IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff; 

v. 

OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, 

LIMITED; OASIS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC; SATELLITE HOLDINGS 

COMPANY; MICHAEL J. 

DaCORTA; JOSEPH S. ANILE, II; 

RAYMOND P. MONTIE, III; 

FRANCISCO “FRANK” L. DURAN; 

and JOHN J. HAAS, 

Defendants; 

and 

MAINSTREAM FUND SERVICES, 

INC.; BOWLING GREEN CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT LLC; LAGOON 

INVESTMENTS, INC.; ROAR OF 

THE LION FITNESS, LLC; 444 

GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE, LLC; 

4064 FOUNDERS CLUB DRIVE, 

LLC; 6922 LACANTERA CIRCLE, 

LLC; 13318 LOST KEY PLACE, LLC; 

and 4OAKS LLC, 

Relief 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 

8:19-cv-886-VMC-SPF 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 40 PageID 17775
2 

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTY AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANT RAYMOND MONTIE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scheme to solicit participation in commodity pools trading retail foreign currency 

(“forex”), among other violations. The Court entered an ex parte statutory 

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

Orders for Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Defendants 

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

 

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 40 PageID 17776
3 

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

176, respectively). 

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

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

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

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

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

Based on similar allegations in the Complaint with respect to the 

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

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

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

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

No. 8:19-CR-00334-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2019) (Dkt. 3). On May 4, 

2022, a jury found Defendant DaCorta guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud 

and mail fraud, illegal monetary transactions, and filing a false income tax 

return—all related to the same fraudulent scheme alleged in the Complaint and 

admitted to by Defendant Anile. Jury Verdict, United States v. DaCorta, No. 

8:19-CR-00605-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2022) (Dkt. 192). Defendant 

DaCorta and Defendant Anile were each ordered to pay $53,270,336.08 in 

criminal restitution, representing the loss to victims of the fraudulent scheme, 

and both were also ordered to serve prison sentences. See respective Judgments 

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 40 PageID 17777
4 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against 

Defendant Raymond Montie without a trial on the merits or any further judicial 

proceedings, Defendant Montie: 

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

Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against 

Defendant Montie (“Consent Order”); 

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

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

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

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

Order; 

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint; 

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

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

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

transactions at issue in this action pursuant to the Act and Regulations; 

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

§ 13a-1(e); 

7. Waives: 

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 40 PageID 17778
5 

rules promulgated by the CFTC in conformity therewith, Part 

148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2022), relating to, or 

arising from, this action; 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. 

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

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

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

this action; 

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

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

civil monetary penalty or any other relief, including this 

Consent Order; and 

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

8. For purposes of the waiver of any and all rights under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, specified in paragraph 7, agrees that the Commission is the 

prevailing party in this action. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Agrees that neither he nor any of his agents or employees under his 

authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 40 PageID 17779
6 

directly or indirectly, any allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or 

Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the 

impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is without a factual 

basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect his: 

(a) testimonial obligations; or (b) right to take legal positions in other 

proceedings to which the CFTC is not a party. Defendant Montie shall comply 

with this agreement, and shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of 

his agents and/or employees under his authority or control understand and 

comply with this agreement; 

12. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order without admitting or 

denying the allegations of the Complaint or any findings or conclusions in this 

Consent Order, except as to jurisdiction and venue, which he admits; 

13. Consents to the use of the findings and conclusions in this Consent 

Order in this proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the CFTC or to 

which the CFTC is a party or claimant and agrees that they shall be taken as true 

and correct and be given preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

14. Does not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the 

findings and conclusions herein, as the sole basis for any other proceeding 

brought by the CFTC or to which the CFTC is a party, other than a statutory 

disqualification proceeding; proceeding in bankruptcy, or receivership; or 

proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order; 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 40 PageID 17780
7 

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

certified mail, in the manner required by paragraph 117 of Part IX of this Consent 

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

whether inside or outside the United States; and 

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

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

remedy against Defendant Montie in any other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

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

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

Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction, and other relief pursuant to Section 

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

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

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

1. The CFTC and Defendant Montie Are the Parties to 

This Consent Order. 

17. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and 

enforcing the Act and the Regulations. 

18. Defendant Montie is a resident of Pennsylvania. During the 

Relevant Period, Montie was a co-founder, principal shareholder, and director of 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 7 of 40 PageID 17781
8 

OIG, as well as OIG’s executive director of sales. Montie has never been 

registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

2. Defendants’ Investment Scheme Defrauded 

Hundreds of Pool Participants. 

19. During the Relevant Period, Defendants operated a fraudulent 

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

trading foreign currency (“forex”) through several interrelated domestic and 

foreign entities (OIG, OM, and SHC), acting as a common enterprise. These 

entities acted as commodity pool operators for the commodity pools Oasis Global 

FX, Limited and later Oasis Global FX, S.A. (together, the “Oasis Pools”). 

20. Defendants fraudulently solicited approximately 800 members of 

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

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

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

majority of pool funds were misappropriated and pool participants were issued 

false account statements to conceal the trading losses and misappropriation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 8 of 40 PageID 17782
9 

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

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

pool participants to the Oasis Pools. 

22. Instead, Defendants DaCorta and Anile misappropriated the 

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

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

Defendants misappropriated over $28 million of pool funds to make Ponzi-like 

payments to other pool participants. Defendants misappropriated over $18 

million of pool funds for unauthorized personal or business expenses, such as 

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

members, and college and study abroad tuition. 

23. To conceal the trading losses and misappropriation, Defendants 

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

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

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

returns. The pool participants believed that these account statement balances 

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

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

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

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 9 of 40 PageID 17783
10 

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

interest on their investments and referral fees. 

3. Defendant Montie Made Misrepresentations and 

Omissions in His Solicitations of Pool Participants for 

Investment in the Oasis Pools. 

24. Defendant Montie was the Executive Director of Sales for OIG, and, 

in this capacity, he organized and participated in in-person meetings, conference 

calls, and emails in which he, along with other Defendants, solicited members of 

the general public to become pool participants in the Oasis Pools. In this 

capacity, Defendant Montie was an unregistered associated person (“AP”) of OIG, 

OM, and SHC. 

25. During his solicitations of prospective pool participants, Defendant 

Montie repeatedly made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions, 

including: 

a. Misrepresenting the profitability of the Oasis Pools, such as 

representing that current pool participants were earning 

between 12% and 25% from forex trading or that the Oasis 

Pools earned a 22% return in 2017 and a 21% return in 2018 

from forex trading; 

b. Misrepresenting that pool funds would be used solely to trade 

forex and that returns paid to pool participants were 

generated from forex trading profits; 

c. Misrepresenting that DaCorta was an experienced and 

profitable trader; 

d. Misrepresenting that DaCorta was trustworthy and financially 

successful; and 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 10 of 40 PageID 17784
11 

e. Misrepresenting that the total amount of assets in the Oasis 

Pools exceeded $120 million. 

 

26. In reality, only a fraction of the more than $80 million received by 

the Oasis Pools was invested in forex trading, and the Oasis Pools did not have 

trading profits. In 2017 the Oasis Pools returned negative 45% and in 2018 the 

Oasis Pools returned negative 96%. Most payments made to pool participants, 

instead of being profits generated from forex trading, were simply other pool 

participants’ investments, in the nature of a Ponzi Scheme. 

27. Further, DaCorta was not a profitable trader and had been 

permanently banned from trading forex by the NFA before the Relevant Period. 

28. In none of these solicitations did Defendant Montie make any 

attempt to determine whether the potential pool participants were eligible 

contract participants (“ECPs”)—i.e., individuals with $10,000,000 invested on a 

discretionary basis—and in fact most, if not all, of the pool participants were not

ECPs. 

29. Defendant Montie failed to reasonably perform his duties as an 

officer and Director of OIG. 

30. It was reckless for Defendant Montie to represent to pool 

participants that the Oasis Pools were generating any trading profits at all, 

without reviewing the trading account statements for the Oasis Pools, which 

would have reflected the pools’ losses. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 11 of 40 PageID 17785
12 

31. It was reckless for Defendant Montie to represent that pool funds 

would be invested only in forex when he knew that OIG and OM were making 

non-forex investments, and he did not verify that those non-forex investments 

were made with trading profits. 

