IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff;

v.

OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, 

LIMITED; OASIS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC; SATELLITE HOLDINGS 

COMPANY; MICHAEL J. 

DaCORTA; JOSEPH S. ANILE, II; 

RAYMOND P. MONTIE, III; 

FRANCISCO “FRANK” L. DURAN; 

and JOHN J. HAAS, 

Defendants;

and

MAINSTREAM FUND SERVICES, 

INC.; BOWLING GREEN CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT LLC; LAGOON 

INVESTMENTS, INC.; ROAR OF 

THE LION FITNESS, LLC; 444 

GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE, LLC; 

4064 FOUNDERS CLUB DRIVE, 

LLC; 6922 LACANTERA CIRCLE, 

LLC; 13318 LOST KEY PLACE, LLC; 

and 4OAKS LLC,

Relief 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 

8:19-cv-886-VMC-SPF

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 36 PageID 17664
2

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTY AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH S. ANILE, II

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“CFTC”) filed its initial complaint1 (Dkt. 1) against Defendants Oasis 

International Group, Limited (“OIG”); Oasis Management, LLC (“OM”); Satellite 

Holdings Company (“SHC”); Michael J. DaCorta; Joseph S. Anile, II; Raymond P. 

Montie, III; Francisco “Frank” L. Duran; and John J. Haas (collectively, 

“Defendants”), seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as the 

imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the Commission’s Regulations (“Regulations”) 

promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2022). The Complaint alleged 

that from at least mid-April 2014 until the CFTC filed its initial complaint on 

April 15, 2019 (the “Relevant Period”), Defendants engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit participation in commodity pools trading retail foreign 

currency, among other violations. The Court entered an ex parte statutory 

restraining order against Defendants on April 15, 2019 (Dkt. 7), and then Consent 

Orders for Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Defendants 

OIG, OM, DaCorta, and Anile on April 30, 2019 (Dkt. 43), and against 

 1 The CFTC subsequently filed its First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 110) against all Defendants 

on June 12, 2019, which shall hereinafter be referred to simply as the Complaint. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 36 PageID 17665
3

Defendants Duran, Haas and SHC, and Montie on July 11, 2019 (Dkts. 174, 175, 

176, respectively). 

The CFTC requested that a receiver be appointed to this matter in order to, 

among other things, marshal assets held by Defendants as a result of their 

involvement in the fraudulent scheme (the “Receivership Estate”). On April 15, 

2019, Burton Wiand was appointed as the receiver (“Receiver”) in this matter and 

continues to serve in this capacity (Dkt. 7).

Based on similar allegations in the Complaint with respect to the 

fraudulent scheme, on August 12, 2019, Defendant Anile pleaded guilty to an 

information charging him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, 

an illegal monetary transaction, and filing a false income tax return, for his 

involvement in the fraudulent scheme. Plea Agreement, United States v. Anile

(the “Criminal Action”), No. 8:19-CR-00334-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2019) 

(Dkt. 3). On May 4, 2022, a jury found Defendant DaCorta guilty of conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud and mail fraud, illegal monetary transactions, and filing a false 

income tax return—all related to the same fraudulent scheme alleged in the 

Complaint and admitted to by Defendant Anile. Jury Verdict, United States v. 

DaCorta, No. 8:19-CR-00605-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2022) (Dkt. 192). 

Defendant DaCorta and Defendant Anile were each ordered to pay 

$53,270,336.08 in criminal restitution, representing the loss to victims of the 

fraudulent scheme, and both were also ordered to serve prison sentences. See 

respective Judgments in a Criminal Case, DaCorta, Dkt. 234; Anile, Dkt. 58. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 36 PageID 17666
4

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against 

Defendant Anile without a trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, 

Defendant Anile:

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for Permanent 

Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against 

Defendant Joseph S. Anile, II (“Consent Order”);

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Consent Order 

voluntarily, and that no promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or 

threat, has been made by the CFTC or any member, officer, agent, or 

representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce consent to this Consent 

Order;

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint;

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him and the subject matter 

of this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1;

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the CFTC over the conduct and 

transactions at issue in this action pursuant to the Act;

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(e);

7. Waives:

(a) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 36 PageID 17667
5

rules promulgated by the Commission in conformity 

therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 

(2022), relating to, or arising from, this action;

(b) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. 

