UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ROBERTO PULIDO a/k/a BERTO 

DELVANICCI and LIONS OF FOREX LLC,

Defendants. 

Case No. _____________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AND CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES UNDER

THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE 

ACT

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

through its attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least January 2019 to at least March 2021 (the “Relevant Period”), 

Roberto Pulido a/k/a Berto Delvanicci (“Pulido” or “Delvanicci”), aided and abetted by Lions of 

Forex LLC (“LOF”) (collectively, Pulido or Delvanicci and LOF, “Defendants”), fraudulently 

solicited at least four clients (“clients”) for the purported purpose of trading leveraged or 

margined retail off-exchange foreign currency described in Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (“Act’), 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I), (“retail forex”) in accounts to be 

managed on their behalf (“Retail Forex Fraud Scheme”). 

2. At least three of the four clients solicited by Defendants subscribed to a retail 

forex signals trading service offered by LOF (“subscribers”) for which LOF offered to send 

signals to buy or sell retail forex for a monthly fee, and, for a higher monthly fee, offered live 

one-on-one training with “Berto Delvanicci.” 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 1 of 24
2

3. In fraudulently soliciting these clients, Defendants made use of the mails and 

other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, i.e., social media platforms, LOF’s 

website, texts and/or other forms of electronic and telephonic communications.

4. At least one of the clients was not an Eligible Contract Participant (“ECP”) as 

defined in Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.§ 1a(18)(A)(xi), and at least three other 

clients, upon information and belief, were not ECPs.

5. Pulido, aided and abetted by LOF, falsely represented to clients that they would 

earn guaranteed monthly profits by having Pulido use his discretion to purportedly trade retail 

forex on their behalf, and that clients could withdraw their funds and have them returned at any 

time.

6. Based on these fraudulent representations and omissions, at least 4 clients were 

fraudulently induced to transfer at least $175,000 to bank accounts in the name of LOF and 

others, all of which were controlled by Pulido, for the purported purpose of having Pulido use his 

discretion to trade retail forex on their behalf.

7. Clients were not paid their guaranteed monthly profits as promised, and, in spite 

of clients’ requests to Pulido and/or LOF to return their funds, client funds totaling at least 

$170,000 have not been returned to clients. 

8. At the time such representations were made, Pulido acted intentionally or 

recklessly in falsely guaranteeing profits from the trading and falsely representing that clients

could withdraw their funds and have them returned at any time. LOF knew that these 

representations made by Pulido were false.

9. By this conduct, and the conduct further described herein, during the Relevant 

Period and pursuant to the Retail Forex Fraud Scheme, Pulido violated Sections 4b(a)(2)(A) and

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 2 of 24
3 

(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 

5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2022) (“Retail Forex Fraud Violations”). 

10. Further, by this conduct and the conduct further described herein, during the 

Relevant Period and pursuant to the Retail Forex Fraud Scheme, Pulido acted as a Commodity 

Trading Adviser (“CTA”) as defined in Section 1(a)(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(12), and 

violated Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6o(1)(A), (B) (“CTA Fraud Violations”). 

11. During the Relevant Period, by this conduct and the conduct further described 

herein, LOF knowingly associated itself with this Retail Forex Fraud Scheme and participated in 

it to make it succeed and thereby willfully aided and abetted Pulido’s Retail Forex Fraud Scheme 

pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(a).

12. During the Relevant Period, Pulido has directly or indirectly controlled LOF and 

LOF’s bank accounts as its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and sole manager. In his capacity 

as controlling person of LOF, Pulido has not acted in good faith or knowingly induced, directly 

or indirectly, the acts of LOF that constitute violations of the Act and Regulations. Defendant 

Pulido is therefore liable for LOF’s violations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (codifying 

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

provides that district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought by the Commission for 

injunctive and other relief or to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it shall appear to the 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 3 of 24
4 

Commission 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. 

