IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

BLUPRINT LLC, 

 

 Defendant 

and 

KALPANA PATEL,

 Relief Defendant. 

Case No. 22-cv-80092-MATTHEWMAN 

CONSENT ORDER FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT BLUPRINT 

LLC

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed a 

Complaint [DE 1] against Rajiv Patel (“Patel”) (deceased) and Defendant Bluprint LLC 

(“Bluprint” or “Defendant”) alleging that between at least June 2019 and continuing through 

January 21, 2022, Patel and his Florida limited liability company, Bluprint, engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit and misappropriate money invested with Defendant Bluprint and Patel for the 

purpose of trading commodity futures and securities in a commodity pool. The Complaint sought 

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 CFTC’s Regulations 

(“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). The Court entered an ex 

parte statutory restraining order against Patel and Bluprint on January 20, 2022. [DE 11]. On 

February 17, 2022, the Court entered a preliminary injunction continuing to freeze Patel’s and 

SW Aug 4, 2023 WPB

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 1 of 29

FILED sv ____ o.c . 

ANGEl.A E. NOBLE 

CL.ERK U.S. 01ST. CT. 

5 . O. Of'FtA. · 
2 

Bluprint’s assets. [DE 41]. On March 29, 2022, the Court appointed as receiver (“Receiver”) 

Melanie E. Damian, Damian and Valori LLP, 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020, Miami, Florida. 

See Order Appointing Receiver [DE 50]. Among other duties and powers, the Court authorized 

the Receiver to marshal, preserve, account for, and liquidate the assets of Patel and Bluprint for 

the purpose of distributing the proceeds to Bluprint pool participants. After the Complaint was 

filed, Patel died, and in light of his death, the CFTC voluntarily dismissed him from the litigation. 

[DE 80]. On November 3, 2022, the CFTC filed an Amended Complaint joining Relief Defendant 

Kalpana Patel and amending factual allegations. [DE 84]. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Amended Complaint against Defendant 

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

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for Equitable Relief Against Defendant

Bluprint (“Consent Order”); 

2. Affirms that it 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 Amended Complaint; 

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

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

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the CFTC over the conduct and transactions at issue in 

this action pursuant to the Act;

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e);

7. Waives: 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 2 of 29
3 

a) Any and all claims that it may possess under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the 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 it 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. Acknowledges 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, that the Commission is the prevailing party in this action; 

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

implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and for any other 

purpose relevant to this action; 

10. Agrees that it 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 it nor any of its agents or employees under its authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Amended Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this 

Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Amended Complaint and/or 

this Consent Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision 

shall affect its: (a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 3 of 29
4 

to which the CFTC is not a party. Defendant Bluprint shall comply with this agreement, and shall 

undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of its agents and/or employees under its authority 

or control understand and comply with this agreement; and 

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

in the Amended Complaint. 

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, and equitable relief pursuant to 

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

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

A. Findings of Fact

The Parties to this Consent Order

13. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act and 

Regulations. 

14. Defendant Bluprint LLC is a Florida limited liability company formed in June 2018 

that operated from Patel’s residence in Wellington, Florida. During the Relevant Period, Defendant 

operated as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) by accepting and receiving funds from pool 

participants to trade commodity futures and securities in a commodity pool (the “Bluprint Pool”). 

Defendant has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. Patel was the Managing 

Director of Defendant and also described himself as its CEO. Eventually, Patel planned to share 

control of Defendant with a family member. During the Relevant Period, Patel acted as an 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 4 of 29
5 

Associated Person (“AP”) for Defendant by soliciting pool participants for participation in the 

Bluprint Pool. Patel was never registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

1. Defendant Bluprint and Patel Misappropriated and Commingled Pool 

Participants’ Funds with Patel’s Personal Trading and Bank Accounts.

15. Between at least June 2019 and continuing through January 21, 2022 (“Relevant 

Period”), Patel and his Florida limited liability company, Defendant Bluprint, engaged in a 

fraudulent scheme to solicit and misappropriate money invested with Defendant and Patel for the 

purpose of trading commodity futures and securities in a commodity pool. Defendant and Patel, 

solicited and/or accepted at least $11.8 million from at least sixteen individuals and entities (“Pool 

Participants”) to trade commodity futures and securities in the Bluprint Pool. 