L. No. 104-121, tit. II, §§ 201–253, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74

(codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in scattered 

sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, 

this action;

(c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of 

this action or the entry in this action of any order imposing a 

civil monetary penalty or any other relief, including this 

Consent Order; and

(d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action;

8. Agrees that the CFTC is the prevailing party in this action for 

purposes of the waiver of any and all rights under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 specified in 

paragraph 7. 

9. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the 

purpose of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent 

Order and for any other purpose relevant to this action, even if Defendant Anile

now or in the future resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court;

10. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on 

the ground, if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and hereby waives any objection based thereon;

11. Acknowledges that he pleaded guilty in United States v. Anile, No.

8:19-CR-00334-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2019), to violating 18 U.S.C. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 36 PageID 17668
6

§§ 1349, 1957, and 7206(1), and in connection with that plea, admitted the facts 

set out in the transcript of his plea allocution, a copy of which is attached as 

Exhibit A to this Consent Order, and those same facts are admitted as if set forth 

in this Order;

12. Admits to all of the findings made in this Consent Order and all of 

the allegations in the Complaint; 

13. Agrees to provide immediate notice to this Court and the CFTC by 

certified mail, in the manner required by paragraph 97 of Part IX of this Consent 

Order, of any bankruptcy proceeding filed by, on behalf of, or against him, 

whether inside or outside the United States; and 

14. Agrees that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit 

or impair the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable 

remedy against him in any other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good 

cause for the entry of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for 

delay. The Court therefore directs the entry of the following Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction and equitable relief pursuant to 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as set forth herein. The findings and 

conclusions in this Consent Order are not binding on any other party to this 

action.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 36 PageID 17669
7

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS:

A. Findings of Fact

1. The CFTC and Defendant Anile Are the Parties to This 

Consent Order.

15. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and 

enforcing the Act and the Regulations.

16. Defendant Joseph S. Anile, II is a resident of Jacksonville, Florida. 

Anile co-founded and was a principal shareholder, director, and president of 

OIG. Anile had responsibility for staffing, guiding, and managing OIG’s vision, 

mission, strategic plan, and direction. Anile controlled OIG bank accounts. 

Additionally, Anile opened trading accounts for the Oasis Pools. Anile assisted in 

facilitating real estate purchases with pool funds and making non-forex 

investments with pool funds. Anile has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity.

2. Defendants’ Investment Scheme Defrauded Hundreds of 

Pool Participants.

17. During the Relevant Period, Defendants operated a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit and misappropriate money given to them for the purpose of 

engaging in leveraged, margined, or financed transactions in foreign currency

with customers that were not ECPs as described in Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) (“retail forex”). Defendants did so through several 

interrelated domestic and foreign entities (OIG, OM, and SHC), acting as a 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 7 of 36 PageID 17670
8

common enterprise. These entities acted as commodity pool operators for the 

commodity pools Oasis Global FX, Limited and later Oasis Global FX, S.A. 

(together, the “Oasis Pools”). 

18. Defendants fraudulently solicited approximately 800 members of 

the public (“pool participants”) to invest over $80 million in the Oasis Pools, 

which purportedly would trade in retail forex. But only a portion of the pool 

funds were used to trade retail forex—which trading incurred losses—and instead 

the majority of pool funds were misappropriated and pool participants were 

issued false account statements to conceal the trading losses and 

misappropriation. 

19. During the course of the fraudulent scheme, Defendants made 

material misrepresentations to pool participants, including that: (1) all pool 

funds would be used to trade retail forex; (2) pool participants would receive a 

minimum 12% guaranteed annual return from this retail forex trading; (3) the 

Oasis Pools were profitable and returned 22% in 2017 and 21% in 2018; (4) the 

Oasis Pools had never had a losing month; (5) money being returned to pool 

participants was from profitable trading; (6) there was no risk of loss with the 

Oasis Pools; and (7) pool participants could earn extra returns by referring other 

pool participants to the Oasis Pools. 