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

§ 13a-1(e), because Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business in this District, and 

certain transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred or 

are occurring, or are about to occur within this District, among other places. 

III. THE PARTIES

15. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190. 

16. Defendant Roberto Pulido, also known as Berto Delvanicci, is an individual 

whose last known address is in Miami, Florida. Pulido, using the name Berto Delvanicci, held 

himself out in various social media platforms as being the CEO of LOF, and, using the name 

Roberto Pulido, was listed as the sole manager of LOF in LOF’s incorporation papers. Pulido 

was also the sole signatory to LOF’s bank accounts. In at least one instance, Pulido signed an 

agreement bearing the LOF lion’s head logo with a client to trade retail forex on his behalf. 

Pulido has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

17. Defendant Lions of Forex LLC is an entity registered to do business in the State 

of Florida and has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

IV. OTHER RELATED ENTITY 

18. Berto Delvanicci LLC (“BDLLC”) is an entity also registered to do business in 

the State of Florida and has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. Pulido 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 4 of 24
5 

held himself out as the sole owner of BDLLC, was listed as the sole manager of BDLLC in 

BDLLC’s incorporation papers, and was the sole signatory to bank accounts opened in the name 

of BDLLC. BDLLC has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

V. FACTS

A. Defendants’ Operation of LOF and BDLLC 

19. In order to conduct the Retail Forex Fraud Scheme described herein, Pulido used 

a LOF website and accounts on social media platforms and established bank accounts in the 

name of LOF and BDLLC over which Pulido had sole control. 

Incorporation Documents 

20. On June 20, 2018, LOF’s incorporation documents were filed with the Florida 

Division of Corporations. According to that filing, Pulido is the sole person authorized to 

manage LOF; Article III of the incorporation documents states simply “Forex.” On October 8, 

2019, a Limited Liability Company Reinstatement for LOF was filed with the Florida Division 

of Corporations. In that filing, Pulido was listed as the Registered Agent and sole Manager of 

LOF. On January 12, 2022, another Limited Liability Company Reinstatement for LOF was 

filed with the Florida Division of Corporations and in this filing, Pulido again was listed as the 

Registered Agent and sole Manager of LOF.

21. On June 6, 2019, incorporation documents for BDLLC were filed with the Florida 

Division of Corporations. According to that filing, Pulido is the sole Manager and Registered 

Agent of BDLLC and the email address, infolionsofforex@gmail.com, was listed as the email 

address to be used for future annual report notifications for BDLLC. Also according to that 

filing, Article III simply states “consulting, marketing, software.” 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 5 of 24
6 

Defendants’ Bank Accounts 

22. On or about June 21, 2018, Pulido opened a bank account in the name of LOF at 

Citibank with a bank account number ending in 5964 (“LOF 5964”) for which he was the sole 

signatory. 

23. In account opening documents for LOF 5964, Pulido indicated that he was the 

President and sole owner of LOF and that LOF was in the business of “mentorship and sales 

training for marketing and general sales” and also for “educational services for start of 

businesses (sic).” 

24. On or about January 9, 2019, Pulido opened a bank account in the name of LOF at 

Wells Fargo Bank with bank account number ending in 1228 (“LOF 1228”). 

25. In account opening documents for LOF 1228, Pulido indicated that he was the 

sole owner of LOF, that LOF was in the educational services industry, and that LOF offered 

“consulting business training and sales hospality (sic).” 

26. Pulido was the sole signatory of LOF 1228. 

27. On or about July 16, 2019, Pulido opened a bank account in the name of BDLLC 

at Wells Fargo Bank with bank account number ending in 7182 (“BDLLC 7182”). 

28. In account opening documents for BDLLC 7182, Pulido indicated that he was the 

sole owner of BDLLC, that BDLLC was in the professional, scientific and technical services 

industries, and described the business of BDLLC to be that of “software consulting developer.” 

