Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 29 PageiD #: 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAFETY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 

(d/b/a "FOREXNPOWER"), GNS CAPITAL, 

INC. (d/b/a "FOREXNPOWER"), JOHN H. 

WON, SUNGMI KANG, and TAE HUNG KANG 

(a/l<la "KEVIN KANG"), 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-CV-5551 

ECF CASE 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE and 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, 

RESTITUTION and CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTIES UNDER 

THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE 

ACT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC" or "Commission"), by 

and through its attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

1. From at least October 2010 through December 2013 (the "Relevant Period"), 

Defendants John H. Won, Sungmi Kang, Tae Hung Kang (a/l<la "Kevin Kang"), Safety Capital 

Management, Inc. ("Safety") and GNS Capital, Inc. ("GNS") (collectively d/b/a 

"FOREXNPOWER"), directly or through their officers, employees or agents, while acting as 

commodity trading advisors ("CTAs") and commodity pool operators ("CPOs"), fraudulently 

solicited customers and prospective customers for the purpmied purpose of trading a pooled 

investment in connection with agreements, contracts, or transactions in off-exchange foreign 

currency ("forex") and/or to open retail forex accounts purportedly managed by either Safety or 

GNS. In furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, Defendants made material misrepresentations and 

omissions in solicitations to actual and prospective customers, including but not limited to falsely 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 29 PageiD #: 2 

guaranteeing 10% profits per month with no risk of loss. Rather than trading forex on their 

customers' behalf, Defendants misappropriated customers' funds for Defendants' personal use 

and benefit, and operated as a "Ponzi" scheme by paying customers from the funds of other 

customers. 

2. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through their 

officers, employees or agents, fraudulently solicited and accepted over $1.5 million from over 90 

customers, who were neither eligible contract participants ("ECPs") nor eligible commercial 

entities ("ECEs"), for both the forex commodity pool and individually managed retail forex 

accounts. 

3. Total deposits by Safety and GNS's pool participants into the forex commodity 

pool were approximately $718,000. Ofthis amount, Defendants Sungmi Kang and John Won 

misappropriated over $622,000 from at least 37 pool patiicipants, and used the funds for personal 

and business expenses rather than for forex trading. Total deposits by Safety and GNS's 

managed retail forex account customers were approximately $845,000 from at least 50 

customers. These retail forex customers lost a total of nearly $400,000 in these managed retail 

forex accounts, while Safety and GNS were compensated for purportedly managing and trading 

the accounts. 

4. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Tae Hung Kang personally solicited both 

individually managed retail forex account customers and forex pool patiicipants by, among other 

misrepresentations, making false guarantees of 1 O%vrofit per month without risk of loss when, 

in reality, Safety and GNS's customers had lost money in the forex commodity pool and in the 

managed retail forex accounts. 

2 
Case 1:15-cv-m-:;551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 29 PageiD #: 3 

5. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Safety and GNS also failed to operate the 

commodity pool as a separate legal entity- by receiving pool funds in Safety or GNS's name 

rather than the name of the commodity pool, and by commingling pool funds with non-pool 

property- and failed to register with the Commission as commodity pool operators ("CPOs") 

and commodity trading advisors ("CTAs"). 

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

either directly or as controlling persons, have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in 

acts and practices in violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4m(l), 

and 4Q(l)(A)-(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6m(l), and 6Q(l)(A)-(B)(2014), and Commission 

Regulations ("Regulations") 4.20(a)-(c), 5.2(b), and 5.3(a)(2)-(3), 17 C.P.R. §§ 4.20(a)-(c), 

5.2(b), and 5.3(a)(2)-(3). 

7. Moreover, in October 2014, Defendant GNS failed to respond to a Commission 

subpoena requesting documents. By this conduct, GNS violated Commission Regulation 1.31, 

17 C.P.R.§ 1.31 (2014). 

8. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Sungmi Kang, Tae Hung Kang, and John 

Won were officers, employees and agents of Safety. Therefore, Safety is liable for the acts and 

omissions of Sungmi Kang, Tae Hung Kang, and John Won done in the scope of their 

employment or office, pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B), and 

Regulation 1.2, 17 C.P.R. § 1.2. 

9. During the Relevant Period, Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang were 

officers, employees and agents of GNS. Therefore, GNS is liable for the acts and omissions of 

3 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 29 PageiD #: 4 

John Won and Sungmi Kang done in the scope of their employment or office, pursuant to 

Section 2(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.P.R.§ 1.2. 

10. Defendant Sungmi Kang was a controlling person of Safety throughout the 

Relevant Period and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced Safety's violations of the Act 

and Regulations described herein. Therefore, Sungmi Kang is liable for Safety's violations of 

the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

11. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang were controlling persons of GNS 

throughout the Relevant Period and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced GNS' s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Therefore, John Won and Sungmi Kang are liable for 

GNS's violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

13c(b). 

12. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c ofthe Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 

(2012), and Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) (2012), the Commission brings 

this action to enjoin Defendants' unlawful acts and practices, to compel their compliance with 

the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, and to enjoin them from engaging in any 

commodity related activity. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and 

remedial ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, restitution, 

disgorgement, rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the 

Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 

13. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants will likely continue to 

engage in acts and practices alleged in this Complaint and similar acts and practices, as described 

below. 

4 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 5 of 29 PageiD #: 5 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), authorizes the Commission to 

seek injunctive and other 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 any provision ofthe Act, or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

15. The CFTC has jurisdiction over the conduct and forex transactions at issue in this 

case pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C). 

16. Venue lies properly with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1 (e) (20 12), because Defendants resided and/or transacted business in this District, several 

defrauded customers reside in this District, and certain transactions, acts, practices, and courses 

of business alleged in this Complaint occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur in this 

District. 

III. THE PARTIES 

17. Plaintiff D. S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.P.R. §§ 1 et seq. 

18. Defendant Safety Capital Management, Inc., which did business as 

"FOREXNPOWER," is a New York corporation with its last known place of business at 216-19 

Northern Blvd., Suite 2, Bayside, NY 11361. Safety has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

19. Defendant GNS Capital, Inc., which also did business as "FOREXNPOWER," is 

a New York Corporation with its last known place of business at 216-19 Nmihern Blvd., Suite 2, 

Bayside, NY 11361. GNS had the same business address, employees, and agents as Safety. 

5 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 6 of 29 PageiD #: 6 

GNS has been registered with the Commission as aCTA and CPO from October 21, 2013 to the 

present. 

20. Defendant John H. Won is a resident of Queens, New York and President of 

GNS. John Won was also a Vice-President and Secretary of Safety. Since June 27, 2013, John 

Won has been listed by the National Futures Association ("NF A") as a principal and owner of 

GNS. Between August 2013 and February 2014, John Won was also registered with the 

Commission as an Associated Person ("AP") and Branch Manager of a registered Introducing 

Broker ("IB"). 

21. Defendant Sungmi Kang is a resident of Queens, New York and was the 

President of Safety and the Vice-President of GNS. Sungmi Kang has never been registered with 

the Commission in any capacity. 

22. Defendant Tae Hung Kang (a/Ida "Kevin Kang") is a resident of Queens, New 

York and was the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Safety. On information and belief, Tae 

Hung Kang is the husband of Sungmi Kang. Tae Hung Kang has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

23. Section 1a(11) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(ll), defines a CPO, in relevant part, as 

any person "engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, 

syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or 

receives from others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital 

contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of 

trading in commodity interests, including any ... agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

[S]ections 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or 2(c)(2)(D)(i) [of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or 2(c)(2)(D)(i)]." 

6 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 7 of 29 PageiD #: 7 

24. Section la(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(12), defines aCTA, in pertinent part, as 

any person who "for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others, either 

directly or through publications, writings, or electronic media, as to the value of or the 

advisability of trading in ... any agreement, contract, or transaction described in [S]ection 

2(c)(2)(C)(i) or 2(c)(2)(D)(i)la-1 [ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or 2(c)(2)(D)(i)1a-1]." 

25. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) and (vii) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i) and (vii), 

provides in pertinent part, and subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, that the 

Commission has jurisdiction over forex transactions if the transactions are offered to or entered 

into with a person that is not an ECP or ECE on a leveraged or margined basis, and the 

transactions do not result in actual delivery within two days or otherwise create an enforceable 

obligation to make/take delivery in connection with the parties' line of business. 

26. Section 1a(l8)(xi) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(l8)(xi), 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. Section 1a(l7) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(l7), defines an ECE as an ECP that 

meets certain additional requirements, both financially and in its business. 

27. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(l)(cc) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

2( c )(2)(C)(iii)(l)( cc ), and subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, an entity must be 

registered pursuant to Commission regulation in order to operate or solicit funds for any pooled 

investment in connection with forex transactions. 

28. Pursuant to Commission Regulation 5.1 (d)(l), 17 C.F .R. § 5.1 ( d)(l ), and subject 

to certain exceptions not relevant here, any person who operates or solicits funds, securities or 

7 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 8 of 29 PageiD #: 8 

property for a pooled investment vehicle and engages in retail forex transactions is defined as a 

retail forex CPO. 

29. Regulation 5.1(e)(l), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.1(e)(l), defines a retail forex CTA as any 

person who exercises discretionary trading authority or obtains written authorization to exercise 

discretionary trading authority over any account for or on behalf of any person that is not an 

ECP, in connection with retail forex transactions. Regulation 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.P.R. § 

5.3(a)(3)(i), requires any retail forex CTA, as defined by Regulation 5.1(e)(l), to register with 

the Commission as aCTA. 