16. Defendant Bluprint and Patel misappropriated Pool Participant funds by 1) 

directing or depositing the funds into Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts, comingling Pool 

Participant funds with Patel’s funds and those of Relief Defendant Kalpana Patel and 2) personally 

trading, among other things, commodity futures and options in trading accounts held jointly with 

Relief Defendant. Defendant and Patel also used Pool Participant funds to support his and Relief 

Defendant’s lifestyle, including by making mortgage payments for two homes in Palm Beach 

County, Florida; making loan payments on several vehicles; and by making regular payments to 

credit card providers and personal loan financers. Defendant and Patel’s trading was overall 

unprofitable and caused significant losses of Pool Participant funds. Meanwhile, Defendant and 

Patel reported to Pool Participants that their investments were earning interest, when in reality, as 

of January 21, 2022, the investments were largely depleted and earning no interest or at immediate 

risk of dissipation. By engaging in this conduct and the conduct further described herein, 

Defendant violated certain anti-fraud, commodity pool registration, and related provisions of the 

Act, namely, Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4c(b), 4k(2), 4m(1), 4o(1)(A)-(B), 7 U.S.C. §§ 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 5 of 29
6 

6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6c(b), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)-(B), and Regulations 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 4.21, 

4.22, and 32.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 4.21, 4.22, 32.4 (2022). 

17. During the Relevant Period, Defendant and Patel misappropriated and solicited at 

least $11.8 million from at least sixteen Pool Participants. To conceal their fraud, Defendant and 

Patel provided Pool Participants with false account statements. Defendant and Patel also failed to 

register and properly operate the Bluprint Pool.

18. Defendant and Patel misappropriated and commingled Pool Participants’ funds by 

accepting them and depositing or directing them into personal trading or bank accounts Patel held 

individually or with Relief Defendant. From there, Defendant and Patel largely traded the funds in 

commodity futures trading accounts and incurred significant overall losses, distributed funds back 

to other Pool Participants (akin to a Ponzi scheme), or used the funds on Patel’s own personal 

spending. Consequently, as of January 21, 2022, Pool Participants’ funds were largely depleted. 

19. Specifically, during the Relevant Period, Patel deposited more than $6,000,000 into 

futures accounts; he traded E-mini Nasdaq-100, Micro E-mini Nasdaq, E-mini Russell 2000 Index, 

E-mini S&P 500 Index, and Natural Gas futures, and he traded Natural Gas, Mini S&P, and other 

index options; and the accounts incurred overall trading losses of more than $4,600,000 during the 

same timeframe. Patel paid more than $605,000 in trading fees during the Relevant Period. 

20. Defendant and Patel also distributed more than $2,900,000 back to some Pool 

Participants during the Relevant Period in the manner of Ponzi payments. 

21. Patel spent the remaining Pool Participant funds on personal expenses supporting 

his and Relief Defendant’s lavish lifestyle, including by paying for the mortgages for two homes 

in Palm Beach County, Florida; loan payments on several vehicles totaling more than $95,000; 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 6 of 29
7 

personal loan payments totaling more than $271,000; and regular credit card payments totaling 

more than $407,000.

22. Defendant and Patel knowingly or recklessly defrauded Pool Participants by 

misappropriating Pool Participant funds instead of investing the Pool Participants’ money as 

promised. At a minimum, this conduct operated as a fraud on pool participants. 

2. Defendant and Patel Made Material Misrepresentations and Issued False 

Account Statements to Pool Participants.

23. To encourage Pool Participants to invest, Defendant and Patel entered into 

agreements with Pool Participants that purported to pay Pool Participants a specific interest rate in 

exchange for the Pool Participants’ capital contributions to Defendant. As discussed below, these 

agreements contained a number of material misrepresentations.