32. It was reckless for Defendant Montie to represent DaCorta as 

trustworthy and financially successful when neither OIG nor OM kept regular 

books and records or prepared financial statements; thus, Montie could not 

independently verify his claims. 

33. Defendant Montie recklessly made material misrepresentations to 

the pool participants in order to solicit their investments in the Oasis Pools. 

4. Defendant OIG Failed To Operate the Oasis Pools As 

Separate Legal Entities or To Receive Funds in the 

Oasis Pools’ Names. 

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

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

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

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

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

others. 

35. Defendant Montie was a controlling person of OIG. He co-founded 

and was an OIG principal shareholder and director, as well as OIG’s executive 

director of sales. Defendant Montie did not act in good faith with respect to 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 12 of 40 PageID 17786
13 

OIG’s fraudulent acts of failing to operate the Oasis Pools as separate legal 

entities and failing to receive funds in the names of the Oasis Pools. 

5. Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC Failed To Register 

with the CFTC. 

36. Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC operated as CPOs in that they 

engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, 

syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and they solicited, accepted, or received 

funds, securities, property, or capital contributions for the purpose of trading in 

commodity interests, including retail forex transactions. 

37. Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC used emails, wire transfers, phone 

calls including conference calls, and other means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce to solicit, accept, and receive pool participants’ funds for the 

purpose of trading forex. 

38. During the Relevant Period, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC were 

never registered as CPOs and were not exempt or excluded from registration as 

CPOs. 

39. Defendant Montie was associated with OIG, OM, and SHC as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent in a capacity that involved the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in a commodity pool 

that engaged in retail forex transactions. 

40. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Montie was never registered 

as an AP of OIG, OM, and SHC. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 13 of 40 PageID 17787
14 

6. Defendant OIG Failed To Provide Adequate Pool 

Disclosures and Other Relevant Documents. 

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

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

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

with a “Promissory Note and Loan Agreement.” 

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

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

Note and Loan Agreement guaranteed pool participants a minimum 12% annual 

return. 

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

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

the risks involved in retail forex trading. 

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

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

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

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

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

statements certified by an independent public accountant. 

7. Defendant Montie Was a Controlling Person of OIG. 

45. Defendant Montie was a controlling person of OIG. He co-founded 

and was an OIG principal shareholder and director, as well as OIG’s executive 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 14 of 40 PageID 17788
15 

director of sales. Defendant Montie did not act in good faith with respect to 

OIG’s fraudulent acts of failing to provide adequate pool disclosures and other 

relevant documents. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

1. Jurisdiction and Venue 

46. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States whenever it shall appear to the CFTC that any person has engaged, 

is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of 

any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

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

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

practices in violation of the Act occurred within this District. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 15 of 40 PageID 17789
16 

2. Defendants Montie and OIG Committed Fraud in 

Violation of Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and Regulation 5.2(b), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) (2022). 

48. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful: 

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

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

sale of any commodity for future delivery, or 

swap, that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf 

of, or with any other person, other than on or 

subject to the rules of a designated contract 

market 

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

defraud the other person; 

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

other person any false report or statement 

or willfully to enter or cause to be entered 

for the other person any false record; [or] 

(C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive 

the other person by any means whatsoever 

in regard to any order or contract or the 

disposition or execution of any order or 

contract, or in regard to any act of agency 

performed, with respect to any order or 

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

with the other person[.] 

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

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

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

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

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 16 of 40 PageID 17790
17 

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

ECP (eligible contract participant), in relevant part, as an individual who has 

amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which exceeds $10 

million, or $5 million if the individual enters into the transaction to manage the 

risk associated with an asset owned or liability occurred, or reasonably likely to 

be owned or incurred, by the individual. 

51. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) provides, in relevant part, that: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, by use of the mails or by 

any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly 

or indirectly, in or in connection with any retail forex 

transaction: 

(1) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or 

defraud any person; 

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

person any false report or statement or cause to 

be entered for any person any false record; or 

(3) Willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any 

person by any means whatsoever. 

