precious metals and touting the value of including physical precious metals in investment 

portfolios, the Dealer Defendants falsely claim to purchase and store physical metals for 

customers in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

55. The CD Hopkins website (www.cdhopkinsmetals.com) contained the following 

false statements about the purchase and storage of physical metals: 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 14 of 48
-15- 

a. “CD Hopkins offers high investment financing and secure storage at an 

independent depository.” 

b. “Investment Security: When your purchase is financed or all cash for 

storage, your goods can be stored at an independent bank or depository on 

your behalf or you can take personal delivery at any time. You will receive 

the title to your precious metals delivered to the depository, giving you 

ownership.” 

c. “Delivery to an independent bank or depository is part of your financed or 

stored metal purchase.” 

d. “You’ll have actual ownership of your metal by receiving its legal title.” 

e. “Metals held by the bank or depository will remain in your name until sold 

or until personal delivery is taken.” 

56. The Blackstone website (www.blackstonemetals.com) contained the following 

false statements about the purchase and storage of physical metals: 

a. “Each client who chooses to participate in the financed metals program is 

provided a financed metal purchase receipt commodity transfer notice in 

their name as evidence of a legitimate transaction.” 

b. “Am I buying a [sic] real gold or a certificate? When you purchase your 

gold with Blackstone Metals, you will receive a commodity transfer notice 

and a receipt. We will deliver the gold to your depository within 72 hours 

after the purchase is made.” 

c. “If clients decide to purchase physical metal, they will receive a warehouse 

receipt from a Comex regulated establishment; verifying actually [sic] 

bullion has been purchased and is being kept in a precious metals storage 

facility.” 

d. “Investors retain full ownership, and title is held in the client’s name to 

eliminate all counterparty risk.” 

e. “The bullion assets are 100% insured by Lloyds of London for replacement 

value.” 

f. “Secured Third-Party Storage [is] [p]rovided by world-class professional 

vault operators with locations in London, New York, Salt Lake City, Zurich, 

Hong Kong and Dubai.” 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 15 of 48
-16- 

57. Newbridge also misrepresented the existence of physical metals on its website 

(www.newbridgealliance.com) and in promotional brochures sent to customers and prospective 

customers: 

a. “Store your precious metal at a federally regulated depository vault.” 

b. “Here’s how it Works: You’re [sic] financed or stored metal is delivered to 

an independent bank or depository vault at which time you receive 

confirmation of ownership.” 

c. “The amount of metal held by the bank or depository remains in accounted 

for until it is sold or you take personal delivery.” 

d. “Furthermore when you trade with Newbridge Alliance you can rest assure 

[sic] and sleep at night knowing that your metals are being stored safe and 

sound.” 

e. “At Newbridge Alliance, our Financing Program allows you to deposit as 

little as 25 percent of your purchase, giving you up to four times the 

investment financing. By using credit, the investor gains the ability to 

multiply the effect of his or her investment dollars, while still owning the 

actual physical metals.” 

58. USCT also misrepresented the existence of physical metals on its website 

(www.uscaptrust.com) and in promotional brochures sent to customers and prospective 

customers: 

a. “All metals are stored or delivered from internationally known and certified 

depositories (such as Delaware Depository Service Company ) in the United 

States.” 

b. “Your financed or stored metal is delivered to an independent bank or 

depository.” 

c. “Receive the legal title to your metal, giving you actual ownership.” 

d. “Metals held by the bank or depository will remain in your name until it is 

sold or you take personal delivery.” 

. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 16 of 48
-17- 

2. Misrepresentations in Account Agreements and Applications 

59. In addition to the false representations on their websites, the Dealer Defendants 

falsely claim to sell, deliver and store physical metals in connection with Retail Commodity 

Transactions in their customer agreements and account applications. 

60. The Dealer Defendants generally require customers to enter into one or two 

account agreements at the outset of their relationship: (1) a Customer Purchase & Sale 

Agreement or Account Application; and (2) a Customer Loan, Security & Storage Agreement. 

61. Pursuant to the Customer Purchase & Sale Agreement, Dealer Defendants CD 

Hopkins, Blackstone and Newbridge tell customers they are purchasing physical commodities 

“on credit with financing” provided by the dealer or its affiliate. Specifically, CD Hopkins, 

Blackstone and Newbridge promise to deliver to its affiliate all of the commodities purchased by 

the customer within seven days of receiving the customer’s payment of the required portion of 

the purchase price. The agreement also provides that ownership of the commodities purchased 

by the customer “passes to Customer upon delivery to Customer, Customer’s appointed 

designee, or to Bank [defined as “banks or depositories”] to be held for Customer. Commodities 

transferred to Bank for Customer will be delivered as an undivided share of a fungible lot and 

held in safekeeping on a fungible basis with the commodities of other Bank Customers.” 

62. The second agreement that Dealer Defendants CD Hopkins, Blackstone and 

Newbridge enter into with retail customers is the Customer Loan, Security & Storage 

Agreement. It “set[s] forth the terms under which [the dealer’s affiliate] will lend to Borrower, 

from time to time...sums of money to purchase physical commodities,” which may include 

“delivery to a depository, costs, fees, storage, collateral, security interest, certain risks and costs 

associated with each loan transaction,” in exchange for a “security interest” in “[a]ll commodities 

belonging to Borrower and held for Borrower” by the bailee of the dealer’s affiliate, “either 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 17 of 48
-18- 

directly or in other depositories.” The agreement further states that customers promise to pay 

interest and fees on the “sums” loaned. 

