Office of Proceedings 

In the Matter of: 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

www.cltc.gov 

* 

* 

* 

Office of Proceedings 

Proceedings Clerk 

12:47 pm, Sep 08, 2014 

iFIN1X FUTURES, INOORPORATED, 

RfPtrant 

* 

* CITC Docket No. SD 14-02 

Before: 

Appearances: 

Introduction 

* 

* 

INITIAL DECISION ON DEFAULT 

Philip V. McGuire, 

Office of Proceedings 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Washington, D.C. 

Lara Turcik, Esq., Trial Attorney 

Douglas K. Yatter, Esq., Trial Attorney 

. Manal Sultan, Deputy Director 

Division of Enforcement, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

NewYork,NY 

This is a proceeding to revoke the registration of iFinix Futures, Inc., pursuant to 

Section 8a(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. §8a(2)(20t2), and 

Commission rules g.6o(g) and 10.93, 17 C.F.R. §§ g.6o(g) and 10.93 (2014). iFinix 

Futures, Incorporated ('U'lnix')is registered as an introducing broker. By motion dated 

April go, 2014, the Commission's Division of Enforcement ("Division") has moved for 

entry of a default judgment against iFinix based on its failure to answer, or otherwise to 
appear or respond to, the Commission's "Notice of Intent to Revoke the Registration of 

iFinix Futures, Inc." ("Notice"). In this connection, on February 25, 2014, the 

Commission's Proceedings Clerk had served the Commission's Notice on iFinix, and its 

owner and listed principal Benhope Munroe ("Munroe''), at their last registered 

addresses. 1 Thus, iFinix was properly served pursuant to CFTC rule 3.50.2 

The Commission's Notice alleges that iFinix is subject to statutory 

disqualification from Commission registration based on the "Order for Entry of 

Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, and Civil Monetary Penalty Against 

Defendants iFinix Futures, Inc. and Benhope Marlon Munroe," entered on September 16, 

2013 by the Honorable Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of New York in CFTC v. iFinix Futures, Inc. and Benhope Marlon Munroe, Case 

No. 12-CV-4843 (E.D.N. Y.) ("Order"). As described in more detail in the findings 

below, the Court's Order found, inter alia, that Munroe controlled the operations of 

iFinix, and that iFinix and Munroe willfully made false statements and provided 

multiple falsified bank account statements to the National Futures Association during 

1 The CFrC Proceedings Clerk served the Notice, by certified mail, on iFinix at iFinix's Plainview, New 

York address listed with the National Futures Association, and in care of Benhope Marlon Munroe, who is 

listed as a principal and owner of iFinix, at his New Milford, Connecticut address. On March 6, 2014, the 

U.S. Post Office returned to the CFrC the package addressed to iFinix's Plainview, NY address marked 

"Not deliverable as addressed unable to forward." The Notice addressed to Munroe's New Milford, CT 

address was returned marked "unclaimed" by the U.S. Post Office on March 31, 2014. 2 Pursuant to CFrC rule 3.30(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.3o(a) (2014), the address of each registrant as submitted on 

its application for registration or as submitted on the biographical supplement shall be deemed to be the 

address for delivery to the registrant for any communications from the Commission, including any 

summons, complaint, notice and other written documents or correspondence, unless the registrant 

specifies another address for this purpose. CFrC rule 3.30(b), 17 C.F.R. § 3.3o(b) (2014), provides that 

each registrant, while registered and for two years after the termination of registration, must notify the 

National Futures Association ("NFA") of any change of address, and that failure to do so may result in an 

order of default in any Commission or NFA proceedings. Moreover, pursuant to CFrC rule 3.50, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 3.50 (2014), for purposes of an action for the denial, suspension or revocation of registration, service 

upon a registrant will be sufficient if mailed by registered mail or certified mail return receipt requested 

properly addressed to the registrant at the address shown on his application or any amendment thereto, 

and will be complete upon mailing. 

2 
its audit of iFinix in order to conceal iFinix's failure to maintain adequate capital, in 

violation of Section 9(a)(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4). The Court's Order also 

imposed a permanently injunction and civil monetary penalty. 

iFinix did not respond to the Commission's Notice. Therefore, on April 2, 2014, 

I issued a Default Notice finding that iFinix was in default, and setting deadlines for the 

Division to file a motion for entry of a default judgment and for iFinix to file any 

opposition to the Division's motion.3 iFinix similarly did not respond to the Default 

Notice or to the Division's motion. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for entry of a default 

judgment. 

