Office of Proceedings 

In the Matter of: 

ARISTA LLC, and 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

www.cftc.gov 

* 

* 

* 

* 

ABDUL SULTAN WALJI 

a/k/aABDUL SULTAN VALJI, 

·• 

* CITC Docket No. SD 14-01 

Registrants. 

Before: 

Appearances: 

Introduction 

* 

* 

INITIAL DECISION ON DEFAULT 

Philip V. McGuire, 

Office of Proceedings 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Washington, D.C. 

Michael P. Geiser, Esq., Trial Attorney 

Douglas K. Yatter, Esq., Trial Attorney 

Manal Sultan, Esq., Deputy Director 

Division of Enforcement, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

New York, NY 

This is a proceeding to revoke the registrations of Arista LLC ("Arista") and Abdul 

Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji ("Walji 11

), pursuant to Section 8a(2) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (

11ACt 11

), 7 U.S.C. §8a(2) (2012), and Commission rules 3.6o(g) 

and 10.93, 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.6o(g) and 10.93 (2014). Arista is registered as a commodity 

pool operator, and Walji is registered as an associated person of Arista. 
By motion dated April30, 2014, the Commission's Division of Enforcement 

("Division") has moved for entry of a default judgment against registrants Arista and 

Walji, based on their failures to answer, or otherwise to appear or respond to, the 

Commission's "Notice of Intent to Revoke the Registration of Arista LLC and Abdul 

Sultan Walji afkfa Abdul Sultan Valji" ("Notice"). In this connection, on February 20, 

2014, the Commission's Proceedings Clerk had served the Notice on Arista and Walji at 

their last registered addresses. 1 Thus, Arista and Walji were properly served pursuant to 

CFfC rule 3.50.2 

The Commission's Notice alleges that Arista and Walji are subject to statutory 

disqualification from Commission registration based on: one, the "Consent Order for 

Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Arista 

LLC, Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/aAbdul Sultan Valji and Reniero Francisco," entered on 

December 3, 2013 by the Honorable Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of New York in CFI'C v. Arista, Abdul Sultan Waiji ajkja 

Abdul Sultan Vaiji, and Reniero Francisco, Case No. 12 CV 9043 (PAE) ("Consent 

'The CFTC Proceedings Clerk served the Commission's Notice by certified mail: (t) on Arista at Arista's 

Newport Coast, California address listed with the National Futures Association; and (2) on Walji at 

Arista's Newport Coast address and at Walji's San Juan Capistrano, California address, both of which 

were shown on his application for registration with the Commission. The U.S. Post Office reported both 

copies of the Notice addressed to the Newport Coast, California address had been successfully 

"Delivered." However, the copy of the Notice addressed to Walji's San Juan Capistrano, California 

address was returned as undeliverable by the USPS on March 13, 2014. 2 Pursuant to CITC rule 3.30(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.30(a) (2014), the address of each registrant as submitted on 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and will be complete upon mailing. 

2 
("Consent Order"); and two, the judgment in a parallel criminal case reflecting 

that Walji pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty, entered on November 20, 2013, by the 

Honorable Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

New York in U.S. v. Walji, Case No. 13 CR 00217-01 (DLC) ("Judgment"). 

Arista and Walji did not respond to the Commission's Notice. Therefore, 

on April2, 2014, I issued a Default Notice finding that Arista and Walji were in default, 

and setting deadlines for the Division to file a motion for entry of a default judgment 

and for Arista and Walji to file any opposition to the Division's motion. 3 Arista and 

Walji have not responded to the Default Notice or to the Division's for entry of a default 

judgment motion. Thus, this matter is ripe for entry of a default judgment. 

As a result of their defaults, Arista and Walji have waived a hearing on all of the 

issues and are precluded from introducing evidence of mitigation and rehabilitation 

which is necessary to rebut the strong presumption of unfitness for registration created 

by the findings of fact, conclusions oflaw, and sanctions in the Consent Order in CFI'C 

v. Arista and the Judgment in U.S. v. Walji. Thus, the well-plead allegations in the 

Commission's Notice -- as augmented by the evidence and proposed findings and 

conclusions in the Division's Motion -- are deemed true and conclusive for purposes of 

finding: one, that Arista is statutorily disqualified from registration under Sections 

8a(2)(C) and (E) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 12a(2)(C) and (E) (2012); and two, that Walji is 

statutorily disqualified under Sections 8a(2)(C), (D) and (E) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 