30. Regulation 5.1(i), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.1(i), defines a retail forex account as the account 

of a person who is not an ECP, established with a retail foreign exchange dealer or a futures 

commission merchant, in which account retail forex transactions (including options on contracts 

for the purchase or sale of foreign currency) with such retail foreign exchange dealer or futures 

commission merchant as counterparty are undertaken, or which account is established in order to 

enter into such transactions. 

31. A futures commission merchant ("PCM") is defined in Section la(28) of the Act, 

in pertinent part, as any individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust that engaged in 

soliciting or accepting orders for any agreement, contract, or transaction described in Section 

2(c)(2)(C)(i) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i). 

32. Regulation 5.l(k), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.1(k), defines a retail forex customer as a person, 

other than an ECP, acting on its own behalf and trading in any account, agreement, contract or 

transaction described in Sections 2(c)(2)(B) or 2(c)(2)(C) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(B) or 

2(c)(2)(C). 

8 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 9 of 29 PageiD #: 9 

33. Regulation 5.1(m), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.1(m), defines a retail forex transaction as any 

account, agreement, contract or transaction described in Sections 2(c )(2)(B) or 2( c )(2)(C) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(B) or 2(c)(2)(C). A retail forex transaction does not include an account, 

agreement, contract or transaction in foreign currency that is a contract of sale of a commodity 

for future delivery (or an option thereon) that is executed, traded on or otherwise subject to the 

rules of a contract market designated pursuant to section 5(a) of the Act. 

V. FACTS 

A. Defendants' Fraudulent Solicitation and Misappropriation 

34. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS (collectively d/b/a 

FOREXNPOWER), by and through their officers, employees or agents, fraudulently solicited 

customers and potential customers to invest in a commodity pool for forex trading and/or to open 

retail forex trading accounts purportedly managed by Safety and GNS. The fraudulent 

solicitation included, but was not limited to, misrepresentations by the Defendants that 

FOREXNPOWER had a "secret trading method" called ASET that guaranteed customers would 

obtain a "monthly profit rate of 1 0%;" that investors "will not lose their money at all, not even 

$1 ;" and that customers would make $100,000 with only a $500 investment. These 

misrepresentations of guaranteed profits and no risk were false and misleading, as none of 

Defendants' customers had ever obtained 10% monthly profits, and many of the customers 

experienced large losses. 

35. Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through their officers, employees or agents, 

made the misrepresentations in advertisements placed in Korean language newspapers, on their 

website www .forexnpower.com, in written solicitation materials, and at seminars they hosted in 

Queens, New York. 

9 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 10 of 29 PageiD #: 10 

36. At the seminars that Defendants Safety and GNS hosted during the Relevant 

Period, their principals, employees and agents, including Defendant Tae Hung Kang, made 

similar fraudulent statements to customers and prospective customers. 

37. For example, on or about March 15, 2012, Defendant Tae Hung Kang solicited 

pool participants and retail forex customers at a FOREXNPOWER seminar and represented that 

he was the CEO of the company and that the ASET program would in 5 years turn a $3,000 

investment into over $900,000 in profits. 

38. On another occasion, in or around the summer of2012, Defendant Tae Hung 

Kang, again representing himself as the CEO ofFOREXNPOWER, falsely stated to a customer 

that the company had yielded 10% profits per month and encouraged the customer to invest 

because this was a "lifetime opportunity" and the customer should "not miss out." After this 

customer invested, he requested a withdrawal. Tae Hung Kang told the customer that he could 

pay the customer back in few weeks because the company was expecting an investment from 

another investor. This latter representation is consistent with a Ponzi scheme in which investors 

are paid with other investors' money. 

39. In yet another false solicitation, in an email dated January 11, 2013, Defendants 

Safety and GNS, using the d/b/a FOREXNPOWER, by and through their officers, employees or 

agents, represented to customers that during the entire month of December 2012, all their 

managed forex trading accounts had made a profit of 10% on average. On the contrary, during 

this period, the majority ofFOREXNPOWER'S managed retail forex customer accounts lost 

money. 

40. Through the false solicitations described above, Defendants Safety and GNS, by 

and through their officers, employees, and agents, fraudulently solicited and obtained 

10 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 11 of 29 PageiD #: 11 

approximately $718,000 from at least 37 persons to invest in a forex commodity pool. The 

majority of pool funds were deposited into Safety's bank account (which was controlled by 

Defendant Sungmi Kang). GNS also received in its bank account (controlled by Defendants 

John Won and Sungmi Kang) at least $50,000 from a pool participant. 

41. Defendant Sungmi Kang was the sole signatory of Safety's bank account. 

Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang were both signatories on GNS's bank account. 

42. Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through their officers, employees or agents, 

represented to pool participants that they would use pool funds to trade retail off-exchange forex 

transactions on behalf of the participants. In fact, the majority of pool funds were not used for 

forex trading but for Defendants' personal and business expenses. 