24. Defendant and Patel also provided false periodic account statements to Pool 

Participants. 

a. Defendant and Patel’s Investment Agreements with and Periodic 

Account Statements to Pool Participant A Contained Material 

Misrepresentations.

25. On or around January 15, 2020, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a commodity pool participant (“Pool Participant A”) provided to 

Defendant and Patel one million dollars ($1,000,000) and entered into an “Investment Agreement” 

with Defendant and Patel. Patel personally guaranteed repayment, personally signed the 

Investment Agreement, and signed the Investment Agreement on behalf of Defendant as its 

Managing Director.

26. The Investment Agreements provided that “[i]n exchange for [Pool Participant A’s] 

capital contribution . . . [Defendant] shall pay to [Pool Participant A] an annual rate of return of 

twenty percent (20%) on the Capital Contribution[s] . . . until the earlier of: (i) a period of three 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 7 of 29
8 

(3) years . . . or (ii) until such time that [Defendant] returns the full amount of the Capital 

Contribution[s] to [Pool Participant A].”

27. The Investment Agreements further provided that Defendant and Patel 

[J]ointly and severally represent[ed] and warrant[ed]: (a) the accuracy of all 

statements and representations made in any Written Report; (b) that no portion of 

[Pool Participant A’s] Book Capital Account balance shall be used for personal 

benefit by [Patel] or [Defendant], or for any purpose other than set forth in [the 

Investment Agreements]; and (c) that [Pool Participant A’s] Capital Contribution 

will be invested solely for the purpose of increasing the [Pool Participant A’s] Book 

Capital Account[.] 

28. These representations were false. Instead of investing Pool Participant A’s funds 

as promised, Defendant and Patel misappropriated Pool Participant A’s capital contribution by 

using the funds for Patel’s personal trading (which suffered significant trading losses), spending 

the funds on personal expenses, and making payments to other Pool Participants. The funds never 

accumulated interest. Defendant and Patel never maintained a Book Capital Account for Pool 

Participant A. Moreover, Defendant and Patel knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they 

had no past history of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant A that Defendant 

and Patel would generate trading profits that would allow them to pay a 20% annual rate of return 

on Pool Participant A’s investment.

29. Defendant and Patel also represented and warranted that the execution, delivery, 

and performance of the Investment Agreements and the “consummation of the transactions 

contemplated” within the Investment Agreements would not “violate any federal, foreign, state, 

county or local law, rule, regulation, order, writ injunction or decree applicable to [Defendant] or 

[Patel].” Defendant and Patel knew, however, that their operation of the Bluprint Pool and their 

failure to register or file a registration exemption violated federal law.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 8 of 29
9 

30. Periodically, Defendant and Patel provided Pool Participant A with account 

statements purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant A provided, an “Annual 

Simple Interest Rate” of 20.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.05479%. Defendant and Patel 

provided Pool Participant A one such statement on Defendant’s letterhead dated October 31, 2021, 

which provided a table reflecting total “Principal” invested as $1,500,000, and falsely show total 

interest accumulated as of October 31, 2021 as $459,863.01.

31. These account statements were false. Pool Participant A’s capital contributions 

were largely or completely depleted and were not accruing any interest. Defendant and Patel did 

not direct any of Pool Participant A’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendant 

and Patel directed Pool Participant A’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and 

bank accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds to trade index futures and options products, which 

then suffered significant losses, and for personal expenses.

b. Defendant and Patel’s Profit Sharing Agreements with and Periodic 

Account Statements to Pool Participant B Contained Material 

Misrepresentations.

32. On or around January 29, 2021, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a commodity pool participant (“Pool Participant B”) entered into a “Profit 

Sharing Agreement” with Defendant and provided a “capital contribution of Two Hundred 

Thousand U.S. Dollars ($200,000.00), in exchange for certain profit[-]sharing rights in 

[Defendant’s] investment activities.”

33. In the January 29, 2021 Profit Sharing Agreement, in exchange for the $200,000, 

“[Defendant] agree[d] to pay [Pool Participant B] an annual return of fifteen percent (15%) on 

[Pool Participant B’s] Capital Contribution (“Annual Return”) for a period of three (3) years . . . 

or until such time that [Defendant] returns the capital to [Pool Participant B], whichever is first 

(“Agreement Term”).”