20. Instead, Defendants DaCorta and Anile misappropriated the 

majority of pool funds. Defendants deposited only $21 million into retail forex 

trading accounts in the names of the Oasis Pools, all of which was lost trading 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 8 of 36 PageID 17671
9

retail forex. Defendants misappropriated over $28 million of pool funds to make 

Ponzi-like payments to other pool participants. Defendants misappropriated 

over $18 million of pool funds for unauthorized personal or business expenses, 

such as real estate purchases in Florida, exotic vacations, sports tickets, loans to 

family members, and college and study abroad tuition. 

21. To conceal the trading losses and misappropriation, Defendants 

DaCorta and Anile, on behalf of OIG and OM, created and issued false account 

statements to pool participants that inflated and misrepresented the value of the 

pool participants’ investments in the Oasis Pools and the Oasis Pools’ trading 

returns. The pool participants believed that these account statement balances 

reflected money actually held in accounts for the Oasis Pools and that they 

reflected the pool participants’ principal investment amounts, interest on that 

principal, and in many cases, “referral” fees for introducing other pool

participants to the “opportunity.” When the CFTC filed its initial complaint, 

however, the assets of the Oasis Pools were such that they were ultimately short 

$50 million to pay back even pool participants’ principal investments, let alone 

interest on their investments and referral fees.

3. Anile Misappropriated Pool Funds for Personal Use.

22. Instead of using pool participants’ funds for forex trading in the 

Oasis Pools, Defendant Anile knowingly misappropriated the funds for his

personal benefit.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 9 of 36 PageID 17672
10

23. Defendant Anile used pool funds to purchase a personal residence in 

Sarasota, Florida in which he and his family resided. To effect the purchase, 

Anile created a legal entity, 4064 Founders Club Drive, LLC (“4064 Founders 

Club”), which had a bank account on which Anile and his wife were the only 

signatories. 4064 Founders Club received over $590,000 in pool funds during 

the Relevant Period, and pool funds were the only source of funds in the account. 

4064 Founders Club was named as a Relief Defendant in the Complaint, and was 

transferred to the care and custody of the Receiver.

24. Defendant Anile also created additional legal entities, Bowling Green 

Capital Management LLC (“Bowling Green”), and 4Oaks LLC (“4Oaks”). Bowling 

Green and 4Oaks both had bank accounts on which Anile and his wife were the 

only signatories. Bowling Green’s account received over $2.1 million in pool 

funds during the Relevant Period, and 4Oaks received over $177,000 in pool 

funds during the Relevant Period. Pool funds were the only source of funds in 

the Bowling Green and 4Oaks accounts. Both Bowling Green and 4Oaks were 

named as Relief Defendants in the Complaint and transferred to the care and 

custody of the Receiver. 

25. Defendant Anile misappropriated millions of dollars from the Oasis 

Pools. Anile regularly used corporate bank accounts, in which pool funds were 

the only source of funds, to pay for personal living expenses for himself and his 

family. Anile also spent substantial pool funds on numerous vehicles, including a

Ferrari; private school and college tuition and loan payments for his family; 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 10 of 36 PageID 17673
11

jewelry; furniture; landscaping; moving expenses; restaurants; vacations; and pet 

supplies. 

26. Defendant Anile controlled OIG’s bank accounts, and opened the 

trading accounts for the Oasis Pools. Of the approximately $80 million received 

from pool participants for the Oasis Pools, Anile deposited just over $20 million in 

the trading accounts for retail forex trading. Nearly all of this money was lost 

trading retail forex.

27. Defendant Anile executed all payments, wires, and withdrawals from 

OIG’s bank accounts at his own or Defendant DaCorta’s direction. The only 

source of funds in these accounts was from participants in the Oasis Pools.

28. Defendant Anile’s misappropriation of pool funds operated as a 

fraud on pool participants.

4. Defendant OIG Failed To Operate the Oasis Pools As 

Separate Legal Entities or To Receive Funds in the Oasis 

Pools’ Names.

29. Defendant OIG, acting as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) of the 

Oasis Pools, did not operate the Oasis Pools as separate legal entities. OIG failed 

to open bank accounts specifically designated for the Oasis Pools. OIG also failed 

to receive pool participants’ funds in the names of the Oasis Pools and 

commingled the property of the Oasis Pools with the property of Defendants or 

others.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 11 of 36 PageID 17674
12

5. Defendant OIG Failed To Register with the CFTC.

30. Defendant OIG operated as a CPO in that it engaged in a business 

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

form of enterprise, and they solicited, accepted, or received funds, securities, 

property, or capital contributions for the purpose of trading in commodity 

interests, including retail forex transactions.

