IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

FINTECH INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., 

COMPCOIN LLC and ALAN FRIEDLAND, 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-cv-652 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES, AND OTHER ANCILLARY 

AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

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

attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least 2016 through 2018 (the “Relevant Period”), Defendant Alan 

Friedland (“Friedland”) and the companies he controlled, Defendant Fintech Investment Group, 

Inc. (“Fintech”) and Defendant Compcoin LLC (“Compcoin LLC”) (collectively 

“Defendants”), fraudulently solicited customers and prospective customers to purchase the 

digital asset known as Compcoin (“Compcoin”), falsely promising that Compcoin would allow 

customers to gain access to Fintech’s allegedly proprietary foreign exchange (“forex”) trading 

algorithm known as ART and falsely advertising that ART would deliver high rates of return. 

2. In marketing Compcoin, Defendants made untrue and materially misleading

representations about the use and primary function of Compcoin and the performance of ART. 

3. Significantly, despite Defendants’ knowledge that no customer could lawfully 

utilize ART unless and until Defendants obtained approval of their risk disclosures from the 

National Futures Association (“NFA”) to solicit customers as required by CFTC Regulations 

and NFA rules, Defendants sold Compcoin and raised over $1.6 million on the premise that 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1
2 

ART “was ready for release on the open market” and that “ART’s high success rate at 

predicting USD/EUR [i.e., U.S. dollar/euro] forex trades, coupled with the high rate of return 

from these trades, will stimulate demand among investors and forex traders to purchase and use 

Compcoin- specifically to gain access to ART.” 

4. Instead of gaining access to ART’s high success rate at predicting USD/EUR 

forex trades and high rate of return from the trades as promised, purchasers of Compcoin were 

left with a valueless asset. The NFA never approved Fintech’s risk disclosure statements. The 

purchasers of Compcoin never gained access to ART. Indeed, Compcoin was eventually 

delisted by all digital asset exchanges and is now worthless. 

5. Defendants solicited customers to purchase Compcoin through various means, 

including a website, written solicitation materials, and verbal communications, that (i) falsely 

represented the use and function of Compcoin, (ii) falsely claimed that Compcoin would grant 

customers access to a forex trading algorithm called ART developed by Fintech, (iii) failed to 

disclose that Fintech was not approved to advise customers on trading forex using ART and 

could not trade forex for customers using ART until and unless it was approved to do such 

trading, and (iv) failed to include a disclosure, as required by CFTC Regulation, that Fintech

and ART’s forex performance results were based largely or entirely on simulated or 

hypothetical performance and not actual trading results. 

6. Through this fraudulent marketing and solicitation of ART, Defendants Fintech 

and Friedland have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in acts and practices which 

violate the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), including Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 4o(1)(A), 

4o(1)(B), and 6(c) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A), (B), 9(1) (2018) and

Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 4.41(a) and (b), 5.2(b)(1)-(3), and 180.1, 17 C.F.R. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 24 PageID 2
3 

§§ 4.41(a), (b), 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 180.1 (2019), and Defendant Compcoin LLC has engaged, is 

engaging, or is about to engage in acts and practices which violate the Act and Regulations, 

including 7 U.S.C. §§ 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 180.1, 4.41(b), and 5.2(b)(1)-

(3), and aiding and abetting Defendants Fintech’s and Friedland’s violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6o(1)(A) and (B), and 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a). 

7. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to

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

practices. Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 13a-l (2018), to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel

their compliance with the Act and the Regulations. In addition, the Commission seeks

restitution, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and such

other statutory, injunctive, or equitable relief as this Court may deem necessary and

appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 (2018) (codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (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). In addition, Section 

6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), provides that the Commission may bring actions for 

injunctive relief or to enforce compliance with the Act in the proper district court of the United 

States whenever it shall appear to the Commission that such person has engaged, is engaging, or 

is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Act or any rule, 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 24 PageID 3
4 

regulation, or order thereunder. The Commission has jurisdiction over the forex solicitations 

and transactions at issue pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) (2018). 

