UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

-vCASPER MIKKELSEN, also known as Carsten Nielsen, 

also known as Brian Thomson, also known as Thomas 

Jensen, also known as Casper Muller,

Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

X

: 

:

:

:

: 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

X

20 Civ. 3833 (JPC)

ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) commenced this action 

against Defendant Casper Mikkelsen (“Mikkelsen”)1on May 18, 2020, alleging violations of (1) 

section 4b(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), 

(B), and (C), and Commission Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b); (2) section 4m(1) of the CEA, 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), and Commission Regulation 5.3(a)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3); and (3) section 

4o(1)(A) and (B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 42-61. The Complaint alleged 

that Mikkelsen orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to solicit and misappropriate money from over 

100 individuals and entities who invested at least $1.5 million to trade retail leveraged or margined 

off-exchange foreign currency contracts. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. The Complaint further alleged that rather than 

invest those funds as promised, Mikkelsen misappropriated the money for his personal use and 

1 The Commission reports that, at some point, Mikkelsen legally changed his name to 

Casper Muller. Dkt. 70 at 2; Dkt. 75 (“1/27/22 Tr.”) at 7. For consistency purposes, the Court 

refers to the defendant in this case as “Mikkelsen,” which appears to have been his name at the 

time of the unlawful conduct at issue in this case. 

Case 1:20-cv-03833-JPC Document 79 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 5
2

directed that certain money be sent to clients, which came from other client deposits. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4, 

26, 34.

After prior attempts to serve Mikkelsen, service of the Summons and Complaint in 

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure occurred on October 19, 2021, making 

November 9, 2021 Mikkelsen’s deadline to answer or move as to the Complaint. See Dkt. 57. 

Mikkelsen has not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint, nor has he even appeared in 

this case. In an Order signed on November 27, 2021, the Court directed the Commission to move 

for a default judgment by December 17, 2021, with any oppositions from Mikkelsen due by January 

3, 2022. Dkt. 58 at 1-2. That Order also directed Mikkelsen to “appear and show cause at a hearing 

before this Court on January 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., why an order should not be issued granting a 

default judgment against [him].” Id. at 2.2 

The Commission moved for a default judgment against Mikkelsen on December 16, 2021. 

Dkts. 68-72. As relief, the Commission sought (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting Mikkelsen 

from engaging in various commodity trading activity; (2) restitution in the amount of 

$1,191,286.87, along with any post-judgment interest; and (3) a civil monetary penalty in the 

amount of $3,573,860.61, along with any post-judgment interest. Dkt. 68 ¶¶ 40-51. Mikkelsen has 

not challenged the Commission’s motion for a default judgment. Nor did he appear at the January 

24 hearing. 

2 The Court denied without prejudice the Commission’s prior motion for a default 

judgment, Dkt. 36, out of concerns with whether service of the Summons and the Complaint on 

Mikkelsen, who resides in Denmark, was proper. See CFTC v. Mikkelsen, No. 20 Civ. 3833 (JPC), 

2021 WL 4207050 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2021). The Commission eventually served Mikkelsen on 

October 19, 2021 in a manner that complied with Article 6 of the Hague Convention on the Service 

Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents and Chapter 17 of the Danish Administration of 

Justice Act. See Dkt. 57. As the Court concluded at the January 24, 2022 default judgment 

hearing, this method of service complied with Rule 4(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

1/27/22 Tr. at 12-13; see also Dkt. 58.

Case 1:20-cv-03833-JPC Document 79 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 5
3

At the January 24 default judgment hearing, the Court found that service of the Summons and 

Complaint was proper and that Mikkelsen had notice of the filing of this action against him and of 

that day’s hearing. 1/27/22 Tr. at 15-16. The Court further accepted as true the well-pleaded 

allegations of the Complaint, including the allegations that Mikkelsen engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit and misappropriate money from his investors, that he made or caused to be made 

a website with false information about his business and performance histories, that his investors 

lost close to $1.2 million, and that he acted as an unregistered Commodity Trading Advisor. Id. at 

16-17. Accordingly, the Court concluded “that the well-pleaded allegations demonstrate that Mr.