As a result of its default, iFinix has waived a hearing on all of the issues and 

is precluded from introducing evidence of mitigation and rehabilitation which is 

necessary to rebut the strong presumption of unfitness for registration created by the 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and sanctions in the Order. As a result, the 

well-plead allegations in the Notice, as augmented by the evidence, and the proposed 

findings and conclusions in the Division's motion, are deemed true and conclusive for 

purposes of finding that iFinix is statutorily disqualified from registration under 

Sections 8a(2)(C), (E) and (H) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 12a(2)(C), (E) and (H). Thus, as set out below, the Division's motion has been 

granted, iFinix has been found to be unfit for registration and statutorily disqualified 

from registration, and the registration of iFinix has been revoked. 

3 The Default Notice was served on iFinix in care of Munroe at his New Milford, CT address. 

3 
Findings of Fact 

1. iFinix Futures, Incorporated (''iFinix"), formerly known as Pro Active Futures, 

Incorporated, a Delaware corporation located in Plainview, New York, has been registered 

since October 2001 as an independent introducing broker, pursuant to Section 4d of the 

Act, 7 U .S.C. § 6d. 

2. Benhope Marlon Munroe ("Munroe"), whose last known address was in New 

Milford, Connecticut, controlled the operations of iFinix. He holds a more than 10% 

ownership interest in the firm and is its Chief Financial Officer. He is also the chief 

executive officer and chief financial officer of its parent corporation. Munroe has been 

designated with the National Futures Association as a principal of iFinix since September 

24, 2008. He is not registered with the Commission. 

3. On September 27, 2012, the Commission filed a federal civil injunctive action 

against iFinix and Munroe. CFTCv. iFinix Futures, Inc. and Benhope Marlon 

Munroe, Case No. 12-CV-4843 (E.D.N.Y.) ("CFTC v. iFinix'?. The CFTC's complaint 

alleged, inter alia, that iFinix and Munroe made false statements and submitted falsified 

documents to the NFA in violation of Section 9(a)(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4). 

4· On September 16, 2013, in CFTC v. iFinix, the Honorable Judge Leonard D. 

Wexler ofthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered an "Order for 

Entry of Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, and Civil Monetary Penalty Against 

Defendants iFinix Futures, Inc. and Benhope Marlon Munroe'' ("Order"). In that Order, 

the Court found, inter alia, that that the NFA is a futures association registered pursuant 

to Section 17 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 21, and that Munroe and iFinix willfully produced 

falsified bank statements, made materially false statements, and concealed material 

information, to the NFA during an NFA audit, which was conducted in furtherance of the 

4 
NFA's official duties under the Act. The Court concluded that by engaging in this conduct, 

Munroe and iFinix violated Section 9(a)(4) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4).4 

The Court permanently restrained iFinix and Munroe from: (a) willfully falsifying, 

concealing, or covering up by any trick, scheme, or artifice a material fact, making any 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or making or using any false 

writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement or entry to a registered entity, board of trade, swap data repository, or futures 

association acting in furtherance of their official duties, in violation of Section 9(a)(4) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4); (b) 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; and/or (c) trading 

subject to the rules of any registered entity, entering into transactions involving 

Commission-regulated products or having such products traded on their behalf, 

controlling or directing the trading of such products on behalf of any other person or 

entity, soliciting or receiving or accepting funds for the purpose of purchasing or selling 

such products, applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

Commission, and/ or acting as a principal, agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

person, registered, exempted from registration or required to be registered with the 

Commission. The Court also ordered iFinix to pay a civil monetary penalty of over 1.2 

million plus post-judgment interest. 

4 The Complaint additionally charged, and the Court's Order found, that iFinix failed to meet certain 

minimum financial requirements in violation of Section 4f(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6f(b), and Commission 

Regulations 1.12(a), 1.17(a), and 1.18(a) & (b), 17 C.F.R. § § 1.12(a), 1.17(a), and uS( a) and (b). 

5 
Discussion and Conclusions of Law 

Section 8a(2) presumption of unfitness 

Section 8a(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a(2) (2012), sets out eight grounds for 

denial, suspension or revocation of registration, known customarily as "statutory 

disqualifications." According to the relevant House Agriculture Committee Report, each 

Section 8a(2) disqualification involves a previous formal determination by a court, or 

the Commission or other government agency, that a person or firm has engaged in 

conduct involving "especially grave offenses that are clearly related to a person's [or 

firm's] fitness for registration with the Commission." H.R. report No. 97-565, Part I at 

so (May 17, 1982). The report further explained that, since each Section 8a(2) 

disqualification is based upon a previous finding or order by a court, or the Commission 

or other governmental body, "whether or not a person is subject to such a 

disqualification generally is readily ascertainable by checking officially maintained 

records." Id. 

