Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 1 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:29PM usocsoNY 

DOCUMENT 

ELECTRONICALLy FtLI-~ D 

DOC #:---......-:-tt~-­ DATE FILED: 'o 1/~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT 

. FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOIU{ 

) 

UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES ) 

TRADING COMMISSION, ) 

No. 1406 P. 3 

Plabltltf, ) 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. IZ..cv-8791 CCMl 

{OWO) 

ERIC MONCADA; BES CAPITAL LLC; and 

SERDJ.KA LLC. 

Defeodant(s). 

--------------------------------> 

lJ 111 'l CONSENT ORDER. FOR. PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CML MONETARY 

. PENALTY AND OTHER EQUITABLE R.ELJEF AGAINST ERIC MONCADA 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

( .. Commirsion" or 11CFI'C'•) filed a twelve-count Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against Eric Moncada 

{"Moncada"), BBS Capital LLC e'sESn) a11d Serdika LLC ("Serdika .. ) seeking civil monetary 

penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief for violations of the Conunodity Ex.change Act 

. . 

(''Act''), 7 U.~.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2006), and Conunission Regulations, 17 C.P.R. §§ 1.1, et seq. 

(2012). On March 5, 2014, the Court entered an Order of Default Judgment, Pennaneni ·. 

Injunction. Civil Monetary Penalties and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendants BES Capital 

LLC and Serdika LLC (Dkt No. 65) ("Default Order"). On July 15, 2014, the Court entered a 

Memorandum Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's M~tion for Summary 

Judgment and Scheduling Case for Trial (Dkt. _No. 71) _("Summary Judgment Order~~). The 

Summary Judgment Order found Moncada Uable for _violations of Section 4c(a) of the Act, 7 

- U.S.C. § 6c(a) (2006), and Commission Regulation 1.38, 17 C.F.R. § 1.38 (2012), relating to 

four tnlnsactions on October 6, 12, 15, and 29, 2009, BS alleged in the Complaint. Moncada now 

1 

. ._ •, 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 2 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:29PM No. 1406 P. 4 

consents to the entry of this order for permanent injunction, civil monetary penalty and other 

equitable relief as follows, which resolves this litigation between the parties in its entirety. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Moncada without a 

trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Moncada: 

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for PeOilaneut Injwtction, Civil 

Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Eric Moncada (''Cousent Order'')i 

2. Affinns that he bas read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that 

no promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the 

' 

Commission or any member, officer, agent or representative thereof, or by any other person, to 

induce consent to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges service upon him of the summons and Complaint; 

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him and the subject matter of this 

action pursuant to Section6c ofthe Act, 1 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012): 

5. Admits the jurisdictiou of the Commission over the conduct and transactions at 

issue in this action pursuant to the Act, 7 p.s.c. §§ 1, et seq.~ 

,, .... 

6. Admit& that venue properly lies with this Cowt pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the 

Act, 1 V.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (2012): 

1. Waives: 

(a) any and all cla.ims that ho may possess wtder the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

S O.S.C. § 504 (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2012), and/or the rules 

promulgated by the Commission in conformity theJ"ewith, Part 148 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.P.R. §§ 148.1 el seq. (2014), relating to, or arising from, 

this action; 

2 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 3 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM · No. 1406 P. 5 

(b) any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business Rogulatocy 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104·121, §§ 201-2S3, 110 

Stat. 847, 857-868 (1996), a& amended by Pub. L. No. 110-28, § 8302, 121 

Stat. 112, 204-205 (2007), relating to, or arising from, this action; 

(c) any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or the 

entry in thi6 action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any 

other relief, including this Consent Order; and 

(d) any and all right& of appeal from this action, including but not limited to the 

Court's ruling in the Summary Judgment Order; 

8. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the purpose of 

implementing and enforcing the tenns and condit.ion& of this Consent Order and for any other 

pwpose relevant to this action, evon jfMoncada now or in the future resides outside tho 

jurisdiction of this Court; 

9. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order by alleging 

that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) ofthc Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and waives any 

objection based thereon; 

10. Agrees that neither be nor any of his agents or employees under his authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying) directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent 

Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent 

Order is without a factual basis; provided. however, that nothing in this provision shall affect 

Moncada's: (a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings 

to which the Commission is not a party. Moncada shall undertake all steps necessacy to ensure 

3 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 4 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No. 1406 P. 6 

that all ofhls agent& and/or employees under his authority or control understand and comply 

with this agreement; 

11. Agrees to provido immediate notice to this Court rmd the Conunission by 

certified mail, in the manner required by paragraph 57 of Part Vll. of this Consent Order, of any 

bankruptcy proceeding filed by, on behalf of. or against him, whether inside or outside the 

United States; 

12. Agrcos that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair 

the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy against Moncada 

in any other proceeding; and 

13. Neither admits nor denies the allegations of the Complaint as they pertain to the 

Commission's allegations that Moncada attempted to rrumipulate the price of the December 

2009 #2 Soft Red Wintor Wheat commodity futures ("futures") contract traded on the Chicago 

Board of Trade ("CBOT") (hereinafter "December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract"), in violation 

ofSections 6(c). 6(d}, and 9(a)(2} ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b. and 13(a)(2) {2006), or the 

Findings· of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Section IV of this Consent Order. Further. 

- Moncada agrees and intends that the allegations contained in the Complaint and all of the 

Findings of Fact ~d Conclusions of Law contained in this Consent Order and the Sw:w:ruuy 

Judgment Order shall be taken as true and correct and be given preclusive effect, without further 

proof, in the course of: (a) any current or so.bsequent bankruptcy proceeding filed by, on behalf 

of, or against Moncada; (b) any proceeding pu.rso.mt to Section 8a of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a 

(2012}. and/or Put3 offh:e ~egulations. 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 et seq. (2014); and/or (c) any 

· proceeding to enforce the terms of this Consent Order, 

4 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 5 of 21

Sep. 30. 20~4 4:30PM No. 1406 P. 7 

Ill. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. 

14. On July 15,2014, the Court in its Summary Judgment Order found that Moncada 

engaged in fictitiolls sales and non~competitive transactions in violation of Section 4c(a) of the 

Act, 1 U.S.C. § 6c(a) (2006), and Conunission Regulation 1.38, 17 C.F.R. § 1.38 (2012), when 

Moncada execuced certain transactions on October 6, 12, 15, ~d 29, 2009, while trading in the 

DES and Serdika accounts. 

IV. FJNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Tbe Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good cause for the entry 

of Ibis Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the 

entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction, civil 

monetary penalty and equitable relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a~ 1 (2012), 

as set forth herein. 

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

1. Attempted Manipulation 

15. On the trading days of October 6, 12, 14, 19, 26,271 29, and 30, 2009 

(hereinafter ''attempted rnanipuhltion dates"), Moncada engaged. in a strategy of repeated and 

persistent trading activity in en attempt to manipulate the price of the December 2009 Wheat 

Futures Contract. 

16. Moncada's manipulative scheme employed the following trading tactics! 1) 

manually placing and irmnediately canceling numerous orders for 200 or more lots of Decei:l;lber 

2009 Wheat Futures Contracts etarge-lot orders'') without the intent to have the larg~lot order.s 

filled. but instead with the intent to create the misleading impression of increasing liquidity in . · 

the market (''Trading Tactic 1 "); 2) plac.ing these large-lot orders at or near the best bid or offer 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 6 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No. 1406 P. 8 

price in a manner to avoid being filled by the marker ( .. Trading Tactic 2"); and 3) placing smalllot orders on the opposite side of the market from these large--lot orders with the intent ofta.k:.iQg 

advantage of any price mo'\l'ements that might result from the misleading impression of 

increasing liquidity that his large-lot orders created {"Trading Tactic 3"). 

17. These trading tactics described above illustrate Moncada's intent to repeatedly 

affect the prices of the December 2009 Wheat Futures COJttract both upward and downward. 

Moncada used these trading tactics while trading future~ accounts in the name ofBES (uBES 

account .. ) and Serdib (

14Serdika account•'). 

