Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARVIN SPERLING 

DOCKET NUMBER: 177 

DATE: JANUARY 27, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: RECOMMENDED DECISION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re Marvin Sperling, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 177 

Recommended Decision 

Preliminary Statement 

This is a proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1), 

hereinafter called the Act. It was instituted by a complaint and notice of 

hearing filed on August 10, 1971, by an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. The 

Respondent was charged with converting customers' funds to his own use, in 

violation of the Act and the regulations thereunder. Respondent filed an answer 

denying violation of the Act and requesting an oral hearing. 

An oral hearing was held in Washington, D.C., on December 1, 1971, before 

Chief Hearing Examiner Jack W. Bain, Office of Hearing Examiners, United States 

Department of Agriculture. John Broadley, Office of the General Counsel of the 

Department, appeared for Complainant. Although duly notified of the time and 

place of the hearing, Respondent did not appear, and no evidence was presented 

on his behalf. Complainant called two witnesses and introduced five exhibits in 

evidence. 

After the hearing, Complainant filed suggested findings of fact, etc., which 

substantially are proposed below. 

Proposed Findings of Fact 

1. The Respondent, Marvin Sperling, an individual whose last known address 

was 12334 Rossridge, St. Louis, Missouri 63141, was at all times material herein 

a member of the New York Mercantile Exchange and an employee of Jacobson 

Commodities, Inc., a registered futures commission merchant under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

2. The New York Mercantile Exchange is now and was at all times material 

herein a duly designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

3. On or about December 27, 1968, Respondent converted to his own use $ 

600.00, which he had received and accepted from William Dalton to margin, 

guarantee, and secure transactions in commodities for future delivery to be 

executed on the New York Mercantile Exchange for Dalton's account, which was 

carried with Jacobson Commodities, Inc. 

4. On or about January 16, 1969, Respondent converted to his own use $ 

600,00, which he had received and accepted from Raymond Geisler to margin, 

guarantee, and secure transactions in commodities for future delivery to be 

executed on the New York Mercantile Exchange for an account to be opened in the 

name of Geisler with Jacobson Commodities, Inc. 

5. The aforesaid transactions in commodities for future delivery could have 

been used for hedging transactions in interstate commerce 
Page 2 

in such commodities, or for delivering such commodities sold, shipped, or 

received in interstate commerce. 

Proposed Conclusions 

The Complainant's suggested findings of fact are plainly established by the 

evidence. These finding clearly demonstrate that, as charged in the complaint, 

the Respondent violated sections 4b, 4d and 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. 6b, 6d and 13), and section 1.20 of the regulations made pursuant thereto 

(17 CFR 1.20). See, e.g., In re Jack C. Flora, 29 Agric. Dec. 1015 (29 A.D. 

1015) (1970); In re Sterling Securities. Inc. et al., 28 Agic. Dec. 115 (28 

A.D. 115) (1969); In re Douglas Steen, 21 Agric. Dec. 1076 (21 A.D. 1076) 

(1962). 

The offenses by the Respondent were deliberate, serious and flagrant. They 

violated basic provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act designed for the 

protection of customers of futures commission merchants. Upon a consideration 

of all the facts and circumstances of this case, we agree with the testimony of 

the Director of the Compliance Division of the Commodity Exchange Authority that 

in order to effectuate the purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act, it is 

necessary to deny to the Respondent all trading privileges on contract markets 

for a period of three years and to enter a cease and desist order against him. 

Proposed Order 

1. The Respondent, Marvin Sperling, shall cease and desist from (a) 

converting to his own use or the use of another, any funds received by the 

Respondent as futures commission merchant or as the employee or agent of a 

futures commission merchant to margin, secure or guarantee the trades or 

contracts of any customer of the Respondent or of such other futures commission 

merchant or accruing to such customer as the result of such trades or contracts, 

and (b) using any funds held by any futures commission merchant for any 

customer, as belonging to any person other than the customer for whom such funds 

are held. 

2. The Respondent, Marvin Sperling, is prohibited from trading on or subject 

to the rules of any contract market for a period of three years, and all 

contract markets shall refuse all trading privileges to the Respondent during 

this period, such prohibition and refusal to apply to all trading done and all 

positions held by the Respondent, directly or indirectly. 

The cease and desist provisions of this order shall become effective upon the 

date of service of this order upon the Respondent. 

The period of the denial of trading privileges to the Respondent specified in 

paragraph 2 above shall become effective on the thirtieth day after the date of 

entry of this order. 

A copy of this decision and order shall be served upon each contract market. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Jack W. Bain 

Chief Hearing Examiner 

NOTE: The foregoing is a recommended decision, not a final order. The final 

order will be issued by the Judicial Officer after the parties have had 

opportunity to file exceptions, etc., as provided by the Rules of Practice. 

January 27, 1972 
Page 3 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 4