52. Defendants Montie and OIG engaged in a fraud by, among other 

things: (1) misrepresenting that Defendants were earning significant profits on 

behalf of pool participants by trading forex; (2) misrepresenting that the returns 

paid to pool participants were generated from forex trading profits; and 

(3) misrepresenting that DaCorta was an experienced and profitable trader. 

53. Defendant OIG engaged in a fraud by, among other things: (1) 

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 17 of 40 PageID 17791
18 

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

a Ponzi scheme. 

54. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant OIG and Defendant Montie, 

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

55. Defendant Montie controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith with respect to OIG’s conduct as described above, and therefore 

under Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Montie is liable for 

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

56. Each act of misrepresentation or omission of material fact is a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3). 

3. Defendant Montie Committed Fraud as an AP of CPOs 

in Violation of Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

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

relevant part, as any person— 

[E]ngaged in a business that is of the nature of a 

commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar 

form of enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, 

solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital 

contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of 

securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in 

commodity interests, including any— 

(I) commodity for future delivery, security futures 

product, or swap; [or] 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 18 of 40 PageID 17792
19 

(II) agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

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

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

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

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

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

transactions is a retail forex CPO. 

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

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

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

circumstances not relevant here. 

60. During the Relevant Period, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting 

as a common enterprise) 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; therefore, Defendants OIG, OM, and 

SHC acted as CPOs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

61. During the Relevant Period, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting 

as a common enterprise) were not registered with the CFTC as CPOs. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 19 of 40 PageID 17793
20 

62. Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022), defines an AP of a CPO as any 

natural person associated with a CPO 

[A]s a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent 

(or any natural person occupying a similar status or 

performing similar functions), in any capacity which 

involves (i) the solicitation of funds, securities, or 

property for a participation in a commodity pool or (ii) 

the supervision of any person or persons so engaged[.] 

63. Under 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2), any person associated with a CPO “as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent (or any natural person occupying 

a similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which involves: 

(i) [t]he solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a pooled 

vehicle; or (ii) [t]he supervision of any person or persons so engaged” is an AP of 

a retail forex CPO. 

64. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Montie was a partner, 

officer, employee, or agent of OIG, OM, and/or SHC in a capacity that involved 

the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in a commodity 

pool or the supervision of any person or persons so engaged. Therefore, Montie 

was an AP of CPOs as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 1.3. 

65. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Montie was not registered 

with the CFTC as an AP of a CPO. 

66. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether 

registered with the CFTC or not, by use of the mails or any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, from employing 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 20 of 40 PageID 17794
21 

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. 

67. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as 

a common enterprise) and Defendant Montie violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

68. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Defendant Montie 

controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith with respect to 

OIG’s conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Defendant Montie is also 

liable for OIG’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

69. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or false 

report or statement is a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

4. OIG, OM, and SHC Failed To Register as CPOs in 

Violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1), and 

Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022), 

and Defendant Montie Failed To Register as an 

Associated Person of CPOs in Violation of Sections 

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

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2), and Regulation 

5.3(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2). 

70. 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].” 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 21 of 40 PageID 17795
22 

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

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

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

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

a futures association registered under section 21 of this title, 

shall not . . . 

 . . . . . 

 (cc) operate or solicit funds, securities, or 

property for any pooled investment vehicle that is not 

an eligible contract participant in connection with [retail 

forex contracts, agreements, or transactions]. 

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

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

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

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

engages in retail forex transactions. 

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

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

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

with the CFTC. 

74. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) 

states that it shall be 

[U]nlawful for any person to be associated with a [CPO] as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent . . . in any 

capacity that involves 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 22 of 40 PageID 17796
23 

(i) the solicitation of funds, securities, or property 

for a participation in a commodity pool or 

(ii) the supervision of any person or persons so 

engaged, unless such person is registered with the 

Commission under this chapter as an [AP] of such 

[CPO] . . . . 

