ALISON B. WILSON – Lead Counsel

KELLY M. FOLKS

SEAN HENNESSY 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

awilson@cftc.gov 

kfolks@cftc.gov 

shennessy@cftc.gov 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WONSEY, d/b/a 

ONE BELL & ASSOCIATES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

 

 

Civil Case No. 23-cv-2174

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

– PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), by 

and through its attorneys, alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. From at least January 2017 through at least September 2022 (the 

“Relevant Period”), Patrick Wonsey individually and doing business as One Bell & 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 25 PageID 1
2 

Associates Inc. (“OneBell”) (“Wonsey” or “Defendant”), fraudulently solicited 

individuals (“pool participants”) to trade, among other things, margined or 

leveraged retail foreign currency transactions (“retail forex”) and binary options 

(“binary options” or “commodity options”) on and off CFTC-regulated exchanges. 

In his solicitations, Defendant misrepresented his past trading success, chances 

of future profitablity, frequency of payouts, and the lack of risk involved with 

trading retail forex, digital assets or binary options through him. 

2. When pool participants gave Defendant money, Wonsey would pool 

the money in trading accounts that Wonsey controlled either directly, or through 

OneBell or his other business ventures (collectively, the “Pool”). During the 

Relevant Period, at least 50 pool participants sent a minimum of $3.4 million to 

Wonsey, of which, Defendant misappropriated at least $2.7 million of pool 

partcipant funds. He used these funds to pay for personal expenses such as an 

apartment lease, auto loan, boat costs, diamonds, entertainment, travel, real 

estate and luxury goods and to make Ponzi-style payments to pool participants. 

3. Finally, not only did Defendant fraudulently solicit pool participants 

and misappropriate their money, Wonsey was not registered as a Commodity 

Pool Operator (“CPO”), did not set up the Pool as required and commingled pool 

participant funds with his own. 

4. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, 

Defendant has engaged in acts and practices that violate Sections 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4c(b), 4o(1)(A)-(B), and 4m(1) of the 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 25 PageID 2
3 

Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A), 

(C), 6c(b), 6o(1)(A)-(B), 6m(1), and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 

5.2(b)(1) and (3), 4.20(a) and (c), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 5.4, and 32.4(a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1), (3), 4.20(a), (c), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 5.4, 32.4 (a), (c) (2022). 

5. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendant will likely 

continue to engage in acts and practices alleged in this Complaint and similar 

acts and practices, as described below. 

6. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 2(c)(2)(C) and 6c of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C) and 13a-1(a), the Commission brings this action to enjoin 

Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices, to compel compliance with the Act, and 

to further enjoin Defendant from engaging in any commodity-related activity. 

7. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties, 

restitution, and remedial ancillary relief, including but not limited to, trading and 

registration bans, disgorgement, rescission, pre-judgment and post-judgment 

interest, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 (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). 

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

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

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 25 PageID 3
4 

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

the Commission that a 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. With respect to Defendant’s retail forex 

transactions, the Commission also has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 6c and 

2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 13a-1, 2(c)(2)(C)(i). 

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

because Defendant is found in, inhabits, or transacts business in this District, or 

the acts and practices in violation of the Act occurred, are occurring, or are about 

to occur within this District, among other places. 

PARTIES 

10. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an 

independent federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the 

responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 1–26, and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 

(2022).

11. Defendant Patrick Wonsey resides in Riverview, Florida. He is 

doing or has done business under the name of several corporate entities that he 

has created over the past several years, including OneBell. Wonsey has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 25 PageID 4
5 

FACTS 

A. Background 

12. Wonsey incorporated OneBell as a Florida corporation effective 

February 7, 2017, listing himself as President and Registered Agent, and 

identifying OneBell’s principal address as his own. The Florida Secretary of State 

Division of Corporations administratively dissolved OneBell in September 2022. 

13. In February 2017, Wonsey opened a bank account at JPMorgan 

Chase, N.A. in OneBell’s name (the “Chase account”). In January 2019, Wonsey 

opened up an additional bank account at Bank of America, N.A. in OneBell’s 

name (the “BOA account,” and together with the Chase account, the “Wonseycontrolled bank accounts”). 

14. Wonsey maintained trading accounts in his own name at TD 

Ameritrade Futures & Forex, where he traded, among other things, retail forex 

contracts, since 2013. He established a corporate account with TD Ameritrade 

for OneBell in March 2017. In so doing, he claimed to be a 70% owner of the 

account, while a OneBell employee held the remaining 30%. 

