UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DILLON MICHAEL DEAN and THE 

ENTREPRENEURS HEADQUARTERS 

LIMITED,

Defendants.

Case Number 18-cv-00345

Judge _______________________

ECF Case

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, 

RESTITUTION, AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES

UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”), by and 

through its attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From approximately April 2017 through the present (the “Relevant Period”), 

Defendant Dillon Michael Dean (“Dean”), through his company, Defendant The Entrepreneurs 

Headquarters Limited (“TEH”) (together, “Defendants”), has engaged in a fraudulent scheme to 

solicit at least $1.1 million worth of Bitcoin from more than 600 members of the public to 

participate in a pooled investment vehicle for trading commodity interests. Rather than convert 

customer funds, security, or property (“funds”) from Bitcoin to fiat currency to invest in binary 

options contracts, as promised, Defendants misappropriated their customers’ funds (including by 

using them to pay other customers, in the manner of a Ponzi scheme), and then lied to customers 

about their account balances in order to conceal Defendants’ misappropriation.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
2

2. In furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, Defendants made material misstatements 

and omissions in solicitations to pool participants, including misrepresenting Dean’s experience 

and track record, and misrepresenting that forty percent of the customers’ funds would be pooled 

and invested in, among other things, binary options for the customers’ benefit, with all or 

substantially all of the remainder kept in reserve in Bitcoins to fund customer withdrawals.

3. Upon information and belief, in reality, Defendants did not trade any of the funds

contributed by customers for the benefit of the pool. 

4. In order to perpetuate the fraud and conceal their misappropriation, Defendants 

made misrepresentations to their customers, such as by issuing them electronic account 

statements (available through TEH’s website), which purported to reflect that customers’ account 

balances were being credited with the exorbitant daily returns promised by Defendants and 

which indicated that such amounts were available for withdrawal by customers.

5. Defendants also attempted to perpetuate the fraud and conceal their 

misappropriation of customer funds by lying to customers, beginning in August 2017, about a 

purported hack of Defendants’ website.

6. During the Relevant Period, TEH also failed to register with the Commission as a 

commodity pool operator (“CPO”), and Dean failed to register with the Commission as an 

associated person (“AP”) of a CPO.

7. 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 4c(b), 4k(2), 4m(1), and 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)-(B) (2012), 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
3

and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 3.12(a) and 32.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 32.4 

(2017).

8. The acts and omissions described herein all have been done during the Relevant 

Period by Dean and other officers, employees or agents of TEH in the scope of their employment 

or office at TEH. Therefore, TEH is liable for all acts and omissions described herein, pursuant 

to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2012), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 1.2 (2017).

9. Dean was a controlling person of TEH throughout the Relevant Period and did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced TEH’s violations of the Act and Regulations described 

herein. Therefore, Dean is liable for TEH’s violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2012).

10. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1 (2012), to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel their 

compliance with the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. 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 postjudgment interest, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary or

appropriate. 

11. 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.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
4

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

to seek injunctive and other relief in United States district court 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 of the Act, or any rule, regulation, 

or order thereunder, and provides that district courts “shall have jurisdiction to entertain such 

actions.” This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012) (Federal 

Question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (United States as Plaintiff) (2012).

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

§ 13a-1(e) (2012), because Defendants transacted business 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

14. Plaintiff Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency charged by 

Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2012), and the 

Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pt. 1–190 (2017).

15. Defendant TEH is an England and Wales company, incorporated on or about

April 24, 2017. TEH has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.

16. Defendant Dean is the sole founder, principal, director, and officer of TEH. 

Dean’s last known residence is in Longmont, Colorado. Dean has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
5

IV. FACTS

A. Defendants’ Purported Commodity Pool

17. In or around April 2017, Dean began soliciting investments in a multi-level 

marketing scheme, which he referred to on his website as “The Entrepreneurs Headquarters,” or 

“TEH” for short.

18. On his website, www.theentrepreneurheadquarters.com, Dean stated that he was 

the owner of TEH, claiming that he had “traded options” for seven years, and had “[s]trong skills 

in options trading,” among other areas.

19. The website offered the opportunity to invest in a pooled investment vehicle 

referred to as “Option #1”: “Option #1 is a [sic] automated investment where you invest and get 

a [sic] automatic return in your back office on our set return rate. Our current set return rate is 

11%-17.5%/week depending on how much you invest.” (Options #2 and #3 offered customers

assistance in trading through their own personal accounts on the North American Derivatives 

Exchange (“Nadex”), an online exchange that is designated by the Commission as a contract 

market for binary options.)