75. For the purpose of retail forex transactions, an AP of a CPO is 

defined in 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2) as any natural person associated with a retail forex 

CPO as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any natural person 

occupying a similar status or performing similar functions) in any capacity that 

involves soliciting funds, securities, or property for participation in a pooled 

investment vehicle or supervising persons so engaged. 

76. Except in certain circumstances not relevant here, Regulation 

5.3(a)(2)(ii), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2022), requires those that meet the 

definition of an AP of a retail forex CPO under 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d) to register as an 

AP of a CPO with the CFTC. 

77. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as 

a common enterprise) engaged in a business, for compensation or profit, that is 

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

enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital 

contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the 

purpose of trading in commodity interests, including retail forex transactions; 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 23 of 40 PageID 17797
24 

therefore, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC acted as CPOs as defined by 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(11). 

78. Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as a common enterprise), 

while using the mails or means of interstate commerce in connection with their 

business as CPOs, were not registered with the CFTC as CPOs. 

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as 

a common enterprise) acted as unregistered CPOs in violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6m(1). 

80. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as 

a common enterprise) solicited funds, securities, or property for a pooled 

investment vehicle from investors who were not ECPs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(18), for the purpose of trading in retail forex transactions (as defined by 

17 C.F.R. § 5.1(m)); thus, OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as a common enterprise) 

acted as CPOs engaged in retail forex transactions as defined by 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.1(d)(1). 

81. Defendants OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as a common enterprise) 

were not registered with the CFTC as CPOs engaged in retail forex transactions, 

and therefore violated 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i). 

82. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Montie was associated (as 

defined in 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)) as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent 

(or any natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar 

functions) with retail forex CPOs OIG, OM, and SHC (acting as a common 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 24 of 40 PageID 17798
25 

enterprise), in a capacity that involved the solicitation of funds, securities, or 

property for a participation in a commodity pool or the supervision of persons so 

engaged; therefore, Defendant Montie acted as an AP of CPOs OIG, OM, and SHC 

as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 1.3. 

83. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Montie was not registered 

with the CFTC as an AP of a CPO; thus, Defendant Montie acted as an 

unregistered AP of CPOs in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

84. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Montie associated with retail 

forex CPOs (as defined in 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)) as a partner, officer, employee, 

consultant, or agent (or any natural person occupying a similar status or 

performing similar functions), in a capacity that involved the solicitation of 

funds, securities, or property for a participation in a retail forex pool or the 

supervision of persons so engaged; therefore Defendant Montie acted as an AP of 

CPOs OIG, OM, and SHC as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2). 

85. Defendant Montie was not registered as an AP of CPOs engaged in 

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

and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii). 

86. Defendant Montie controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith with respect to OIG’s conduct. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 25 of 40 PageID 17799
26 

87. Each instance that OIG, OM, and SHC acted as CPOs but failed to 

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

88. Each instance that Defendant Montie acted as an AP of a CPO but 

failed to register with the CFTC as such is alleged as a separate and distinct 

violation. 

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

Pools and Commingled Funds in Violation of 

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

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

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

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

transactions. 

90. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) (2022) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, 

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

91. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from 

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

person. 

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

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

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

Defendants or others. 

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

§ 4.20(b)-(c). 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 26 of 40 PageID 17800
27 

94. Defendant Montie controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith with respect to OIG’s conduct. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b), Defendant Montie is liable for OIG’s violations of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b)-(c). 

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

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

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

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

6. Defendant OIG Failed To Provide Pool Disclosures in 

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

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

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

transactions. 

97. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21 provides that 

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

registered under the Act must deliver or cause to be delivered 

to a prospective participant in a pool that it operates or 

intends to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool 

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 . . . . 

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

prospective pool participants with pool disclosure documents in the form 

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

99. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants OIG violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.21. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 27 of 40 PageID 17801
28 

100. Defendant Montie controlled OIG, directly or indirectly, and did not 

act in good faith with respect to OIG’s conduct. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b), Defendant Montie is liable for OIG’s violations of 17 C.F.R. § 4.21. 