63. The Customer Loan, Security & Storage Agreement similarly provides that 

“[c]ommodities transferred to Bank [defined as the bailee of the dealer’s affiliate] for Borrower 

will be delivered as an undivided share of a fungible lot and held in safekeeping on a fungible 

basis with the commodities of other Bank customers.” The Customer Loan, Security & Storage 

Agreement further specifies that “[u]pon delivery of commodities on behalf of Borrower to 

Bank, Borrower will receive a confirmation evidencing that such quantity of commodities has 

been delivered to the depository and is being and will continue to be held as an undivided share 

of the commodities so held by the depository, on the purchaser’s behalf, free and clear of all 

liens and encumbrances, other than liens of [the dealer’s affiliate].” 

64. The USCT Account Application similarly misrepresents to customers that they 

are purchasing and will own physical metals by discussing the “various methods of ownership of 

physical precious metals,” by referencing “precious metals products which are also in the nonsegregated depository facilities of the lending institution,” and by stating that “each transaction 

made by the customer is a purchase or sale of Physical Metals product for immediate delivery 

and is not a Futures Contract, Option on a Futures Contract or Securities transaction.” 

65. Between July 16, 2011 and the present, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, USCT and 

Newbridge, have entered into or executed Customer Purchase & Sale Agreements, Account 

Applications and/or Customer Loan, Security & Storage Agreements with retail customers. 

66. Throughout the time CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT entered into 

these agreements with their retail customers, they knew that they did not deliver commodities to 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 18 of 48
-19- 

their affiliate, a bank, or a depository or lend funds to the customer, or they acted in reckless 

disregard for whether this information was true. 

3. Misrepresentations in “Transfer of Commodity” Notices 

67. Defendants continue to lie about the purchase, delivery and storage of physical 

metals in Retail Commodity Transactions throughout the course of their relationship with their 

retail customers. Defendants falsely claim to “ship” or “receive” metals following each trade in 

what they call a “Transfer of Commodity” notice. 

68. The “Transfer of Commodity” notice is generated by Hunter Wise, and 

transmitted to retail customers by Hunter Wise directly by email, or indirectly by Lloyds 

Commodities and the Dealer Defendants by email or mail. 

69. Hunter Wise generates the Transfer of Commodity notices, customer account 

statements and trade confirmations on the letterhead of the dealers rather than on its own 

letterhead. There is no indication on these documents that they are generated and in many cases 

sent directly to retail customers by Hunter Wise. 

70. The Transfer of Commodity notices sent by Defendants to retail customers 

include the following representations that mislead customers into believing that precious metals 

are being held for their account: 

a. Product Received into your Account 

b. Product Shipped out of your Account 

c. [Dealer Defendant] hereby confirms that a depository (“Custodian”) authorized by 

agreements referred to below has received custody of the goods and/or warehouse 

receipts therefore (“commodities”) identified above. 

d. You are hereby notified of delivery of commodities to the Custodian for your benefit. 

e. The Custodian has notified [Dealer Defendant] that it will hold such commodities in 

accordance with the terms and conditions of [Dealer Defendant] Purchase and Sale 

Agreement.... 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 19 of 48
-20- 

f. The warehouse receipts held by the Custodian represent [Dealer Defendant] customer 

commodities stored by facilities authorized in the Loan and Security Agreement. 

Each warehouse receipt is subject to the specific terms and conditions of storage set 

forth therein. 

g. The goods held by the Custodian represent [Dealer Defendant] customer commodities 

stored by facilities authorized in the Loan and Security Agreement. All such goods 

are subject to the specific terms and conditions of storage set forth therein. 

h. The customer acknowledges that upon receipt of commodities for customer’s 

account, Custodian will maintain collectively with the commodities held on behalf of 

all [Dealer Defendant] customers’ physical inventories which are held at one or more 

of several depositories. The Custodian reserves the right at its own expense to move 

the commodity from one storage facility to another. The Custodian also may at its 

own direction order [Dealer Defendant] to transfer custody of your commodities to 

another Custodian provided such Custodian is authorized by the aforementioned 

Agreements and [Dealer Defendant] is notified of such transfer. 

i. Delivery of Commodities: You are hereby notified that the Custodian has released the 

commodities identified above which it has held for you to [Dealer Defendant] 

pursuant to your order for delivery or transfer of these commodities. 

71. The Transfer of Commodity notices sent to Newbridge customers contained an 

additional misrepresentation that customers held title to the metals purchased and sold in Retail 

Commodity Transactions: 

a. Newbridge Alliance hereby confirms that a depository (“Custodian”) authorized by 

agreements referred to below has received custody of the goods and/or warehouse 

receipts therefore (“commodities”) identified above and to which you hold title. 

72. Each of these statements included in Transfer of Commodity notices is false or 

materially misleading. No physical metal is purchased, shipped, stored or delivered by any of 

the Defendants in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. Retail customers do not own 

or hold title to any physical metal. 

ii. Misrepresentations about the Purported Loan 

73. The Defendants also falsely claim that they loan funds to customers for up to 80 

percent of the value of physical metals they claim to purchase. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 20 of 48
-21- 

74. The Defendants make these misrepresentations to customers in their account 

applications and agreements, trade confirmations, and account statements. For example, the 

retail customer monthly account statements generated by Hunter Wise and transmitted to retail 

customers by Hunter Wise or the Dealer Defendants tell customers they have a “loan balance.” 