31. Defendant OIG used emails, wire transfers, phone calls including 

conference calls, and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to 

solicit, accept, and receive pool participants’ funds for the purpose of trading 

retail forex.

32. During the Relevant Period, Defendant OIG was never registered as 

a CPO and was not exempt or excluded from registration as a CPO. 

6. Defendant OIG Failed To Provide Adequate Pool 

Disclosures and Other Relevant Documents.

33. At or near the time of participation in the Oasis Pools, Defendant 

OIG, while acting as a CPO of the Oasis Pools, provided potential pool 

participants with a document titled “Agreement and Risk Disclosures,” along 

with a “Promissory Note and Loan Agreement.”

34. The Agreement and Risk Disclosure purported to alert investors to 

the risks associated with investing in retail forex, but at the same time, the 

Promissory Note and Loan Agreement guaranteed pool participants a minimum 

12% annual return.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 12 of 36 PageID 17675
13

35. The Agreement and Risk Disclosure did not include the required 

cautionary statement to investors or a full and complete risk disclosure, including 

the risks involved in retail forex trading.

36. In addition, Defendant OIG also failed to provide pool participants 

with additional required information, including but not limited to the fees and 

expenses incurred by the Oasis Pools, past performance disclosures, and a 

statement that the CPO is required to provide all pool participants with monthly 

or quarterly account statements, as well as an annual report containing financial 

statements certified by an independent public accountant.

7. Defendant Anile Was a Controlling Person of OIG.

37. Defendant Anile was a controlling person of OIG. He co-founded 

and was an OIG principal shareholder, director, and president of OIG. Oasis’s 

website stated that Anile had responsibility for staffing, guiding, and managing 

OIG’s vision, mission, strategic plan, and direction. Additionally, Anile opened 

the trading accounts used for the Oasis Pools and controlled OIG bank accounts. 

B. Conclusions of Law

1. Jurisdiction and Venue

38. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 

(providing that U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions 

commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly authorized to sue by 

Act of Congress). Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), provides that the 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 13 of 36 PageID 17676
14

CFTC may bring actions for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance with the 

Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder in the proper district court of the 

United States whenever it shall appear to the CFTC that any 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.

39. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), 

because a number of Defendants reside in this jurisdiction and the acts and 

practices in violation of the Act occurred within this District.

2. Defendants Anile and OIG Committed Fraud in Violation of 

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

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

40. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), makes it unlawful:

(2) [F]or any person, in or in connection with any 

order to make, or the making of, any contract of 

sale of any commodity for future delivery, or 

swap, 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;

(B) willfully to make or cause to be made to the 

other person any false report or statement 

or willfully to enter or cause to be entered 

for the other person any false record; [or]

(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 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 14 of 36 PageID 17677
15

performed, with respect to any order or 

contract for or, in the case of paragraph (2), 

with the other person[.]

41. Under Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(i), (iv), transactions in foreign currency (such as the retail forex 

transactions described herein), that are entered into with persons who are not 

eligible contract participants, are subject to Section 4b of the Act “as if” they are a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

42. Section 1a(18)(A)(ix) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(A)(xi), defines an 

ECP (eligible contract participant), 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 occurred, or reasonably likely to 

be owned or incurred, by the individual. 

43. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) provides, in relevant part, that:

It 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;

(2) Willfully to make or cause to be made to any 

person any false report or statement or cause to 

be entered for any person any false record; or

(3) Willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any 

person by any means whatsoever.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 15 of 36 PageID 17678
16

44. Defendant Anile engaged in a fraud by depositing only a portion of 

pool participants’ funds in trading accounts used to trade retail forex. Anile 

misappropriated the remainder of funds, paying back other pool participants in 

the nature of a Ponzi scheme, or transferring funds to himself, or accounts owned 

by him, or to other defendants and relief defendants. 

45. Defendant OIG engaged in a fraud by, among other things: 

(1) issuing false account statements to pool participants, and (2) paying returns 

to pool participants by using the principal of other pool participants in the nature 

of a Ponzi scheme. 

46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG and Defendant Anile, by 

violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3). 