18. Moncada used Trading Tactic 1 when he placed 81ld immediately canceled orders 

in excess of200 lots to buy December 2009 Wheat Fotureo Contract& (hereinafter '•large-lot buy 

orders'') and when he placed and immediately canceled orders in excoss of200 lots to sell 

December 2009 Wheat Futures Contracts (hereinafter "large-lot sell orders"). 

19. Moncada used Trading Tactic 2 when he placed mBJty of his large-lot buy orders 

or large-lot sell orders at or ncar the market's best bid price or best offer price, respe<;tively. By 

doing so. Moncada ensured that his large~lot orders (buy or sell) appeared in the "best of book" 

orders that Globex displayed to other market participants. However, Moncada entered his 

large-lot orders in a manner that ~inimized the risk that his large-lot orders would be hit or 

lifted by othor market participants. 

20. Moncada used the first and second trading tactics with the jntent to create the 

misleading impression of increasing liquidity in the maxket to other market participants, 

21. Moncada also used Trading Tactic 3 of placing small~lot orders on the opposite 

side of the market from these large--lot (buy or seU) orders (hereinafter ''potentially benefitting 

orders .. ) to capture any financial benefit that may have resulted from any price movements in 

6 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 7 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No. 1406 P. 9 

the market from the misleading impression of incree.sing liquidity created by the use of his first 

and second trading tactics. Moncada placed his potentially benefitting orders into the market 

immediately before or immediately after he placed his large-lot orders. 

22. Moncada's manipulative scheme was intended to capture immediate gains over a 

short period oftime. and was distinct ftom his other trading activitr throughout the day. 

23. On the attempted manipulation dates1 Moncada manually entered a total of710 

large-lot orders. Moncada manually canceled at least 98 percent of the total volume of these 

orders. 

24. On the attempted manipulation dates, Moncada's large-lot otders were manually 

canceled on average within approximately 2.06 seconds of entry, and as quickly as 0.226 

seconds. This short time between entry and cancelation ofthe large-lot o~ers and the use of the 

other trading tactics in his manipul&tive scbeme evidences that Moncada did not intend to fill 

these large-lot orders and did not have a rational economic business purpose for placing them 

other than to attempt to influence prices of the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract. 

25, Moncada placed significantly more large~lot orders in the December 2009 Wheat 

Futures Contract than all other market participants combined on the attempted manipulation 

dates. Further, Moncada c8Ilceled a significantly higher percentage ofhia large~ lot orders by 

volume in the Deecmbor 2009 Wheat Futures Contract than all other market participant& 

combined on the attempted manipulation dates. 

a. Monr:ada's Use of IDs Mantpulattve Trading Stratea 

26. The following example illustrates Moncada's manipulative trading strategy of 

repeatedly and pen;istently using his trading tactics in his attempt to manipulate the price ofthe 

December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract upwanl. Moncada repeated, in one form or another, 

7 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 8 of 21

Sep.30. 2014 4:30PM No.1406 P. 10 

each of his trading tactics on each and ev~ry one of the attempted manipulation dates to pnsh 

market prices both upward aod downward. 

27. On October 29,2009, between 10:33:19 a.m. and 10:39:31 a.m., Moncada 

engaged jn a pattern of manual trading activity in an attempt to manipulato upward the price of 

the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract while trading in the Serdika account. 

28. As described more fully below, Moncada bought 25lots of the December 2009 

Wheat Futures Contract at prices of 506.5 a~d 506.75, in order to build a long position, 

Moncada then used all three of his trading tactics in an attempt to gain a financial benefit. First, 

·he placed large-lot buy orders and then immediately canceled them, Second, when he placed 

the large-lot buy orders, he did so at the best bid price whon there were already several orders at 

that best bid price; therefore, Moncada's large-lot orders had little chance of being filled. By 

placing and then canceling large lot orders at the best bid price, Moncada intended to create the 

misleading impression of increasing liquidity (on the buy side) in the market with the intent to 

move the market price upward. During this period, the market price rose as high as 508.75. 

Moncada also used his third trading tactic of placing potentially benefiting sell or~ers (small lot 

short positions) to offset his previo~s long position at the higher prices that may have resulted 

from these trading tactics. 