29. Pulido was the sole signatory of BDLLC 7182. 

30. On or about January 20, 2021, Pulido opened a bank account in the name of 

BDLLC at Citibank with bank account number ending in 3618 (“BDLLC 3618”). 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 6 of 24
7 

31. In account opening documents for BDLLC 3618, Pulido indicated that he was the 

President and sole owner of BDLLC. 

32. Pulido was the sole signatory of BDLLC 3618. 

LOF’s Website

33. According to LOF’s website which was created on or about July 8, 2016, 

lionsofforex.com, Delvanicci is described as the founder and head trader of LOF. LOF’s website 

further claimed that LOF offered an “exclusive forex trading & mentorship platform . . . by 

opening the doors to a $5.3 trillion dollar a day industry” where subscribers to LOF’s services 

would “learn to master the markets with veteran trader Berto Delvanicci.” The LOF website also 

explained that retail forex is traded on margin with a high degree of leverage. 

34. LOF’s website offered prospective subscribers various investment packages all of 

which included sending subscribers signals to buy or sell retail forex for a monthly fee. Higher 

priced packages offered by LOF also included live one on one training with “Berto Delvanicci,” 

daily webinars, and/or “live trading sessions” with “Berto Delvanicci” for which Defendants 

charged higher monthly fees.

B. Retail Forex Fraud Scheme

35. Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants used multiple means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including phone, text messaging, app- and web-based 

social media platforms, and LOF’s website www.lionsofforex.com, to market “Berto Delvanicci”

to the public as a highly successful retail forex trader who consistently earned huge profits 

trading retail forex. 

36. Defendants further marketed LOF as a provider of purportedly highly successful 

trading signal services in order to establish a relationship with prospective clients and ultimately 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 7 of 24
8

induce them to send their funds to Defendants for the purported purpose of having Pulido

exercise discretion to trade retail forex on their behalf. 

37. For example, according to LOF’s website, if you subscribe to the LOF’s signals 

service you would “get exclusive access” to retail forex signals from “7-figure trader Berto 

Delvanicci,” LOF’s “Founder [and] Head Trader” who had started trading in 2012 and had made 

a lifetime profit of $1.7 million. The website further stated that 90% of LOF’s retail forex 

signals were profitable and that LOF’s “consistent results speak for themself (sic)—and our 

members can definitely agree!”

38. In addition, Pulido—again using the name Berto Delvanicci—posted numerous 

videos on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram in which he 

claimed to have made profits trading according to his own signals. For example, in an Instagram 

post on or about September 27, 2017, Pulido stated “FOREX TURNED ME INTO A 

MILLIONAIRE)” and, in a Facebook post on or about November 19, 2017, Pulido stated that 

“USDJPY IS MY GO TOO (sic) PAIR . . . . THIS IS WHY THE YEN IS TATTOOED ON ME 

GOT ME TO A MILLION.” 

39. Beginning in or about January 2019, Pulido began offering the opportunity to

prospective clients, which included, in part, LOF subscribers to the signals service, to have

Pulido purportedly trade retail forex on their behalf. 

40. Pulido falsely guaranteed to clients and prospective clients that they would earn 

substantial monthly profits by having Pulido or aka “Berto” use his discretion to trade retail 

forex on their behalf. Pulido also falsely represented to clients and prospective clients that they 

could withdraw their funds and have them returned at any time. These statements were false at 

the time they were made and LOF knew that these statements were false. Indeed, clients were 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 8 of 24
9 

not paid their guaranteed profits as represented and client requests to withdraw and return their 

funds were ignored or simply refused. 

41. A review of the bank accounts where client funds were deposited and/or 

transferred to (LOF 5964, LOF 1228, BDLLC 7182 and BDLLC 3618, collectively the “Bank 

Accounts”) revealed that no funds were sent to or received from any trading firms and, instead, 

as further discussed below, client funds deposited in those Bank Accounts were withdrawn in 

cash, used to pay Pulido’s personal expenses and used to make debit card purchases. 