The trade confirmations generated by Hunter Wise and transmitted to retail customers by Hunter 

Wise or the Dealer Defendants include an “interest” charge for a “loan” for the amounts the 

customer supposedly “borrows.” 

75. None of the Defendants disbursed any funds for the so-called “loan” or 

“financed” portion of Retail Commodity Transactions. Instead, Hunter Wise simply makes a 

book entry in its database corresponding to the purported loan and charges the retail customer 

interest and a service fee on this amount. 

76. Hunter Wise debited customer accounts approximately 9.5% per annum for 

“interest” on the purported loan balance. Hunter Wise paid portions of the interest fee payments 

charged to retail customer accounts to Lloyds and the Dealer Defendants. 

77. Between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2012, Hunter Wise charged customers 

$5,533,401.81 for interest on the purported loans to retail customers in connection with Retail 

Commodity Transactions. 

iii. Omissions Relating to Profit and Risk 

78. When soliciting retail customers through their marketing materials and websites, 

the Dealer Defendants tout the safety and security and limited risk of Retail Commodity 

Transactions. In fact, the vast majority of these defendants’ customers lost money in these 

transactions. 

79. All of the Defendants knew or acted with reckless disregard for the fact that the 

vast majority of their customers lose and have lost money in connection with Retail Commodity 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 21 of 48
-22- 

Transactions. However, the Dealer Defendants failed to disclose those losses in soliciting new 

accounts and orders for precious metals. 

80. Hunter Wise maintains account and trading records for all retail customer 

transactions, and provides all other Defendants with access to this information through its web 

“portal.” Defendants have access to reports reflecting the performance of retail customer 

accounts at their fingertips on a daily basis. 

81. Based on a report generated by Hunter Wise, between July 7, 2011 and March 31, 

2012, over 98% of customers who engaged in Retail Commodity Transactions with CD Hopkins 

during that time period lost money. The net loss suffered by CD Hopkins customers who 

engaged in Retail Commodity Transactions during this time period was $2,406,731. 

82. Based on a report generated by Hunter Wise, between July 2011 and March 31, 

2012, over 77 % of Blackstone customers lost money in Retail Commodity Transactions. The 

net loss suffered by Blackstone customers during this time period was $605,839.19. 

83. Based on reports generated by Hunter Wise, between October 21, 2010 and 

March 31, 2012, over 97% of Newbridge customers lost money in Retail Commodity 

Transactions. The net loss suffered by Newbridge customers during this time period was 

$452,924.66. 

84. Based on a report generated by Hunter Wise, between September 27, 2011 and 

March 31, 2012, 100% of USCT customers lost money in Retail Commodity Transactions. The 

net loss suffered by USCT customers during this time period was $460,411.49. 

85. Each of the Defendants failed to disclose these massive losses to customers and 

prospective customers when soliciting them to open accounts and when entering into, executing, 

and confirming the execution of Retail Commodity Transactions. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 22 of 48
-23- 

C. Hunter Wise and Lloyds Commodities Aided and Abetted the Dealer Defendants 

86. Defendants Hunter Wise and Lloyds Commodities provide the foundation that 

allows the Dealer Defendants to offer Retail Commodity Transactions to customers. 

87. Hunter Wise records and stores all customer funding and trading activity in a 

database. Hunter Wise provides Lloyds Commodities, the Dealer Defendants, and retail 

customers with various levels of access to account information in the Hunter Wise database 

through web access that it calls the “portal.” 

88. Hunter Wise creates usernames and passwords to allow retail customers to log in 

to the portal to view their account information. Hunter Wise provides internet links to its Lloyds 

Commodities and the Dealer Defendants to allow retail customers to log in to the Hunter Wise 

portal through their individual websites. 

89. For example, the Dealer Defendants’ websites contain a link entitled “Client 

Login.” When a retail customer enters a username and password and logs in, the retail customer 

is redirected to a website controlled and operated by Hunter Wise including the domain 

“clientsportals” in the web address. The domain “clientsportals.com” is owned by Beacon Hill 

Partners, LLC, which is in turn owned by Defendant Martin. 

90. Hunter Wise also allows its intermediaries and dealers access to reports and data 

about retail customers’ accounts, including, but not limited to: (a) Equity Runs; (b) Firm Volume 

Reports; (c) Salesman Volume Reports; (d) Commission Listings; (e) Active Salesman Lists; and 

(f) Revenue Reports. 

91. The Hunter Wise database records and stores all retail customer transactional 

information. It also calculates daily interest and service fees on each retail customer’s account 

while monitoring fluctuations in market value. All account statements, trade confirmations, and 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 23 of 48
-24- 

Transfer of Commodity forms sent to retail customers are generated by Hunter Wise and stored 

on its portal. 

92. Hunter Wise provides its intermediaries, including Lloyds Commodities, and 

dealers with standard form contracts and documents to use in their operations or provide to retail 

customers, including: (a) Restricted State List; (b) Corporate Resolution; (c) Limited Power of 

Attorney; (d) Revocation of Power of Attorney; (e) Compliance Manual; (f) Anti Money 

Laundering Policies and Procedures; (g) Order Taping Scripts; (h) Customer Application & 

Signature Page; (i) Customer Loan Security & Storage Agreement; (j) Customer Purchase & 

Sale Agreement; (k) Truth-In-Lending Statement; (l) Risk Disclosure Statement; (m) 

Supplemental Risk Disclosure; and (n) Statement of Estimated Costs and Break Even. 

93. Lloyds Commodities provides these same form documents to dealers including 

the Dealer Defendants. 