· 29. Specifically, between 10;33:19 a,m, aJJ.d 10:33:2la.m., Moncada accwnulated 

25 lots of a long position. at prices of 506.5 and 506.75 (•~ e. bought low):· Some: time after 

10:38:25 a.~ .• Moncada offset those long positions at prices of up to 508.75 (I.e. sold high). 

30. As detailed in tho chart below, MQncada, after 10:33:21 a.m., entered a series of 

·six large-lot buy orders, of 402-lots and 500 lots, over a period of five minutes, Moncada 

canceled these six large~ lot orders within 0.575 t~ 2.696 seconds of entry (Trading Tactic 1 ). 

8 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 9 of 21 Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No. 1406 . P. 11 

Order Time Lot Size Prlee Distance From Filled Loll 'I'lme to CJacel 

BeatBfd 

(Tfcka) 

10:33:25.251 a.m. 500 506.5 0 0 1,283 lletOQds 

10:34:40.764 a.m. 402 506.5 0 0 0.983 seconds 

10:35:41.260 Lm. 402 S06.7S 0 0 O.S1S seconds 

10:36:42.715 a.m. soo 50'1.75 0 4 2.696 5econds 

10:37:40.395 a.m. 500 508.5 0 l 0.746 seconds 

10:38:24.755 a.m. 402 508.5 0 ] 0,737 seconds 

31. Ofthe 2,706lots comprising these six large-lot buy orders, only six lots were 

fi[lep, with the remaining 2,700 lots canceled. Moncada entered thcso large-lot buy orders 

consistently at the best bid price, when there were already several orders ahead of Moncada's a~. 

the best bid price (Trading Tactic 2). This allowed Moncada's large-lot orders to appear in the 

best of book on Globex, while minimizing the risk that the large-lot orders would be filled. The 

prices of the large·lot buy orders that Moncada placed rose with the market prico; tho firSt largelot buy order was at 506.5, the last at 508.5. 

32. Beginning one second after canceling his first large--lot buy order and continufng 

one minute after canceling his sixth large-lot buy order. Moncada entered a series of potentiaUy 

boncfiting sell orders at prices ranging from 507 to 508.75 (Trading Tactic 3). ·Moncada entered 

these potentially benefitting orders with the intent to take advantage of any possible market 

price movement resulting from the misleading impression of increasing liqy.idity on the buy side 

his large.. lot orders may have created. 

33. A total of661ots ofthe potentially benefitting sell orders wero ultimately filled, 

with prices ranging from 507 to 508.75. These prices were between one and eight tickS higher 

than tho prices Moncada received when he filled his buy orders beforo tho large-lot orders. 

Therefore, Moncada bought multiple contracts at 506.5 and 506.15 and sold them for 507 and 

508.75. 

9 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 10 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No.1406 P. 12 

b. Moptadp Repeatedly Employed lila MaDipulatiYe Trading 

StrateKY on Each of the Attempted ManioulaUoo Datu. 

34. The example abovt: in paragraphs 26 through 33 illustrates how Moncada 

attempted to manipulate the price of the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract upwud by 

using his three trading tactics in his manipulative trading strategy. Moncada also engaged in 

similar activity intending to push the market price downward. Moncada repeated this trading 

strategy multiple times on each of the attempted manipulation dates in his attempt to manipulate 

the price of tbe December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract in the BBS account and in the Serdika 

acoou~t. Specifically, on each of the attempted manipulation dates~ with the intent to avoid 

being hit or lifted by other mMket participlllltS- he placed and immediately canceled between 37 

and 118 large-lot orders (Trading Tactic 1), at or near the best bid or offer price (Trading Tactic 

2). Further. on each of the attempted manipulation dates, Moncada placed small-lot potentially 

benefiting orders on the opposite side of the market from his large-lot orders with the intent of 

taking advantage of any price movements that might result from lhe misleading impression of 

increasing liquidity that his large-lot orders created (Trading Tactic 3). 

c. Moacpda's Large-Lot Trading Actixl~ W.s Signifiea11tly 

Dlllere11t from the Rest of the Market 

35. On each ofthe attempted ma'llipulation dates, Moncada'slarge-lot order activity 

in the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract was significantly different than the large-lot 

order activity by the other market participants in tenns of volume and the speed at which he 

consistently canceled his large-lot orders. 