20. The website represented that Option #1 “investments are unit, or private shares 

inside The Entrepreneurs Headquarters LTD, you are given a set amount of earning [sic] based 

on the companies [sic] increase in profits and value.”

21. Specifically, the website stated that customers choosing Option #1 “will make 

money off of the profits we make on the investment via trading options and paid ad promotion. 

You will be paid weekly and can withdraw profits instantly.”

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
6

22. According to the website, the scheme was “extremely sustainable,” because Dean

had “developed a formula based around a foundation of 3 years of proven trading and paid 

marketing profit results.”

23. The website promised that participants could earn commissions for referring new 

customers, stating that the firm’s “three-tier referral program” enabled participants to “earn extra 

money in the amount of 6%-3%-1% of the deposits of your referrals,” that participants could 

make “up to 9% in referral commissions EACH time your referral makes a deposit,” that

participants need not invest their own funds to earn commissions for referring others, and that 

participants could solicit new participants with “whatever marketing material” they wished.

24. Dean marketed the TEH commodity pool by, among other things, uploading a 

video of himself to YouTube on April 17, 2017. In the video, Dean identified himself as the 

CEO and owner of “The Entrepreneur Headquarters,” and provided 

www.theenterpreneurheadquarters.com as the company’s website. Dean stated in the video that 

he had “launched the business” and that as of “April 15, 2017, our automated [i.e., Option #1] 

and interactive investments are fully functional and ready to go.”

25. Dean stated in the video that he had already received $6,000 in investments and 

claimed that he had already achieved over ten percent in returns on that principal. Dean 

predicted: “People are gonna start coming in once they see these results happen, which, they’re 

happening.”

26. Dean also stated in the video: “Basically what I do is I leave in at least sixty

percent of the money for reserve and for people to withdraw, etc., etc., and I use forty percent of 

the money to profit off of. And we’re doing well. Basically we do—like I said, we’re trading.”

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
7

27. In some cases, Dean solicited investments through personal contact with potential 

investors. One individual who ultimately invested more than $50,000 with Defendants 

(“Customer 1”) spoke on the telephone with Dean before investing.

28. Dean told Customer 1 on this phone call that returns for customers would be 

generated by Dean trading commodity options on Nadex.

29. Nadex is designated by the CFTC as a contract market, and offers customers the 

ability to trade binary options. A binary option is a type of options contract in which the payout 

depends entirely on the outcome of a yes/no proposition, typically relating to whether the price 

of a particular asset that underlies the binary option will rise above or fall below a specified 

amount. Unlike other types of options, a binary option does not give the holder the right to 

purchase or sell the underlying asset. When the binary option expires, the option holder will 

receive either a pre-determined amount of cash or nothing at all.

30. Dean also solicited investments in TEH through a closed Facebook group, called 

“The Entrepreneurs Headquarters,” which he created on or about March 31, 2017 (the “Facebook 

Group”).

31. Dean, through Facebook profiles with the names “Dean Dillon” and “Dillon M. 

Dean,” used the Facebook Group, as well as a smaller Facebook group for a “VIP plan” called 

“TEH Managed Accounts,” to solicit investments in the TEH commodity pool and communicate 

with participants. Over 2,000 Facebook users ultimately became members of the Facebook 

Group.

32. Dean added other “administrators” to the Facebook Group, beginning with a 

Kentucky resident who had worked with Dean on a previous multi-level marketing scheme in or 

around 2014 (“Administrator 1”), and who was identified as the “Marketing Director” for TEH.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
8

33. Administrator 1 had no trading experience or understanding of commodity 

options trading, and did not invest any of his own funds in TEH, but solicited over forty 

customers who did invest.

34. Dean told Administrator 1 that returns for customers would be generated by Dean 

trading commodity options on Nadex on behalf of customers, and Administrator 1 conveyed this 

message to potential customers when soliciting them to invest.

35. Additional administrators of the Facebook Group were added by Administrator 1

and others.

36. Administrators posted messages to the Facebook Group, controlled membership 

in the group, and participated in online streaming videoconferences accessible from the group 

page.

37. During these videoconferences, administrators told customers that returns would 

be generated by Dean trading commodity options on Nadex on behalf of customers.