43. Defendants Sungmi Kang and John Won, through their control over Safety's and 

GNS's bank accounts, misappropriated over $622,000 in pool participants' funds for personal 

and business expenses, including cash withdrawals, checks to their personal bank accounts, 

entertainment and meals, and Ponzi payments (i.e., payments of purported trading profits to 

investors using funds of other investors). In total, Defendants Safety and GNS, collectively, paid 

at least $80,000 in Ponzi payments. 

44. Defendants, either directly or as controlling persons, did not disclose to the pool 

patticipants that the majority of their funds were actually misappropriated and never used for 

forex trading. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang knew or should have known the majority 

of pool funds were misappropriated and not used for forex trading because they controlled Safety 

and GNS' s bank accounts and trading. 

11 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 12 of 29 PageiD #: 12 

45. During the Relevant Period and using the same false solicitations described 

above, Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through their officers, employees and agents, also 

solicited retail customers to open managed forex trading accounts with an FCM. 

46. Safety and GNS received commissions for managing these retail forex accounts. 

47. All or nearly all of Safety and GNS 's retail forex customers were not ECEs or 

ECPs as defined by Sections la(17)-(18) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ la(17)-(18). 

48. Defendants Safety and GNS's retail forex customers deposited a total of 

approximately $845,000 into their managed retail forex accounts and lost nearly $400,000 

(including commissions and fees) through trading of retail forex transactions. At the same time, 

Safety and GNS made commissions on these managed retail forex accounts. 

B. Commingling Pool Funds and Failure to Operate Pool as Separate Entity 

49. Safety and GNS, while acting as CPOs, also failed to operate their commodity 

pool as a separate legal entity, and commingled pool funds with non-pool property by depositing 

pool funds into the bank accounts of Safety and GNS rather than a separate bank account for the 

pool. 

C. Defendants' Failure to Register With the Commission 

50. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through their 

officers, employees or agents, used the mails, emails, wire transfers, the FOREXNPOWER 

website, newspaper advertisements and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, 

to solicit pool participants and prospective pool participants, and misappropriated pool 

participants' funds that were deposited in bank accounts controlled by Safety and GNS. 

51. Safety was never registered as a CPO, and GNS became a registered CPO (and 

CTA) only on or about October 21, 2013. During the Relevant Period, Safety, and GNS (prior to 

12 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 13 of 29 PageiD #: 13 

its registration on or about October 21, 2013) acted as CPOs by soliciting and accepting pool 

funds. 

52. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS (during its unregistered period) were 

not statutorily exempt or excluded from registration as CPOs. Moreover, Safety and GNS never 

filed any electronic or written notice with NFA that they were exempt or excluded from 

registration as CPOs, as required by Commission Regulation 4.13(b )(1 ). 

53. In addition, Defendants Safety and GNS also acted as CTAs by collectively 

managing the retail forex trading accounts of at least 55 clients. 

54. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS acted as CTAs by providing retail 

forex trading advice for compensation or profit, and used the mails, emails, or other means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce to solicit retail forex customers and manage retail forex 

accounts. Safety had trading authority over at least five such client accounts and GNS had 

trading authority over at least 50 such client accounts. 

55. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS (prior to October 21, 2013) were not 

registered with the Commission as CTAs, nor were Safety and GNS exempt or excluded from 

registration as CTAs. Moreover, even ifthey were eligible for exemption or exclusion from 

registration, Safety and GNS never filed written or electronic notice with NF A that they were 

exempt or excluded from registration as CT As. 

D. Controlling Person Liability 

56. Defendant Sungmi Kang was a controlling person of Safety during the Relevant 

Period. Sungmi Kang was the President of Safety and was the sole signatory on Safety's bank 

account. Sungmi Kang also had trading authority over Safety's managed retail forex accounts. 

13 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 14 of 29 PageiD #: 14 

57. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Sungmi Kang did not act in good faith by 

misappropriating Safety customer funds or knowingly induced Safety, its officers, employees or 

agents, to make the misrepresentations described above about guaranteed profits without risk of 

loss. Sungmi Kang knew or should have known that Safety's customers had never obtained 10% 

profits per month and that she had been misappropriating customer funds. Sungmi Kang failed 

to remove or correct Defendants' misrepresentations and failed to disclose the misappropriation 

of customer funds. 

58. During the Relevant Period, Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang were 

controlling persons ofGNS. GNS was formed by John Won. John Won was the President and 

Sungmi Kang was the Vice-President of GNS. Both John Won and Sungmi Kang were 

signatories on GNS's bank account, and John Won had trading authority over the retail forex 

trading accounts managed by GNS. 

59. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang did not act in good faith by 

misappropriating GNS customer funds and depositing the funds into GNS' s bank account, or 

knowingly induced GNS and its officers, employees or agents to make the misrepresentations 

described above about guaranteed profits without risk of loss. John Won and Sungmi Kang 

knew or should have known that GNS's customers had never obtained 10% profits per month 

and that they had been misappropriating customer funds. John Won and Sungmi Kang failed to 

remove or correct Defendants' misrepresentations and failed to disclose the misappropriation of 

customer funds. 