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 9 of 29
10 

34. On or around March 29, 2021, still under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, Pool Participant B entered into a second Profit Sharing Agreement with 

Defendant, providing a “capital contribution of Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($20,000.00).” 

Likewise, on or around April 26, 2021, Pool Participant B entered into a third Profit Sharing 

Agreement with Defendant, providing a “capital contribution of One Hundred Thousand U.S. 

Dollars ($100,000.00).” On or around August 2, 2021, Pool Participant B entered into a fourth 

Profit Sharing Agreement with Defendant (“August 2, 2021 Profit Sharing Agreement”), providing 

a “capital contribution of Two Hundred Thirty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($230,000.00).” Other than 

the dates of the agreements and the amounts invested, the terms of all of the Profit Sharing 

Agreements were functionally the same.

35. Patel signed each of the Profit Sharing Agreements on behalf of Defendant as its 

Managing Director. 

36. Defendant and Patel knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that Patel had no past 

history of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant B that Patel’s trading would 

generate profits that would allow Defendant or Patel to pay a 15% annual rate of return on Pool 

Participant B’s investment.

37. Approximately monthly, Defendant and Patel provided Pool Participant B account 

statements purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant A invested, an “Annual 

Simple Interest Rate” of 15.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.04110%. Defendant and Patel 

provided Pool Participant B one such statement on Defendant’s letterhead dated September 30, 

2021, which provided a table reflecting the total Pool Participant B invested as $550,000.00 and 

total interest accumulated as of September 30, 2021 as $33,571.23. The statement also provided a 

“Projected Schedule,” projecting accumulated interest of $54,365.75 by December 31, 2021. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 10 of 29
11 

38. These account statements were false. Pool Participant B’s capital contributions 

were largely or completely depleted and were not accruing any interest. Defendant and Patel did 

not direct any of Pool Participant B’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendant 

and Patel directed Pool Participant B’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and 

bank accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds to trade index futures and options products, which 

then suffered significant losses, and for personal expenses. 

c. Defendant and Patel’s Investment Agreements with and Periodic 

Account Statements and Verbal Communications to Pool Participant C 

Contained Material Misrepresentations.

39. On or around February 2, 2021, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a Pool Participant (“Pool Participant C”) entered into a “Profit Sharing 

Agreement” with Defendant and provided a “capital contribution of Seventy Five Thousand U.S. 

Dollars ($75,000.00), in exchange for certain profit[-]sharing rights in [Defendant’s] investment 

activities.”

40. According to the Profit Sharing Agreement, in exchange for the $75,000.00 

investment, “[Defendant] agree[d] to pay [Pool Participant C] an annual return of fifteen percent 

(15%) on [Pool Participant C’s] Capital Contribution (“Annual Return”) for a period of three (3) 

years . . . or until such time that [Defendant] returns the capital to [Pool Participant C], whichever 

is first (“Agreement Term”).”

41. On or around April 9, 2021, Pool Participant C and Defendant entered into a second 

Profit Sharing Agreement, this time for one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Other than the 

amount invested and the date, the Profit Sharing Agreements’ terms were functionally the same.

42. Patel signed both Profit Sharing Agreements on behalf of Defendant as its 

Managing Director. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 11 of 29
12 

43. Defendant and Patel knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that Patel had no past 

history of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant C that Patel’s trading would 

generate profits that would allow Defendant to pay a 15% annual rate of return on Pool Participant 

C’s investment.

44. Approximately monthly, Defendant and Patel provided Pool Participant C account 

statements purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant C invested, an “Annual 

Simple Interest Rate” of 15.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.04110%. Defendant and Patel 

provided Pool Participant C one such statement on Defendant’s letterhead dated September 30, 

2021, which provided a table reflecting total “Principal” invested as $175,000.00 and total interest 

accumulated as of September 30, 2021 as $14,578.77. The statement also provided a “Projected 

Schedule,” projecting accumulated interest of $21,195.21 by December 31, 2021. 

