Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RICHARD D. LUPORI AND ALAN R. COYNE 

CITATION: 34 Agric. Dec. 54 

DOCKET NUMBER: 221 

DATE: JANUARY 2, 1975 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER 

(No. 16,211) 

In re RICHARD D. LUPORI and ALAN R. COYNE. CEA Docket No. 221. Decided January 

2, 1975, with respect to Richard D. Lupori.

Hedging transactions -- wilful violations -- Customers' orders -- crossing of 

-- Trading cards -- false and incorrect -- Sanction

The stipulation of respondent Richard D. Lupori herein has been accepted and 

the order herein is issued against him for wilful violations of the Act and 

regulations in connection with his operations as a floor broker with respect to 

hedging transactions as found herein. The registration of respondent Lupori as 

a floor broker under the Act is revoked and said respondent is denied trading 

privileges on all contract markets for a period of one year. 

Herbert R. Bader, for complainant. 

Donald Dreyfus, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. 

Decision by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge.

DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act, "the 

Act" (7 U.S.C. §§ 1 through 17), instituted by a Complaint and Notice of Hearing 

alleging as to respondent Lupori that he is now and was at all times material a 

registered floor broker under the Act and a member of the Chicago Board of 

Trade, a duly designated contract market under the Act. 54 

On October 22, 1974 a Decision and Order as to Respondent Alan R. Coyne was 

issued in this proceeding. 

The complaint charges as to respondent Lupori that he made trades on or 

subject to the rules of a contract market otherwise than by open and competitive 

methods; that he traded on or subject to the rules of a contract market in a 

noncompetitive manner which trades resulted in a crossing of customer orders; 

that he took the opposite side of customers orders without the prior consent of 

such customer; that he "carded" transactions; and that he submitted trading 

cards which were endorsed to show an opposite executing floor broker, whereas, 

in fact, there was no such opposite executing floor broker. Such acts were 

alleged to have been wilful and in violation of sections 4b and 4c of the Act (7 

U.S.C. §§ 6b and 6c), and sections 1.35, 1.38 and 1.39 of the regulations 

thereunder (17 CFR §§ 1.35, 1.38 and 1.39). 

Prior to hearing respondent Lupori agreed to a stipulation under section 

0.4(b) of the Rules of Practice (17 CFR § 0.4(b)) in which he (1) admits the 

facts hereunder as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Findings of Fact, 

(2) waives oral hearing on the charges in the complaint and (3) consents to the 

entry, without further proceedings, of a Decision and Order containing the facts 
Page 2 

admitted in such stipulation as the findings of fact, conclusions of law based 

on such findings and the order contained herein. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Richard D. Lupori is now, as was at all times material herein, 

a member of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago (Chicago Board of Trade) 

and a registered floor broker under the Act. 

2. At all times material herein respondent Lupori was employed by and carried 

his personal trading account with Kelly Grain Company of Chicago, Illionis, a 

registered futures commission merchant under the Act and a clearing member of 

the Chicago Board of Trade. 

3. The transactions referred to herein relate to contracts for the purchase 

or sale of July 1972 soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade, a duly 

designated contract market under the Act. The soybean contracts resulting from 

the execution of the orders herein described were capable of being used for 

hedging transactions in interstate commerce in such commodity or the products or 

byproducts thereof, or determining the price basis of 

any such transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or delivering any 

such commodity sold, shipped or received in interstate commerce. 

4. In May of 1972 respondent Lupori, in his capacity as floor broker, had 

received for execution orders to sell and orders to buy July 1972 soybean 

futures for the accounts of various customers. Respondent Coyne accommodated 

respondent Lupori by executing transactions, as listed below, in a 

noncompetitive manner with respondent Lupori, which resulted in respondent 

Lupori's crossing these customer's orders. 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Customer 

Bought Sold (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-1-72 5 3.50 Continental Customer 60308