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

prospective pool participants and pool participants is a separate and distinct 

violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.21. 

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

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

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

and Regulations. 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

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

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

restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or indirectly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 28 of 40 PageID 17802
29 

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

participant or prospective client or participant, or engaging in any 

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

or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective participant in 

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

c. Being associated with a CPO as a partner, officer, employee, 

consultant, or agent, or a person occupying a similar status or 

performing similar functions, in any capacity that involves the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in a 

retail forex pool without being registered with the CFTC as an AP of 

the CPO, in violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4k(2) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2) and Regulation 

5.3(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2) (2022); 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.20(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) (2022); 

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 29 of 40 PageID 17803
30 

g. Failing to provide prospective pool participants with pool disclosure 

documents in the form specified in Regulations 4.24 and 4.25, 

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

17 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2022). 

104. Defendant Montie is also permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

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

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

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

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

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

indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

d. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other 

person or entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any 

account involving commodity interests;

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

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

f. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration 

with the CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring 

such registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC, 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 30 of 40 PageID 17804
31 

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

(2022); and 

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

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

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

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

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

17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9). 

V. DISGORGEMENT 

105. Defendant Montie shall pay disgorgement in the amount of four 

hundred and thirty-two thousand, six hundred and eight dollars and fifteen cents 

($432,608.15) (“Disgorgement Obligation”), representing the gains received in 

connection with such violations, within thirty days of the date of the entry of this 

Consent Order. If the Disgorgement Obligation is not paid in full within thirty 

days of the date of entry of this Consent Order, then post-judgment interest shall 

accrue on the unpaid portion of the Disgorgement Obligation beginning on the 

date of entry of this Consent Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury 

Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1961. 

106. To effect payment of the Disgorgement Obligation and the 

distribution of any disgorgement payments to participants in the Oasis Pools, the 

Court directs the Receiver to affirmatively obtain and collect disgorgement 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 31 of 40 PageID 17805
32 

payments from Defendant Montie and to make distributions to Pool Participants 

with approved claims, as set forth below. The Receiver is authorized to use any 

and all procedures and to seek any and all remedies available under the 

Consolidated Receivership Order (Dkt. 177), this Consent Order, state law or 

procedure, and federal law or procedure, expressly including motions for 

turnover, post judgment discovery, and proceedings supplementary. 

107. Because the Receiver is acting as an officer of this Court in 

performing these services, the Receiver shall not be liable for any action or 

inaction arising from his appointment, other than actions involving fraud. 

108. The Receiver shall oversee the Disgorgement Obligation and shall 

make any distributions of the same in accordance with the March 7, 2022 Order 

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

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

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

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

provide the CFTC with a report detailing the disbursement of the Disgorgement 

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

terminating the Receivership that includes this information shall satisfy this 

requirement. The Receiver shall transmit this report under a cover letter that 

identifies the name and docket number of this proceeding to the Chief Financial 

Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 32 of 40 PageID 17806
33 

110. The provision of the preliminary injunction entered against 

Defendant Montie on July 11, 2019, continuing a freeze on assets or funds in his 

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

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

Receiver or the CFTC. 

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

satisfaction of Defendant Montie’s Disgorgement Obligation, such funds shall be 

transferred to the Receiver for disbursement in accordance with the procedures 

set forth above. 

VI. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

112. Defendant Montie shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount 

of two hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and four dollars and eight 

cents ($216,304.08) (“CMP Obligation”), within thirty days of the date of the 

entry of this Consent Order. If the CMP Obligation is not paid in full within thirty 

days of the date of entry of this Consent Order, then post-judgment interest shall 

accrue on the unpaid portion of the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of 

entry of this Consent Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill 

rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961. 

113. Defendant Montie shall pay his CMP Obligation and any postjudgment interest, by electronic fund transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified 

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 33 of 40 PageID 17807
34 

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

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

 MMAC/ESC/AMK326 

 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

 HQ Room 266 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov 

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

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

and shall fully comply with those instructions. Defendant Montie shall 

accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that identifies 

Defendant Montie and the name and docket number of this proceeding. 

