1

JEFFERY C. LE RICHE

RACHEL HAYES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210

Kansas City, MO 64108

Telephone (Le Riche): 816-960-7746

Telephone (Hayes): 816-960-7741

Email: jleriche@cftc.gov

Email: rhayes@cftc.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION,

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-386 

___________________

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLAINT FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTIES, 

RESTITUTION,

DISGORGEMENT AND 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

GREGORY DEMETRIUS BRYANT, 

JR., an individual,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or 

“Commission”), by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows:

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1
2

I. SUMMARY

1. Since approximately September 2016 and through at least June 2020,

(the “Relevant Period”), Defendant Gregory Demetrius Bryant, Jr. (“Defendant”), 

an unregistered commodity pool operator (“CPO”), has engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit and misappropriate money given to him for the purpose of trading 

various commodity futures contracts (“futures”) and off-exchange foreign currency 

(“forex”) contracts in commodity pools. During the Relevant Period, Defendant

fraudulently solicited at least $426,000 from at least 35 members of the public 

(“pool participants”) to trade futures and forex, and operated his fraud as a 

commodity pool by combining pool participant funds and trading a portion of 

those funds in several personal trading accounts (collectively, “the Bryant Pool”).

2. During the Relevant Period, Defendant made various material 

misrepresentations to solicit pool participants, including that: (1) pool participants 

would earn returns of $6,000 to $8,000 per month trading futures and forex; (2) he 

would make pool participants monthly returns of sixty to eighty percent trading 

futures and forex; (3) the returns he was paying to current pool participants were 

generated from futures and forex trading profits; (4) he was an experienced trader 

of twenty or more years; (5) his name was “Gregory Surrey England” and he was 

registered with the National Futures Association (“NFA”); and (6) each pool 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2
3

participant would have their own trading account with his company, “Surrey Libor 

Capital, LLC” (“Surrey Libor”).

3. Defendant’s representations were false. Defendant traded only 

approximately 16% of the total funds solicited and received from pool participants 

and his trading was unprofitable. The payments Defendant made to pool 

participants were not from trading profits, but from funds he solicited from other 

pool participants. He has not been trading futures and forex for twenty years. 

He has never been registered with the CFTC or the NFA. Gregory Surrey England 

is not his name, and he does not own a company called Surrey Libor, because such 

a company does not even exist.

4. Defendant also omitted to tell to pool participants, among other 

things, that: (1) he had no history of achieving or any reasonable basis to claim 

that he would generate monthly returns of sixty to eighty percent trading futures 

and forex for pool participants; and (2) he was a convicted criminal with a history 

of financial problems, including three bankruptcies.

5. Instead of trading futures and forex as promised, Defendant

misappropriated the vast majority of pool participant funds—approximately

$356,000, including at least $66,000 in Ponzi payments. He used the money for 

his living expenses, including his rent, his cellular phone, international travel, 

eating in restaurants, shopping, and playing golf.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 3
4

6. Finally, to conceal and perpetuate his fraud, Defendant made at least 

$66,000 in Ponzi payments to some pool participants and lulled other pool 

participants, falsely telling them that their accounts were “in great shape,” to 

expect returns or disbursements soon, and/or that his business was being impacted 

by the coronavirus pandemic.

7. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, 

Defendant has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in acts and practices in 

violation of Sections 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C), 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4m(1), 4o(1), and 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(1) (A), (C); 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6m(1), 6o(1); and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc)

(2018), and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 4.20(a)(1) and (b), 4.21,

4.22, 5.2(b)(1) and (3), and 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), 4.21, 4.22,

5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i)(2020).

8. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendant is likely to 

continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint and similar 

acts and practices, as described below.

9. Accordingly, the Commission brings this action pursuant to 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2018), to enjoin Defendant’s unlawful 

acts and practices, to compel his compliance with the Act and Regulations

promulgated thereunder, and to enjoin him from engaging in any commodityCase 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 4
5

related activity. 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 post-judgment interest, and 

such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

(2018) (codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) 

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

(2018), authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive and other relief 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. 

Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) (2018), subjects the forex 

solicitations and transactions at issue in this action to, inter alia, Sections 4b and 

4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b and 6o (2018), as further described below.

11. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e)

(2018), because Defendant transacted business in this District and certain 

transactions, practices, and courses of business in violation of the Act and 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 5
6

Regulations occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur in this District, among 

other places.

III. PARTIES

12. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an 

independent federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the 

administration and enforcement of the Act and Regulations promulgated 

thereunder. The CFTC maintains its principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 

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

13. Defendant Gregory Demetrius Bryant, Jr. is an individual who, 

during a portion of the Relevant Period, resided in Hawaii. During the Relevant 

Period, Defendant operated as a CPO by soliciting, accepting, and receiving funds 

from pool participants for participation in the Bryant Pool. Defendant is known to 

use the aliases “Gregory Surrey England” and “Surrey England,” and to do

business as “Surrey Libor Capital” and/or “Libor Capital, LLC.” Neither Surrey 

Libor nor Libor Capital is a formally organized business entity. Defendant has 

never been registered with the Commission or the NFA—the Commission’s 

designated self-regulatory organization for the U.S. derivatives industry that 

oversees and manages the Commission’s registration process—in any capacity.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 6
7

IV. FACTS

A. Defendant Engaged in Minimal and Unprofitable Trading of Bryant 

Pool Funds.

14. Prior to the Relevant Period, Defendant had minimal experience 

trading futures and forex.

15. During the Relevant Period, Defendant used accounts he maintained 

in his own name at five different futures commission merchants to trade futures 

and forex for the Bryant Pool. Despite receiving at least $426,000 in pool funds, 

Defendant only sent $110,105.98 to futures and forex trading accounts and only 

traded approximately $70,000 of that amount. Overall, his futures and forex 

trading in the Bryant Pool has been unprofitable with net losses of approximately

$22,000.

B. Defendant Misappropriated the Vast Majority of Pool Funds for 

Personal Expenses and To Make Ponzi Payments.

16. During the Relevant Period, Defendant did not appear to be employed 

in any capacity, as his only source of income was pool funds he swindled from 

unwitting pool participants.

17. Rather than trade futures and forex with pool funds as promised, 

Defendant misappropriated the vast majority—at least $356,000—of pool funds.

18. Defendant misappropriated pool funds on, among other things,

personal expenses in the following amounts:

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 7
8

a) travel ($15,316.36);

b) meals and grocery items ($5,302.93);

c) mobile telephone charges ($6,111.63);

d) cash and ATM withdrawals ($73,238.82);

e) transfers to unknown accounts through xoom.com ($68,388.50);

f) transfers to unknown recipients through Western Union ($28,305.29);

g) personal shopping ($41,205.45);

h) golf ($1,098.66);

i) Google ads ($1,766.07); and

j) rent ($12,343).

19. Additionally, during the Relevant Period Defendant made Ponzi 

payments to pool participants totaling at least $66,000. Defendant misrepresented 

to pool participants that he was paying returns from futures and forex pool trading 

profits, but as described above, Defendant’s futures and forex trading in the Bryant 

Pool was minimal and unprofitable.

C. Defendant Fraudulently Solicited for the Bryant Pool.

20. During the Relevant Period, Defendant made material 

misrepresentations and omissions to pool participants and prospective pool 

participants about the Bryant Pool in Instagram and Craig’s List advertisements

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 8
9

and in direct communications with pool participants via telephone calls and

electronic mail communications.

1. Defendant Fraudulently Solicited via Instagram and Craig’s 

List Advertisements.

21. During the Relevant Period, Defendant placed numerous fraudulent 

advertisements on Instagram and Craig’s List.