In conjunction with the Commission's Part 3 rules, a Section 8a(2) 

disqualification generally operates as a strong presumption that a person or firm is 

conclusively unfit to do business in a relevant registered capacity. The Commission has 

noted that the strong presumption of unfitness for registration under Section 8a(2) of 

the Act rests on the common-sense inference that once an individual or firm has 

undertaken serious wrongdoing - as it has been amply demonstrated here that iFinix 

and its owner Benhope Munroe have done - a substantial risk exists that the individual 

or firm will undertake similar wrongdoing in the future. See In re Akar, Comm. Fut. L. 

Rep. 1122, 297 (CFI'C February 24, 1986). The strong presumption of unfitness can be 

rebutted by a convincing showing that allowing a person or firm to become or remain 

6 
registered will not pose a risk to the public, including, for example, mitigating 

circumstances, rehabilitation, or close supervision by another registrant. See 

Commission rules 3.6o(b)(2)(i) and 3.6o(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(C), 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.6o(b)(2)(i) and 

3.6o(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(C) (2014). By defaulting, iFinix has precluded itself from presenting 

such rebuttal evidence. 

Section 8a(2)(C) of the Act 

Section 8a(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a(2)(C) (2012), in relevant part, 

authorizes the Commission to revoke the registration of any person 11if such person is 

permanently or temporarily enjoined by order, judgment, or decree of any court of 

competent jurisdiction ... including an order entered pursuant to an agreement of 

settlement to which the Commission ... is a party, from ... (i) acting as a futures 

commission merchant, introducing broker, floor broker, floor trader, commodity 

trading advisor, commodity pool operator, [or] associated person of any registrant 

under this Act ... or (ii) engaging in or continuing any activity when such activity 

involves ... fraud .... 11 Here, cause exists for statutory disqualification of iFinix pursuant 

to Section 8a(2)(C) because the Order in CFFC v. iFinix, which was entered by the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a court of competent 

jurisdiction: one, permanently enjoins iFinix from trading and from seeking reregistration; and two, permanently enjoins iFinix from committing fraud in violation of 

the Act and Commission rules. 

Section 8a(2)(E) of the Act 

Section 8a(2)(E) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a(2)(E) (2012), in relevant part, 

authorizes the Commission to revoke the registration of any person "if such person, 

7 
within ten years preceding the filing of the application [for registration] or any time 

thereafter, has been found in a proceeding brought by the Commission ... (i) to have 

violated any provision of [the] Act... where such violation involves ... fraud [or] 

misappropriation of funds ... " Here, cause exists pursuant to Section 8a(2)(E), because 

the Order in CFTC v. iFinix found iFinix to have violated Section 9(a)(4) of the 

Act for conduct involving the making of false statements and submitting false 

documents to NFA. 

Section Ba(2)(H) of the Act 

Section 8a(2)(H) of the Act, 7 U .S.C. § 12a(2)(H) (2012), in relevant part, 

authorizes the Commission to revoke the registration of any person if "revocation of the 

registration of any principal of such person would be warranted because of a statutory 

disqualification listed in this paragraph." Section 8a(2)(H) of the Act further provides that 

the term "principal," as used in Section 8a(2) of the Act, includes a general partner of a 

partnership or a person who owns more than 10% of the voting shares of a corporation. 

Because Benhope Munroe is listed with the Commission as a principal of iFinix, owns a 

more than 10% financial interest in iFinix, and the refusal, suspension, or revocation of 

his registration would be warranted pursuant to Sections 8a(2)(C), and (E) of the Act, 

iFinix's registration is also subject to revocation pursuant to Section 8a(2)(H) of the Act. 

8 
ORDER 

iFinix is statutorily disqualified from registration under Sections 8a(2)(C), (E) 

and (H) of the Commodity Exchange Act. Accordingly: one, the Division's motion for 

entry of a default judgment is hereby granted; two, iFinix is found conclusively unfit for 

registration; and three, the registration of iFinix is hereby revoked. 

Dated September 8, 2014. 

-LJ)-/._f/ M {) ~ 

P~~Guire, Judgment Officer 

9