Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JEAN GOLDWURM, JULA GOLDWURM, IRA HAUPT AND COMPANY, IRVING WEIS, AND 

IRVING WEIS AND COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 38 

DATE: MAY 7, 1946 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re Jean Goldwurm, Jula Goldwurm, Ira Haupt and Company. Irving Weis, and 

Irving Weis and Company Respondents 

CE-A Docket No. 38 

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

Act 

There being reason to believe that the respondents have violated the 

Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Secs. 1-17a), and the rules and regulations 

promulgated pursuant thereto, this complaint is issued alleging the following: 

1. 

Jean Goldwurm and Jula Goldwurm are individuals residing at Hotel Alden, 225 

Central Park, West, New York, New York. 

2. 

Ira Haupt and Company is a partnership doing business at 111 Broadway, New 

York, New York, and was at the times hereinafter mentioned and is now registered 

as a futures commission merchant under the provisions of the Commodity Exchange 

Act. 

3. 

Irving Weis and Company is a partnership doing business at 60 Beaver Street, 

New York, New York, and was at the times hereinafter mentioned and is now 

registered as a futures commission merchant under the provisions of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. 

4. 

Irving Weis is an individual and a member of the partnership of Irving Weis 

and Company doing business at 60 Beaver Street, New York, New York, and was at 

the times hereinafter mentioned and is new registered as a floor broker under 

the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

5. 

Irving Weis, on numerous occasions during the period covered by this 

complaint, acted as floor broker in the execution of cotton futures transactions 

for Ira Haupt and Company, which transactions were for the accounts of Jean and 

Jula Goldwurm, customers of Ira Haupt and Company. The brokerage fees received 

by Irving Weis for the execution of these transactions accrued to the benefit of 

the partnership of Irving Weis and Company. 

6. 

The New York Cotton Exchange is a duly designated contract market under the 

provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. 
Page 2 

7. 

The respondents, during the times and by means of the actions set forth 

herein, entered into and confirmed the execution of transactions in cotton 

futures contracts which were of the character of "wash sales" and fictitious 

sales. 

8. 

(a) On July 19, 1944, Jean and Jula Goldwurm caused the execution of a 

purchase of 1,200 bales of March cotton futures on the New York Cotton Exchange 

at 21.24 cents per pound against a simultaneous sale of 1,200 bales of March 

cotton futures on the New York Cotton Exchange at 21.23 cents per pound. These 

transactions were made for and entered in, the Jean and Jula Goldwurm joint 

account on the records of Ira Haupt and Company. 

(b) In the execution of the purchase and sale described in 8(a) above Irving 

Weis acted as floor broker in the purchase at 21.24 cents and the sale at 21.23 

cents, while Eugene R. Burnett acted as floor broker and principal on the 

opposite sides of each of the transactions, resulting in a sale of 1,200 bales 

at 21.24 and a purchase of 1,200 bales at 21.23 being entered in the "Burnett 

clearance account" on the records of Irving Weis and Company. 

9. 

(a) On July 19, 1944, Jean and Jula Goldwurm caused the execution of a 

purchase of 1,200 bales of December cotton futures on the New York Cotton 

Exchange at 21.35 cents per pound against the simultaneous sale of 1,200 bales 

of December cotton futures on the New York Cotton Exchange at 21.34 cents per 

pound. These transactions were made for, and entered in the Jean and Jula 

Goldwurm Joint account on the records of Ira Haupt and Company. 

(b) In the execution of the purchase and sale described in 9(a) above Irving 

Weis acted as floor broker in the purchase at 21.35 cents and the sale at 21.34 

cents, while Robert W. Sigel acted as floor broker and principal on the opposite 

sides of each of the transactions resulting in a sale at 21.35 and a purchase at 

21.34 being entered in the "Sigel clearance account" on the records of Irving 

Weis and Company. 

10. 

(a) On November 16, 1944, Jean and Jula Goldwurm caused the execution of a 

purchase of 1,000 bales of December cotton futures on the New York Cotton 

Exchange at 21.74 cents per pound against a simultaneous sale of 1,000 bales of 

December cotton futures on the New York Cotton Exchange at 21.74 cents per 

pound. These transactions were made for and entered in, the Jean and Jula 

Goldwurm Joint account on the records of Ira Haupt and Company. 

(b) In the execution of the purchase and sale described in 10(a) above Irving 

Weis acted as floor broker on both sides of the transaction, the purchase for 

the Goldwurm account being the opposite end of the sale for the same account. 

11. 