15. Wonsey set up a trading account in his own name for digital asset 

transactions with the online platform Coinbase in January 2017. 

16. Wonsey established a trading account under his own name in 

January 2018 with the North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (“Nadex”), a 

Designated Contract Market regulated by the CFTC, where he traded in binary 

options (“on-exchange binary options”). The terms of Wonsey’s membership 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 25 PageID 5
6 

required, inter alia, that he trade only on his own behalf. Nadex’s Compliance 

Department found, following an investigation, that Wonsey had violated the 

terms of his membership by soliciting customer funds for trading at Nadex 

through his association with OneBell and another Wonsey-controlled entity 

named TradeDow LLC (“TradeDow”). As a result, Nadex revoked Wonsey’s 

membership, terminated his account as of May 26, 2021, and permanently 

banned him from trading on Nadex Markets. 

17. Wonsey established a trading account in OneBell’s name in February 

of 2017 at Interactive Brokers LLC (“Interactive Brokers”), a futures commission 

merchant. He used this account to trade retail forex and binary options. Wonsey 

was the 100% owner of the account at Interactive Brokers. 

18. Wonsey also set up trading accounts in his own name through the 

off-exchange (i.e. not on an exchange directly regulated by the Commission) 

trading platform Hugosway for the purpose of trading binary options on, 

primarily, retail forex and digital assets. 

B. Defendant’s Fraudulent Solicitations 

19. During the Relevant Period, while acting as an unregistered CPO, 

Wonsey solicited pool participants and prospective pool participants through 

telephone calls, emails, text messages, in-person meetings, word of mouth, and 

on publicly available websites connected with OneBell and Trade Dow. Wonsey 

also cross-promoted his companies, advertising on the TradeDow website, “If you 

are looking for a fund manager to ‘trade for you,’ we recommend OneBell and 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 6 of 25 PageID 6
7 

Associates.” Wonsey told pool participants and prospective pool participants that 

he would trade commodity futures, retail forex, binary options and digital assets 

through the Pool on behalf of pool participants. 

20. To lure pool participants and prospective pool participants into 

giving him money, Wonsey made fraudulent misrepresentations about: 1) his 

profitable trading history, 2) ability to earn future returns, 3) the frequency of 

payouts, and, 4) his ability to limit risk for pool participants and prospective pool 

participants. 

21. For example, on OneBell’s website, Wonsey claimed to operate a 

fund that started at “just $10,000,” but had “generated over $1 million dollars in 

profits for family and friends.” He further boasted about “profit margins yearly 

50+”. 

22. Wonsey told pool participants and prospective pool participants that 

he would make them into millionaires, and that they would be in the position to 

pay off their homes, and buy new vehicles, within a short period, such as six 

months. 

23. Even when he was losing money on trades, Wonsey obscured the 

truth from pool participants and prospective pool participants and lied about the 

returns he was making. He told one pool participant, “the market hasn’t popped 

as i [sic] anticipated however we are still up over 30%,” and promised “payout” a 

month later. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 7 of 25 PageID 7
8 

24. When one pool participant asked Defendant to make a trade, 

Defendant declined, stating, “I got your funds in a mix of things at the moment. 

Things that are sure bets.” 

25. Additionally, Wonsey falsely represented to pool participants that he 

would make regular “dividend” payments, typically around 10% of the pool 

participant’s investment in the Pool, on a monthly basis to many of the pool 

participants. 

26. Defendant also downplayed the risks of trading. He misrepresented 

to pool participants and prospective pool participants that the risks associated 

with his management of their funds were so low as to be “nothing” and that he 

had “measures in place” that would mitigate the risk of loss to the point that he 

could “stop” it. 

27. Defendant’s representations as set out in Paragraphs 21-26, above, 

are false and were made intentionally or with reckless disregard of the truth. His 

representations about his prior trading success, his promises of future trading 

gains, frequency of payouts, and his lies about being able to control losses all are 

belied by both his overall unsuccessful trading and his misappropriation of a 

substantial part of pool participant funds. 

28. Further, Wonsey failed to tell pool participants that he was running a 

Ponzi scheme and that he was stealing their funds to pay for his personal 

expenses. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 8 of 25 PageID 8
9 

29. At least 50 pool participants deposited no less than $3.4 million into 

the Pool. 