22. For example, on December 4, 2017, Defendant solicited potential 

pool participants via an Instagram advertisement, which stated, among other 

things, that he was a forex trader with a trading company called Surrey Libor 

offering “Investment Management Services” and a “guaranteed $6,000-$8,000 

monthly.”

23. Likewise, on February 12, 2018, Defendant fraudulently solicited 

potential pool participants via a Craig’s List advertisement, which falsely stated, 

among other things, that he was a forex trader who “GUARANTEED $6,000 to 

$8,000 Monthly.”

2. Defendant Fraudulently Solicited via Direct Communications 

with Pool Participants.

24. On March 14, 2017, Pool Participant A received an email from 

Defendant using the email address surrey.england@yahoo.com, which falsely 

stated, among other things, that he was the President of Surrey Libor and that he 

“GUARANTEED $6,000 TO $8,000 MONTHLY . . . . [with his] Revolutionary 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 9
10

FOREX Market Trading System.” The email further falsely claimed “consistent 

returns GUARANTEED $6,000 - 20,000 - $30,000 per month from trading in the 

FOREX market . . . .”

25. In early 2017, using the alias “Surrey England,” Defendant told Pool 

Participant A in a telephone call that:

a) he had been trading for 27 years and that he traded for “a bunch of 

clients;”

b) he would make her $6,000 to $8,000 a month if she gave him $10,000

to trade for her;

c) she would have $30,000 in trading returns by the time of her wedding 

in October 2017; and

d) she would have her own account and she could take her money out of 

it any time using an ATM card linked to the account.

26. Based upon Defendant’s misrepresentations, Pool Participant A 

contributed $10,000 to the Bryant Pool. On March 15, 2017, Pool Participant A

wired $5,000 directly to Defendant’s personal trading account at a registered 

futures commission merchant and designated forex dealer (“FCM A”), which

Defendant represented was her new trading account. Shortly thereafter, Pool 

Participant A contacted Defendant and asked him for the login. Defendant

provided an account login for an account held by FCM A.

27. Upon examining the trading account online, Pool Participant A 

realized that her $5,000 was in an account held in the name of “Gregory Bryant.” 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 10
11

Pool Participant A tried to reach Defendant to find out who “Gregory Bryant” was, 

but he did not respond. Pool Participant A called FCM A, which put a hold on 

Defendant’s trading account. Defendant chastised Pool Participant A for 

contacting FCM A. Defendant then instructed Pool Participant A to wire $5,000 to 

his bank account, which she did. After wiring the second $5,000 to Defendant, 

Pool Participant A never heard from him again, despite numerous attempts to 

contact him.

28. On May 8, 2018, Pool Participant B received an email from 

Defendant using the email address bankforex1969@gmail.com, which falsely 

stated, among other things, that he “GUARANTEED $6,000 TO $8,000 

MONTHLY . . . [with his] Revolutionary FOREX Commodity Futures, Stocks, 

Bonds & New BitCoin Futures Market Trading System.”

29. In May 2018, using the alias “Surrey England,” Defendant told Pool 

Participant B in a telephone call that:

a) he had been trading “for many years” and had obtained “hefty 

returns;”

b) he would “manage” her money for her in a Surrey Libor trading 

account, which would have an ATM card linked to it;

c) he would double her $7,000 contribution and the returns were going to 

be “good;” and

d) he was registered with the NFA and that she could confirm this on 

NFA’s website.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 11
12

30. Based on Defendant’s misrepresentations, Pool Participant B wired 

$7,000 to Defendant’s personal credit union account on or about May 11, 2018. 

31. In early 2019, Defendant, using the alias “Surrey England,” told Pool 

Participant C in a telephone call that:

a) he had been trading “for over 20 years” and “knows what he is 

doing;” and

b) he would trade her money in crude oil, copper, platinum, and wheat 

futures, as well as forex.