(a) On October 10, 1945, Jean and Jula Goldwurm caused the execution of the 

purchase of 1,600 bales of October cotton futures on the New York Cotton 

Exchange at 23.14 cents per pound against a 

simultaneous sale of 1,600 bales of October cotton futures on the New York 

Cotton Exchange at 23.13 cents per pound. These transactions were made for, and 

entered in, the accounts of Jean and Jula Goldwurm on the records of Ira Haupt 

and Company. 

(b) In the execution of the purchase and sale described in 11(a) above Irving 

Weis acted as floor broker in the purchase at 23.14 cents and the sale at 23.15, 
Page 3 

while Perry Moore acted as floor broker for the account of his firm, Robert 

Moore and Company, in the purchase of 1,000 bales at 25.15 cents, and the sale 

of 1,000 bales at 23.14 cents with Robert W. Sigel acting as floor broker and 

principal in the purchase of the remaining 600 bales at 23.13 cents and the sale 

of 600 bales at 23.14 cents. 

12. 

All of the transactions in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 above were of the 

character of "wash sales" and fictitious sales. 

13. 

Jean and Jula Goldwurm caused the simultaneous purchases and sales described 

in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 above to be applied against certain other 

purchases and sales in their accounts in a manner which resulted in profits 

appearing to be realized from transactions which had been in existence for more 

than six months, when as a matter of fact such profits were actually realized 

from transactions which had been in existence for less than six months. For 

example, the purchase of 1,200 bales of December cotton futures contracts at 

21.35 cents per pound on July 19, 1944, was applied against a sale of 1,200 

bales of December cotton futures contracts at 20.69 cents per pound on June 15, 

1944, while 1,000 bales of the sale at 21.34 made on July 19, 1944, were applied 

against a purchase of 1,000 bales at 21.74 on November 16, 1944, and the 

remaining 200 bales of the July 19, 1944, sale were applied against a purchase 

of 200 bales at 21.58 on November 21, 1944. The sale of 1,000 bales of December 

contracts at 21.74 on November 16, 1944, was applied against a purchase of 1,000 

bales at 19.59 on May 1, 1944. By this means of applying the purchases and 

sales described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above the Goldwurm account was caused to 

show a loss of $ 4,520 as occurring on July 19, 1944, from a transaction 

originating on June 15, 1944; a loss of $ 2,300 on November 16 from a 

transaction originating on July 19, 1944 a loss of $ 300 on November 21, 1944, 

from a transaction originating on July 19, 1944; and a "long-term" profit of $ 

10,450 on November 16, 1944, from a transaction originating on May 1, 1944. 

With the elimination of the "wash sales" occurring on July 19, 1944, and 

November 16, 1944, and the application of the remaining transactions in the 

order of their execution the Goldwurm account would show a profit of $ 5,200 on 

June 15, 1944, from a transaction originating on May 1, 1944, and a loss of $ 

950 on November 21, 1944, from a transaction originating on June 15, 1944. The 

net profit, as shown 

when the "wash transactions" are considered, amounts to $ 3,530, while the 

elimination of the "wash transactions" results in a net profit of $ 4,250. The 

difference of $ 720 consists of $ 660 commission paid on the "wash trades" and $ 

60 loss due to the one point difference on the transaction of 1,200 bales of 

July 19, 1944. 

Therefore, each of the said respondents is hereby notified to be and appear 

at a hearing to be held at 10:00 o'clock a.m. Eastern Standard Time on the 10th 

day of June, 1946 in Room 602, 60 Beaver Street, New York, New York, before a 

referee to be designated by the Secretary of Agriculture p to conduct such 

hearing, and then and there show cause, if any there be, why an order should not 

be made directing that, until further notice of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

all contract markets refuse all trading privileges to each of such respondents, 

and further, suspending or revoking any registration of the respondents as 

futures commission merchants or floor brokers as the case may be. 

The respondents will have 20 days after the receipt of this notice of hearing 

in which to file with the Secretary of Agriculture an answer in triplicate, 

fully and completely stating the nature of the defense and admitting or denying 

specifically in detail each material and relevant allegation of this complaint. 
Page 4 

Any allegations that are not answered will be deemed admitted for the purpose of 

this proceeding. 

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

the named respondents by delivery of a true copy hereof to each of them by an 

employee of the Department of Agriculture or by registered mail at least 20 days 

prior to the date herein set for hearing. 

Done at Washington D. C., this 7th day of May, 1946 

/s/ CLINTON P. ANDERSON 

Secretary of Agriculture 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 5