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

because Defendants transacted business in this District and certain transactions, acts, practices, 

and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District. 

III. THE PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

the Regulations promulgated thereunder. The Commission maintains its principal office at 

1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. 

11. Defendant Alan Friedland is the founder and sole owner of Fintech and 

Compcoin LLC. During the Relevant Period, Friedland controlled and directed the activities of 

Fintech and Compcoin LLC. Friedland was an officer, employee, and agent of Fintech, and in 

those capacities he solicited Fintech customers’ and prospective customers’ discretionary 

accounts. Upon information and belief, Friedland currently resides in or around Winter Park 

and/or Orlando, Florida. Friedland is the listed Principal of Fintech and is registered with the 

Commission as an associated person thereof. 

12. Defendant Fintech Investment Group, Inc. was a Florida company during the 

Relevant Period and used as a mailing address 100 E. New York Ave, Suite 330, Deland, FL 

32724. Fintech was established as a corporation on March 29, 2016, and was dissolved on 

September 27, 2019. At all times since 2016, Fintech has been registered with the Commission 

as a commodity trading advisor. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 24 PageID 4
5 

13. Defendant Compcoin LLC was a Florida limited liability company during the 

Relevant Period and used as a mailing address 100 E. New York Ave, Suite 335, Deland, FL 

32724. Compcoin LLC was formed as a limited liability company on June 4, 2015, and 

dissolved on September 27, 2019. Compcoin LLC has never been registered with the 

Commission.

IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

A. Forex Fraud 

14. Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) (2018), in part, 

makes it unlawful for any person to: (A) cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud another 

person, (B) willfully make a false report or statement to another person, or (C) willfully deceive 

or attempt to deceive another person by any means whatsoever in connection with a contract of 

sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

15. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) (2018), makes retail 

forex subject to Section 4b of the Act “as if the agreement, contract, or transaction were a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.” 

16. Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(l)-(3) (2019), makes it unlawful for 

any person, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, to: 

(1) cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud another person, (2) willfully make a false 

report or statement to another person, or (3) willfully deceive or attempt to deceive another 

person by any means whatsoever in connection with any forex transaction.

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5
6 

B. Fraud by a Commodity Trading Advisor 

17. Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2018), provides that it shall be 

unlawful for a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”)1 or an associated person of a CTA, by use 

of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly: (A) 

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

client or participant; or (B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which 

operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant. 

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

(2018), “agreements, contracts, or transactions described in [Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act],” 

including retail forex transactions offered on a margined or leveraged basis to persons who are 

not eligible contract participants, “shall be subject to” provisions including Section 4o(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1).

19. Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (2019), provides, in relevant part, that no 

CTA, or principal of a CTA, may advertise in a manner which: (A) employs any device, scheme 

or artifice to defraud any participant or client or prospective participant or client; or 

(B) involves any transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit 

upon any participant or client or any prospective participant or client. 

20. Regulation 4.41(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) (2019), provides that no person may 

present the performance of any simulated or hypothetical commodity interest account, 

transaction in a commodity interest or series of transactions in a commodity interest of a CTA, 

or any principal thereof, unless such performance is accompanied by the following statement: 

 

1 A CTA is a person who, for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others about trading 

commodities, including retail forex on a margined or leveraged basis. See 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12) (2018). The Act 

defines a CTA as including a person who is registered with the Commission as a CTA. Id.§ 1a(12)(A)(iii). 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6
7 

These results are based on simulated or hypothetical performance results that have 

certain inherent limitations. Unlike the results shown in an actual performance 

record, these results do not represent actual trading. Also, because these trades 

have not actually been executed, these results may have under-or overcompensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of 

liquidity. Simulated or hypothetical trading programs in general are also subject 

to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation 

is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar 

to these being shown. 