5-1-72 5 3.50 Continental Customer 26341

5-2-72 5 3.47-3/4 Continental Customer 24515

5-2-72 5 3.47-3/4 Continental Customer 12103

5-2-72 5 3.48-5/8 Continental Customer 24919

5-2-72 5 3.48-5/8 Continental Customer 12103

5-8-72 10 3.55-1/2 Continental Customer 22458

5-8-72 10 3.55-1/2 Continental Customer 24919

5-15-72 5 3.52-1/2 Continental Customer 16909

5-15-72 5 3.52-1/2 Continental Customer 35927

5-16-72 5 3.55-7/8 Continental Customer 24522

5-16-72 5 3.55-7/8 Continental Customer 13499

5-16-72 5 3.57 Continental Customer 23902

5-16-72 5 3.57 duPont Customer 5045483922

5-16-72 10 3.58-1/4 Continental Customer 20048

5-16-72 10 3.58-1/4 duPont Customer 42404889

5-16-72 5 3.60-3/4 Kelly Grain -- Mary O'Hara 

5-16-72 5 3.60-3/4 duPont House 5-16-72 30 3.61 Kelly Grain -- Mary O'Hara 

5-16-72 30 3.61 duPont Customer 140-7855-9-70

140-7158-9-70

140-6073-9-70

140-8501-9-70

140-3878-9-70

180-8346-9-39

5-17-72 10 3.59-1/2 Continental Customer 21014

5-17-72 10 3.59-1/2 duPont Customer 521153909

5-17-72 10 3.60 Continental Customer 95815

3-17-72 10 3.60 Continental Customer 31854 &

35927
Page 3 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Customer 

 Bought Sold (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-17-72 5 3.60 Continental Customer 23353

5-17-72 5 3.60 duPont Customer 4186005908

5-17-72 10 3.62 Continental Customer 36817

5-17-72 10 3.62 duPont Customer 256631903 &

4128749902

5-17-72 5 3.62 Continental Customer 36817

 

See original document-page 3 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Customer 

Bought Sold 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-17-72 5 3.62 Kelly Grain Customer 596

5-18-72 15 3.58-1/2 Continental Customer 56103

5-18-72 15 3.58-1/2 duPont Customer 125-95159-81 &

4816450910

5-18-72 15 3.59 Continental Customer 20350

5-18-72 15 3.59 Continental Customer 56102 &

20701

5-18-72 5 3.59-1/2 Continental Customer 16664

5-18-72 5 3.59-1/2 duPont Customer 8655852805

5-19-72 5 3.60 Continental Customer 24004

5-19-72 5 3.60 Continental Customer 27874

5-22-72 5 3.55-5/8 Continental Customer 11211

5-22-72 5 3.55-5/8 duPont Customer 4181532908

5-22-72 10 3.58 Continental Customer 56913

5-22-72 10 3.58 Continental Customer 28408

5-24-72 10 3.50 Continental Customer 28114

5-24-72 10 3.50 duPont Customer 4884586921

5-24-72 5 3.52 Continental Customer 31502

5-24-72 5 3.52 duPont Customer 448338190

5. In May of 1972 respondent Lupori, in his capacity as floor broker, had 

received for execution orders to sell and orders to buy July 1972 soybean 

futures for the accounts of various customers. Respondent Coyne accommodated 

respondent Lupori by executing the transactions, listed below, in a 

noncompetitive manner with respondent Lupori, which resulted in respondent 

Lupori taking the opposite side of customers' orders for his (Lupori's) own 

account, without prior consent of such customers. 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Account for Whom 

Bought Sold Lupori Traded 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-2-72 5 3.47-5/8 Lupori error account 

5-2-72 5 3.47-5/8 Continental Customer 12103

5-8-72 5 3.54 Continental Customer 13325

5-8-72 5 3.54 Lupori 

5-9-72 5 3.52-1/8 Lupori 

5-9-72 5 3.52-1/8 Continental Customer 12103

5-17-72 5 3.59-1/4 Lupori error account 5-17-72 5 3.59-1/4 Continental Customer 1150

5-17-72 5 3.60 Lupori 5-17-72 5 3.60 duPont Customer 418600590

5-18-72 10 3.59 Continental Customer 20350

5-18-72 10 3.59 Lupori 5-22-72 10 3.56-7/8 Continental Customer 31546 &

33912

5-22-72 10 3.56-7/8 Lupori 
Page 4 

See original document-page 4 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Customer 