38. Dean and other administrators also told customers that, in addition to Dean 

himself, a person using the name Propht Taurai Moyo on Facebook (“Moyo”) was also trading 

on behalf of TEH customers.

39. Upon information and belief, all of these representations by Defendants about 

their trading expertise and intention to generate profits for customers by trading binary options 

were knowingly false when made. 

40. Defendants were not trading commodity options on Nadex at all during the 

Relevant Period.

41. Neither TEH nor Moyo ever had a trading account at Nadex.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
9

42. Dean had a personal trading account at Nadex that he opened in 2013. Other than 

a period of 10 days in February 2017 (i.e., prior to the Relevant Period)—in which Dean lost

$637.50 trading binary options on forex contracts—there was never any trading activity in the 

account.

B. Defendants’ Purported Trading Profits

43. Defendants also made numerous representations to customers about their 

supposed trading profits.

44. For instance, on July 9, 2017, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed 

Accounts purporting to disclose trading “results [for] the last few weeks” of that program, 

boasting of “a few awesome weeks” and promising to “get even better.” Included in the post 

was an image promoting weekly profits of 28.50%, 15.25%, and 19.50% for the first three weeks 

of the “TEH Managed Account” program, respectively; instructing customers to “Email for 

withdraw @ stockgains9@gmail.com”; and stating, “All money month withdrawn [sic] is 

compounded weekly.”

45. On July 15, 2017, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed Accounts, 

stating: “17.6% this week. (for members) Was a good week but was really busy and was not 

able to trade as much as usual. Next week I got my sights set on 30%.” Included in the post was 

a purported “screenshot” showing trading from “last week,” consisting of an image showing 

certain details (mostly illegible)—including order number, time, type (buy/sell), product (e.g., 

“BrentCrude”)—of twenty-five purported trades.

46. On July 23, 2017, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed Accounts, 

stating: “15% last week. Also waiting to close more trades from last week that will be added to 

this %. $$$$$.” 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
10

47. On July 29, 2017, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed Accounts, 

stating: “Waiting on a huge trade on OIL. This week will be recorded next week after oil and a 

few other trades are closed. This week will be just like the previous time we had to wait on 

trades to close. Thanks! Patience = money.” The post included an image containing an 

unlabeled graphic that was illegible except for the handwritten phrase “massive profit.” 

48. On August 8, Dean posted to the Facebook Group an image showing purported 

profitable results trading forex and crude oil derivatives on that date, along with the message 

“Just keep pumping away . . . with Propht Taurai Moyo.”

49. On August 13, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed Accounts, 

purporting to provide “the managed account weekly results for the past 8 weeks.” Dean’s 

message reiterated the percentages provided in his July 9, 15, and 23 messages for Week 1 

through Week 5, and represented that total profits for “Week 6-8 (3 weeks)” were “41.25%.” 

50. On August 20, Dean posted a Facebook message to TEH Managed Accounts, 

stating: “11% this week... slow week trying to get our site back up and running.” 

51. Upon information and belief, all of these purported trading profits were entirely 

fictitious, as Defendants were not actually engaged in trading on behalf of their customers during 

the Relevant Period.

C. Solicitation and Transfer of Customer Funds in Bitcoin

52. As explained on Defendants’ website, Defendants only accepted investor deposits 

in Bitcoin.

53. Defendants instructed customers to set up personal account pages at the TEH

website (referred to by Defendants and customers as their “back office”) and follow the 

instructions there to transfer Bitcoin to TEH from the customers’ own cryptocurrency wallets.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
11

54. For instance, one customer who began investing with TEH in June 2017 

(“Customer 2”) was prompted by the TEH website to select one of three investment options 

(which varied by amount required to be invested, length of time of the investment, and promised 

rate of return).

55. After Customer 2 selected the “Weekly VIP Plan,” the TEH website provided him 

with an alphanumeric string to which to direct his payment of Bitcoin.

56. Customer 2 then logged into his own Bitcoin wallet at Coinbase and directed 

Bitcoin to be paid from his wallet to the alphanumeric string provided by the TEH website.

57. Customer 2 later received a confirmation email from CoinPayments.net, a 

cryptocurrency payment processor used by TEH, stating that he had successfully directed 

payment of Bitcoins to “The Entrepreneurs Headquarters.”

58. After customers such as Customer 2 transferred Bitcoin to TEH through 

CoinPayments.net and the payments were confirmed, they could log into their back office and 

see their account balance with TEH, denominated in U.S. dollars.