47. Defendant Anile controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, OIG’s conduct as 

described above, and therefore under Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Defendant Anile is liable for OIG’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3). 

48. Each act of misappropriation, misrepresentation, omission of 

material fact, or false report or statement is a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 16 of 36 PageID 17679
17

3. Defendant OIG Committed Fraud as a CPO in Violation of 

Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B).

49. Section 1a(11) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in 

relevant part, as any person

[E]ngaged 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—

(I) commodity for future delivery, security futures 

product, or swap; [or]

(II) agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

[S]ection 2(c)(2)(C)(i) [of the Act] or [S]ection 

2(c)(2)(D)(i) [of the Act].

50. Under Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2022), and subject 

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

securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle and engages in retail forex 

transactions is a retail forex CPO.

51. Under Section 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), 

“[a]greements, contracts, or transactions” in retail forex and accounts or pooled 

investment vehicles “shall be subject to . . . section[ ] 6o [of the Act],” except in 

circumstances not relevant here.

52. During the Relevant Period, Defendant OIG engaged in a business, 

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 17 of 36 PageID 17680
18

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; 

therefore, Defendant OIG acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11).

53. During the Relevant Period, Defendant OIG was not registered with 

the CFTC as a CPO.

54. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), prohibits CPOs, whether registered with the 

CFTC 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. 

55. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6o(1)(A)-(B).

56. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Defendant Anile 

controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly 

induced, directly or indirectly, OIG’s conduct; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Anile is also liable for OIG’s violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 18 of 36 PageID 17681
19

57. Each act of misappropriation, misrepresentation, omission of 

material fact, or false report or statement is a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B).

4. OIG Failed To Register as a CPO in Violation of Sections 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022). 

58. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) 

states that it shall be “unlawful for any . . . [CPO], unless registered under this 

chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce in connection with his business as such . . . [CPO].”

59. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) states that a

[P]erson, unless registered in such capacity as the Commission 

by rule, regulation, or order shall determine and a member of 

a futures association registered under section 21 of this title, 

shall not . . . 

. . . . .

(cc) operate or solicit funds, securities, or 

property for any pooled investment vehicle that is not 

an eligible contract participant in connection with [retail 

forex contracts, agreements, or transactions]. 

60. For the purposes of retail forex transactions, a CPO is defined in 

Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2022), as any person who operates or 

solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle that is not 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 19 of 36 PageID 17682
20

an ECP, as defined in Section 1a(18) of the Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1a(18), and who 

engages in retail forex transactions.

61. Except in circumstances not relevant here, Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022), requires those that meet the definition of a retail 

forex CPO under Regulation 5.1(d), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d) (2022), to register as a CPO 

with the CFTC.

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG 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 retail forex transactions; therefore, Defendant OIG acted as a CPO as 

defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

63. Defendant OIG while using the mails or means of interstate 

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

CFTC as a CPO.

64. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG acted as an unregistered 

CPO in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

65. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG solicited funds, 

securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle from investors who were 

not ECPs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18), for the purpose of trading in retail forex 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 20 of 36 PageID 17683
21

transactions (as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(m)); thus, OIG acted as a CPO engaged 

in retail forex transactions as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1).

66. Defendant OIG was not registered with the CFTC as a CPO engaged 

in retail forex transactions, and therefore violated 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i).

67. Defendant Anile controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, OIG’s conduct. 

Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Anile is liable for OIG’s violations 

of 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i).

68. Each instance that OIG acted as a CPO but failed to register with the 

CFTC as such is a separate and distinct violation.

5. OIG Failed To Accept Funds in the Name of the Oasis Pools 

and Commingled Funds in Violation of Regulation 4.20, 

17 C.F.R. § 4.20 (2022).

69. Regulation 5.4, 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 (2022), states that Part 4 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 (2022), applies to any person required to register as a 

CPO pursuant to Part 5 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 (2022), relating to forex 

transactions.

70. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from 

receiving pool participants’ funds in any name other than that of the pool. 

71. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from 

commingling the property of any pool it operates with the property of any other 

person. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 21 of 36 PageID 17684
22

72. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG, while acting as a CPO for 

the Oasis Pools, failed to receive the pool participants’ funds in the names of the 

Oasis Pools, and commingled the property of the Oasis Pools with property of 

Defendants or others.

73. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG violated 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20(b)-(c).

74. Defendant Anile controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, OIG’s conduct. 

Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Anile is liable for OIG’s violations 

of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b)-(c).

75. Each act of improperly receiving pool participants’ funds and 

commingling the property of the Oasis Pools with non-pool property, including 

but not limited to those specifically described herein, is a separate and distinct 

violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b)-(c). 

6. Defendant OIG Failed To Provide Pool Disclosures in 

Violation of Regulation 4.21, 17 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2022).

76. Regulation 5.4, 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 (2022), states 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 applies to 

any person required to register as a CPO under 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 relating to forex 

transactions.

77. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21 provides that

[E]ach commodity pool operator registered or required to be 

registered under the Act must deliver or cause to be delivered 

to a prospective participant in a pool that it operates or 

intends to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 22 of 36 PageID 17685
23

prepared in accordance with §§ 4.24 and 4.25 by no later than 

the time it delivers to the prospective participant a 

subscription agreement for the pool . . . .

78. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG failed to provide to 

prospective pool participants with pool disclosure documents in the form 

specified in Regulations 4.24 and 4.25, 17 C.F.R. § 4.24, 4.25 (2022).

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.21. 

80. Defendant Anile controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, OIG’s conduct. 

Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Anile is liable for OIG’s violations 

of 17 C.F.R. § 4.21.

81. Each failure to furnish the required disclosure of documents to 

prospective pool participants and pool participants is a separate and distinct 

violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.21.

82. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable 

likelihood that Defendant Anile will continue to engage in the acts and practices 

alleged in the Complaint and in similar acts and practices in violation of the Act 

and Regulations.

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

83. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant 

to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Defendant Anile is permanently 

restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or indirectly:

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 23 of 36 PageID 17686
24

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, other 

persons in or in connection with any order to make, or the making 

of, any contract of sale of any retail forex transaction that is made, or 

to be made, for or on behalf of, or with, any other person, in violation 

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

Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2022); 

b. Employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or 

participant or prospective client or participant, or engaging in any 

transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud 

or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective participant in 

violation of Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B); 

c. Failing to register as a CPO in violation of Sections 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 

6m(1), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022);

d. Failing to operate a commodity pool as an entity cognizable as a legal 

entity separate from that of the pool operator, in violation of 

Regulation 4.20(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) (2022); 

e. Failing to require that all funds, securities, or other property 

received by a CPO from a prospective or existing pool participant be 

received in the commodity pool’s name, in violation of Regulation 

4.20(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) (2022);

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 24 of 36 PageID 17687
25

f. Commingling the property of a commodity pool in violation of 

Regulation 4.20(c), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) (2022); and

g. Failing to provide prospective pool participants with pool disclosure 

documents in the form specified in Regulations 4.24 and 4.25, 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24, 4.25 (2022), in violation of Regulation 4.21, 

17 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2022). 

84. Defendant Anile is also permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

a. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that 

term is defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40));

b. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as 

that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), for his 

own personal account or for any account in which he has a direct or 

indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

d. 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; 

e. Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

f. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration 

with the Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 25 of 36 PageID 17688
26

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) (2022); and

g. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2022)), agent or any other officer or employee of 

any person (as that term is defined in Section 1a(38) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 1a(38)), registered, exempted from registration or 

required to be registered with the CFTC except as provided for in 

17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

V. RESTITUTION

85. Defendant Anile shall pay, jointly and severally, restitution in the 

amount of fifty-three million, two hundred and seventy thousand, three hundred 

and thirty-six dollars and eight cents ($53,270,336.08) (“Restitution 

Obligation”). 

86. In the Criminal Action, Defendant Anile was sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of fifty-three million, 

two hundred and seventy thousand, three hundred and thirty-six dollars and 

eight cents ($53,270,336.08) to the pool participants defrauded by Anile in 

connection with the same conduct at issue in this Consent Order. For amounts 

disbursed to the pool participants as a result of satisfaction of any restitution 

ordered in the Criminal Action, Defendant Anile shall receive a dollar-for-dollar 

credit against the Restitution Obligation. One year after the Consent Order is 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 26 of 36 PageID 17689
27

entered by the Court and on an annual basis thereafter, Defendant Anile shall, 

under a cover letter that identifies the name and docket number of this 

proceeding, transmit to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

20581, and to the Receiver, Burton Wiand, Receiver, Burton W. Wiand PA, 114 

Turner Street, Clearwater, FL 33576, a report detailing payments made by Anile 

in satisfaction of his restitution obligation in the Criminal Action for the year 

immediately preceding, until such criminal restitution obligation is fulfilled. 