E. GNS's Failure to Respond to a CFTC Subpoena 

60. In April2014, the Commission's Division ofEnforcement served, via UPS 

overnight delivery and email, an administrative subpoena (returnable on August 4, 2014) for 

14 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 15 of 29 PageiD #: 15 

documents on GNS, at both its registered business address and at the home address of Defendant 

John Won, GNS's President. At the time, GNS was registered with the Commission as a CPO 

and CT A and John Won was its principal. 

61. John Won verbally acknowledged to Commission staff that he had received the 

subpoena to GNS. However, GNS and its principal, John Won, failed to produce documents or 

otherwise respond to the Commission's subpoena, and John Won did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced GNS's failure to comply with the Commission subpoena. 

V. 	 VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND 

COMMISSION REGULATIONS 

COUNT ONE 

Violations of Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 


Regulation 5.2(b)(l) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l) and (3) 


(Commodities/Forex Fraud by Misrepresentations, Omissions, and Misappropriation) 


62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

63. Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and 

(C), makes it unlawful "for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the 

making of, any contract for sale of any commodity for future delivery ... that is made, or to be 

made, for or 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; ... (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 an order or contract for or, 

in the case of paragraph (2), with the other person." 

15 

Case 1:15-cv-05551 Docurnent 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 16 of 29 PageiD #: 16 

64. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 

2(c)(2)(C)(iv), Section 4b ofthe Act applies to the forex transactions described herein "as if' 

they were a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

65. Commission Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.2(b), provides, in relevant part, that 

"[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, by use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in or in connection with any retail forex transaction: 

(1) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; ... or (3) [w]illfully to deceive 

or attempt to deceive any person by any means whatsoever." 

66. Defendants Safety and GNS violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(l) and (3), 17 C.P.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3), by 

and through their officers, employees, and agents, by making false representations and omissions 

including but not limited to (1) misrepresenting to customers and pool participants or prospective 

customers and pool pa1ticipants that customers and participants were guaranteed to obtain 10% 

profits per month in connection with off-exchange retail forex transactions without risk of loss; 

(2) misrepresenting that customers and prospective customers would obtain $100,000 in profit 

from a $500 investment; and by (3) misappropriating customer funds for personal and business 

expenses rather than trading retail forex transactions and failing to disclose that customer funds 

had been misappropriated. 

67. In soliciting customers and pool participants of Defendants Safety and GNS, 

Defendant Tae Hung Kang directly violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and Commission Regulation 5.2(b)(l) and (3), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.2(b)(1) and 

(3), by falsely representing that Safety and GNS had and would obtain 10% profits per month 

16 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 17 of 29 PageiD #: 17 

without any risk of loss, when forex pool participants and retail forex customer accounts 

managed by the companies had never earned such profits and had in fact lost money. 

68. Defendants Sungmi Kang and John Won directly violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and 

(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and Commission Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 

C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l) and (3), by misappropriating funds of Safety and GNS's customers for 

personal and business expenses rather than for forex trading. 

69. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures occurred within the scope of John 

Won, Sungmi Kang, and Tae Hung Kang's employment or office with Safety and/or GNS. 

Therefore, Safety and GNS are liable for their acts, omissions, and failures pursuant to Section 

2(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B), and Commission Regulation 1.2, 17 

C.F.R. § 1.2. 

70. Defendant Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect control over 

Safety and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced Safety's violations of Sections 

4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and Commission Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and 

(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l) and (3). As a controlling person of Safety, Sungmi Kang is liable for. 

Safety's violations ofthe Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

13c(b). 

71. John Won and Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect control over 

GNS, and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced GNS 's violations of Sections 

4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and Commission Regulation 5.2(b)(l) and 

(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3). As controlling persons of GNS, John Won and Sungmi Kang 

are liable for GNS's violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) ofthe Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

17 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 18 of 29 PageiD #: 18 

72. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and misappropriation, 

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

violation of Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

COUNT TWO 

Violation of Section 4o(l)(A) -(B) of the Act, 7 U.S. C. § 6o(l)(A)-(B) 

(Fraud and Deceit by a CTA or CPO) 

73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

74. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS engaged in a business, for 

compensation or profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or 

similar form of enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or propetiy, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of 

stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity 

interests, including in relevant pati transactions in foreign currency. Therefore, Safety and GNS 

acted as CPOs as defined by Section la(ll) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(ll). 

75. An Associated Person ("AP") of a CPO is defined by Regulation 1.3(aa)(3) as any 

person who is a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any natural person occupying 

a similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which involves (i) the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a commodity pool or (ii) the 

supervision of any person or persons so engaged. An AP of a CT A is defined by Regulation 

1.3(aa)(4) as any person who is partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any natural 

person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which 

involves: (i) the solicitation of a client's or prospective client's discretionary account, or (ii) the 

supervision of any person or persons so engaged. During the Relevant Period, Defendants 

Sungmi Kang, Tae Hung Kang and John Won acted as APs of Safety and GNS. 