Client #1 

42. In or about early April 2019, a subscriber (“Client #1”) paid $3,000 for one of 

LOF’s signals packages via Apple Pay. In or about mid-April 2019, Pulido, representing himself 

as “Berto,” told Client #1 located in California that if she invested her funds with Defendants, 

Pulido would use her funds to establish a retail forex trading account in her name and that he 

would exercise his discretion to trade on her behalf. 

43. Pulido guaranteed Client #1 that, through his retail forex trading of her funds, he 

would pay her monthly profits, as set forth below in Paragraph 46 of the complaint. He also 

promised her that she could withdraw her funds at any time. 

44. Pulido also agreed to add $3,000 to Client #1’s trading account that Client #1 had 

previously sent to LOF to purchase its signals subscription service. 

45. Pulido directed Client #1 to transfer her funds into LOF 1228 and LOF 5964 and 

to transfer funds to Defendants via Apple Pay. As a result of Pulido’s promises, Client #1 

transferred $22,000 to Pulido as follows: 

a. between April 25 and 26, 2019, Client #1 deposited a total of in $4,030 into 

LOF 5964; 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 9 of 24
10

b. between April 23 and 26, 2019, Client #1 deposited a total of $8,000 into LOF 

1228; and

c. between April 20 and 23, 2019, Client #1 paid approximately $9,970 to 

Defendants via Apple Pay.

46. After Client #1 sent her funds to LOF 1228 and LOF 5964, on or about May 5, 

2019, Pulido texted Client #1 (“May 5 Text”) a breakdown, by month over a two-year time 

period, of the profits she was guaranteed to make from Pulido’s trading of retail forex on her 

behalf. This May 5 Text referred to each month by number and then listed the profits for that 

month as follows:

“1 $2,000

2 $2,250

3 $2,500

4 $3,000

5 $3,250

6 $3,500

7 $3,700

8 $4,000

9 $4,500

10 $5,000

11 $5,250

12 $5,500

1 $5,700

2 $6,000

3 $6,200

4 $6,500

5 $6,700

6 $7,000

7 $7,200

8 $7,500

9 $7,700

10 $8,000

11 $8,200”

47. After Client #1 made her final deposit in April 2019, Defendants then provided a 

written contract to Client #1 which listed her monthly guaranteed profit (next to a month 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 10 of 24
11

number) in the same amount as was listed on the May 5 Text. The contract further stated that 

Client #1’s funds would turn “into a consistent variable return per month” which “is guaranteed 

and delivered on the 1st of each month” and that the “Term of Investment” was “24 months.” 

48. The contract also stated that “all trades will be documented and the amount made 

will be shown for the investor to review monthly.” 

49. Since the contract, like the May 5 Text, did not include a specific month and year 

when the stated monthly guaranteed profits would be paid, Client #1 added this information to 

the contract. Specifically, Client #1 wrote into the contract that the first month of guaranteed 

profits would begin in June 2019 and continue monthly through May 2021. Client #1 then 

signed the contract on May 7, 2019 and returned it to Pulido.

50. However, on or about June 1, 2019—the date Client #1 was to receive her first 

guaranteed monthly profit payment according to the contract—Client #1 texted Pulido, “Hey 

Berto! [I]t’s the 1st, how will we handle the statement and payment?” 

51. On or about June 2, 2019, Pulido stated in a text to Client #1 that Pulido “waited 

to sign the contract [until] June 1st;” that “everything else [in the contract] looks good[,] jus[t]

move the dates forward by 1 [month];” and that Client #1’s account was “all set up and ready to 

go.” 