45. These account statements were false. Pool Participant C’s capital contributions 

were largely or completely depleted and were not accruing any interest. Defendant and Patel did 

not direct any of Pool Participant C’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendant 

and Patel directed Pool Participant C’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and 

bank accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds to trade index futures and options products, which 

then suffered significant losses, and for personal expenses. 

46. Furthermore, during the Relevant Period, Patel verbally told Pool Participant C that 

Defendant traded “S&P E-Mini futures.” Defendant, however, had no futures trading accounts and 

never traded any futures. 

3. Defendant and Patel Violated Registration and Other Commodity 

Pool-Related Requirements.

47. Patel, a self-described “Investor, Serial Entrepreneur, [and] Advisor,” founded 

Defendant in June 2018. Patel, Defendant’s Managing Director and CEO, described Defendant as 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 12 of 29
13 

a “special purpose investment vehicle that was formed by [Patel] for purposes of engaging in 

investment activities.” Patel also described Defendant as a “consulting” business.

48. During the Relevant Period, Defendant, by and through its officers, employees or 

agents, used the mails, electronic mails, wire transfers, websites, and other means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, to solicit pool participants and to receive property from 

pool participants. 

49. Defendant acted as a CPO of the Bluprint Pool because it engaged in a business 

that is of the nature of a commodity pool and, in connection with that business, solicited and/or 

accepted pool funds for a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP and that engaged in futures 

and options transactions.

50. Defendant was not statutorily exempt or excluded from registration as a CPO. 

Moreover, Defendant never filed any electronic or written notice with the NFA that it was exempt 

or excluded from registration as a CPO, as required by Regulations 4.5(c) and 4.13(b)(1). 

51. Defendant was never registered with the CFTC as a CPO.

52. Patel acted as an AP of a CPO because he solicited funds or property for 

participation in a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP and that engaged in futures and 

options. 

53. During the Relevant Period, Patel was never registered with the CFTC as an AP of 

a CPO.

54. Defendant and Patel were aware of their obligations to register with the CFTC. In 

former litigation, Patel, under oath, said that he knew about the CFTC and its registration 

requirements for CPOs. Defendant and Patel avoided registering Defendant as a CPO with the 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 13 of 29
14 

CFTC to avoid detection of Defendant and Patel’s illegally operated commodity pool and 

associated fraud.

55. Defendant and Patel did not operate the Bluprint Pool as a separate legal entity. 

Defendant and Patel failed to open trading accounts in the name of the Bluprint Pool, and 

Defendant and Patel received pool funds that were not in the name of the Bluprint Pool when they 

received pool funds in Patel’s name and deposited them into bank accounts Patel personally held 

instead of separate trading and bank accounts. 

56. Defendant, while acting as the CPO of the Bluprint Pool, failed to provide pool 

disclosure documents and other documents required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 

4.21, 4.22 (2022), including but not limited to required cautionary statements, risk disclosures, 

fees and expenses incurred by the Bluprint Pool, past performance disclosures, a statement that the 

CPO is required to provide to all pool participants with monthly or quarterly account statements, 

and an annual report containing financial statements certified by an independent public accountant.

B. Conclusions of Law 

1. Jurisdiction and Venue

57. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 14 of 29
15 

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

Defendant Kalpana Patel resides in this jurisdiction and the acts and practices in violation of the 

Act occurred within this District.

2. Defendant Bluprint Violated Section 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), by Defrauding Pool Participants in Connection with 

Commodity Futures Transactions by Misappropriating Pool Participant 

Funds, Making Material Misrepresentations, and Issuing False Account 

Statements (Count I of the Amended Complaint). 

59. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful: 

(1) [F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, 

any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce or for future delivery 

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

market, for or on behalf of any other person . . . 

(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; 

(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 . . . the other person[.] 