Mikkelsen . . . committed fraud in connection with off-exchange foreign currency contract 

transactions, he failed to register as a commodity trading advisor, and he committed fraud by a

[C]ommodity [T]rading [A]dvisor.” Id. at 16-17. The Court thus explained that it would enter 

judgment on liability against Mikkelsen and enter a permanent injunction and restitution in the 

amount sought by the Commission. Id. at 17-20. The Court also ordered the Commission to file a 

supplemental submission concerning its requested civil monetary penalty, including whether the 

Court should consider Mikkelsen’s ability to pay in assessing the appropriate penalty. Id. at 23-24. 

The Commission made that supplemental submission on February 7, 2022. See Dkt. 77.

As noted, the Commission seeks $3,573,860.61 (i.e., triple the monetary gain) in civil 

penalties. The CEA authorizes civil penalties “in the amount of not more than the greater of 

$100,000 or triple the monetary gain to the person for each violation.” 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1)(A). 

This $100,000-per-violation cap is periodically adjusted for inflation per the Inflation Adjustment 

Act of 1990. See 17 C.F.R. § 143.8.

Sanctions under the CEA, such as civil monetary penalties, should be calculated “to further 

the CEA’s remedial policies and to deter others in the industry from committing similar violations.” 

Case 1:20-cv-03833-JPC Document 79 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 5
4

Reddy v. CFTC, 191 F.3d 109, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotations and alteration omitted). So “[i]n 

determining an appropriate penalty, a court considers the general seriousness of the CEA violation 

as well as any particular mitigating or aggravating circumstances that exist.” CFTC v. Fan Wang, 

261 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quotations and alteration omitted). Factors that courts 

consider to determine the general seriousness of the violation include “(1) the relationship of the 

violation at issue to the regulatory purposes of the Act; (2) respondent’s state of mind; (3) the 

consequences flowing from the violative conduct; and (4) respondent’s post-violation conduct.” 

CFTC v. 4X Sols., Inc., No. 13 Civ. 2287 (RMB) (FM), 2015 WL 9943241, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 

28, 2015) (quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 397672 (S.D.N.Y. 

Jan. 29, 2016). A mitigating factor that courts “generally . . . consider [is] what a defendant can 

realistically pay.” Fan Wang, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 389; accord CFTC v. Park, No. 16 Civ. 4120 

(VEC), 2018 WL 6324810, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018). 

Mikkelsen’s egregious conduct and the harm he caused his victims warrant imposing the 

maximum civil penalty of $3,573,860.61. For at least two years, Mikkelsen engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme, which entailed him stealing over $1.1 million from 106 victims. Dkt. 77 at 3. He then 

tried to hide the scheme by creating a false website and fake account statements. Id. Since the 

scheme was discovered, Mikkelsen has changed his name, has not responded to client inquiries, has 

shown no remorse, and has not tried to return the stolen funds. Id. And because Mikkelsen has 

failed to appear in this litigation, he has offered no basis for “why [he] should be treated leniently,” 

such as him claiming that he lacks the resources to pay the penalty. 4X Sols., Inc., 2015 WL 

9943241, at *4; see also SEC v. Amerindo Inv. Advisors Inc., No. 05 Civ. 5231 (RJS), 2014 WL 

2112032, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014) (“[T]he . . . Defendants have defaulted and therefore have 

not made any showing that their financial condition justifies a reduced fine.”), aff’d sub nom., 639 

Case 1:20-cv-03833-JPC Document 79 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 5
5

F. App’x 752 (2d Cir. 2016); SEC v. GTF Enterprises, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 4258 (RA), 2015 WL 

728159, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015) (“[T]here is no basis for reducing the penalty because [the 

defendants] have not appeared to defend themselves and thus cannot demonstrate any financial 

hardship.”). Under these circumstances, triple monetary penalties are appropriate. See CFTC v. 

Wright, No. 17 Civ. 4722 (LTS) (DCF), 2018 WL 6437055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018) (“Courts 

in this circuit have imposed the treble amount in cases involving egregious and intentional 

fraudulent conduct.”). 

The Court will enter the judgment by separate order. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully 

directed to close this case. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2022 __________________________________

New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN

 United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-03833-JPC Document 79 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 5