52. On or about July 9, 2019, when Client #1 had not yet received her monthly 

guaranteed profit for July, Client #1 texted Pulido and requested that he provide proof that he 

had paid her the guaranteed monthly profit. In response, Pulido texted Client #1 and stated that 

“your investments are done through me and I waited on your info you didn’t send until later I 

didn’t see your message until recent just want to clarify that sending out[.] Moving forward just 

understand the game plan cool?” 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 11 of 24
12

53. On or about July 12, 2019, when Client #1 still had not received her monthly 

guaranteed profit for July, she again sent a text to Pulido asking why the profits had not yet been 

paid. In response, Pulido texted Client #1, “[h]ey don’t [t]hink I forgot about you G[irl]f[riend]

got in a[n] accident not home yet bare (sic) with me.” 

54. On or about July 13, 2019, Defendants paid Client #1 $1,860.00 instead of the 

guaranteed monthly profit for July of $2,000. When confronted by Client #1 as to why she had 

not been paid the full guaranteed amount of $2,000, Pulido stated that he charged a fee for tax 

purposes.

55. On or about August 1, 2019, Client #1 texted Pulido requesting her guaranteed 

monthly profit for August. On or about August 3, 2019, when Client #1 still did not receive her 

monthly payment for August, Client #1 texted Pulido again asking him to send the guaranteed 

payment. On or about August 4, 2019, Defendants paid $2,092.50 to Client #1 instead of the full 

guaranteed amount of $2,250. 

56. On or about August 17, 2019, Client #1 asked Pulido in a text to provide her 

“with the last two months trades [that Pulido had] made on the account.” Pulido responded by

text, “[w]hat do you mean?” and never provided Client #1 with any trading documentation.

57. On or about September 1, 2019, Client #1 texted Pulido requesting her guaranteed 

monthly retail forex trading profit for September. On or about September 4, 2019, after Client 

#1 still had not received her guaranteed September payment, Client #1 sent a text to Pulido 

demanding that her money be returned. She further stated in that text: “Berto your service is the 

wors[t] I’ve ever experienced. Please send me back my 25k I’m done playing games with you.” 

58. Defendants have not paid Client #1 her guaranteed monthly profits for September 

2019 or for any of the remaining months pursuant to the contract (October 2019 through May 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 12 of 24
13 

2020). Nor did Defendants provide any documentation of any trades and profits made by 

Defendants on behalf of Client #1. Further, in spite of Client #1’s repeated requests to return her 

original investment of $25,000, Defendants have failed to do so. 

59. No funds were deposited into LOF 5964 and LOF 1228 from any trading firms 

and no funds were transferred from these accounts to any trading firms. Instead, after Client #1

made the deposits into these accounts, the funds were used in large part to make debit card 

purchases, cash withdrawals, payments to American Express and third parties for jewelry, cable 

and wireless phone service providers, and transfers to Pulido’s personal checking account. 

Client #2 

60. After observing Pulido’s postings on Instagram regarding his retail forex trading, 

another client “(Client #2”) contacted Pulido and beginning in or about May 2019, Pulido 

offered to trade retail forex on behalf of Client #2 who was located in California. Pulido 

guaranteed that Defendants would pay Client #2 a “residual income” of between $5,000 and 

$20,000 each month generated by Pulido’s successful retail forex trading on Client #2’s behalf. 

Pulido directed Client #2 to transfer funds to LOF 1228. 

61. As a result of these representations, between May 9 and 13, 2019, Client #2

transferred a total of $55,000 to LOF 1228. 

62. On or about July 5, 2019, Client #2 transferred an additional $5,000 to LOF 1228, 

again, for Pulido to use his discretion to trade retail forex on Client #2’s behalf. 

63. Defendants have not paid any guaranteed monthly trading profits to Client #2 and

Defendants have not returned any of Client #2’s funds. 

64. Again, no funds were deposited into LOF 1228 from any trading firms and no 

funds were transferred from this account to any trading firms. Instead, after Client #2 made the 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 13 of 24
14 

deposits into LOF 1228, Pulido withdrew a large portion of the funds in cash and used the funds 

to make debit card purchases for food and a car payment. 