32. Based on Defendant’s misrepresentations, Pool Participant C wired a

total of $50,000 to Defendant’s personal credit union account ($10,000 on 

May 1, 2019; $20,000 on June 19, 2019; and $20,000 on July 5, 2019). 

33. In December 2019, using the alias “Surrey England, Defendant told 

Pool Participant D that:

a) he would “day trade” her money;

b) she would earn three to seven percent monthly return on her money 

from his trading; and

c) his other clients were “happy” with the profits he made for them.

34. Based on Defendant’s misrepresentations, Pool Participant D wired 

$20,000 to Defendant’s personal bank account on or about January 1, 2020. 

35. In early 2017, using the alias “Surrey England,” Defendant told Pool 

Participant E, who had seen Defendant’s Craig’s List advertisement, that:

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 12
13

a) he would have his own account with a company called Libor Capital, 

LLC;

b) the guaranteed returns would be sixty to eighty percent on a minimum 

$5,000 contribution;

c) he would decide how to trade Pool Participant E’s money and that it 

could be traded in forex, stocks, or bonds;

d) he had worked for “bigger companies and branched off;” and

e) he was registered with the NFA and that this could be confirmed on 

NFA’s website.

36. Based on Defendant’s misrepresentations Pool Participant E wired 

$1,500 to FCM A on February 8, 2017. FCM A called and alerted Pool Participant 

E that he was wiring money to Defendant’s personal trading account. Defendant

then instructed Pool Participant E to wire funds to his bank account, which Pool 

Participant E did on April 7, August 3, August 28, and September 13, 2017 and 

February 9, 2018, respectively, for a total contribution to the Bryant Pool of 

$7,650.

37. In 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, Pool Participants A, B, 

C and D also received “Financial Analysis Agreements” from Defendant, which 

guaranteed “minimum return[s] on investment between 30% to a maximum of 80% 

each month,” as well as “no total loss of the principle [sic]” they provided to him 

for futures and forex trading.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 13
14

3. Defendant’s Representations and Omissions to Pool 

Participants Were False.

 

38. Defendant’s representations in his solicitations through Instagram, 

Craig’s List, email, and the phone were false. Defendant’s name was not Gregory 

Surrey England and he has never been registered with the NFA in any capacity. 

Additionally, Defendant had only traded forex and futures for, at a minimum, three 

years—not twenty or twenty-seven years—before he began soliciting for the 

Bryant Pool. He could not guarantee returns of $6,000 to $8,000 or sixty to eighty 

percent a month trading futures and forex when his trading in the Bryant Pool 

resulted in a negative return. Further, Defendant never incorporated Surrey Libor; 

it was not a real company and could not have held trading accounts for pool 

participants.

39. Defendant also made material omissions to pool participants and 

prospective pool participants in his solicitations through Craig’s List, Instagram, 

email, and the phone. Specifically, Defendant failed to disclose that: (1) he had no 

history of achieving or any reasonable basis to claim that he would generate 

monthly returns of $6,000 to $8,000 or sixty to eighty percent trading futures and 

forex for pool participants; (2) he was not using all of the pool participants’ money 

to trade futures or forex, but instead was using the majority of the pool funds to 

pay living expenses, including international travel, shopping, and golf; (3) he was 

also using some pool participants’ money to make Ponzi payments to other pool 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 14
15

participants as purported trading returns; and (4) he was a convicted criminal with

a history of financial problems, including three bankruptcies.

40. During the Relevant Period, at least thirty-five pool participants gave 

Defendant at least $426,000 for the Bryant Pool based on Defendant’s fraudulent 

solicitations and omissions.

41. In addition, when soliciting pool participants for the Bryant Pool, 

Defendant made no attempt to determine if pool participants were ECPs as defined 

in Section 1a(18) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18) (2018)—i.e., individuals with 

$10,000,000 invested on a discretionary basis—and none of the pool participants 

are ECPs.

D. Defendant’s Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, and Omissions 

Were Intentional or Reckless and Operated as a Fraud on Pool 

Participants.

42. Defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that by accepting 

funds from pool participants and using pool funds for personal expenses or to make 

Ponzi payments, he was misappropriating pool funds. Defendant solicited and 

communicated with full knowledge of how pool funds were being used and that his 

futures and forex trading was unprofitable. Thus, there was no reasonable basis for 

Defendant to believe that the funds he used for personal expenses or to make Ponzi 

payments were derived from trading profits or anywhere besides pool funds.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 15
16

43. Similarly, Defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that his

solicitations for the Bryant Pool and communications with pool participants 

contained the material misstatements and omissions described above. Defendant 

knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that he could not guarantee monthly returns 

of $6,000 to $8,000 and was not making monthly returns of sixty to eighty percent 

trading futures and forex in the Bryant Pool. Additionally, Defendant knew that he 

was not an experienced trader, that his name was not “Gregory Surrey England,” 

and that he was not registered with the NFA. Finally, Defendant knew that 

“Surrey Libor Capital” was not an organized business entity and could not hold 

futures and forex trading accounts for pool participants.

44. At minimum, Defendant’s misappropriation of pool funds and the 

material misstatements and omissions in his communications with pool participants 

operated as a fraud on pool participants.

E. Defendant Failed To Operate the Bryant Pool as a Separate Legal 

Entity or Receive Pool Funds in the Bryant Pool’s Name.

45. Defendant did not operate the Bryant Pool as a separate legal entity

because no such entity existed. Although he solicited money on behalf of the 

Bryant Pool, Defendant failed to open bank or futures or forex trading accounts for 

the Bryant Pool. Defendant received pool funds that were not in the names of the 

Bryant Pool when he received pool funds in his name and deposited them into the 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 16
17

trading and bank accounts he personally held, rather than separate trading and bank 

accounts designated for the Bryant Pool.

F. Defendant Failed To Register as a CPO with the Commission.

46. During the Relevant Period, Defendant acted as a CPO in that he used 

the mails, emails, wire transfers, Internet websites such as Craig’s List and 

Instagram, and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to solicit, 

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

forex. During the Relevant Period, Defendant was never registered as a CPO and 

was not exempt or excluded from registration as a CPO.

G. Defendant Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Relevant 

Documents.

47. Defendant, while acting as the CPO of the Bryant Pool, failed to 

provide pool disclosure documents, account statements, and other documents 

required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22 (2020), including 

but not limited to required cautionary statements, risk disclosures, fees and 

expenses incurred by the Bryant Pool, past performance disclosures, a statement 

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

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

statements certified by an independent public accountant.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 17
18

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND 

COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT ONE

Violations of Section 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), (C) and 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) (2018), and 

Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2020)

(Futures and Forex Fraud by Misrepresentations, Omissions, and 

Misappropriation)

48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

49. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and(C) makes it unlawful:

[F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to 

make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any 

commodity in interstate commerce or for future delivery 

that is made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market, for or on behalf of any other 

person . . . 

(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or 

defraud the other person; [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 performed, 

with respect to any order or contract for or, in the case of 

paragraph (2), with the other person[.]

50. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) makes it unlawful:

[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, 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 18 of 32 PageID #: 18
19

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; [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 

performed, with respect to any order or contract for or, in 

the case of paragraph (2), with the other person[.] 

(emphasis added).

51. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) (2018), 7 U.S.C. § 6b applies to the forex transactions described 

herein “as if” they were a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

52. Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2020), 

provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t 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) [t]o cheat or 

defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; . . . or (3) [w]illfully to deceive 

or attempt to deceive any person by any means whatsoever.”

53. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendant, by use of the 

mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with commodity futures and retail forex transactions, 

willfully or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to cheat or defraud 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 19 of 32 PageID #: 19
20

pool participants; and (2) deceived or attempted to deceive pool participants by any 

means.

54. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 7 U.S.C. §6b(a)(1)(A) 

and (C) and 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3).

55. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and act of 

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

alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. §6b(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 

6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3).

COUNT TWO

Violations of Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6o(1) (2018)

(Fraud and Deceit by CPO)

56. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

57. Section 1a(11)(A)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i) (2018),

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 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 20 of 32 PageID #: 20
21

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

Act].

58. Pursuant to Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2020), 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 defined as a retail forex CPO.

59. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) (2018), “the Commission shall have jurisdiction over, an account 

or pooled investment vehicle that is offered for the purpose of trading, or that 

trades, any agreement, contract, or transaction in [retail forex].”

60. Pursuant to 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 . . . [7 U.S.C. §] 6o,” except in circumstances not relevant here.

61. During the Relevant Period, Defendant 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 in relevant 

part transactions in futures and forex; therefore, Defendant acted as a CPO, as 

defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11).

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 21 of 32 PageID #: 21
22

62. During the Relevant Period, Defendant solicited funds, securities, or 

property for a pooled investment vehicle and engaged in retail forex transactions; 

therefore, Defendant acted as a retail forex CPO, as defined by 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.1(d)(1).

63. During the Relevant Period, Defendant was not registered with the 

Commission as a CPO or retail forex CPO.

64. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) prohibits CPOs, among others, whether registered 

with the Commission or not, from using 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.

65. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, through the use of the mails 

or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce: (1) knowingly or 

recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud pool participants and 

prospective pool participants, or (2) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses 

of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon pool participants or 

prospective pool participants. 

66. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1).

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 22 of 32 PageID #: 22
23

67. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and act of 

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

alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1).

COUNT THREE

Violations of Regulation 4.20(a)(1) and (b), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20(a)(1), (b) (2020) 

(Failure to Operate Pool as a Separate Entity and

Failure to Receive Pool Participants’ Funds in Pool’s

Name)

68. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

69. Regulation 5.4, 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 (2020), states that Part 4 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 (2020), applies to any person required to register as a 

CPO pursuant to Part 5 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 (2020), relating to forex 

transactions.

70. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to 

operate its pool as a legal separate from that of the CPO.

71. 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.

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

Bryant Pool, failed to operate the Bryant Pool as a legal entity separate from 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 23 of 32 PageID #: 23
24

himself as an individual; and received pool participants’ funds in his own name 

rather than the name of a legally cognizable commodity pool.

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

§ 4.20(a)(1) and (b).

74. Each act of failing to operate the Bryant Pool as a separate legal 

entity and improperly receiving pool participants’ funds, including but not limited 

to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 

17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) and (b).

COUNT FOUR

Violations 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) and 6m(1) 

(2018) and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2020)

(Failure to Register as a CPO and Retail Forex CPO)

75. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

76. 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] . . . .”

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

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) states, in part, that:

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 24 of 32 PageID #: 24
25

A person, 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 17, 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] . . . .

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

17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) as any person who operates or solicits funds, securities, or 

property for a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP, as defined in 

17 C.F.R. § 1a(18), and who engages in retail forex transactions.

79. Except in circumstances not relevant here, 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) 

requires those that meet the definition of retail forex CPO under 17 C.F.R. §5.1(d) 

to register as a CPO with the Commission.

80. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant 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 in relevant 

part transactions in futures and retail forex transactions; therefore, Defendant acted 

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

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 25 of 32 PageID #: 25
26

81. Likewise, by reason of the foregoing, Defendant operated or 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) of the Act, for the purpose of 

trading in retail forex transactions (as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(m)); thus, 

Defendant acted as a CPO engaged in retail forex transactions as defined by 

17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1).

82. Defendant, while using the mails or means of interstate commerce in 

connection with his business as a CPO, was not registered with the Commission as 

a CPO or as a CPO engaged in retail forex transactions.

83. By reason of the foregoing, Bryant acted as an unregistered CPO in 

violation 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).