59. For a period of time, Defendants made upwards adjustments to customers’ back 

office U.S. dollar account balances on a regular basis, reflecting the high rates of return

(“11%-17.5%” per week, or comparable daily rates) promised on Defendants’ website.

60. As promised on the TEH website (“Profits can be withdrawn at anytime [sic]”), 

customers were initially able to withdraw the interest on their principal investments by logging 

into their back office and requesting the transfer of Bitcoin (corresponding to the U.S. dollar 

amounts shown in their back office) from TEH to the customers’ Bitcoin wallets.

61. Between approximately April 2017 and August 2017, many customers made 

successful withdrawals of Bitcoin from their accounts.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
12

D. Defendants’ Invention of a Hacking Incident in Order To Perpetuate Their Fraud

62. On August 9, 2017, a TEH customer whom Dean had added as an administrator 

of the Facebook Group on or about June 6, 2017 (“Administrator 2”), posted, while located in 

this District, a message to the Facebook Group that stated: 

URGENT MESSAGE..IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR 

ATTENTION THAT SOME HAVE HAD THERE [sic] 

ACCOUNT HACKED AND WALLET CHANGED...ASAP GO 

CHANGE YOUR WALLET ADDRESS AND SAVE PLUS 

ENABLE ALL SECURITY[.] IF YOU HAVE A PENDING 

WITHDRAW [sic] DOUBLE CHECK THE ADDRESS IT’S 

GOING TOO!!! [sic] AND CHANGE YOUR EXSISTING [sic] 

PASSWORD AS WELL!!!!!”

63. Later on August 9, Dean posted a message to the Facebook Group, stating: 

“CRAZY I detected a hacker, but everything is ok, and I have stopped who ever it was. I have 

hared [sic] that some accounts got hacked, if they did, message me and I can fix the issue. If you 

need to send me a message, send a fried [sic] request first if your [sic] not friends so the message 

goes to my primary inbox.”

64. Upon information and belief, there had been no hack of the TEH website, and 

Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that at the time they made each of these 

statements about the supposed hack the statements were false.

65. Upon information and belief, the statements about the supposed hack were made 

by Defendants with the intent to deceive customers and conceal and perpetuate Defendants’ 

fraud.

66. On August 11, Dean posted a message to the Facebook Group identifying a 

“[s]uspicious email address” and stating: “Do not respond to any emails from this guy . . . got to 

say the hacker is really trying his hardest lol.”

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
13

67. Later on August 11, Dean posted another message to the Facebook Group, stating: 

“Hacker is holding site for ransom LOL Do not touch the site I got an email titled ‘i hacked you’ 

and requesting reply and most likly [sic] funds for him to release back to me.” 

68. Upon information and belief, Dean knew that the person with the supposedly 

suspicious email address had not hacked the TEH website, and that no one was holding the site 

“for ransom.” 

69. Dean’s message continued: “Good thing I already have new site made! Just am 

finishing the back end and with programmers now to speed up the process.” Dean provided a 

website address—http://dutysquad.com/demo/teh/index.php (the “preview website”)—which, he 

wrote, “is what the new site will look like!” In fact, this “new” preview website had been online 

since at least May 2017, and it contained substantially the same material as the purportedly 

hacked TEH website.

70. Dean’s message concluded by promising to provide “further instructions on how 

we will transfer to this site” and instructing customers to email him at stockgains9@gmail.com if 

they wished to make “any emergency withdraws [sic]” of funds.

71. On August 13, Dean posted another message to the Facebook Group, stating: 

“Soon I will be collecting everyone’s deposit amount and adding it to the new site when the 

programmer has it ready. Just finishing the new back end.”

72. Later on August 13, Dean posted another message, stating that Defendants were

“[w]orking hard on finishing the back end” of TEH’s new website “so we can start the transfer.” 

73. Dean’s message continued: “Money is safe and there are no problems.” He 

concluded: “Apologize if I have not got to your message yet as I have 100s to go through.” 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
14

74. On August 14, Dean posted a message to the Facebook Group, claiming to have

“processed over 100 emergency withdraws now,” and asking customers to “please only do one if 

you really need it . . . the new site will be out soon.”

75. On August 17, Dean posted a message to the Facebook Group, stating: “All the 

data has been lost because of the hacker,” and providing the following instructions to customers: 

“1) Send screenshots of your initial deposits into TEH from your wallet. 2) Send screenshots of 

all your withdraws made. 3) Send all screenshots here; -------- transfertonewsite@gmail.com.” 