36. As shown in the chart below, on the attempted manipulation dates. Moncada 

entered and immediately canceled the following volwnes of large-lot orders with overall high 

cancelation rates. By contrast, the~ rest of the marl:.et entered significantly less volume, and 

canceled significantly loss of the volume of its large-lot orders. Contrary to Moncada's large10 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 11 of 21 Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No.1406 P. 13 

Jot tradlng activity, most of the other market participant's large-lot orders were filled completely 

or partially, and remained on the market for extended periods of time. 

MONCADA MAllKBT CANCBLLATION ltATB 

AUemJited Total Totlll Total Toral Moncada's Market's 

Maaipulation Volume of Coeeled Volume Canceled byVolw:Do bJVolume 

Datei Lara«>-Lot Volume of ofl..arg&-lot Volume 

Ordtl11 Largo-Lot Otdcrs ofl.axge--

Orders Lot 

Orden; 

October6 18,924 18,711 4,580 477 98.87% 10.41% 

October 12 15,766 lS,S46 14,323 4,493 98.60% 31.37% 

October 14 29,216 28,860 12,730 2,673 98.78% 21.000.4 

October 19 3S,SS1 35,201 18,958 1,689 99.02% 40.56% 

October26 42,878 41,986 20,549 l,096 91.11% 5.33% 

October27 34,161 33,659 9,207 1,736 98,SJ% 19.23% 

October29 49,088 41,923 18,138 5,995 99.66% 33.00% 

Oetober30 16,4)8 16,43) .10,248 :i200 99.97% 11.23% 

37. For example, on October 29, 2009, Moncada entered 118 large-lot orders for a 

total volwne of 49,088lots. Moncada canceled, either comp]etely or partially, all of hi& largelot orders, and was partially filled for only 165lots on this day. The remaining 48,923 lots were 

canceled, representing 99.66 percent of~e total volume of his large~lot orders. 

38. To the contrary, on the same day, the rest of the market only placed 51 large-lot 

orders for a total volume of 18,138lots. The rest of the market canceled, either completely or 

partially, only 16 of those large-lot orders for a total volume of5,995 lois. As such, the market 

only canceled 33 percent of the toul volume of its large-lot orders on October 29, 2009, as 

· ·.compared ro Moncada's cancella~ion rate of99.66 percent. 

Jl 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 12 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:30PM No. 1406 P. 14 

39. Moncada's trading activity was also significantly different from the rest of the 

market with respect to the duration that his large-lot orders stayed open in the market. On the 

attempted manipulation dates, Moncada's large-lot orde1:1 were in the market for an average of 

2.06 seconds, with some canceled within 226 milliseconds. To the conlnuy. tbe averagt 

amount of time that a large· lot order placed by anolher market participant remained open in the 

market was 9 hours 16 minutes and 3.5 seconds on the attempted manipulation datea. Ba!ed on 

the speed and immediacy in which Moncada canceled his large-lot orders, especially tts 

compared to rest of the market, he did not intend for each of his large-lot orders to be tilled. 

d. Moncada's Us~ of "Iceberg" Orders 

40. Tho electronic trading platform used by CBOT, Globex, allows traden to enter 

"iceberg" orders, which are order& for a large number of lots that only d~splay a small number of 

the lots to the market at any one time as predetetmined by the trader. If the initial visible 

quantity oflot& in the "iceberg" is filled, then additional lots will automatically be shown to the 

mwket. This type of order entry allows trader5 to execute large~lot trades 'Wilhout signaling to 

the market their intention to fill a large quantity of lots. Therefore, lraden who want to fill 

orders for large~ lot quantities may use this order entry method to avoid the natural price 

movements that could potentially occur in reaction when ordets, particularly large-lot orders. 

suddenly are placed in lhe market. This order entry method assists a trader in trying to get the 

best possible price for aU of the lot& the trader desire.s to fill. 

41. Moncada's lack of use of"iceberg" orders further illustrates that he had no intent 

to fill the vast majority of the large-lot orders he placed on the attempted manipulation dates. 