 

C. Other Anti-Fraud Statutes and Regulations under the Act

21. Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), provides, in relevant part, that

it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, or attempt to use or 

employ, in connection with any swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate 

commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, any 

manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of such rules and regulations 

as the Commission shall promulgate.

22. Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2019), provides, in relevant part, that it 

shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any swap, or contract 

of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to 

the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: (A) use or employ, or attempt to 

use or employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (B) make, or attempt to 

make, any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact 

necessary in order to make the statements made not untrue or misleading; or (C) engage, or 

attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, which operates or would operate 

as a fraud or deceit upon any person. This provision was promulgated pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1).

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

(2018), “agreements, contracts, or transactions described in [Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act],” 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 7 of 24 PageID 7
8 

including retail forex transactions offered on a margined or leveraged basis to persons who are 

not eligible contract participants, “shall be subject to” provisions including Section 6(c)(1) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1). 

D. Aiding and Abetting under the Act

24. Section 13(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(a) (2018), provides that “any person 

who commits, or who willfully aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the 

commission of, a violation of any provisions of this Act . . . may be held responsible for such 

violation as a principal.” 

V. FACTS

A. Defendants’ Forex Solicitations and Representations

25. Defendants marketed Compcoin as “[a]n incentivized blockchain-based 

Financial Investment Coin” by which “Compcoin owners will measure its value through the 

performance (actual and perceived future sustainability) of its automated, algorithmic trading 

platform,” known as ART. 

26. In order for Defendants’ customers to gain access to ART, customers were 

required to first purchase Compcoin. Customers could purchase Compcoin directly from other 

purchasers of Compcoin through an authorized digital asset exchange, or—as was the case for 

many Compcoin holders—directly from Compcoin LLC, an affiliate of Fintech which was 

wholly owned by Friedland. Customers were then supposed to hold Compcoin at an address 

specified by Fintech on the public Compcoin blockchain. According to Fintech, once it 

confirmed that the customer posted Compcoin to the designated address on the blockchain, 

Fintech would then trade the customer’s individual forex account using ART. This never 

happened. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 8 of 24 PageID 8
9 

27. Defendants solicited customers to purchase Compcoin through various means, 

including a white paper posted to Compcoin LLC’s website, other statements on the website, 

written solicitation materials, paid press releases, and verbal communications. 

28. Defendants’ white paper was replete with statements such as the following: 

(a) Compcoin could be used as “tokens” to gain access to “sophisticated, A.I.-

enhanced trading technologies.” 

(b) “[T]he primary function of Compcoin is to grant investors access to ART – a 

proprietary, automated, algorithmic foreign currency exchange (forex) 

trading platform developed by Fintech Investment Group” that is “complete 

in form and function.” 

(c) After more than eight years of testing, ART “is likely to deliver a return on 

investment (ROI). As such, Compcoin’s founders felt the technology was 

ready for release on the open market.” 

(d) “ART’s high success rate at predicting USD/EUR [i.e., U.S. dollar/euro] 

forex trades, coupled with the high rate of return from these trades, will 

stimulate demand among investors and forex traders to purchase and use 

Compcoin- specifically to gain access to ART.” 

(e) “In eight years of controlled lab testing, Compcoin delivered an average 

10%* quarterly return on investment (ROI) – much higher than the ROI of 

most retail and institutional forex traders.” The asterisk referred to a 

footnote, which in smaller print, read “*NOTE Preliminary performance 

results were primarily achieved in a controlled environment using historical 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9
10 

trading data measured against actual forex trading results. It is important to 

note past results are not an indicator of future performance.” 

29. Further, in or about June 2017, in a press release paid for by Compcoin LLC, 

Friedland, as the founder of Fintech and Compcoin LLC, was quoted as representing that 

“[a]fter eight years of testing, which resulted in highly successful predictions and high returns, 

we believe Compcoin is ready to generate profits for forex traders on the open market.” 