60. Defendant and Patel engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ 

funds, including when Defendant and Patel directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds into 

Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint Pool, used 

Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s and Relief Defendant’s lavish lifestyle, and made Ponzi 

payments to some Pool Participants; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendant 

and Patel’s use of Pool Participant funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as 

promised, and the legality of Defendant’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool 

Participants; and (4) making material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 15 of 29
16 

61. By reason of the conduct above, Defendant and Patel, in or in connection with any 

order to make, or the making of, commodity futures transactions made on or subject to the rules 

of a designated contract market knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to 

cheat or defraud Pool Participants; and/or (2) deceived or attempted to deceive Pool Participants 

by any means whatsoever. 

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

and (C). 

63. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendant and Patel knowingly or 

recklessly made or caused to be made to Pool Participants false reports or statements.

64. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant and Patel violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B). 

65. Defendant and Patel committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, 

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

66. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count I of the Amended Complaint. 

67. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count I of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B), and 

Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022). 

3. Defendant Bluprint Violated Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and 

Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2022), by Defrauding Pool Participants in 

Connection with Commodity Options Transactions by Misappropriating Pool 

Participant Funds, Making Material Misrepresentations, and Issuing False 

Account Statements (Count II of the Amended Complaint). 

68. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) provides, in relevant part: 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 16 of 29
17 

No person shall offer to enter into, enter into or confirm the execution of, any 

transaction involving any commodity regulated under this chapter which is of the 

character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an “option”, “privilege”, 

“indemnity”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, “call”, “advance guaranty”, or “decline 

guaranty”, contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of the CFTC prohibiting any 

such transaction or allowing any such transaction under such terms and conditions 

as the CFTC shall prescribe.

69. 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 provides: 

In or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of 

the execution of, any commodity option transaction, it shall be unlawful for any 

person directly or indirectly: 

(a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; 

(b) To make or cause to be made to any other person any false report or 

statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false record 

thereof; or 

(c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means 

whatsoever.

70. Defendant and Patel engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ 

funds, including when Defendant and Patel directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds into 

Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint Pool, used 

Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s and Relief Defendant’s lavish lifestyle, and made Ponzi 

payments to some Pool Participants; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendant 

and Patel’s use of Pool Participant funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as 

promised, and the legality of Defendant’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool 

Participants; and (4) making material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud.

71. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendant and Patel, in connection with 

offers to enter into, entry into, or confirmation of the execution of commodity option transactions, 

directly or indirectly, and knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to cheat 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 17 of 29
18 

or defraud Pool Participants; and (2) deceived or attempted to deceive Pool Participants by any 

means.

72. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant and Patel violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 

C.F.R. § 32.4(a) and (c).

73. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendant and Patel knowingly or 

recklessly made or caused to be made to Pool Participants false reports or statements.

74. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant and Patel violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 

C.F.R. § 32.4(b).

75. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count II of the Amended Complaint.

76. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count II of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2.

4. Defendant Bluprint, a Commodity Pool Operator, and Patel, an Associated 

Person of Bluprint, Violated Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6o(1)(A)-(B), by Defrauding and Deceiving Pool Participants (Count III of 

the Amended Complaint). 

77. Section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(10), in part, defines a commodity pool as 

“any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading 

in commodity interests, . . . . ” 

78. Section 1a(11)(A)(i) 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 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 18 of 29
19 

otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, including any— (I) 

commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or swap[.]

79. During the Relevant Period, Defendant engaged in a business, for compensation or 

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

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

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other 

forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; therefore, 

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

80. Under Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2), in relevant part, a person is an 

AP of a CPO if that person is associated with a CPO as 

[A] partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any person occupying a 

similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity that 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[.] 

81. During the Relevant Period, Patel was a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or 

agent of Defendant (or occupied a similar status or performed similar functions), in a capacity that 

involved the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in the Bluprint Pool. 

82. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) 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 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.

83. Defendant and Patel engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ 

funds, including when Defendant and Patel directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds into 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 19 of 29
20 

Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint Pool, used 

Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s and Relief Defendant’s lavish lifestyle, and made Ponzi 

payments to some Pool Participants; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendant 

and Patel’s use of Pool Participant funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as 

promised, and the legality of Defendant’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool 

Participants; and (4) making material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud.

84. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendant and Patel, through use of the 

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

employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud Pool Participants and prospective Pool 

Participants, or (2) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a 

fraud or deceit upon pool participants or prospective pool participants, by misappropriating Pool 

Participant funds and making material misrepresentations to Pool Participants.

85. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant and Patel violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and 

(B).

86. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count III of the Amended Complaint.

87. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count III of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

5. Defendant Bluprint Violated Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), by 

Failing to Register as a Commodity Pool Operator (Count IV of the 

Amended Complaint). 

88. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 20 of 29
21 

any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as such . . . 

[CPO] . . . .” 

89. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant engaged in a business, for compensation or 

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

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

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other 

forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; therefore, 

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

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

with its business as a CPO, was not registered with the CFTC as a CPO.

91. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant acted as an unregistered CPO in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

92. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count IV of the Amended Complaint. 

6. Defendant Bluprint Violated Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2), When 

Patel Failed to Register as an Associated Person of a Commodity Pool 

Operator (Count V of the Amended Complaint) 

93. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it “unlawful 

for any person to be associated with a [CPO] as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent 

. . . in any capacity that involves . . . the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participant 

in a commodity pool[.]” 

94. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it “unlawful for any commodity pool operator to permit [an 

unregistered AP] to become or remain associated with the [CPO] in such capacity if the [CPO] 

knew or should have known that such person was not so registered[.]” 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 21 of 29
22 

95. During the Relevant Period, Patel was associated with Defendant as a member, 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, agent, or in a similar capacity, and Patel solicited funds for 

participation in the Bluprint Pool.

96. Patel has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

97. By reason of the foregoing, Patel acted as an unregistered AP of Defendant, a CPO, 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

98. During the Relevant Period, Defendant knew that Patel acted as an unregistered AP 

of Defendant, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

99. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count V of the Amended Complaint. 

100. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count V of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022). 

7. Defendant Bluprint Violated Regulation 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), (c) (2022), by Failing to Operate the Bluprint Pool as a 

Separate Entity, Failing to Receive Pool Participants’ Funds in the Bluprint 

Pool’s Name, and Commingling Pool Participants’ Funds (Count VI of the 

Amended Complaint). 

101. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to operate its pool 

as a legal entity separate from that of the CPO.

102. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from receiving pool 

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

103. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits CPOs from commingling the property of any pool that 

it operates or that it intends to operate with the property of any other person.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 22 of 29
23 

104. During the Relevant Period, Defendant, while acting as a CPO for the Bluprint

Pool, failed to operate the Bluprint Pool as a legal entity separate from itself and from Patel as an 

individual. Defendant and Patel received pool participants’ funds in their own names rather than 

the name of a legally cognizable commodity pool. Defendant and Patel commingled Pool 

Participants’ funds with Patel’s funds in Patel’s personal trading and bank accounts. 

105. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b), and(c). 

106. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count VI of the Amended Complaint. 

107. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count VI of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

8. Defendant Bluprint Violated Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 

4.22 (2022), by Failing to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents to Pool Participants (Count VII of the Amended Complaint). 

108. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

[E]ach [CPO] registered or required to be registered under the Act must deliver or 

cause to be delivered to a prospective participant in a pool that it operates or intends 

to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool prepared in accordance with §§ 4.24 

and 4.25 by no later than the time it delivers to the prospective participant a 

subscription agreement for the pool . . . . 

109. During the Relevant Period, Defendant did not provide to prospective Pool 

Participants a Disclosure Document with the necessary disclosures in accordance with 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.24 and 4.25. 

110. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

registered) provide periodic account statements to investors—presented and computed in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles—itemizing, among other things, the 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 23 of 29
24 

total amount of realized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions liquidated during the 

reporting period, the total amount of unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions 

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

which the pool engaged during the reporting period. 

111. During the Relevant Period, Defendant did not provide periodic account statements 

to Pool Participants that itemized the total amount of realized net gain or loss on commodity 

interest positions liquidated during the reporting period, the total amount of unrealized net gain or 

loss on commodity interest positions during the reporting period, and the total amount of net gain 

or loss from all other transactions in which the Bluprint Pool engaged during the reporting period.

112. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22. 

113. Patel was a controlling person of Defendant and failed to act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Defendant’s acts constituting the violations set forth in 

Count VII of the Amended Complaint. 

114. Defendant is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count VII of the 

Amended Complaint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

115. Upon termination of the Receivership Estate, the Receiver intends to 

administratively dissolve Bluprint.

IV. RESTITUTION

116. Bluprint and Patel solicited and received at least $11,830,000.00 from Bluprint Pool 

Participants in connection with the Bluprint Pool during the Relevant Period. During that same 

period, Bluprint and Patel returned $2,966,246.23 back to Pool Participants. Accordingly, Bluprint 

shall pay to the Bluprint Pool Participants restitution in the amount of eight million, eight hundred 

sixty-three thousand, seven hundred fifty-three and seventy-seven cents ($8,863753.77)

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 24 of 29
25 

(“Restitution Obligation”), plus post-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest shall accrue 

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. The 

Receivership Obligation shall be reduced by any amount of the $8,863753.77 that is paid to 

Bluprint Pool Participants by the Receiver from the Receivership Estate, as defined by the Order 

Appointing Receiver [DE 50]. 

117. To effect payment of the Restitution Obligation and the distribution of any 

restitution payments to Bluprint Pool Participants, the Court directs the Receiver to receive 

restitution payments from Defendant Bluprint and make distributions as set forth below. Because 

the Receiver is acting as an officer of this Court in performing these services, the Receiver shall 

not be liable for any action or inaction arising from her appointment, other than actions involving 

fraud. 

118. The Receiver shall oversee the Restitution Obligation and shall have the discretion 

to determine and recommend to the Court the amount payable to each pool participant and an 

equitable manner of distribution. 

119. Upon the termination of the Receivership Estate, the Receiver shall provide the 

CFTC with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Bluprint Pool Participants. 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. Upon discharge, the Receiver 

shall have no further obligation as to Bluprint or the Bluprint Restitution Obligation.

120. The amounts payable to each Bluprint Pool Participant shall not limit the ability of 

any Bluprint Pool Participant from proving that a greater amount is owed from Bluprint or any 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 25 of 29
26 

other person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the 

rights of any Bluprint Pool Participant that exist under state or common law. 

121. The provision of the preliminary injunction entered against Bluprint on February 

17, 2022, continuing a freeze on assets or funds in its name or under its management or 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. 

122. To the extent that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of 

Bluprint’s Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to the Receiver for disbursement

in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

123. Until such time as Bluprint satisfies in full its Restitution Obligation under this 

Consent Order, upon the commencement by or against Bluprint of insolvency, receivership or 

bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of Bluprint 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 

124. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Consent Order, 

except as set forth in paragraph 123, above, shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, 

as follows:

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 26 of 29
27 

Notice to CFTC: 

Charles D. Marvine, Deputy Director 

Division of Enforcement

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Notice to Defendant Bluprint: 

Melanie E. Damian, Court-Appointed Receiver for Bluprint LLC

Damian and Valori LLP 

1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 

Miami, Florida 33131 

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

125. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This Consent Order incorporates 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. 

126. 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. 

127. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any Bluprint Pool 

Participant at any time to require performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no 

manner affect the right of the party or investor 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.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 27 of 29
28 

128. 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 any motion by Bluprint to modify or for relief from the terms of this Consent 

Order.

129. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable relief 

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Defendant Bluprint, upon any person under

its authority or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Consent Order, by 

personal service, e-mail, facsimile or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Defendant Bluprint. 

130. Authority: Melanie E. Damian hereby warrants that she is appointed as Receiver of 

Bluprint and she has been duly empowered to sign and submit this Consent Order on behalf of 

Bluprint.

131. 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. 

132. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendant Bluprint shall comply with all of the 

undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 28 of 29
29 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, in the 

Southern District of Florida, this 4th day of August, 2023. 

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:22-cv-80092-WM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2023 Page 29 of 29