42. On the attempted manipulation dates, Moncada entered ollly fow- large-lot 

orders with the "iceberg•• function, all of which were on October 27, 2009. By contrast, 

12 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 13 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No. 1406 P. 15 

Moncada entered 710 large-lot orders showing the entire quantity to the market However, 

Moncada frequently used "iceberg•• orders to fill his orders ranging in size from 20 to 100 lots. 

43. Had Moncada intended for his largo-lot ordors to be filled, he could have used 

the "iceberg" function to fill each of those large-lot orders. The ·~iceberg" function avoids 

sudden price movement by the market. Rather than engage in this legitimate trading strategy, 

Moncada used Trading Tactics 1. 2 and 3 to create a misleading impression of increasing 

liquidity in the market so he could attempt to benefit financially from price movcmonts. 

B. ~9!Cl~sions of La'! 

1. Jurisdiction and Venue 

44. This Cowt bas jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 

1 U.S,C. § 13a-I (2012), which provides that whenever it sha11a.ppear to the Commission that 

any person bas engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a 

violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order promulgated thereunder, 

the Commission may bring an action in the proper district court of the United States against 

such person to enjoin such act or practice. or to enforce compliance with the Act, or any rule. 

regulation or order there'Uilder. 

45. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 1 U.S.C. 

§ l3a.-l(e) (2012). because Moncada resided in this jurisdiction at the time of the acts and 

practices in violation of the Act and/or the acts and practices in violation of the Act occurr~d 

within this District 

13 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 14 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No.1406 P. 16 

z. Violation of Sections 6(e), ~d), and 9(a)(2) oftbe Commodity Exchange 

Act- Attempted ManipulatioP (Counts One through Eight of the 

Complaint) 

46. Sections 6(c), 6(d), and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, l3b, and 13(a)(2) · 

(2006), meke it illegal for any person to attempt to manipulate the price of any commodity in 

interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, 

including any contract market. 

41. On October 6, 12, 14, 19, 26, 21. 29, and30, 2009, Moncada attempted to 

manipulate the market price of the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract through the 

manipulative scheme of 1) manually placing and immediately canceling numerous large-lot 

orders without the intent to have the large-lot orders filled, but instead with the intent to create 

the misleading impression of increasing liquidity in the market: 2) placing these large-lot orde.rs 

at or ncar the beat bid or offer price in a manner to avoid being filled by the market; and 3) 

placing small-lot orders on the opposite side of the market from these large-lot orders with the 

intent of taking ad~antage of any price movements that might result from the misleading 

impression of increasing liquidity that his large-lot orders created. Moncada intended to affect 

the prices of the December 2009 Wheat Futures Contract on the attempted manipulation dates, 

and engaged in repeated overt acts in furtherance of that intent on those attempted manipulation 

dates. Accordingly, Moncada violated Sections 6(c), 6(d), and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9, 

13b and 13(a)(2) {2006). 

48. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, thore is a reasonable likelihood that 

Moncada will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint and in 

similar acts and practices in violation of the Act . 

. 14 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 15 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No.1406 P. 17 

V. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

lT lS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

49. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct and the Summary 

Judgment Order, pursuant to Section 6c oftbe Act, 7 0 .S.C. § 13a-l (2012), Moncada is 

permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or indirec1ly violating Sections 

6(c), 6(d), 9(a)(2). and 4c(a)ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13(b), 13(a)(2), and 6c(a) (2012), and 

Commission Regulation 1.38, 17 C.F.R. § 1.38 (2014). 

50. Moncada is also restrained. enjoined and prohibited from directly or Indirectly, 

for a period of five (S) years from the date of entry of this Consent Order. from trading any 

wheat futures products on or subject to the rules of a registered entity, as registered entity is 

defined in Section la(40) of the Acr, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2012), including but not Jimited to 

wheat futures contracts, options on wheat furures contracts, or any wheat product regulated by 

the Commission (either outright positions or spread positions). including but not limited to the 

#2 Soft Red Winter Wheat Futures products on the Chicago Board of Trade. 