18 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filecl 09/24/15 Page 19 of 29 PageiD #: 19 

76. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS engaged in the business of advising 

others, for compensation or profit, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic 

media, as to the value of or the advisability of trading in any contract of sale of a commodity for 

future delivery, security futures products, forex contracts or swaps for compensation or profit. 

Therefore, Safety and GNS acted as CTAs as defined by Section 1a(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

la(12). 

77. During the Relevant Period, Safety, and GNS (prior to October 21, 2013), were 

not registered with the Commission as either CPOs or CTAs. 

78. Section 4Q(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(1), prohibits CTAs and CPOs, and APs of 

CTAs and CPOs, whether registered with the Commission or not, from using the mails or any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, from (A) employing 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or 

participant, and/or (B) engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated 

as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant. 

79. While acting as CPOs and CTAs, Defendants Safety and GNS, by and through 

their officers, agents or employees, knowingly or recklessly: (1) misrepresented to pool 

participants and retail forex clients that they were guaranteed to make 10% profits per month 

trading without risk of loss; (2) misrepresented to pool participants and retail forex customers 

that they would obtain $100,000 in profit on a $500 investment, among other misrepresentations; 

and (3) misappropriated customer funds; and ( 4) omitted to disclose these misappropriations. 

Therefore, Safety and GNS violated Section 4Q(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(1). 

80. As described above, Defendants Sungmi Kang and John Won, directly violated 

Section 4Q(l)(A)-(B), 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(1)(A)-(B), by misappropriating customer funds. Defendant 

19 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 20 of 29 PageiD #: 20 

Tae Hung Kang directly violated Section 4Q(1 )(A)-(B) by making false representations to 

customers and prospective customers. 

81. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures of Defendants John Won, Sungmi 

Kang, and Tae Hung Kang occurred within the scope of their employment or office with Safety 

and GNS. Therefore, Safety and GNS are liable for their acts, omissions, and failures pursuant 

to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B), and Regulation 1.2, 17 

C.P.R.§ 1.2. 

82. Defendant Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect control over 

Safety and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced Safety's violations of Section 

4Q(l)(A)-(B), 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(l)(A)-(B). As a controlling person of Safety, Sungmi Kang is liable 

for Safety's violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b). 

83. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect 

control over GNS, and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced GNS's violations of 

Section 4Q(l)(A)-(B), 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(l)(A)-(B). As controlling persons of GNS, John Won and 

Sungmi Kang are liable for GNS's violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 

13(b) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

84. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and misappropriation, 

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

violation of Section 4Q(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6Q(l). 

20 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 21 of 29 PageiD #: 21 

COUNT THREE 

Violation of Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(l)(aa)-(cc) of the Act, 7 U.S. C. § 


2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(l)(aa)-( cc) 


(Violation of Retail Forex Prohibitions) 


85. Paragraphs 1 through 84 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

86. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa), (bb) and (cc) prohibits a person, unless registered in 

the capacity as required in Commission rule, from soliciting or accepting orders from a non-ECP 

to conduct forex transactions, from exercising discretionary trading authority over forex 

transactions, or from operating or soliciting funds for a commodity pool in connection with 

transactions in foreign currencies. 

87. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Safety and GNS (prior to October 21, 

2013 for GNS) were not registered as a CPO or CTA, while they solicited or accepted forex 

trading orders, exercised trading discretion of forex accounts, and solicited funds for a 

commodity pool which engaged in forex transactions. Therefore, Defendants Safety and GNS 

were in violation of Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa), (bb) and ( cc) of the Act. 

88. Defendants Sungmi Kang and John Won are also liable for Safety's and GNS's 

violations as controlling persons pursuant to Section 13(b) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b ). 

COUNT FOUR 

Violation of Regulation 4.20(a)-(c); 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)-(c) 


(Failure to operate pool as separate entity; failure to receive investor funds in pool's 


name; commingling pool funds) 


89. Paragraphs 1 through 88 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

90. Commission Regulation 5.4, 17 C.P.R. § 5.4, states that Part 4 of the Regulations, 

17 C.P.R. §§ 4.1, et seq., apply to any person required to register as a CPO pursuant to Part 5 of 

the Regulations relating to forex transactions. 17 C.P.R. §§ 5.1, et seq. 

21 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 22 of 29 PageiD #: 22 

91. Commission Regulation 4.20(a), 17 C.P.R. § 4.20(a), requires a CPO, whether 

registered or not, to operate its commodity pool as a legal entity separate from that ofthe CPO. 

92. Commission Regulation 4.20(b), 17 C.P.R.§ 4.20(b), prohibits CPOs, whether 

registered or not, from receiving pool participants' funds in any name other than that ofthe pool. 