84. Each instance that Defendant acted as a CPO but failed to register 

with the Commission as such is alleged as a separate and distinct violation.

COUNT FIVE 

Violation of Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22

(2020)

(Failure to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents)

85. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 26 of 32 PageID #: 26
27

86. 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 states that 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 applies to any person 

required to register as a CPO pursuant to 17 C.F.R. pt. 5, relating to forex 

transactions.

87. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

[E]ach [CPO] 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 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 . . .

.

88. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or 

required to be registered) provide periodic account statements to investors—

presented and computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting 

principles—itemizing, among other things, the total amount of realized net gain or 

loss on commodity interest positions liquidated during the reporting period; the

total amount of unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions during 

the reporting period, and the total amount of net gain or loss from all other 

transactions in which the pool engaged during the reporting period.

89. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant failed 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 (2020).

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

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 27 of 32 PageID #: 27
28

91. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant failed to provide pool 

participants account statements and annual reports required by 17 C.F.R. §4.22.

92. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. §4.22.

93. Each failure to furnish the required disclosure documents and account 

statements and reports to prospective pool participants and pool participants, 

including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is a separate and 

distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as 

authorized by Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), and pursuant to its 

own equitable powers:

A. Find that Defendant violated Sections 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C), 

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

§§ 6b(a)(1)(A),(C); 6b(a)(2)(A), (C); 6m(1), 6o(1); and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) 

(2018), and Regulations 4.20(a)(1) and (b), 4.21, 4.22, 5.2(b)(1) and (3), and 

5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), 4.21; 4.22, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i) 

(2020);

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction, enjoining Defendant and his 

affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all 

persons in active concert with him, who receive actual notice of such order by 

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 28 of 32 PageID #: 28
29

personal service or otherwise, from engaging in conduct in violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(1)(A),(C); 6b(a)(2)(A), (C); 6m(1); 6o(1); and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b); 4.21; 4.22; 5.2(b)(1), (3); and 5.3(a)(2)(i);

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining and enjoining

Defendant and his affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert with him 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) 

(2018));

2) Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as 

that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2020)), for 

accounts held in the name of Defendant or for accounts in which 

Defendant has a direct or indirect interest; 

3) Having any commodity interests traded on 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;

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 29 of 32 PageID #: 29
30

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) (2020); and

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2020)), agent, or any other officer or employee 

of any person 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 directing Defendant, as well as any third-party 

transferee and/or successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the 

Court may order, all benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, 

commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived, directly or 

indirectly, from acts or practices that constitute violations of the Act and 

Regulations as described herein, including plus pre-judgment interest;

E. Enter an order directing Defendant and any of his successors, to make 

full restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately caused by the 

violations described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 30 of 32 PageID #: 30
31

F. Enter an order directing Defendant and any of his successors, to 

rescind, pursuant to such procedures as the Court may order, all contracts and 

agreements, whether implied or express, entered into between him and any of the 

pool participants whose funds were received by him as a result of the acts and 

practices which constituted violations of the Act and Regulations, as described 

herein;

G. Enter an order requiring Defendant to pay a civil monetary penalty 

assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by 

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

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, tit. VII, 

§ 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599-600, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2020), for 

each violation of the Act and Regulations, as described herein;

H. Enter an order requiring Defendant to pay costs and fees as permitted 

by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2) (2018); and

I. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as this Court 

may deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 31 of 32 PageID #: 31
32

Dated: September 15, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rachel Hayes

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION

Jeffery C. Le Riche (Mo. Bar No. 

46557)

Rachel Hayes (Mo. Bar No. 

48713)

Division of Enforcement

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210

Kansas City, MO 64108

816-960-7745 (Le Riche)

jleriche@cftc.gov

816-960-7741 (Hayes)

rhayes@cftc.gov

816-960-7751 (fax)

Case 1:21-cv-00386 Document 1 Filed 09/15/21 Page 32 of 32 PageID #: 32