94. Hunter Wise also provided Lloyds Commodities with sample telemarketing 

scripts, which were in turn provided to dealers including CD Hopkins. These scripts provide 

guidance to solicitors on how to employ sales tactics to convince retail customers to engage in 

Retail Commodity Transactions. 

95. Hunter Wise also provides its intermediaries and dealers, including Lloyds 

Commodities and the Dealer Defendants, with training videos that explain various aspects of 

Retail Commodity Transactions. These training videos include: (a) Course Introduction; (b) 

Available Products; (c) Basic Terminology and Fundamental Concepts; (d) Overview of the 

Leverage Transaction / Fully-Paid vs. Leverage Comparison; (e) How Much Can I Buy on 

Leverage with $X? / Calculating the Degree of Leverage; (f) Leverage Transaction Costs / 

Estimating the Breakeven Point; (g) Estimating the Equity Call and Force Liquidation Levels on 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 24 of 48
-25- 

Long Positions; (h) Adjusting the Equity Call Level to Fit the Client’s Risk Tolerance; (i) 

Estimating the Equity Call Amount on a Long Position / Minimum Liquidation Calculation; (j) 

Leverage Transaction Risk Analysis / Non-Recourse Loan; and (k) Overview of Commodity 

Loan (“Short”) Transactions. 

96. On March 22, 2010, Lloyds Commodities and Hunter Wise entered into a contract 

which recognized that Lloyds Commodities contracts with retail dealers to provide services 

“substantially identical” to those offered by Hunter Wise and that those services would be 

“outsourced by Lloyds to Hunter Wise.” Those services were “trading, financing and data 

processing.” 

97. Burbage signed the contract as Chief Executive Officer of Lloyds Commodities 

and initialed the paragraphs that described the services that Hunter Wise provided. 

98. Notably, the contract did not provide for the purchase and storage of physical 

metal. 

99. Nevertheless, Lloyds Commodities used a contract with its dealers, based upon 

the template contracts that Hunter Wise provided to Lloyds Commodities, which represented that 

the services it provided included the purchase, sale and delivery of physical precious metals. 

Specifically the contract between Lloyds Commodities and its dealers, including the Dealer 

Defendants, states that: 

a. The purpose of the agreement was to establish an account for Dealer with 

Lloyds Commodities “for the purchase and sale of physical commodities”. 

b. “Upon receipt of good funds in partial payment equal to the minimum down 

payment required by Credit (Lloyds Asset Lending, LLC) for commodities 

purchased on credit, Trading (Lloyds Commodities, LLC) shall deliver to 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 25 of 48
-26- 

Depository within seven (7) days, or such lesser period as required by law, 

all of the commodities purchased to be held for Dealer.” 

c. “Ownership of Commodities purchased by dealer, subject to any security 

interests therein shall pass to Dealer upon delivery to...Depository to be 

held for Dealer.” 

d. Commodities transferred to Depository for Dealer will be delivered as an 

undivided share of a fungible lot and help in safekeeping on a fungible basis 

with commodities of other Depository Dealers.” 

100. Lloyds Commodities gave this contract to its client dealers knowing that the 

above referenced clauses were false because it had not purchased or delivered any precious 

metals.

101. Once Lloyds Commodities recruited a retail dealer, it arranged for it to have 

access to the fraudulent Hunter Wise documents, including form contracts, trade confirmations, 

account statements, and Transfer of Commodity notices referred to in paragraphs 59-77 of this 

Complaint. 

102. Under the terms of the agreement between Hunter Wise and Lloyds Commodities, 

Lloyds Commodities was required to use Hunter Wise exclusively for the “trading, financing and 

data processing” needs of itself and its dealers until January 5, 2012. On information and belief, 

Lloyds did not have contracts with any other suppliers to obtain precious metals for its dealers 

who sold precious metals on a leveraged or financed basis between March 22, 2010 and the 

present.

103. In addition, in conversations with retail dealers, Gaudino misrepresented the 

nature of Lloyds Commodities’ Retail Commodity Transactions. For example, in a taped call on 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 26 of 48
-27- 

October 27, 2011, Gaudino told a prospective dealer that Lloyds Commodities does not use 

“OTC contracts” which he admitted is “now illegal.” He stated that Lloyds Commodities did 

business differently: “metal is actually purchased . . . metal is actually transferred into people’s 

names . . . it’s not somebody going out and buying forward contracts . . .” At the time of this 

conversation, Gaudino knew that statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its 

truth.

104. Burbage also directly works with dealers to ensure their success. In particular, 

Burbage maintained a business address in the office of CD Hopkins. Burbage communicated 

with Chad Hopkins daily in person and by phone about how to manage the operations of CD 

Hopkins. 

105. Both Lloyds Commodities and Hunter Wise provided critical assistance to the 

Dealer Defendants that enabled them to offer Retail Commodity Transactions. Lloyds 

Commodities also provided Hunter Wise with critical assistance that enabled Hunter Wise to 

execute Retail Commodity Transactions and to defraud customers in doing so. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND THE 

COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS 

COUNT ONE 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4(a) OF THE ACT: 

ILLEGAL, OFF-EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

106. Paragraphs 1 through 105 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. 

107. Between July 16, 2011 and the present, the Retail Commodity Transactions 

described in this Complaint were offered and entered into (a) on a leveraged or margined basis, 

or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 27 of 48
-28- 

counterparty on a similar basis, and (b) with persons who are not eligible contract participants or 

eligible commercial entities as defined by the Commodity Exchange Act. 