93. Commission Regulation 4.20(c), 17 C.P.R. § 4.20(c), prohibits a CPO, whether 

registered or not, from commingling the property of any pool it operates with the property of any 

other person. 

94. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS, while acting as CPOs, violated 

Commission Regulations 4.20(a)-(c), 17 C.P.R.§ 4.20(a)-(c), by: (1) failing to operate a 

commodity pool as a legal entity separate from Safety and/or GNS; (2) receiving pool 

participants' funds in the names of either Safety or GNS rather than the commodity pool; and (3) 

commingling the property of the pool with property of Defendants or others. 

95. Defendant Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect control over 

Safety and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced Safety's violations of 

Regulations 4.20(a)-(c), 17 C.P.R. § 4.20(a)-(c). As a controlling person of Safety, Sungmi 

Kang is liable for Safety's violations ofthe Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

96. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect 

control over GNS, and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced GNS's violations of 

Regulations 4.20(a)-(c), 17 C.P.R.§ 4.20(a)-(c). As controlling persons of GNS, John Won and 

Sungmi Kang are liable for GNS's violations ofthe Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 

13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

22 

Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 23 of 29 PageiD #: 23 

COUNT FIVE 

Violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l); Regulation 5.3(a)(2)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 


5.3(a)(2)-(3) 


(Failure to Register as Retail Forex CPOs and CTAs) 


97. Paragraphs 1 through 96 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

98. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS engaged in a business, for 

compensation or profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or 

similar form of enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of 

stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity 

interests, including in relevant part transactions in foreign currency. Therefore, Safety and GNS 

acted as CPOs as defined by Section 1a(11) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

99. During the Relevant Period, Safety, and GNS (prior to October 21, 2013), while 

using the mails or means of interstate commerce in connection with their business as CPOs, were 

not registered with the Commission as CPOs. Thus, Safety, and GNS (prior to October 21, 

2013), acted as unregistered CPOs in violation of Section 4m(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

100. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS solicited funds, securities, or 

property for a pooled investment vehicle from investors who were not eligible contract 

participants as defined by Section 1a(18) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18), and engaged in retail 

forex transactions (as defined by Regulation 5. 1(m), 17 C.P.R. § 5. 1(m)). Thus, Safety and GNS 

acted as CPOs engaged in retail forex transactions as defined by Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.P.R. 

5.1(d)(1), and were not otherwise exempt or excluded from registration as CPOs. Because 

Safety and GNS were not registered with the Commission as CPOs engaged in retail forex 

transactions, they violated Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.P.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i). 

23 

Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 24 of 29 PageiD #: 24 

101. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS engaged in the business of advising 

others, for compensation or profit, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic 

media, as to the value of or the advisability of trading in any contract of sale of a commodity for 

future delivery, security futures product, forex contract or swap for compensation or profit, thus 

Safety and GNS acted as CTAs as defined by Section 1a(12) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12). 

102. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS made use of the mails or other 

means of interstate commerce in connection with their CTA and CPO businesses and were not 

otherwise exempt or excluded from registration as CTAs or CPOs. Because Safety and GNS 

(prior to October 21, 2013) were not registered as CTAs, they violated Section 4m(l) ofthe Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(l). 

103. During the Relevant Period, Safety and GNS exercised discretionary trading 

authority over retail forex transactions of persons who were neither ECEs nor ECPs as defined 

by Section 1a(17) and (18) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(17) and (18), and thus acted as CTAs 

engaged in retail forex transactions as defined by Regulation 5.1 ( e )(1 ), 17 C.F .R. § 5.1 ( e )(1 ). 

Because Safety and GNS (prior to October 21, 2013) were not registered as retail forex CTAs or 

CPOs, they violated Regulation 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.P.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i). 

104. Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect control over Safety and either 

did not act in good faith or knowingly induced Safety's violations of Section 4m(l) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 6m(l), and Regulation 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.P.R.§ 5.3(a)(3)(i). As a controlling person 

pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Sungmi Kang is liable for Safety's 

violations of the Act and Regulations. 

105. Defendants John Won and Sungmi Kang held and exercised direct and indirect 

control over GNS, and either did not act in good faith or knowingly induced GNS's violations of 

24 
Case 1:Ei-cv-05551 Docurnent 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 25 of 29 PageiD #: 25 

Section 4m(l) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l), and Regulation 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.P.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i). 

As controlling persons ofGNS, John Won and Sungmi Kang are liable for GNS's violations of 

the Act and Regulations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

COUNT SIX 


Violation of Regulation 1.31, 17 C.F.R. § 1.31. 


(Failure to Produce Documents Upon Request from the CFTC) 


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

107. Regulation 1.31, 17 C.P.R. § 1.31, requires a registrant, inter alia, to open its 

books and records to inspection by any representative of the Commission and produce its books 

and records in a form specified by any representative of the Commission. Such production shall 

be made at the expense of the person required to keep the book or record, to a Commission 

representative upon the representative's request. 