87. To effect payment of the Restitution Obligation and the distribution 

of any restitution payments to participants in the Oasis Pools, the Court directs 

the Receiver to receive restitution payments from Defendant as set forth below. 

Because the Receiver is acting as an officer of this Court in performing these 

services, the Receiver shall not be liable for any action or inaction arising from 

his appointment, other than actions involving fraud.

88. The Receiver shall oversee the Restitution Obligation and shall make 

any distributions of the same in accordance with the March 7, 2022 Order (Dkt. 

482) granting the Receiver’s Motion to: (1) Approve Determination and Priority 

of Claims; (2) Pool Receivership Assets and Liabilities; (3) Approve Plan of 

Distribution; and (4) Establish Objection Procedure (Dkt. 439). 

89. Upon the termination of the Receivership Estate, the Receiver shall 

provide the CFTC with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to 

participants in the Oasis Pools. The delivery of the Court’s order terminating the 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 27 of 36 PageID 17690
28

Receivership that contains this information shall satisfy this requirement. The 

Receiver shall transmit this report under a cover letter that identifies the name 

and docket number of this proceeding to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20581. 

90. The provision of the preliminary injunction entered against 

Defendant Anile on April 30, 2019 (Dkt. 43), continuing a freeze on assets or 

funds in his name or under his management and control, shall remain in full 

force and effect with respect to those assets or funds that can be traced to 

amounts deposited by or belonging to pool participants in the Oasis Pools, until 

such time as the Court orders otherwise pursuant to a request by the Receiver or 

the CFTC.

91. To the extent that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for 

satisfaction of Defendant Anile’s Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be 

transferred to the Receiver for disbursement in accordance with the procedures 

set forth above. 

VI. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

92. Defendant Anile shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of 

five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) (“CMP Obligation”). If the CMP Obligation 

is not paid in full immediately, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the 

unpaid portion of the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 28 of 36 PageID 17691
29

Consent Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing 

on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

93. Defendant Anile shall pay his CMP Obligation and any postjudgment interest, by electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified 

check, bank cashier’s check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made 

other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment shall be made payable 

to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address below:

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd.

HQ Room 266

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendant Anile shall contact 

Tonia King or her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions 

and shall fully comply with those instructions. Defendant Anile shall accompany 

payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that identifies Defendant Anile

and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendant Anile shall 

simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the

Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581.

VII. PROVISIONS RELATED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS 

94. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the CFTC or the Receiver of any 

partial payment of Defendant Anile’s Restitution Obligation or CMP Obligation 

shall not be deemed a waiver of his obligation to make further payments 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 29 of 36 PageID 17692
30

pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the CFTC’s or Receiver’s right to 

seek to compel payment of any remaining balance.

VIII. COOPERATION

95. Defendant Anile shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with the 

CFTC and the Receiver, including the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement (“Division 

Staff”) and any other governmental agency or any self-regulatory organization, in 

this action, and in any current or future CFTC investigation or action related 

thereto. Defendant Anile shall also cooperate in any investigation, civil litigation, 

or administrative matter related to, or arising from, this action and any action 

brought by the Receiver. As part of such cooperation, Defendant Anile agrees to: 

a. preserve and produce to the CFTC in a responsive and prompt 

manner, as requested by Division Staff, all relevant non-privileged 

documents, information, and other materials wherever located, in 

the appropriate possession, custody, or control of Anile;

b. utilize his knowledge and skill to explain transactions, interpret 

information and technology, or identify new and productive lines of 

inquiry;

c. prepare and appear for interviews and testimony at such times and 

places as requested by Division Staff, upon reasonable notice;

d. respond completely and truthfully to all inquiries and interviews, 

when requested to do so by Division Staff;

e. identify and authenticate relevant documents and other evidentiary 

materials, execute affidavits and/or declarations, and testify 

completely and truthfully at depositions, trial, and other judicial 

proceedings, when requested to do so by Division Staff;

f. accept service by mail, electronic mail, or facsimile transmission of 

notices or subpoenas for documents and/or testimony;