108. The commodities that are the subjects of the Retail Commodity Transactions are 

commodities as defined by Section 1a(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(4) (2012). 

109. During the relevant period, the Retail Commodity Transactions were not made or 

conducted on, or subject to, the rules of any board of trade, exchange or contract market. 

110. During the relevant period, all Defendants, individually and/or through their 

employees and agents, violated and/or are violating Section 4(a) of the Act by offering to enter 

into, entering into, executing, confirming the execution of, or conducting an office or business in 

the United States for the purpose of soliciting or accepting orders for, or otherwise dealing in, 

transactions in, or in connection with, Retail Commodity Transactions. 

111. Each offer to enter into, entrance into, execution, confirmation, solicitation or 

acceptance of an order for a Retail Commodity Transaction made during the relevant time period 

is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

112. The acts, omissions and failures of the officials, agents, or persons acting for 

defendants Hunter Wise, Lloyds Commodities, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT 

described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their employment, agency, or office 

with these entity defendants, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and failures of these entity 

defendants under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and Section 1.2 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

113. Martin and Jager failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of Hunter Wise described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 28 of 48
-29- 

the Act, therefore, Martin and Jager are liable as Controlling Persons for the violations by Hunter 

Wise of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

114. Burbage and Gaudino failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of Lloyds Commodities described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 

13(b) of the Act, therefore, Burbage and Gaudino are liable as Controlling Persons for the 

violations by Lloyds Commodities of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

115. Chad Hopkins failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of CD Hopkins described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, therefore, Chad Hopkins is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by CD 

Hopkins of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

116. Keser failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations of Blackstone described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, 

Keser is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by Blackstone of Section 4(a) of the 

Act. 

117. King failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations of Newbridge described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, 

King is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by Newbridge of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

118. Moore failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations of USCT described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, 

Moore is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by USCT of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 29 of 48
-30- 

COUNT TWO 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4b OF THE ACT 

AGAINST HUNTER WISE, MARTIN AND JAGER 

119. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

120. Defendants Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Hunter Wise Services, LLC, Hunter 

Wise Credit, LLC, Hunter Wise Trading, LLC (together acting as a common enterprise and 

collectively referenced as “Hunter Wise”), through their agents and employees, cheated or 

defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, retail customers in or in connection with Retail 

Commodity Transactions. 

121. Hunter Wise did so by misrepresenting and omitting facts that are material to the 

investment decisions of customers and prospective customers in documents generated and sent to 

retail customers, including the Transfer of Commodity Notices, trade confirmations, and account 

statements described in paragraphs 67-77. 

122. Hunter Wise misrepresented that it purchased, sold, loaned, stored and delivered 

physical metals in Retail Commodity Transactions. 

123. Hunter Wise misrepresented that it loaned funds for the purchase and sale of 

physical metals in Retail Commodity Transactions. 

124. Hunter Wise made these representations knowingly or with a reckless disregard to 

their truth or falsity. 

125. Each material misrepresentation or omission made during the relevant period, 

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

violation of Sections 4b(a) of the Act. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 30 of 48
-31- 

126. The acts, omissions and failures of Martin, Jager and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for Hunter Wise described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Hunter Wise, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Hunter Wise by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

127. Martin and Jager failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of Hunter Wise described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, therefore, Martin and Jager are liable as Controlling Persons for the violations by Hunter 

Wise of Section 4b(a) of the Act. 

COUNT THREE 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT AND RULE 180.1 

AGAINST HUNTER WISE, MARTIN AND JAGER 

128. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

129. Defendants Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Hunter Wise Services, LLC, Hunter 

Wise Credit, LLC, Hunter Wise Trading, LLC (together acting as a common enterprise and 

collectively referenced as “Hunter Wise”), through their agents and employees, directly and 

indirectly, employed a scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with contracts of sale of 

commodities in interstate commerce. 

130. Hunter Wise created and perpetuated a scheme to defraud customers into 

believing that Hunter Wise, Lloyds Commodities and the Dealer Defendants CD Hopkins, 

Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT purchased and stored physical precious metals for or on 

behalf of retail customers. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 31 of 48
-32- 

131. Hunter Wise also engaged in misrepresentations and omissions concerning facts 

that are material to the investment decisions of customers and prospective customers. 

Specifically, Hunter Wise generated each of the Transfer of Commodity notices, trade 

confirmations, and account statements sent to retail customers in connection with the Retail 

Commodity Transactions. Each of these documents contains the material misrepresentations and 

omissions identified in paragraphs 67-77. 

132. Hunter Wise made these representations and omissions knowingly or with a 

reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. 

133. The acts, practices, and the course of business of Hunter Wise as described in 

Paragraphs 31-105 operated as a fraud upon the retail customers of all of the Defendants. 

134. Each material misrepresentation or omission made between August 15, 2011 and 

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

and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

135. The acts, omissions and failures of Martin, Jager and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for Hunter Wise described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Hunter Wise, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Hunter Wise by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

136. Martin and Jager failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of Hunter Wise described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, therefore, Martin and Jager are liable as Controlling Persons for the violations by Hunter 

Wise of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 32 of 48
-33- 

COUNT FOUR 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4b OF THE ACT - FRAUD 

AGAINST CD HOPKINS, HARD ASSET AND CHAD HOPKINS 

137. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

138. Defendants C.D. Hopkins Financial, LLC and Hard Asset Lending, LLC 

(acting as a common enterprise and together referred to as “CD Hopkins”), through their agents 

and employees, cheated or defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, retail customers in or in 

connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

139. CD Hopkins knowingly or recklessly made misrepresentations and omissions 

concerning facts that are material to the investment decisions of its customers and prospective 

customers. Specifically, CD Hopkins made the material misrepresentations on its website as set 

forth in paragraphs 53-55, and in account statements and documents sent to customers as set 

forth in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, CD Hopkins failed to disclose information material to the 

investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 78, 

79, 81 and 85. 