Client #3

65. Beginning in or about July 2019, Pulido offered to trade retail forex on behalf of 

another client (“Client #3”) who also was a subscriber. Client #3 was located in Michigan and 

Pulido guaranteed that Defendants would pay Client #3 monthly profits derived from Pulido 

using his discretion to trade retail forex on behalf of Client #3. Pulido directed Client #3 to 

transfer funds to LOF 1228. 

66. Defendants and Client #3 entered into a written contract signed by both Pulido 

and Client #3, bearing the same lion’s head image that appears on LOF’s website, and dated July 

12, 2019 which contained the following terms: 

a. “[t]urning $75,000 into a consistent $2,000-$10,000 RESIDUAL per month. 

Promised and delivered on the 1st of each month.” (emphasis in original); 

b. Over a period of 24 months; 

c. “[a]s an Extensive EXPERIENCED Trader we will use our skills to lower 

almost all risks involved in [forex] trading for assurance;” and

d. Client #3 would “be able to withdraw your funds with no issue if you decide 

too (sic) you will need to email me at InfoLionsOfForex@gmail.com”. 

67. As a result of these representations, Client #3 wired $75,000 to LOF 1228 on July 

15, 2019. 

68. On July 15, 2019, the same day that Client #3 wired funds to Defendants, Client 

#3 changed his mind, decided not to invest with Defendants, and requested via email to 

InfoLionsOfForex@gmail.com that Defendants return his funds. Instead of returning Client #3’s 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 14 of 24
15 

funds as requested, the very next day—July 16, 2019—Pulido transferred $70,000 from LOF 

1228 to BDLLC 7182 and further used the funds from this account to make debit card purchases, 

a credit card payment, and to transfer funds to Pulido’s personal checking account. No funds 

were deposited into LOF 1228 or BDLLC 7182 from any trading firms and no funds were 

transferred from these accounts to any trading firms. 

69. Defendants have never paid Client #3 any guaranteed monthly profits. Nor have 

Defendants returned any of Client #3’s funds despite repeated requests by Client #3 to do so. 

Client #4

70. After observing Pulido’s social media postings regarding his trading of retail 

forex, another client (“Client #4”) contacted Defendants to subscribe to LOF’s signals trading 

service. Beginning in or about March 2021, Pulido offered to trade retail forex on behalf Client 

#4 who was located in Arizona. Pulido promised that he would open up a trading account in the 

name of Client #4 at a brokerage house where Pulido maintained an account and Client #4’s 

account will be linked to Pulido’s account. Pulido represented to Client #4 that by linking their 

accounts, he would make the same retail forex trades in Client #4’s account as Pulido was 

making in his own account. 

71. Pulido guaranteed to Client #4 that he would make profits trading retail forex with 

Client #4’s funds and represented that he would split those trading profits with Client #4

receiving 50% and Pulido receiving 50% of the profits. Pulido further represented that he would 

give Client #4 access to view Client #4’s trading account and that Client #4’s guaranteed 

monthly profits would be paid in either bitcoin or through a bank to bank transfer service. 

72. Pulido directed Client #4 to transfer his funds to BDLLC 3618. As a result of 

these representations, on March 12, 2021, Client #4 transferred $16,050 to BDLLC 3618. 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 15 of 24
16 

73. Defendants never paid any guaranteed profits to Client #4 and Defendants never 

provided Client #4 access to Client #4’s purported trading account records. 

74. Defendants have not returned any of Client #4’s funds in spite of requests by 

Client #4 to do so including through a letter dated April 14, 2021 demanding the return of his 

funds sent by Client #4’s counsel mailed via certified mail to Pulido. 

75. Again, no funds were deposited into BDLLC 3618 from any trading firms and no 

funds were transferred from this account to any trading firms. Instead, after Client #4 made the 

deposits into BDLLC 3618, Pulido withdrew a large portion of the funds in cash, wired a portion 

of the funds to a third party and used the remaining funds to make debit card purchases.