Defendant Montie shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the 

form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

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

20581. 

VII. PROVISIONS RELATED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS 

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

partial payment of Defendant Montie’s Disgorgement Obligation or CMP 

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

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

right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 34 of 40 PageID 17808
35 

VIII. COOPERATION 

115. Defendant Montie shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with the 

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

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

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

thereto. Defendant Montie shall also cooperate in any investigation, civil 

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

action brought by the Receiver. As part of such cooperation, Montie agrees to:

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

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

documents, information, and other materials wherever located, in 

the appropriate possession, custody, or control of Montie; 

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

information and technology, or identify new and productive lines of 

inquiry; 

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

places as requested by Division Staff; 

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

when requested to do so by Division Staff; 

e. identify and authenticate relevant documents and other evidentiary 

materials, execute affidavits and/or declarations, and testify 

completely and truthfully at depositions, trial, and other judicial 

proceedings, when requested to do so by Division Staff; 

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

notices or subpoenas for documents and/or testimony; 

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

notices and such subpoenas; and 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 35 of 40 PageID 17809
36 

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local rules in 

connection with requests or subpoenas of Division Staff. 

IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

116. Until such time as Defendant Montie satisfies in full his 

Disgorgement Obligation and CMP Obligation under this Consent Order, upon

the commencement by or against Defendant Montie of insolvency, receivership 

or bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of 

Defendant Montie’s debts, all notices to creditors required to be furnished to the 

CFTC under Title 11 of the United States Code or other applicable law with 

respect to such insolvency, receivership bankruptcy or other proceedings, shall be 

sent to the address below: 

Secretary of the Commission 

Legal Division 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

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

Consent Order, except as set forth in paragraph 116, above, shall be sent certified 

mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

Notice to CFTC: 

 Charles Marvine, Deputy Director 

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 210 

 Kansas City, MO 64108 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 36 of 40 PageID 17810
37 

Notice to Defendant Raymond Montie: 

 Raymond Montie 

 P.O. Box 190 

 Hamlin, PA 18427

 

Notice to Receiver: 

Burton W. Wiand, Receiver 

Burton W. Wiand PA 

114 Turner Street 

Clearwater, FL 33756 

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

action.

118. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant Montie 

satisfies in full his Disgorgement Obligation and CMP Obligation as set forth in 

this Consent Order, Defendant Montie shall provide written notice to the CFTC 

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

mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

circumstance shall not be affected by the holding. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 37 of 40 PageID 17811
38 

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

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

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

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

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

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

breach of any other provision of this Consent Order. 

122. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Defendant Montie waives 

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

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

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

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

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

received and read a copy of this Consent Order. 

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

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

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

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

this Consent Order. 

124. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and 

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

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

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 38 of 40 PageID 17812
39 

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

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

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

(1) and (2) above. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

126. Contempt: Defendant Montie understands that the terms of the 

Consent Order are enforceable through contempt proceedings, and that, in any 

such proceedings he may not challenge the validity of this Consent Order. 

127. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendant Montie shall comply 

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

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

ordered to enter this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction and Other 

Equitable Relief Against Defendant Montie forthwith and without further notice. 

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 39 of 40 PageID 17813
40 

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

 ____________________________ 

 HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. 

 HERNANDEZ COVINGTON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED 

BY: 

___________________________ 

Raymond P. Montie, III 

P.O. Box 190 

Hamlin, PA 18427 

raymontie7@yahoo.com 

Dated ___________________ 

Approved as to form: 

________________________ 

Burton W. Wiand, Receiver 

Burton W. Wiand PA 

114 Turner Street 

Clearwater, FL 33756 

burt@burtonwwiandpa.com 

Dated 

________________________

__________________________ 

Jeffery C. Le Riche 

J. Alison Auxter

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210

Kansas City, Missouri 64108

(816) 960-7700

(816) 960-7750 (facsimile)

jleriche@cftc.gov

aauxter@cftc.gov

Dated 

________________________ 

12-7-2023

12/07/2023

12th December

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 789 Filed 12/15/23 Page 40 of 40 PageID 17814