140. The acts, omissions and failures of Chad Hopkins and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for CD Hopkins described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with CD Hopkins, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of CD Hopkins by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

141. Each material misrepresentation or omission made during the relevant period, 

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

violation of Sections 4b(a) of the Act. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 33 of 48
-34- 

142. Chad Hopkins failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 

therefore, Chad Hopkins is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by CD Hopkins of 

Section 4b(a) of the Act. 

COUNT FIVE 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT AND RULE 180.1 

AGAINST CD HOPKINS, HARD ASSET AND CHAD HOPKINS 

143. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

144. Defendants C.D. Hopkins Financial, LLC and Hard Asset Lending, LLC (together 

acting as a common enterprise and referred to as “CD Hopkins”), through their agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly used or employed a manipulative device, scheme or artifice 

to defraud in connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate commerce. 

145. CD Hopkins knowingly or recklessly made untrue or misleading statements of 

material facts, or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made 

not untrue or misleading, in connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate 

commerce. 

146. Specifically, CD Hopkins made the misleading statements of material facts on its 

website as set forth in paragraphs 53-55, and in account statements and documents sent to 

customers as set forth in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, CD Hopkins failed to disclose 

information material to the investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as 

set forth in paragraphs 78, 79, 81 and 85. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 34 of 48
-35- 

147. CD Hopkins engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, practices, and a course of 

business, which operated or which would operate as a fraud or deceit upon its customers and 

prospective customers. 

148. The acts, omissions and failures of Chad Hopkins and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for CD Hopkins described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with CD Hopkins, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of CD Hopkins by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

149. Each material misrepresentation or omission made between August 15, 2011 and 

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

and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

150. Chad Hopkins failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 

therefore, Chad Hopkins is liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by CD Hopkins of 

Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

COUNT SIX 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4b OF THE ACT 

AGAINST BLACKSTONE AND KESER 

151. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

152. Defendant Blackstone Metals Group, LLC (“Blackstone”), through its agents and 

employees, cheated or defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, retail customers in or in 

connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 35 of 48
-36- 

153. Blackstone knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations and failed 

to disclose material facts to its customers and prospective customers. 

154. Specifically, Blackstone made the material misrepresentations on its website as 

set forth in paragraphs 53, 54 and 56, and in account statements and documents sent to customers 

as set forth in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, Blackstone failed to disclose information material 

to the investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 

78, 79, 82 and 85. 

155. The acts, omissions and failures of Baris Keser and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for Blackstone described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Blackstone, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Blackstone by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

156. Each material misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts during the 

relevant period, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of Sections 4b(a) of the Act. 

157. Keser failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, Keser is liable 

as a Controlling Person for the violations by Blackstone of Section 4b(a) of the Act. 

COUNT SEVEN 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT AND REGULATION 180.1 

AGAINST BLACKSTONE AND KESER 

158. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 36 of 48
-37- 

159. Defendant Blackstone Metals Group, LLC (“Blackstone”), through its agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, in 

connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate commerce, a scheme or artifice to 

defraud in violation of the Commission Regulation 180.1. 

160. Blackstone knowingly or recklessly made or attempted to make untrue or 

misleading statements of material facts and failed to state material facts necessary in order to 

make the statements made not untrue or misleading. 

161. Specifically, Blackstone made the material misrepresentations on its website as 

set forth in paragraphs 53, 54 and 56, and in account statements and documents sent to customers 

as set forth in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, Blackstone failed to disclose information material 

to the investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 

78, 79, 82 and 85. 

162. Blackstone engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, practices, and a course of 

business that operated as a fraud upon the retail customers of Blackstone. 

163. The acts, omissions and failures of Baris Keser and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for Blackstone described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Blackstone, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Blackstone by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

164. Each material misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts between 

August 15, 2011 and the present, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is 

alleged as a separate and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 37 of 48
-38- 

165. Keser failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, Keser is liable 

as a Controlling Person for the violations by Blackstone of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 

180.1. 

COUNT EIGHT 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4b OF THE ACT 

AGAINST NEWBRIDGE AND KING 

166. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

167. Defendant Newbridge Alliance, Inc. (“Newbridge”), through its agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly cheated or defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, retail 

customers in or in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

168. Newbridge knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations and failed 

to disclose material facts to customers and prospective customers. Specifically, Newbridge made 

the material misrepresentations on its website and promotional materials as set forth in 

paragraphs 53, 54 and 57, and in account statements and documents sent to customers as set forth 

in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, Newbridge failed to disclose information material to the 

investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 78, 

79, 83 and 85. 

169. The acts, omissions and failures of King and other officials, agents or persons 

acting for Newbridge described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Newbridge, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Newbridge by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 38 of 48
-39- 

170. Each material misrepresentation or omission made during the relevant period, 

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

violation of Sections 4b(a) of the Act. 

171. King failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, King is liable 

as a Controlling Person for the violations by Newbridge of Section 4b(a) of the Act. 