76. At least one of the clients was not an ECP and at least three other clients, upon 

information and belief, were not ECPs. 

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND REGULATIONS

COUNT I 

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

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

(Retail Forex Fraud Violations) 

77. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 76 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

78. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), in relevant part, makes it unlawful for 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 that is made, or to be made, other than 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 such other person; or (C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 16 of 24
17 

such 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 such other person. 

79. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), the 

retail forex transactions described herein are “subject to” Section 4b of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b, 

and any exceptions noted in this section are not relevant here. 

80. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv), states in relevant part 

that Section 4b of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b, applies to retail forex transactions described herein as 

if they were contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

81. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), states, in relevant 

part, that the Act “applies to, and the Commission shall have jurisdiction over, an account . . . 

that is offered for the purpose of trading . . . in foreign currency” described herein. 

82. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b), makes it unlawful in relevant part: 

[F]or 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; . . . or (3) 

Willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any 

means whatsoever.

83. As described above, Pulido violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1) and (3) during the Relevant Period by, among other things, falsely guaranteeing 

profits to clients from trading retail forex on their behalf and falsely representing to clients that 

they could withdraw their funds and have them returned at any time. 

84. Pulido engaged in the acts and practices described above using instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce, including but not limited to: social media platforms, LOF’s website, 

texts and other forms of electronic and telephonic communications. 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 17 of 24
18

85. LOF willfully aided and abetted Pulido’s Retail Forex Fraud Violations by: 

1) using its very own LOF website to tout the trading expertise of Berto Delvanicci and to enable 

Pulido to identify prospective clients to defraud; 2) using its very own LOF’s bank accounts to 

receive client funds that were fraudulently solicited from clients by Pulido; 3) allowing Pulido to 

use the LOF bank accounts for Pulido’s personal use; 4) listing its LOF email address in the 

contract with client #3 and using the same lion’s head image that appears on LOF’s website on 

the contract with client #3; and 5) using its LOF email address to communicate directly with 

clients who were defrauded. Further, LOF knew that Pulido’s statements to clients guaranteeing 

profits and promising the return of their funds were false. By these acts, LOF knowingly 

associated itself with this Retail Forex Fraud Scheme and participated in it to make it succeed 

and thereby willfully aided and abetted Pulido in identifying, targeting and fraudulently inducing 

clients to invest their funds for the purported purpose of having Pulido use his discretion to trade 

retail forex on their behalf and providing a false sense of legitimacy to this Retail Forex Fraud 

Scheme. LOF therefore is liable under Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for each 

separate and distinct occasion on which LOF aided and abetted Pulido in violating 7 U.S.C. 

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

86. Pulido directly or indirectly controls LOF, and did not act in good faith or

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, LOF’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for the Retail Forex Fraud Violations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b). 

87. Pulido engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully or with reckless 

disregard for the truth.

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 18 of 24
19 

88. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

COUNT II

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

(CTA Fraud Violations) 

89. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 76 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

90. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B), in relevant part, makes it unlawful for a commodity 

trading advisor or associated person of a commodity trading advisor, “by use of the mails or any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly” (A) “to employ any 

device, scheme or artifice to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or participant” 

or (B) “to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or 

deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant.” 

91. Pursuant to Section § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), the 

retail forex transactions described herein are “subject to” Section 4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o, 

and the exceptions listed in this section are not applicable here. 

92. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), states, in relevant 

part, that the Act “applies to, and the Commission shall have jurisdiction over, an account . . . 

that is offered for the purpose of trading . . . in foreign currency” described herein. 

93. Section 1a(12)(A)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12)(A)(i), provides, in relevant 

part, that “the term commodity trading advisor means any person who—for compensation or 

profit, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications, 

writings, or electronic media, as to the value of or the advisability of trading in—(I) any contract 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 19 of 24
20

of sale of a commodity for future delivery, . . . any agreement, contract or transaction described 

in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act.