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 30 of 36 PageID 17693
31

g. appoint his attorney, if any, as agent to receive service of such 

notices and such subpoenas; and

h. waive the territorial limits on service contained in Rule 45 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local rules in 

connection with requests or subpoenas of Division Staff.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

96. Until such time as Defendant Anile satisfies in full his Restitution 

Obligation and CMP Obligation under this Consent Order, upon the

commencement by or against Defendant Anile of insolvency, receivership or

bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of Defendant

Anile’s debts, all notices to creditors required to be furnished to the CFTC under

Title 11 of the United States Code or other applicable law with respect to such

insolvency, receivership bankruptcy or other proceedings, shall be sent to the

address below: 

Secretary of the Commission

Legal Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

97. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this 

Consent Order, except as set forth in paragraph 96, above, shall be sent via 

electronic mail, as follows:

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 31 of 36 PageID 17694
32

Notice to CFTC: 

Charles Marvine, Deputy Director

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 210

Kansas City, MO 64108

cmarvine@cftc.gov

Notice to Defendant Anile:

jsanile@jsa-atty.com

Notice to Receiver:

Burton W. Wiand, Receiver

Burton W. Wiand PA

114 Turner Street

Clearwater, FL 33756

All such notices to the CFTC shall reference the name and docket number of this 

action.

98. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant Anile 

satisfies in full his Restitution Obligation and CMP Obligation as set forth in this 

Consent Order, Defendant Anile shall provide written notice to the CFTC and the 

Receiver by certified mail of any change to his telephone number and mailing 

address within ten calendar days of the change.

99. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This Consent Order and other 

court orders referenced herein incorporate all of the terms and conditions of the 

settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to amend or 

modify this Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to 

writing; (b) signed by all parties hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 32 of 36 PageID 17695
33

100. Invalidation: If any provision of this Consent Order or if the 

application of any provision or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder 

of this Consent Order and the application of the provision to any other person or 

circumstance shall not be affected by the holding.

101. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order at any time to 

require performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no manner 

affect the right of the party at a later time to enforce the same or any other 

provision of this Consent Order. No waiver in one or more instances of the 

breach of any provision contained in this Consent Order shall be deemed to be or 

construed as a further or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of the 

breach of any other provision of this Consent Order.

102. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Defendant Anile waives

service of this Consent Order and agrees that entry of this Consent Order by the 

Court and filing with the Clerk of the Court will constitute notice to Defendant 

Anile of its terms and conditions. Defendant Anile further agrees to provide 

counsel for the CFTC, within thirty days after this Consent Order is filed with the 

Clerk of Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that Defendant Anile has 

received and read a copy of this Consent Order.

103. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain 

jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with this Consent Order and for 

all other purposes related to this action, including the Receiver’s collection efforts 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 33 of 36 PageID 17696
34

and any motion by Defendant Anile to modify or for relief from the terms of this

Consent Order.

104. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and 

equitable relief provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon the 

following persons who receive actual notice of this Consent Order, by personal 

service or otherwise: (1) Defendant Anile; (2) any officer, agent, servant, 

employee, or attorney of Defendant Anile; and (3) upon any other persons who 

are in active concert or participation with any persons described in subsections 

(1) and (2) above.

105. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be 

executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and 

the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts 

have been signed by each of the parties hereto and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail,

or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood that all parties need not sign 

the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other signature to this Consent Order

that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as constituting 

good and valid execution and delivery by such party of this Consent Order.

106. Contempt: Defendant Anile understands that the terms of the 

Consent Order, except with respect to restitution, are enforceable through 

contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings he may not challenge 

the validity of this Consent Order.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 34 of 36 PageID 17697
35 

107. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendant Anile shall comply with

all of the undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order.

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court is hereby 

ordered to enter this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary 

Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Anile forthwith and 

without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this _____day of ____________________, 2023. 

____________________________

HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. 

HERNANDEZ COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12th December

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 35 of 36 PageID 17698
12-7-2023

12/07/2023

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 786 Filed 12/15/23 Page 36 of 36 PageID 17699