3 The CFrC Proceedings Clerk served the Default Notice by certified mail: (1) on Walji's latest known 

address at FCI La Tuna, TX, and (2) on Arista at its Newport Coast address listed with the National 

Futures Association. The U.S. Post Office reported both copies of the Notice were successfully 

"Delivered". See link: 

https://tools.usps.com/gorrmckConfirmAction.action?tRet= fu llpage&t Lc= 2&text28777=&t Labels-7196+ 

9008+9111+5552+8908~2C+7196+9008+9111+5552+8939 

3 
§§ 12a(2)(C), (D) and (E) (2012). Accordingly, as explained below, the Division's motion 

has been granted, Arista and Walji have been found to be unfit for registration and 

statutorily disqualified from registration, and the registrations of Arista and Walji have 

been revoked. 

Findings of Fact 

1. Arista a California limited liability company, located in Newport Beach, 

California, has been registered with the Commission, since April 20, 2011, as a 

commodity pool operator ("CPO") pursuant to Section 4m of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m. 

2. Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji ("Walji") has been registered as 

an associated person of Arista since April2o, 2011. Walji listed himself as a principal, 

chief executive officer, treasurer, secretary and manager of Arista and as the registration 

contact for Arista. 

Walji is currently incarcerated in FCI La Tuna, Texas. He previously resided in 

San Juan Capistrano, California. 

3· On December 12, 2012, the Commission filed a two-count complaint in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Arista and 

Walji --as well as an additional defendant, Reniero Francisco, who is not a subject of 

this statutory disqualification -- seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, and the 

imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U .S.C. §§ 1 

et seq. (the "Act"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§I et seq. 

See CFTC v. Arista LLC, Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji, and Reniero 

Francisco, No. 12-CV-9043 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Consent Order filed Dec. 12, 2012) ("CFI'C 

v. Arista"). 

4 
On May 28, 2013, the Commission filed an amended complaint adding an 

additional count to the complaint. The amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that 

Arista and Walji carried out a fraudulent scheme to misappro riate millions of dollars 

from investors in commodity futures and options, collecting ore than $9.5 million 

from 39 investors, of which over $4.8 million was lost in trad ng, primarily in E-mini I 

S&P soo futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchanke and U.S. Treasury Bond I 

options contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade, and that $4.125 million was 

misappropriated to Walji and another principal of Arista as pljrported fees, leaving less 

than $1 million remaining of the investors' funds. The complkint, as amended, charged 

that Arista and Walji had violated Sections 4b(a)(l), 4c(b), an~ 40(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(l), 6c(b), 6o(l), and Commission Rule 33.10, 17 C.F.J. § 33.10. 

The amended complaint also charged Arista and Walji with making false I 

statements to the National Futures Association (NFA) in violJtion of Section 9(a)(4) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4), making false statements to the Commission in violation of 

Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(2), and failing to regist~r as a CPO while engaging 

in the business of a CPO for more than one year prior to registering with the NFA in 

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

4. On December 3, 2013, the Honorable Judge Paul A. Engel mayer of the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of New York, in CFTC v. Arista, Abdul Sultan 

Walji ajkja Abdul Sultan Valji, and Reniero Francisco et al., Case No. 12 CV 9043 

(P AE), entered the "Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty 

and Other Equitable Relief Against Arista LLC, Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan 

Valji and Reniero Francisco." The Consent Order contained findings of fact and 

conclusions oflaw, to which Arista and Walji admitted. In this connection, the Court 

5 
alia: one, that Walji and Arista cheated or defrauded, or attempted to cheat or defraud, 

and willfully deceived, or attempted to deceive, Arista investors by (i) misappropriating 

their investors' funds and (ii) providing investors with false and misleading quarterly 

account statements that misrepresented the value of the investors' accounts and Arista's 

performance and concealed Walji's fees, in violation of various anti-fraud provisions of 

the Act; and two, that the conduct was in connection with the making of contracts of 

sale of any commodity for future delivery made on or subject to the rules of a designated 

contract market, for or on behalf of any other person, and/or in connection with an offer 

to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, 

any commodity option transaction. The Court concluded that by engaging in this 

conduct, Arista and Walji violated Sections 4b(a)(l), 4c(b) and 40(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(l), 6c(b) and 6o(l), and Regulation 33.10, 17 C.F.R. § 33.10.4 

The Court permanently restrained Arista and Walji from among other things: 

one, directly or indirectly committing fraud in violation of Sections 4b(a)(1), 4c(b), and 

40(1) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(l), 6c(b), 6o(l), and Commission Regulation 33.10,17 

C.F.R. § 33.10; two, registering with the commission, claiming an exemption from 

registration, or acting in any capacity requiring registration or an exemption from 

registration; and three, trading subject to the rules of any registered entity, entering 

into transactions involving Commission-regulated products or having such products 

traded on their behalf, controlling or directing the trading of such products on behalf of 

any other person or entity, soliciting or receiving or accepting funds for the purpose of 

purchasing or selling such products, applying for registration or claiming exemption 

4 The Court also found that Arista and Walji violated Sections 4m(1), 6(c)(2), and 9(a)(4) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6m(t), 9(2), and 13(a)(4). 