94. Pulido acted as a CTA and violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B), in that, for 

compensation or profit, and by using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate

commerce [i.e., by the use of social media platforms, LOF’s website, texts and other forms of 

electronic and telephonic communications], and while engaging in the business of advising 

others about retail forex trading, he directly or indirectly employed a device, scheme or artifice 

to defraud clients, or engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as 

a fraud or deceit upon any clients, by among other things, falsely guaranteeing profits to clients 

from trading retail forex on their behalf and falsely representing to clients that they could 

withdraw their funds and have them returned at any time. 

95. Pulido engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully or with reckless 

disregard for the truth.

96. LOF willfully aided and abetted Pulido’s CTA Fraud Violations by: 1) using its 

very own LOF website to tout the trading expertise of Berto Delvanicci and to enable Pulido to 

identify prospective clients to defraud; 2) using its very own LOF’s bank accounts to receive 

client funds that were fraudulently solicited from clients by Pulido; 3) allowing Pulido to use the 

LOF bank accounts for Pulido’s personal use; 4) listing its LOF email address in the contract 

with client #3 and using the same lion’s head image that appears on LOF’s website on the 

contract with client #3; and 5) using its LOF email address to communicate directly with clients 

who were defrauded. Further, LOF knew that Pulido’s statements to clients guaranteeing profits 

and promising the return of their funds were false. By these acts, LOF knowingly associated 

itself with this Retail Forex Fraud Scheme and participated in it to make it succeed and thereby 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 20 of 24
21 

willfully aided and abetted Pulido in identifying, targeting, and fraudulently inducing clients to 

invest their funds for the purported purpose of having Pulido use his discretion to trade retail 

forex on their behalf and providing a false sense of legitimacy to this Retail Forex Fraud 

Scheme. LOF therefore is liable under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) for each separate and distinct occasion 

on which LOF aided and abetted Pulido in violating 7 U.S.C. § § 6o(1)(A) and (B)

97. Pulido directly or indirectly controls LOF, and did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, LOF’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for the CTA Fraud Violations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

98. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (C).

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as authorized by 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers:

A. Enter an order finding that: 

1. Defendants violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

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

(2022); and 

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

(B). 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any of the 

Defendants’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and other persons 

who are in active concert or participation with Defendants, from engaging in conduct 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 21 of 24
22

in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6o(1)(A) and (B), and 17 C.F.R. §

5.2(b)(1) and (3); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining, enjoining and prohibiting 

Defendants, and their affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them, from directly or indirectly: 

1. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

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

2. 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/her/their/its own 

personal account or for any account in which he/she/they/it has/have a direct or 

indirect interest; 

3. Having any commodity interests traded on his/her/their/its 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 any commodity interests; 

6. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2022); and/or

7. 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 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 22 of 24
23

(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 Commission 

except as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2022).

D. Enter an order directing Defendants, as well as any 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 the acts or practices which constitute violations of 

the Act and the Regulations, as described herein, and pre- and post-judgment interest 

thereon from the date of such violations;

E. Enter an order directing Defendants, as well as any successors thereof, to make full 

restitution, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, to every person who 

has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations of the Act and the 

Regulations, as described herein, and pre- and post-judgment interest from the date of 

such violations; 

F. Enter an order directing Defendants, as well as any successors thereof, to rescind, 

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

whether implied or express, entered into between them and any client whose funds 

were received by them as a result of the acts and practices which constituted 

violations of the Act and the Regulations as described herein; 

G. Enter an order directing Defendants and any successors thereof to pay civil monetary 

penalties under the Act, in an amount not to exceed the penalty described by Section 

6c(d)(1) of the Act, 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. 114-74 

Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:23-cv-23703-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2023 Page 24 of 24