76. Defendants then proceeded to post a series of “Updates” to the preview website, 

which updates were, upon information and belief, merely an attempt to continue to conceal their 

fraud by fabricating purported reasons for customers to delay taking action with respect to their 

investments.

77. Defendants claimed on the preview website that as of August 19, 2017, they were 

“currently in the process of building the new site,” and that, as of August 21, the “completion of 

the TEH back end will be 8/22/2017 (tomorrow),” stating: “The time estimation of creating each 

account accordingly is 2-3 days. After that the site will be ready and open for business.” 

78. On August 21, Defendants posted a message to the preview website claiming that 

they were “[c]ompleting the payment software needed to do the payments.”

79. On August 23, Defendants posted a message to the preview website claiming that 

they were “[w]orking as fast has [sic] we can so we can start the adding everyone accounts [sic]” 

as well as “working on editing and re-doing the content of the site.” The message stated that the 

“re-opening of the site will be between 8/26/2017-8/28/2017,” i.e., within the next three to five 

days, “if everything goes according to plan.”

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
15

80. On September 2, Dean posted a message to the Facebook Group, stating that 

Defendants “will first find out what your active balance was before the site sent [sic] down.” 

Dean promised that “[t]o cover the loss” from the time the original TEH website was down (and 

Defendants “were not able to trade as much”), “we will send you 18% of you active deposit 

PLUS adding the active deposit back onto a fresh new plan which will extend your earning days 

of the time we were down [sic].”

81. In or around early September 2017, customers who had provided their 

information pursuant to Dean’s August 17 instructions received emails from TEH using the 

address transfertonewsite@gmail.com, which purported to have credited the customers with their 

“active balance” plus eighteen percent because “[d]uring our down period, we were only trading 

about half the time due to site maintenance.” The emails stated that TEH’s new website “is not 

fully active” but promised to provide a link to the website “soon.” 

E. Defendants’ Misappropriation and Refusal To Return Customers’ Funds

82. As Defendants attempted to delay, customers began to post messages to the 

Facebook Group that were critical of TEH and Dean, questioning the validity of their 

representations and promises.

83. In response, Dean and other administrators removed such customers from the 

group, and ultimately Defendants moved their activity to a new closed Facebook group, called 

“Official Entrepreneurs Headquarters Group” (the “Official’ Facebook Group”).

84. Ultimately, when Defendants provided the URL to TEH’s new website, located at 

entrepreneursheadquarter.com, it contained substantially the same information as had already 

existed for months both on the original TEH website (theentrepreneurheadquarters.com) and the 

preview website.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
16

85. However, the extravagant daily and weekly returns promised to customers were 

reduced to almost zero. Defendants offered no justification why their purported trading lost 

profitability so precipitously.

86. In response to customers’ requests for the return of their principal investments or 

purported earnings or fees that Defendants had represented to have been credited to their

accounts, Defendants continued to make up excuses for their failure to pay redemptions.

87. For instance, on December 9, 2017, Dean posted a message on the “Official” 

Facebook Group, stating: “Withdraws; SLOWWW blockchain...btc was losing it there for a 

while lol I am waiting on a few large transactions to be moved over into our BTC wallet for the 

mass payment for everyone’s withdraws.”

88. In recent weeks, when customers asked Defendants for the return of their funds,

their requests were ignored.

89. Dean has stopped responding to emails and other communications from customers 

who have previously asked for the return of their funds.

90. Upon information and belief, Defendants have stopped making payments to 

customers of TEH, and have misappropriated over $1 million total in principal investments by 

customers. 

91. Meanwhile, Dean and other representatives of TEH have launched another 

purported trading venture, Real Trade Profits (“RTP”), which solicits new customers in a manner 

very similar to TEH—seeking investments in Bitcoin for a pooled investment, professing 

expertise and consistent results in binary options trading, and promising high rates of return—

using the website realtradeprofits.com.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
17

92. According to its website, RTP is a “small group of self-taught traders who have 

developed two successful and unique trading techniques,” who are “Experts on the Binary 

Options and Forex Platforms.”