6 
from registration with the Commission, and/or acting as a principal, agent, or any other 

officer or employee of any person registered, exempted from registration, or required to 

be registered with the Commission. The Court also ordered Arista and Walji to pay 

restitution and a civil monetary penalty. 

5· In the parallel criminal matter, Walji pled guilty to and was convicted of 

multiple felonies-- specifically, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, 

commodities fraud, and securities fraud --on charges brought by the U.S. Attorney's 

Office for the Southern District of New York, which arose out of the same scheme 

alleged in CFTC v. Arista, et al. On November 15, 2013, the Honorable Judge Denise L. 

Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Walji to 

a prison term of 151 months. Walji was remanded into custody of the US Marshal, and 

is currently incarcerated at FCI La Tuna, Texas. USA v. Walji, No. 13-CR-00217-01 

(DLC) (S.D.N.Y. entered Nov. 20, 2013). 

Discussion and Conclusions of Law 

Section Ba(2) presumption of unfitness 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 
so (May 17, 1982). The report further explained that, since each Section 8a(2) 

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

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

disqualification generally is readily ascertainable by checking officially maintained 

records." Id. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Walji have done- a substantial risk exists that the individual or firm will undertake 

- similar wrongdoing in the future. See In re Akar, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ~ 22, 297 (CFfC 

February 24, 1986). The strong presumption of unfitness can be rebutted by a 

convincing showing that allowing a person or firm to become or remain registered will 

not pose a risk to the public, including, for example, mitigating circumstances, 

rehabilitation, or close supervision by another registrant. See Commission rules 

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

(C) (2012). By defaulting, Arista and Walji have precluded themselves from presenting 

such rebuttal evidence. 

8 
Section 8a(2)(C) oftheAct 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

involves ... fraud .... " Here, cause exists for statutory disqualification of Arista and Walji 

pursuant to Section 8a(2)(C) because the Consent Order in CFTC v. Arista, which was 

entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a 

court of competent jurisdiction: one, permanently enjoins Arista and Walji from trading 

and from seeking re-registration; and two, permanently enjoins Arista and Walji from 

committing fraud in violation of the Act and Commission rules. 

Section Ba(2)(D) of the Act 

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

authorizes the Commission to revoke the registration of any person who has been 

convicted within ten years preceding the filing of the application for registration or at 

any time thereafter of any felony that, among other things, (i) involves any transactions 

or advice concerning any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery; (ii) arises 

out of the conduct of the business of a commodity trading advisor or CPO, or 

9 
(iii) involves embezzlement, theft, extortion, fraud, fraudulent conversion, 

misappropriation of funds, securities, or property, forgery, counterfeiting, false 

pretenses, bribery, or gambling. Cause exists for the statutory disqualification ofWalji 

pursuant to Section 8a(2)(D) because Walji pled guilty to and was convicted of 

conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, commodities fraud, and securities 

fraud, which arose from transactions or advice concerning contracts of sale of a 

commodity for future delivery, arose out of the conduct of the business of a CPO, and 

involved, inter alia, embezzlement, theft, extortion, fraud, fraudulent conversion, and 

misappropriation of funds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Consent Order in CFI'C v. Arista found Arista and Walji each to have 

violated various provisions of the Act and various Commission rules for conduct 

involving fraud and misappropriation. 

10 
ORDER 

Arista LLC is statutorily disqualified from registration under Sections 8a(2)(C) 

and (E) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan 

Valji is statutorily disqualified under Sections 8a(2)(C), (D) and (E) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act. Accordingly: one, the Division's motion for entry of a default judgment 

is hereby granted; two, Arista and Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji are 

found conclusively unfit for registration; and three, the registrations of Arista LLC and 

Abdul Sultan Walji a/k/a Abdul Sultan Valji are hereby revoked. 

Dated September 4, 2014. 

Mtr.A/0~ Philip V. McGuire, 

Judgment Officer 

11