108. From October 21,2013 to the present, GNS has been registered with the 

Commission as a CT A and CPO. 

109. On or about July 24, 2014, the Commission's Division of Enforcement served a 

document subpoena on GNS (returnable on August 4, 2014). John Won, the principal ofGNS, 

acknowledged receipt of this subpoena to Commission staff. However, GNS never responded to 

the subpoena or produced its books and records, and thus GNS violated Commission Regulation 

1.31, 17 C.P.R.§ 1.31. 

110. John Won, who controlled the bank and trading accounts of GNS, held and 

exercised direct and indirect control over GNS and either did not act in good faith or knowingly 

induced GNS's violations of Regulation 1.3, 17 C.P.R. § 1.3. John Won is therefore also liable 

for GNS's violations as a controlling person pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 

13c(b). 

25 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 26 of 29 PageiD #: 26 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as authorized by 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers: 

A. Enter an order finding that: 

1) 	 Defendants violated Sections 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4m(l), 4Q(1)(A)-(B), and 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc) of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A) and 

(C), 6m(l), 6Q(l)(A)-(B), and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc); 

2) 	 Defendants violated Regulations 4.20(a)-(c), 5.2(b)(l) and (3), and 5.3(a)(2)­

(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)-(c), 5.2(b)(1) and (3), and 5.3(a)(2)-(3); and 

3) Defendant GNS and John Won violated Regulation 1.31, 17 C.F.R. § 1.31; 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining, enjoining and prohibiting 

Defendants, and any other person or entity in active concert with them, from engaging in conduct 

in violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4m(l), 4Q(l )(A)-(B), and 2( c )(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-( cc) 

ofthe Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6m(1), 6Q(1)(A)-(B), and 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc); and Regulations 1.31, 4.20(a) and (c) and 5.2(b)(l) and (3) and 

5.3(a)(2)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.31, 4.20(a) and (c), 5.2(b)(l) and (3) and 5.3(a)(2)-(3); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any other 

person or entity in active concert with them from, directly or indirectly: 

1) Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

defined by Section 1a(40) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40)); 

2) 	 Entering into any transactions involving "commodity interests" (as that term is 

defined in Regulation 1.3(yy), 17 C.F.R. 1.3(yy) (2014), for accounts held in 

26 
Case 1:Ei-cv-05551 Document 1 Filecl 09/24/15 Page 27 of 29 PageiD #: 27 

the name of any Defendant or for accounts in which any Defendant has a 

direct or indirect interest; 

3) Having any commodity interests traded on any Defendant's 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 interests; 

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

of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests; 

6) 	 Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

CPTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such registration 

or exemption from registration with the CPTC except as provided for in 

Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.P.R.§ 4.14(a)(9); and 

7) 	 Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1 (a), 17 C.P.R. § 

3.1 (a)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person registered, 

exempted from registration, or required to be registered with the CPTC except 

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

D. Enter an order requiring Defendants, as well as any of their successors, to 

disgorge to any officer appointed by the Court all benefits received from acts or practices that 

constitute violations of the Act, as amended, and Regulations as described herein, including, but 

not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived, directly 

or indirectly, plus pre-judgment interest thereon from the date of such violations, plus postjudgment interest; 

27 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Document l Filed 09/24/15 Page 28 of 29 PageiD #: 28 

E. Enter an order requiring Defendants, as well as their successors, to make full 

restitution, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, to every person or entity who 

sustained losses proximately caused by Defendants' violations (in the amount of such losses), as 

described herein, plus pre-judgment interest thereon from the date of such violations, plus postjudgment interest; 

F. 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 them and any of the customers whose funds were 

received by them as a result of the acts and practices which constituted violations ofthe Act, as 

amended, as described herein; 

G. Enter an order requiring each Defendant to pay a civil monetary penalty under the 

Act, to be assessed by the Court, in amounts of not more than the greater of (1) triple the 

monetary gain for each violation ofthe Act and Commission Regulations or (2) $140,000 for 

each violation of the Act and Commission Regulations; 

H. Enter an order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2) (2012); and 

28 
Case 1:15-cv-05551 Docurnent 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 29 of 29 PageiD #: 29 

I. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as this Court may deem 

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

September 24, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

PLAINTIFF U.S. COMMODITY 

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

By: Is/ Linda Y. Peng 

lpeng@cftc. gov 

Senior Trial Attorney 

W. Derek Shakabpa (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

wshakabpa@cftc. gov 

Senior Trial Attorney 

David Acevedo 

dacevedo@cftc.gov 

Chief Trial Attorney 

Manal Sultan 

msultan@cftc. gov 

Deputy Director 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

140 Broadway, 19th floor 

New York, NY 10005 

(646) 746-9733 

(646) 746-9940 (facsimile) 

29