COUNT NINE 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT AND REGULATION 180.1 

AGAINST NEWBRIDGE AND KING 

172. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

173. Defendant Newbridge Alliance, LLC (“Newbridge”), through its agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, in 

connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate commerce, contravention scheme 

or artifice to defraud in violation of the Commission Regulation 180.1. 

174. Newbridge knowingly or recklessly made or attempted to make untrue or 

misleading statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to 

make the statements made not untrue or misleading. 

175. Specifically, Newbridge made the material misrepresentations on its website as 

set forth in paragraphs 53, 54 and 57, and in account statements and documents sent to customers 

as set forth in paragraphs 59-74. In addition, Newbridge failed to disclose information material 

to the investment decisions of its customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 

78, 79, 83 and 85. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 39 of 48
-40- 

176. Newbridge engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, practices, and a course of 

business operated as a fraud upon the retail customers of Newbridge. 

177. The acts, omissions and failures of King and other officials, agents or persons 

acting for Newbridge described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Newbridge, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

failures of Newbridge by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

178. Each material misrepresentation or omission made between August 15, 2011 and 

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

and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

179. King failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, King is liable 

as a Controlling Person for the violations by Newbridge of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 

180.1. 

COUNT TEN 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4b OF THE ACT 

AGAINST UNITED STATES CAPITAL TRUST AND MOORE 

180. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

181. Defendant United States Capital Trust, LLC (“USCT”), through its agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly cheated or defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, retail 

customers in or in connection with Retail Commodity Transactions. 

182. USCT knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations and failed to 

disclose material facts to customers and prospective customers. Specifically, USCT made the 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 40 of 48
-41- 

material misrepresentations on its website as set forth in paragraphs 53, 54 and 58, and in 

account statements and documents sent to customers as set forth in paragraphs 59, and 64-70. In 

addition, USCT failed to disclose information material to the investment decisions of its 

customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 78, 79, 84 and 85. 

183. The acts, omissions and failures of Moore and other officials, agents or persons 

acting for USCT described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their employment, 

agency, or office with USCT, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and failures of USCT by 

operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and Section 1.2 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

184. Each material misrepresentation or omission made during the relevant period, 

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

violation of Sections 4b(a) of the Act. 

185. Moore failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, Moore is 

liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by Newbridge of Section 4b(a) of the Act. 

COUNT ELEVEN 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT AND RULE 180.1 

AGAINST UNITED STATES CAPITAL TRUST AND MOORE 

186. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

187. Defendant United States Capital Trust, LLC (“USCT”), through its agents and 

employees, knowingly or recklessly used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, in 

connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate commerce, contravention scheme 

or artifice to defraud in violation of the Commission Regulation 180.1. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 41 of 48
-42- 

188. USCT knowingly or recklessly made or attempted to make untrue or misleading 

statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the 

statements made not untrue or misleading. 

189. USCT knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations and failed to 

disclose material facts to customers and prospective customers. Specifically, USCT made the 

material misrepresentations on its website as set forth in paragraphs 53, 54 and 58, and in 

account statements and documents sent to customers as set forth in paragraphs 59, and 64-70. In 

addition, USCT failed to disclose information material to the investment decisions of its 

customers and prospective customers as set forth in paragraphs 78, 79, 84 and 85. 

190. USCT engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, practices, and a course of 

business operated as a fraud upon the retail customers of USCT. 

191. The acts, omissions and failures of Moore and other officials, agents or persons 

acting for USCT described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their employment, 

agency, or office with USCT, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and failures of USCT by 

operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and Section 1.2 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

192. Each material misrepresentation or omission made between August 15, 2011 and 

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

and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 180.1. 

193. Moore failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts constituting the 

violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, therefore, Moore is 

liable as a Controlling Person for the violations by USCT of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Rule 

180.1. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 42 of 48
-43- 

COUNT TWELVE 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4d OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO REGISTER 

AGAINST HUNTER WISE, MARTIN AND JAGER 

194. Paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

195. The Dodd Frank Act amended the definition of “Futures Commission Merchant” 

in the Act to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust that, among 

other things, is engaged in accepting orders for any agreement, contract, or transaction described 

in Section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Act. 

196. During the relevant period, Defendants Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Hunter 

Wise Services, LLC, Hunter Wise Credit, LLC, Hunter Wise Trading, LLC (collectively “Hunter 

Wise”), acting together as a common enterprise, through their agents and employees, accepted 

orders for agreements, contracts, or transactions described in Section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Act. 

197. Section 4d of the Act provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to be a 

futures commission merchant unless such person shall have registered, under the Act, with the 

Commission as a futures commission merchant. 

198. During the relevant period, Defendants Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Hunter 

Wise Services, LLC, Hunter Wise Credit, LLC, Hunter Wise Trading, LLC (collectively “Hunter 

Wise”) failed to register with the Commission as a Futures Commission Merchant and therefore 

violated Section 4d of the Act. 

199. The acts, omissions and failures of Martin, Jager and other officials, agents or 

persons acting for Hunter Wise described in this Complaint occurred within the scope of their 

employment, agency, or office with Hunter Wise, and are deemed to be the acts, omissions and 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 43 of 48
-44- 

failures of Hunter Wise by operation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2 (2011) and 

Section 1.2 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2012). 

200. Martin and Jager failed to act in good faith or knowingly induced the acts 

constituting the violations of Hunter Wise described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, therefore, Martin and Jager are liable as Controlling Persons for the violations by Hunter 

Wise of Section 4d of the Act. 