93. The RTP website states: “We have a [sic] automated payment platform that will 

automatically pay interest on all of your deposits into RTP. Simply deposit and earn 20%-50% 

of all the profits we make that day which averages 1-10% return on your money everyday [sic]

of the week . . . . Your principal is returned to you at the end of the pay period, and you are able 

to withdraw all profits as well.” The website offers 14-day, 30-day, and 45-day “Interest Plans.” 

94. As of December 4, 2017, RTP purported to have 65 members.

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT ONE

Violations of Section 4c(b) and Regulation 32.4

(Options Fraud)

95. Paragraphs 1 through 94 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

96. Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2012), makes it unlawful for any 

person to offer to enter into, enter into, or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving 

any commodity regulated under the Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known to 

the trade as, inter alia, an “option”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, or “call”, contrary to any rule, 

regulation, or order of the Commission prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such 

transaction under such terms and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe.

97. Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2017), provides that, in or in connection with 

an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any commodity 

option transaction, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly: (a) to cheat or 

defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; (b) to make or cause to be made to any 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
18

other person any false report or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false 

record thereof; or (c) to deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means 

whatsoever.

98. Defendants violated Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4, by, as alleged 

above, cheating and defrauding, or attempting to cheat and defraud, customers, in connection 

with Defendants’ offers to enter into commodity option contracts. Defendants misrepresented 

that they would trade binary options on Nadex and that customers would achieve returns of 11%-

17.5% per week. Defendants also misappropriated customer funds and never traded options with 

TEH customer funds. Moreover, Defendants failed to disclose the high degree of risk associated 

with options trading and that it was possible to sustain a total loss of investment. Defendants 

also concealed and perpetuated their fraud by falsely stating that their website was hacked.

99. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures by Dean and other officers, 

employees, and agents of TEH occurred within the scope of their employment or office with 

TEH. Therefore, TEH is liable for its officers, employees, and agents’ acts, omissions, and 

failures in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4, pursuant to Section 

2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2012), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2017).

100. Dean held and exercised direct and indirect control over TEH and either did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced TEH’s violations of Section 4c(b) of the Act and 

Regulation 32.4. As a controlling person of TEH, Dean is liable for TEH’s violations of Section 

4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) 

(2012).

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
19

101. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, false statement, and 

misappropriation, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4.

COUNT TWO

Violations of Section 4o(1)(A)-(B)

(CPO Fraud)

102. Paragraphs 1 through 101 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

103. During the Relevant Period, TEH acted as a CPO, as defined by Section 1a(11) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) (2012), in that it engaged in a business that is of the nature of an 

investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, operated for the purpose of trading in 

commodity interests and, in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from others, 

funds, securities, or property (in the form of Bitcoins), 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, commodity options authorized under 

Section 4c of the Act.

104. An AP of a CPO is defined by Regulation 1.3(aa)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(aa)(3) 

(2017), as any person who is associated with a CPO as 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. During the 

Relevant Period, Dean acted as an AP of TEH, in that he solicited funds, securities, or property 

(in the form of Bitcoins) for TEH’s pool and supervised other officers, employees, and agents of 

TEH who solicited funds, securities, or property for TEH’s pool.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 19
20

105. Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2012), prohibits CPOs and APs of 

CPOs, whether registered with the Commission or not, by use of the mails or any means or

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, from employing devices, schemes,

or artifices to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or participant, or engaging in 

transactions, practices, or courses of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client 

or participant or prospective client or participant.

106. While acting in its capacity as a CPO, TEH, by and through its officers, 

employees, and agents, knowingly or recklessly: (1) misrepresented to customers that 

approximately forty percent of their funds would be pooled and used to invest in, among other 

things, commodity options contracts for the benefit of customers; (2) misrepresented to 

customers that Defendants had prior experience and success trading commodity options on 

Nadex; (3) misrepresented to customers that Defendants were using their funds to trade 

commodity options on Nadex and were doing so profitably; (4) mispresented to customers that 

Defendants were holding approximately sixty percent of their funds in reserve in order to 

facilitate withdrawals; (5) misrepresented to customers that the hacking of TEH’s website and 

related issues were preventing Defendants from making customer funds available to customers; 

and (6) misappropriated pool participants’ funds for unauthorized purposes rather than investing 

for the benefit of participants, and failed to disclose that pool participants’ funds had been 

misappropriated. Therefore, TEH violated Section 4o(1) of the Act.

