Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ROCCO G. CANCELLARE 

CITATION: 29 Agric. Dec. 539 

DOCKET NUMBER: 169 

DATE: MAY 21, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER 

AGRICULTURE DECISIONS 

Page

 Commodity Exchange Act CANCELLARE, ROCCO G. CEA Docket No. 169. Allocation 

 of customers' purchases -- Suspension of registration -- Stipulation 539

 DYKE, MARTIN T., MARTIN T. DYKE III, and DYKE & 

 CO. CEA Docket No. 168. Financial requirements -- Undersegregation -- Cease and desist -- 

 Stipulation 542

 COURT DECISION 

 J. H. KENT et al. v. HARDIN et al. 5th Cir. May 14, 1970. 

 Affirming Judicial Officer's decision and order (28 A.D. 656) which held that where trades in 

 commodity futures were made pursuant to a common trading plan or agreement and the total of such trades exceeded the trading limits, there was a 

 wilful violation of the act for which the petitioners 

 should be denied all trading privileges on all the contract markets for a period of 90 days. Voluntary 

 statements made to an investigator while petitioners 

 were not under restraint or in custody are admissible in evidence and the Miranda doctrine does not apply 546

(No. 13,143) 

In re ROCCO G. CANCELLARE. CEA Docket No. 169. Decided May 21, 1970. 

Allocation of customers' purchases -- Suspension of registration -- 

Stipulation 

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from allocating commodity futures 

transactions to his own account when such transactions can be allocated to fill 

customers' orders which he has on hand, unless this is done with the prior 

knowledge and consent of such customers. Respondent's registration as a floor 

broker is suspended for a period of 20 days and all the contract markets are 

directed to refuse all trading privileges to him for a like period. 

Earl L. Saunders for Commodity Exchange Authority. 

Respondent pro se. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Page 2 

This is an administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. Chapter 1, 1964 ed., as amended, Supp. IV, 1969), instituted by a 

complaint and notice of hearing issued on March 10, 1970, under sections 6(b) 

and 6(c) of the Act (7 U.S.C. Supp. IV, 9 and 18b). The respondent is charged 

with violating section 4b of the Act (7 U.S.C. Supp. IV, 6b). 

No hearing has been held in this proceeding. On May 19, 1970, the respondent 

filed a stipulation under section 0.4(b) of the rules of practice (17 CFR 

0.4(b)), in which he (1) admits the facts hereinafter set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 3 of the Findings of Fact, (2) admits, for the purposes of this 

proceeding and for such purposes only, the facts hereinafter set forth in 

paragraph 4 of the Findings of Fact, (3) waives the report of the Hearing 

Examiner, and (4) consents to the entry of the order contained herein. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The respondent, an individual whose business address is % New York Cotton 

Exchange, Inc., 37 Wall Street, New York, New York, is now and was at all times 

material herein a member of the Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton 

Exchange, Inc., and a registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

2. The Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., hereinafter 

called the exchange, is now and was at all times material herein a duly 

designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

3. The futures transactions hereinafter referred to relate to the purchase of 

frozen concentrated orange juice futures contracts on the exchange. Each of 

such contracts called for the delivery of 15,000 pounds of frozen concentrated 

orange juice. Such contracts could have been used for hedging transactions in 

interstate commerce in frozen concentrated orange juice, or for determining the 

price basis of transactions in interstate commerce in frozen concentrated orange 

juice, or for delivering frozen concentrated orange juice sold, shipped, or 

received in interstate commerce. 

4. During the period from December 17 through December 23, 1968, the 

quantities of the frozen concentrated orange juice futures, hereinafter referred 

to, available for purchase on the exchange, were insufficient to meet the demand 

for the purchase of 

such futures at the maximum price permitted for each such future under the rules 

of the exchange. During such period, trading in such futures was conducted 

under a system wherein the exchange allocated sell orders to each floor broker 

seeking to buy such futures. On each day within such period, the respondent, in 

his capacity as floor broker, had accepted and had in his possession for 

execution on behalf of his principals, registered futures commission merchants, 

market orders to buy quantities of frozen concentrated orange juice futures, and 

the respondent made purchases of such futures in the quantities permitted by the 

sell orders allocated to the respondent by the exchange. However, instead of 

allocating all such purchases to the orders which he had received from his 

principals, the respondent, acting for his own advantage and without the 

knowledge or consent of his principals, allocated such purchases between his own 

account and his customers' accounts. The dates, the principals for whom the 

respondent acted, the futures purchased, and their allocation were as follows: 

Allocation 

(Number of Contracts) 

To To 

Date Principal Futures Respondent Principal 

1968 

December 17 Goodbody & Co. July 4 4 

December 18 Goodbody & Co. July 1 4 

December 18 Arnold D. Kamen & Co. July 1 1 

December 19 Goodbody & Co. May 1 1 

December 19 Francis I. Dupont & Co. July 1 2 

December 19 Harris Upham & Co. July 2 2 
Page 3 

 Allocation 

 (Number of Contracts) 

 To To 

Date Principal Futures Respondent Principal 

1968 

December 20 Goodbody & Co. May 3 3 

December 23 Goodbody & Co. May 1 1 

CONCLUSIONS

By reason of the facts set forth in the Findings of Fact it is concluded 

that, as charged in the complaint, the respondent violated section 4b of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. The complainant states that the administrative 

officials of the Commodity Exchange Authority have carefully considered the 

stipulation submitted by respondent. The administrative officials believe that 

the prompt entry of the proposed order would constitute a satisfactory 

disposition of this case, 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. It is concluded that the 

complainant's recommendation should be adopted. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 4