30. Defendants solicited customers to utilize ART in connection with retail forex 

trading on a margined or leveraged basis, listing on the Compcoin LLC website various forex 

trading platforms that were compatible with the ART technology and including the amount of 

leverage that could be utilized in trading on each platform.

31. Defendants solicited customers who were not eligible contract participants, as 

that term is defined in Section 1a(18) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18) (2018). 

32. During the Relevant Period, Defendants sold Compcoin to hundreds of 

customers through Defendant Compcoin LLC raising over $1.6 million. 

B. Defendants’ Fraud

33. Defendants’ solicitation representations, set forth above, were untrue and 

materially misleading. Defendants made these false and misleading representations of material 

fact knowingly or recklessly in that they knew that these statements were false or misleading.

34. Prior to the purchase of Compcoin by anyone, Defendants knew that Compcoin 

could not be used by customers to gain access to ART because Fintech had not been approved 

to advise customers as to trading forex using ART. 

35. Further, Defendants knew that the performance of ART which was included in 

Defendants’ solicitations was based largely or entirely on hypothetical performance results, not 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10
11 

real trading, and further knew that the solicitations did not contain the language set out in 

Regulation 4.41(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) (2019). 

36. Defendants also knew that ART could not lawfully automatically manage any 

customer accounts because Defendants knew before Fintech could lawfully offer ART to 

purchasers of Compcoin, Fintech was required to seek and obtain the approval of its risk 

disclosure documents from the NFA. This approval never happened. Defendants offered 

Compcoin prior to Fintech seeking NFA approval of its disclosure documents, and Fintech 

never obtained NFA approval of the disclosure documents. 

37. Compcoin LLC’s website did not contain an NFA approved risk disclosure 

statement for ART because the NFA never approved Fintech’s risk disclosure documents for 

ART. 

38. Regulation 4.36, 17 C.F.R. § 4.36 (2019), requires that a CTA “must 

electronically file with the National Futures Association, pursuant to the electronic filing 

procedures of the National Futures Association, the Disclosure Document for each trading 

program that it offers or intends to offer not less than 21 calendar days prior to the date the 

trading advisor intends to deliver the Document to a prospective client in the trading program.” 

In practice, this Regulation allows the NFA to review the solicitation and require the CTA to 

make any necessary changes prior to solicitation. It also affords the NFA with the opportunity 

to reject inadequate disclosures in advance of any solicitation and withhold approval of a 

Disclosure Document that does not conform with the NFA Rules or CFTC Regulations. The 

NFA’s website makes clear to all CTAs and prospective CTAs that a Disclosure Document may 

not be used unless and until the CTA receives an acceptance letter.

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11
12 

39. Defendants knew that Compcoin could not lawfully be used by customers to 

trade forex with ART unless and until the NFA approved the disclosure statement by issuing an 

acceptance letter. 

40. From approximately September 2017 to May 2018, the NFA advised Defendant 

Fintech in writing that the forex trading disclosure documents, which Fintech had submitted to 

the NFA for approval, were deficient and could not be used to solicit customers for forex

trading using ART until acceptable disclosures were filed with, approved and accepted by the 

NFA. Defendant Fintech was advised in writing that soliciting customers with disclosures that 

were not accepted by the NFA “will result in violations of NFA Rules and CFTC Regulations 

and could subject the firm to possible disciplinary action.” 

41. The NFA never issued an acceptance letter. 

42. Moreover, although Defendants touted the successful performance of ART 

through the Compcoin LLC website and in advertising materials, Defendants knew that 

Compcoin LLC’s website, which was used to solicit customers, did not contain the required 

disclosure statement set forth in 17 C.F.R § 4.41(b) for simulated or hypothetical performance. 

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Count I 

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

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) (2018), 

and Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2019) 

(Forex Fraud) 

(Fintech, Friedland and Compcoin LLC) 

43. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12
13 

44. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful:

for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the 

making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future 

delivery, 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;

 (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[.] 

45. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) provides, in relevant part, that: 

[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, by use of the mails or by any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or 

indirectly, in or in connection with any retail forex transaction: 

 

(1) 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.

46. Defendants, in connection with retail forex transactions, knowingly or 

recklessly: cheated or defrauded or attempted to cheat or defraud customers and prospective 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13
14 

customers and deceived or attempted to deceive customers and prospective customers by, 

among other things, fraudulently soliciting customers and prospective customers to purchase 

Compcoin, falsely promising that Compcoin would allow customers to gain access to ART, 

falsely advertising that ART would deliver high rates of return and failing to include the 

required disclosure that Fintech and ART’s forex trading performance results were largely or 

entirely based on simulated or hypothetical performance and not actual trading results as 

required by the relevant Regulation. 

47. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

48. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and false statement, including 

but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as 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). 

Count II 

Violations of Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)–(B) (2018) 

(Fraud by a Commodity Trading Advisor) 

(Fintech and Friedland) 

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

50. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) make it unlawful for a CTA or associated person of 

a CTA “by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or 

indirectly- (A) to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any client or . . . prospective 

client . . . ; or (B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as 

a fraud or deceit upon any client...or prospective client.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14
15 

51. During the Relevant Period, Fintech was a registered CTA and Friedland acted 

as an associated person of Fintech because he was associated with Fintech 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 . . . [t]he solicitation of a client’s or 

prospective client’s discretionary account,” as set out in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019). 

52. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Friedland and Fintech, through use of 

the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the Compcoin 

LLC website, employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud their customers and prospective 

customers and engaged in a transaction, practice or course of business which operated as a fraud 

upon their customers and prospective customers by, among other things, fraudulently soliciting

customers and prospective customers to purchase Compcoin, falsely promising that Compcoin 

would allow customers to gain access to ART, falsely advertising that ART would deliver high 

rates of return and failing to include the required disclosure that Fintech and ART’s forex 

trading performance results were largely or entirely based on simulated or hypothetical 

performance and not actual trading results as required by the relevant Regulation. 

53. Each fraudulent or deceptive act and each misrepresentation or omission of a 

material fact, during the Relevant Period, including without limitation those specifically alleged 

herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B). 

Count III

Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) (2018) 

(Fraud by a Commodity Trading Advisor) 

(Compcoin LLC)

54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 15 of 24 PageID 15
16 

55. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a CTA or associated person of 

a CTA “by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or 

indirectly- (A) to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any client or . . . prospective 

client . . . ; or (B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as 

a fraud or deceit upon any client . . . or prospective client.” 

56. By reason of the conduct described above, Compcoin LLC willfully aided, 

abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured the commission of the acts constituting 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act committed by Fintech and Friedland or 

acted in combination or concert with Fintech and Friedland in such violations, and Compcoin 

LLC sought by its actions to make Fintech’s and Freedland’s violations succeed. Pursuant to 

Section 13(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(a) (2018), Compcoin LLC is therefore responsible as if 

it was a principal for Fintech’s and Friedland’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) during 

the Relevant Period.

57. Each and every instance during the Relevant Period that Fintech and Friedland 

violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 

6o(1)(A) and (B) for which Compcoin LLC is responsible as if it was a principal under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(a). 

Count IV 

Violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), 

and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2019) 

(Fraud) 

(Fintech, Friedland and Compcoin LLC)

58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16
17 

59. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in 

connection with any swap, or a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for 

future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, to use or employ, or attempt to 

use or employ, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance.

60. 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 provides, in relevant part, that it shall be unlawful for any 

person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any swap, or contract of sale of 

any commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to the rules 

of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: (A) use or employ, or attempt to use or 

employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (B) make, or attempt to make, 

any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary 

in order to make the statements made not untrue or misleading; or (C) engage, or attempt to 

engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, which operates or would operate as a fraud 

or deceit upon any person. 

61. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) (2018), provides 

that “agreements, contracts, or transactions described in [7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i)],” including 

retail forex on a margined or leveraged basis offered to persons who are not eligible contract 

participants, “shall be subject to” provisions including 7 U.S.C. § 9(1). 

62. Defendants, directly or indirectly, in connection with retail forex offered on a 

margined or leveraged basis to people who are not eligible contract participants, intentionally or 

recklessly: (1) used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, manipulative devices, 

schemes, or artifices to defraud; (2) made, or attempted to make, untrue or misleading 

statements of a material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the 

statements made not untrue or misleading; or (3) engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17
18 

practices, or courses of business, which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit 

upon customers or prospective customers. 

63. Defendants made false and misleading misrepresentations of material fact, 

including but not limited to: falsely promising that Compcoin would allow customers to gain 

access to ART, misrepresenting the performance of ART, falsely advertising that ART would 

deliver high rates of return and failing to include a disclosure that Fintech and ART’s forex 

trading performance results were largely or entirely based on simulated or hypothetical 

performance and not actual trading results as required by the relevant Regulation. 

64. Each fraudulent or deceptive act and each misrepresentation or omission of a 

material fact, made during the relevant time period, including without limitation those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and

17 C.F.R. § 180.1. 

Count V 

Violations of Commission Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (2019) 

(False Advertising) 

(Fintech and Friedland)

65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

66. 17 C.F.R § 4.41(a) prohibits CTAs or any principal of a CTA from advertising in 

a manner which employs any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any participant or client or 

prospective participant or client or involves any transaction, practice or course of business 

which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any participant or client or prospective participant or 

client. 

67. During the relevant period, Defendants Fintech and Friedland advertised the 

ART forex trading system on the Compcoin LLC website and social media sites, among other 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 18 of 24 PageID 18
19 

places, to solicit customers in a manner that employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud 

customers and prospective customers and engaged in a transaction, practice or course of 

business which operated as a fraud upon their customers and prospective customers by, among 

other things, falsely promising that Compcoin would allow customers to gain access to ART, 

misrepresenting the performance of ART, falsely advertising that ART would deliver high rates 

of return and failing to include a disclosure that Fintech and ART’s forex trading performance 

results were largely or entirely based on simulated or hypothetical performance and not actual 

trading results as required by the relevant Regulation. 

68. Each false or misleading advertisement, including but not limited to those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R § 4.41(a). 

Count VI 

Violations of Regulation 4.41(b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) (2019) 

(Failure to Include Disclaimer Concerning Hypothetical Results) 

(Fintech, Friedland, and Compcoin LLC) 

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

70. 17 C.F.R § 4.41(b) prohibits any person from presenting the performance of any 

simulated or hypothetical commodity interest account, transaction in a commodity interest, or 

series of transactions in a commodity interest of a CTA, or any principal thereof, unless such 

performance is accompanied by the disclaimer contained in 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b). 

71. Defendants Fintech, Friedland, and Compcoin LLC violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) 

by presenting the performance of the ART program in solicitation material, including but not 

limited to the Compcoin LLC website and social media sites, without the disclaimer required by 

17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) that the performance was based upon simulated or hypothetical trading 

results. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19
20 

72. Each failure of Defendants Fintech, Friedland, and Compcoin LLC to present the 

performance of any simulated or hypothetical commodity interest account, transaction in a 

commodity interest, or series of transactions in a commodity interest of a CTA or principal 

thereof without the disclaimer contained in 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b), including but not limited to, 

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

17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b). 

Count VII 

Aiding and Abetting Violations of Regulation 4.41(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (2019) 

(False Advertising) 

(Compcoin LLC)

73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

74. 17 C.F.R § 4.41(a) prohibits CTAs or any principal of a CTA from advertising in 

a manner which employs any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any participant or client or 

prospective participant or client or involves any transaction, practice or course of business 

which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any participant or client or prospective participant or 

client.

75. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Fintech and Friedland advertised the 

ART trading system on the Compcoin LLC website and social media sites, among other places, 

to solicit customers in a manner that employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud customers 

and prospective customers and engaged in a transaction, practice or course of business which 

operated as a fraud upon their customers and prospective customers by, among other things, 

falsely promising that Compcoin would allow customers to gain access to ART, 

misrepresenting the performance of ART, falsely advertising that ART would deliver high rates 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 20 of 24 PageID 20
21 

of return and failing to include a disclosure that Fintech and ART’s forex trading performance 

results were based on simulated or hypothetical performance and not actual trading results as 

required by the relevant Regulation. 

76. By reason of the conduct described above, Compcoin LLC willfully aided, 

abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured the commission of the acts constituting 

violations of 17 C.F.R § 4.41(a) committed by Fintech and Friedland or acted in combination or 

concert with Fintech and Friedland in such violations and sought by its actions to make the 

violations succeed. Pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(a) (2018), Compcoin 

LLC is therefore responsible as if it was a principal for Fintech’s and Friedland’s violations of 

17 C.F.R § 4.41(a) during the Relevant Period. 

77. Each false or misleading advertisement, including but not limited to those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R § 4.41(a) 

for which Compcoin LLC is responsible as if it was a principal under Section 13(a) of the Act. 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

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

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), and pursuant to its own equitable powers, enter: 

A. An order finding that Defendants violated Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 4o( l )(A) 

and (B), and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A), (B), 9(1)

(2018), and Regulations 4.41(a) and (b), 5.2(b)(1)-(3), and 180.1, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.41(a), (b), 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 180.1 (2019);

B. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any other person or 

entity associated with them, from engaging in conduct that violates 7 U.S.C.

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 21 of 24 PageID 21
22 

§§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A) and (B), and 9(1), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a) and (b),

5.2(b)(1)-(3), and 180.1;

C. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any successor 

thereof, from, directly or indirectly: 

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

defined in Section 1a of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a (2018)), including, but not 

limited to, trading for themselves or others; 

b. entering into any transactions involving commodity interests (as that term 

is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019)), 

c. having any commodity interests traded on their 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 

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

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except 

as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2019); 

and

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2019)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

person or entity registered, exempted from registration or required to be 

registered with the Commission except as provided for 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.14(a)(9); 

D. An order requiring that Defendants, as well as any of their successors, disgorge to 

any officer appointed or directed by the Court all benefits received including, but 

not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, revenues and trading profits 

derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices that constitute violations of 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 22 of 24 PageID 22
23 

the Act, as amended, and the Regulations, including pre- and post-judgment 

interest;

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

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

whose funds Defendants received, or caused another person or entity to receive, 

as a result of the acts and practices constituting violations of the Act and 

Regulations, as described herein, and pre- and post-judgment interest thereon 

from the date of such violations; 

F. An order requiring Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under the Act, to 

be assessed by the Court, in amounts not to exceed the penalties prescribed by 

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

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-

74, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599, see 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2019), for each 

violation of the Act and Regulations described herein; 

G. An order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted by 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2) (2018); and 

H. An order providing such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary 

and appropriate. 

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 23 of 24 PageID 23
24 

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

 By: /s/ Janine Gargiulo________________ 

Janine Gargiulo (Trial Counsel) (appearing 

pursuant to Local Rule 2.02(b)) 

Gabriella Geanuleas (appearing pursuant to 

Local Rule 2.02(b)) 

K. Brent Tomer (appearing pursuant to 

Local Rule 2.02(b)) 

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission

 Division of Enforcement 

 140 Broadway, 19th Floor 

 New York, NY 10005 

 Phone: (646) 746-9730 

 Fax: (646) 746-9940 

 jgargiulo@cftc.gov

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Case 6:20-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 04/16/20 Page 24 of 24 PageID 24