Bought Sold (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-22-72 10 3.57-1/4 Lupori 

5-22-72 10 3.57-1/4 duPont Customer 634410997

5-22-72 5 3.56-1/4 Lupori 

5-22-72 5 3.56-1/4 Continental Customer 33912

6. On May 18 and 19, 1972, respondent Lupori gave to respondent Coyne orders 

for the sale of July 1972 soybean futures to be made for respondent Lupori's 

account. Thereafter, respondent Lupori acting for customers bought from 

respondent Coyne July 1972 soybean futures, as listed below, with the result 

that respondent Lupori was able to take the opposite side of his customers' 

orders without the prior consent of such customers. 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Customer 

Bought Sold 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

5-18-72 10 3.60 Continental Customer 18567

5-18-72 5 3.60-1/2 Continental Customer 27832

5-19-72 15 3.60-3/8 Continental Customer 24540

7. On May 17 and 22, 1972, respondent Lupori prepared and turned in trading 

cards, to various futures commission merchants, purporting to show that he had 

executed the transactions in July 1972 soybean futures, as listed below, for the 

customers of such futures commission merchants, whereas, in fact, no such 

transactions actually had taken place, but, rather, respondent Lupori merely 

"carded" such transactions and took the opposite side thereof into his own 

account. 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Opposite

Bought Sold Customer Broker &

Customer

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 

5-17-72 5 3.61-1/8 Continental 16311 Lupori

5-17-72 5 3.61-1/8 duPont 48845869-21 Lupori

5-22-72 10 3.58 Continental 28408 Lupori

8. On May 17 and 22, 1972, respondent Lupori prepared and turned in several 

trading cards, to various futures commission merchants, which cards were 

endorsed by respondent Lupori to show the initials "AL" for the opposite 

executing floor broker, whereas, in fact, there was no such opposite executing 

floor broker, and respondent Lupori merely "carded" such transaction. 

CONCLUSIONS

By reason of the facts set forth above, Richard D. Lupori wilfully violated 

sections 4b and 4c of the Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 6b and 6c) and sections 1.35, 1.38 

and 1.39 of the regulations thereunder (17 CFR §§ 1.35, 1.38 and 1.39). 

The complainant states that Administrative Officials of the Commodity 

Exchange Authority have carefully considered the stipulation submitted by the 

respondent. The Administrative Officials believe that the prompt entry of the 

proposed order would constitute a satisfactory disposition of this case as to 

respondent Lupori, serve the public interest and effectuate the purposes of the 

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

and the proposed order be issued. 

ORDER

Effective twenty days from the date of service of this Order: 
Page 5 

1. The registration of respondent Richard D. Lupori as floor broker under the 

Commodity Exchange Act is hereby revoked, and 

2. The respondent Richard D. Lupori is prohibited from trading in commodities 

as defined in section 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 2) on or 

subject to the rules of any contract market for a period of one year and all 

contract markets shall refuse all such trading privileges to respondent Lupori 

during this period. Such prohibition and refusal shall apply to all such 

trading done and positions held directly by the respondent, Richard D. Lupori, 

either for his own account or as the agent or representative of any other person 

or firm, and also to all such trading done through, and to all positions held 

indirectly by persons or firms owned wholly or in substantial amount by said 

respondent, or in any way subject to his discretion or control, wholly or 

substantially. 

Effective upon the date of service of this order the respondent. Richard D. 

Lupori, shall cease and desist from: 

1. Making trades on or subject to the rules of a contract market otherwise 

than by open and competitive methods; 

2. Trading on or subject to the rules of a contract market in a 

noncompetitive manner, which trades result in the crossing of customer's order; 

3. Taking the opposite side of customer orders without the prior consent of 

such customer; and 

4. "Carding transactions" and submitting trading cards which are endorsed to 

show an opposite executing floor broker, when, in fact, there is no such 

opposite executory floor broker. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on the respondent and on 

each contract market. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 6