107. Dean directly violated Section 4o(1) of the Act while acting in his capacity as an 

AP of TEH, because he knowingly or recklessly: (1) misrepresented to customers that 

approximately forty percent of their funds would be pooled and used to invest in, among other 

things, commodity options contracts for the benefit of customers; (2) misrepresented to 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 20
21

customers that Defendants had prior experience and success trading commodity options on 

Nadex; (3) misrepresented to customers that Defendants were using their funds to trade 

commodity options on Nadex and were doing so profitably; (4) mispresented to customers that 

Defendants were holding approximately sixty percent of their funds in reserve in order to 

facilitate withdrawals; (5) misrepresented to customers that the hacking of TEH’s website and 

related issues were preventing Defendants from making customer funds available to customers; 

and (6) misappropriated pool participants’ funds for unauthorized purposes rather than investing 

for the benefit of participants, and failed to disclose that pool participants’ funds had been 

misappropriated.

108. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures by Dean and other officers, 

employees, and agents of TEH occurred within the scope of their employment or office with 

TEH. Therefore, TEH is liable for its officers, employees, and agents’ acts, omissions, and 

failures in violation of Section 4o(1) of the Act, pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 

Regulation 1.2.

109. Dean held and exercised direct and indirect control over TEH and either did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced TEH’s violations of Section 4o(1) of the Act. As a 

controlling person of TEH, Dean is liable for TEH’s violations of Section 4o(1) of the Act, 

pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act.

110. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, false statement, and 

misappropriation, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of Section 4o(1) of the Act.

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 21
22

COUNT THREE

Violations of Section 4m(1) and 4k(2) of the Act and Regulation 3.12(a)

(Failure to Register as a CPO and as an AP of the CPO)

111. Paragraphs 1 through 110 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

112. During the Relevant Period, TEH, while using the mails or means of interstate 

commerce in connection with its business as a CPO, was not registered with the Commission as 

a CPO and was not exempt from registration as a CPO. Thus, TEH acted as an unregistered 

CPO in violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (2012).

113. During the Relevant Period, Dean, while acting as an AP of TEH, was never 

registered as an AP of TEH. Thus, Dean violated Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) 

(2012), and Regulation 3.12(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a) (2017), by acting as an unregistered AP of a 

CPO.

114. Dean held and exercised direct and indirect control over TEH and either did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced TEH’s violations of Section 4m(1) of the Act. As a 

controlling person of TEH, Dean is liable for TEH’s violations of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 

pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act.

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 (2012), and pursuant to its own equitable powers:

A. Enter an order finding that Defendants violated Sections 4c(b), 4k(2), 4m(1), and 

4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)-(B) (2012), and Regulations

3.12(a) and 32.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 32.4 (2017);

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 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 22
23

in violation of Sections 4c(b), 4k(2), 4m(1), and 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, and Regulations

3.12(a) and 32.4;

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) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2012));

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) (2017)), for accounts held 

in 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 

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

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

Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2017); and

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

§ 3.1(a) (2017)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person 

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 23
24

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

CFTC except as provided for in Regulation 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 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 post-judgment interest;

E. Enter an order requiring Defendants, as well as any of 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, as well as 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 of the Act and 

Regulations, as described herein;

G. Enter an order directing each Defendant to pay a civil monetary penalty, to be 

assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1) (2012), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 

(2015), title VII, Section 701, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2017), for each violation 

of the Act and Regulations, as described herein;

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 24
25

H. Enter an order directing that Defendants, as well as any of their successors, make 

an accounting to the Court of all of their assets and liabilities, together with all funds they 

received from and paid to investors and other persons in connection with commodity interests 

and all disbursements for any purpose whatsoever of funds received from commodity interests, 

including salaries, commissions, interest, fees, loans, and other disbursement of money or 

property of any kind from at least April 2017 to the date of such accounting;

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

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

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

January 18, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION

 By: s/ David C. Newman____________

David C. Newman

Senior Trial Attorney

dnewman@cftc.gov

(646) 746-9740

W. Derek Shakabpa, pro hac vice pending

Senior Trial Attorney

wshakabpa@cftc.gov

David W. MacGregor, pro hac vice pending

Chief Trial Attorney

dmacgregor@cftc.gov

Manal M. Sultan

Deputy Director

msultan@cftc.gov

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 25 of 26 PageID #: 25
26

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Division of Enforcement

140 Broadway, 19th floor

New York, NY 10005

Phone: (646) 746-9700

Fax: (646) 746-9940

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION

Case 2:18-cv-00345 Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 26 of 26 PageID #: 26