51. Moncada is also restrained, aDjoined and prohibited fcom directly or indirectly, 

for a period of one (1) year from the date of the antry ofthis Consent Order: 

a. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (83 that term is 

defmcd in Section la of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la (2012)); 

b. Entering into any transactions involving commodity futures, options on 

commodity futures, commodity options (as that teem is defined ia Regulation 

1.3 (hh), 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(hh) (2014)) (•'commodity options"), security futures 

products, swaps (as that term is deftned in Section la(47) oftheAct, 7 U.S.C. 

§ la(47}(2012), and as further defined by Regulation 1.3(xxx), 17 C.F.R. 

§ l.3(xxx) (2014)), and/or foreign cunency (as det:cribed in Sections 2(c)(2)(B) 

15 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 16 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No.1406 P. 18 

and 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of tho Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(B) and 2(e)(2)(C)(i) (2012) 

("forex. contracts'}, for his own personal acco\Ult or for any account in which he 

bas a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity futures. options on commodity futures, commodity 

options, security futures products, forex contracts and/or swaps traded on his 

behalf; 

d. Controlling or directing tho trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

entity, whether by power of attomey or otherwise, in any account involving 

commodity futures, options on commodity futures, commodity options, 

security futures products, forex contnlcts, and/or swaps; 

e, Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose 

of purchasing or selling any commodity futures, option& on commodity 

futures, conunodity options, security futures products, forex contracts lllldlor 

swaps; 

f. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity. and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission) except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2014); and/or 

g. Acting all a. principal (as that tennis de~ ned in Regulation 3.l(a}. 17 C.P.R. 

§ 3.1(a) (2014}), agent or any other officer or employee of any person (as that 

term is dofined in Section la of the Act. 7 U.S.C. § la (2012)) exempted from 

registration or required to be registered with the Commission except D$ 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.P.R. § 4.14(a}(9) (2014}. 

16 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 17 of 21 Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No. 1406 P. 19 

VI. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

52. Moncada shall pay a civil monetary penalry in the amount of One Million Fiv-e 

Hundred Sixty Thousand dollars ($1.560,000), 

53, Moncada shall pay the civil monetary penalty ("CMP Obligation"). plus post~ 

judgment interest, within ten (1 0) days of the date of the entry of this Consent Order. If the 

CMP Obligation is not paid in full within ten ( 1 0) days of the date of entry of this Consent 

Order, then pos[~judgmcnt interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of 

entry of this Consent Order and shan be determined by u&iDg the Treaswy Bill rate~ prevailing 

on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2012), 

54. Moncada shall pay his CMP Obligation by electronic funds tnnsfer, U.S. postal 

money order, certified check. bank cashier's check, or bank money order. If payment is to be 

made other tbari by e~lectronic funds transfer, then the payment shall be made payable to the 

U.S. Commodity Futures Tiading Commission and sent to the addretss below: 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com.m.lssion 

Division ofBnforcement 

A TIN: Accounts Receivables - AMZ 340 

E-mail Box: 9-AMC~AM.Z-AR.-CFTC 

DOTIFAAIMMAC 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Telephone: (405) 954·5644 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen. Moncada shall contact Nikki Gibson or 

her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with 

those instructions. Moncada shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover 

letter that identifies Moncada and the name and docket numb or of this proceeding. Moncada 

shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief 

17 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 18 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No. 1406 P. 20 

Financial Officer, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Conunission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 

21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. 

SS. Partial Satisfaction: Any acceptance by the Commission of partial payment of 

Moncada's CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a wai"Ver of Moncada's obligation to make 

further payments pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the Commission's right to seek 

to compel payment of any remaining balance. 

VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

56. Cooperation: Moncada shall cooperate fully and expeditiollBly with the 

Commission, including the Commission's Division of Enforcement, and any other 

governmental agency in this action, and in any investigation, civil litigation, or administrative 

matrer related to the subject matter of this action or any cwrent or fu.turc Commission 

investigation related thereto. 

S1, Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Consent Order 

shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

action. 