COUNT THIRTEEN 

AIDING AND ABETTING UNDER SECTION 13(a) OF THE ACT 

AGAINST HUNTER WISE, MARTIN, AND JAGER, LLOYDS COMMODITIES, 

BURBAGE AND GAUDINO 

201. Paragraphs 1 through 193 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated herein 

by reference. 

202. During the relevant period, Hunter Wise, Martin, and Jager willfully aided, 

abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured the commission of, the acts constituting 

the violations of the Act committed by CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT 

described in Count 1, and in Counts 5 through 11 of this Complaint. 

203. Pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, therefore, Hunter Wise, Martin and Jager are 

liable for the violations by CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and USCT of Sections 4(a), 4b, 

and 6(c)(1) of the Act, and Rule 180.1. 

204. During the relevant period, Lloyds Commodities, Burbage and Gaudino 

willfully aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured the commission of, the 

acts constituting the violations of the Act committed by Hunter Wise, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, 

Newbridge and USCT described in Count 1 of this Complaint. 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 44 of 48
-45- 

205. Pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, therefore, Lloyds Commodities, Burbage and 

Gaudino are liable for the violations by Hunter Wise, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, Newbridge and 

USCT of Section 4(a) of the Act. 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

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

Section 6c of the Act, as amended, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own 

equitable powers, enter: 

A. An order finding that Defendants violated Section 4(a) of the Act, as amended, to 

be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 6(a); 

B. An order finding that Defendants Hunter Wise, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, 

Newbridge and USCT violated Section 4b of the Act, as amended, to be codified at 7 

U.S.C. § 6b; 

C. An order finding that Defendants Hunter Wise, CD Hopkins, Blackstone, 

Newbridge and USCT violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. 

§9(c)(1), and Regulation 180.1 (2012); 

D. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, and any other person or 

entity associated with them, from engaging in conduct in violation of Sections 4(a), 4b 

and 6(c)(1) of the Act; 

E. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any successors 

from, directly or indirectly: 

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

defined in Section 1a of the Act, as amended, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1a); 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 45 of 48
-46- 

2) Entering into commodity futures, options on commodity futures, 

commodity options (as that term is defined in Regulation 32.1(b)(1)), 17 C.F.R. § 

32.1(b)(1) (2012)) (“commodity options”), swaps (as that term is defined in 

Section 1a(47) of the Act, as amended, and as further defined by Commission 

regulation 1.3(xxx), 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(xxx) (2012)), and/or foreign currency (as 

described in Sections 2(c)(2)(B) and 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, to be 

codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(B) and 2(c)(2)(C)(i)) (“forex contracts”), for their 

own personal accounts or for any accounts in or over which they have a direct or 

indirect interest; 

3) Having any commodity futures, options on commodity futures, 

commodity options, swaps, and/or forex contracts traded or executed on their 

behalf; 

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 futures, options, commodity options, swaps, and/or forex contracts; 

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

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity futures, options on commodity 

futures, commodity options, swaps, and/or forex contracts; 

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) (2012); and 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 46 of 48
-47- 

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2011)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person 

registered, exempted from registration or required to be registered with the CFTC 

except as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2012). 

F. Enter an order requiring that Defendants, as well as any of their successors, 

disgorge to any officer appointed or directed by the Court all benefits received including, 

but not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, revenues and trading profits 

derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices that constitute violations of the Act, 

as amended, and the Regulations, including pre and post-judgment interest; 

G. Enter an order requiring Defendants, as well as any of their successors, to make 

full restitution, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, to every person or 

entity whose funds were received or utilized by them in violation of the provisions of the 

Act and/or Commission Regulations, as described herein, plus pre-judgment interest 

thereon from the date of such violations, plus post-judgment interest; 

H. Enter an order directing Defendants and any of their successors, to rescind, 

pursuant to such procedures as the Court may order, all contracts and agreements, 

whether implied or express, entered into between it and any of the customers whose 

funds were received by them as a result of the acts and practices, which constituted 

violations of the Act, as amended, and the Regulations as described herein; 

I. Enter an order requiring Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under the Act, 

to be assessed by the Court, in amounts of not more than the greater of: (1) triple their 

monetary gain for each violation of the Act, as amended, and the Regulations or (2) 

$140,000 for each violation committed on or after October 23, 2008; 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 47 of 48
-48- 

J. Enter an order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted by 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2) (2006); and 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Date: December 5, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

 U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

 _/s/ Carlin Metzger____________ 

 Carlin Metzger (cmetzger@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501599 

 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100 

 Chicago, IL 60661 

 Telephone: (312) 596-0536 

 Fax: (312) 596-0714 

 Brigitte Weyls (bweyls@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501826 

 Thaddeus Glotfelty (tglotfelty@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501827 

 Joseph Konizeski (jkonizeski@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501602 

 Rosemary Hollinger (rhollinger@cftc.gov) 

 Regional Counsel 

 Bar ID # A5500849 

 U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES 

 TRADING COMMISSION 

 525 W. Monroe, Suite 1100 

 Chicago, Illinois 60661 

 (312) 596-0700 

 

 Peter Riggs (priggs@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501828 

 Jeff Le Riche (jleriche@cftc.gov) 

 Bar ID # A5501829 

 U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES 

 TRADING COMMISSION 

4900 Main Street, Suite 500 

Kansas City, Missouri 64112 

Telephone (816) 960-7700 

Fax: (816) 960-7754 

Case 9:12-cv-81311-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2012 Page 48 of 48