Notice to Commissi~n: 

Director, Division ofEnforcem.ent 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

llSS 2111 StreetNW 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Notice to Eric Moncada: 

Richard Asche 

Litman, Asche. & Gioiella. LLP 

140 Broadway, 381

h Floor 

New York, NY 10()05 

All such notices to the Commission shall reference the name and docket number of this 

18 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 19 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No.1406 P. 21 

58. Change of Ad"ress/Phone: Until such time as Monr;ttdo satisfies in fuli his 

CMP Obligation as set forth in (~i~ Consent Order, tvi<mcadn shall provide wriuen noliee ro the 

Commission by ccrtifi~d mall ~f eny change to theit telephone numbers and mailing addresses 

withh1 ten (10) calendar days of the change. 

S9. Suecessoa·s ar:ad Assigns: This Conscnr Order shall inure to the benoftt of, a~d is 

'·t,··- . 

binding on, Moncn~a·s successors, assign~. heirs, beneficiaries, and a4niinistrotors. Nolhing in 

this Consent Order shall be constmed to confer any t;ights on any nori::~arty to this Consent 

Order or to. iJlure to the benefit of any non~party to this Consent Order. 

" 

60, Entire A~reement nnd Amc1idments: This Consent Order incorporates all of 

the terms and conditions of the settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall sel've 

to amend or modify this .Consent Order in any respect whatsoevert unl~~: (o) reduced to 

writing; (b) signed by nll pnrties hereto: and (c) approved by order ofthi.s Co\1rt. 

61. Invalidation: lf any provi~ion of this Consent Order or if the applicJttipn of any 

provision or circtimsrance is held invalid, the!t the rem~ lnder of rhis Consen~ Otder an<l.the 

applicatiot\ of the provision to any other person or drcumstaJ\ce shall not be affected by the 

holding. 

62. .W1dv~: T.he failure of any party to this Cons~ut Order flt a11y time to require 

performance of fln_y provision of this Consent Order shall ii1 no manner affect the right of ~lle 

party at a later time to enforce the snme or any other provlsiol) of this Consent Otder. No 

waiver In one or more illstances of the breach of RllY provision contt~ined in this Consent Order 

shall be d~med to be or construed as a ftmher or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of 

•be breach of any other provision of this Co11sent Order. 

19 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 20 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM No. 1406 P. 22 

63. Continuing Jurisdiction ofth.ls Court: Thi~ Court shall retain jurisdiction of 

this action ro ensure compliance with this Consent Order and for all other purposes related to 

this action, including any motion by Moncada to modify or for relief from the te.nns of this 

Consent Order. 

64. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable relief 

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Moncada, upon any pel"llon under his 

authority or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Consent Order, by 

personal service, e-mail. facaimUe or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Moncada. 

65. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be executed 

in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and 

shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties 

hereto and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood 

that all parties need not sign the same counterpart Any counterpart or other signature to this 

Consent Order that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as coostitllting 

good and valid execution and delivery by such party of this Consent Order. 

66. Moncada understands that the tenus of the Consent Order are enforceable 

through contempt proceedings, and lhat, in any Buch proceedings he may not challenge the 

validity oft'bis Consent Order. 

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk ofthe Court is hereby directed to enter 

this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief 

Against Eric Moncada. 

20 
Case 1:12-cv-08791-CM-GWG Document 80 Filed 10/01/14 Page 21 of 21

Sep. 30. 2014 4:31PM 

CONSBNTBO TO ANP APPROVED BY: 

il:&:n.£, 

·A~OFORM: 

- ... 111~ Rlcl nrd M. Asche (RMA7081) 

Litman, Asche, and Oioiellaj .LLP 

Attorney for Defettdant Eric Moncada 

140 Broadway. 38111 Floor 

New York1 NY 10005 

(212) 809.·4~00 

Date: r/ ~It ~ rl 

No. 1406 P. 23 

Hon. Colleen McMahon 

Uni~;l£~Ut 

Andrew Ridenour 

Jennifer Diftmond 

Elizabeth Davis 

RtckOias~r 

U.S. CommoditY Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21" Str~ctNW . 

Wftshlngron. D.C. 20581 

· {202) 4 t'8-S43~ (Ridertour.direct) 

(202) 418-5937 (fax) 

Date: q · '30 - I tf 

21