C. Fraudulent Misrepresentations in Documents Provided to 

Pool Participants 

30. Based upon Defendant’s misrepresentations, pool participants 

entered into written agreements with Wonsey to execute certain trades on their 

behalf. The agreements were provided by email, or through other means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce. 

31. Many of these written agreements provided that pool participant 

funds would be used to trade retail forex and digital assets and include 

misleading statements such as, “100k projected”, to entice pool participants and 

prospective pool participants into entering into the transactions. 

32. Once the written agreement was executed, pool participants wired 

their funds into a Wonsey-controlled bank account for purported trading. 

33. In addition to written agreements regarding specific trades or types 

of trades, Wonsey also executed promissory notes to pool participants. In the 

promissory notes, Defendant falsely and fraudulently represented that he would 

“immediately” return pool participant funds, plus expenses and legal costs, if he 

defaulted in his performance in managing the Pool. 

34. The promissory notes were fraudulent on their face. When pool 

participants requested the return of their funds per the terms of the promissory 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 9 of 25 PageID 9
10 

notes, Wonsey did not abide by the terms of the promissory notes with respect to 

repayment. 

35. For example, one pool participant requested the return of the 

$20,000.00 in retirement savings she had wired to Wonsey; however, Wonsey 

stopped responding to her messages and did not return her funds. 

36. Many, if not all, pool participants were not Eligible Contract 

Participants (“ECP”), as defined in Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§1a(18)(A)(xi). 

D. Defendant’s Trading and Misappropriation of Pool 

Participant Funds 

37. Defendant received pool participant funds of at least $3.4 million. 

These funds were deposited in the Wonsey-controlled bank accounts and a 

Coinbase wallet in Wonsey’s name. 

38. Of the $3.4 million, Defendant deposited only approximately $2.2 

million into trading accounts in the name of OneBell at TD Ameritrade and 

Interactive Brokers, and in his own name at Nadex for purposes of trading retail 

forex and binary options on behalf of pool participants. 

39. Wonsey also opened an account at Hugosway, an off-exchange 

trading platform. In order to fund this trading account, Wonsey needed to 

convert pool participant funds into Bitcoin. He did this through Coinbase. Once 

he bought Bitcoin, he used that to fund the Hugosway account. He used this 

account to trade binary options on retail forex and digital assets. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 10 of 25 PageID 10
11 

40. Defendant told pool participants that he would trade commodity 

futures, retail forex, precious metals, digital assets, and binary options, but in 

reality, Defendant only traded retail forex and binary options on retail forex and 

digital assets at Nadex, TD Ameritrade, Interactive Brokers and Hugosway. 

41. During the relevant period, Defendant lost at least $300,000 in 

unsuccessful trading, commissions, and fees. The remaining $1.9 million of pool 

participants’ funds from these trading accounts was transferred back to the 

Wonsey-controlled bank accounts. 

42. Rather than trade retail forex or binary options on behalf of the Pool, 

Defendant misappropriated pool participant funds by using new pool participant 

money to pay older pool participants “profits” in the manner of Ponzi payments. 

He also used a substantial portion of the pool participant funds for his personal 

benefit. 

43. Of the approximately $3.4 million in pool participant funds solicited 

by Defendant, Defendant misappropriated at least $700,000 and used these 

funds to make Ponzi-like payments to pool participants to perpetuate his fraud. 

44. The remaining approximately $2.7 million was misappropriated by 

Defendant. 

45. Of the approximately $2.7 million that was misappropriated, which 

includes the $300,000 he fraudulently solicited and lost trading, Wonsey 

transferred approximately $1.9 million into his personal bank accounts. He then 

spent an additional $420,000 on personal expenses such as an apartment lease, 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 11 of 25 PageID 11
12 

an auto loan, boat costs, diamonds, entertainment, travel, real estate and luxury 

goods. Additionally, Wonsey withdrew over $340,000 in cash. 

46. In one instance on December 23, 2020, a pool participant wired 

$7,000 into OneBell’s Chase account with “Investment” written in the reference 

field. On the same day, Defendant transferred $7,000 to his personal bank 

account. Analysis of the Defendant’s various trading accounts show no such 

deposit on or around December 23, 2020. Defendant appears to have 

misappropriated the entire pool participant’s deposit. 

47. Similarly, on March 26, 2021, a pool participant wired $10,000 into 

OneBell’s Chase account with “GBPUSD” written in the reference field. GBPUSD 

is the common symbol used to reference the trading of the currency pair British 

Pound versus the U.S. dollar in retail forex markets. On the same day, Defendant 

transferred $10,000 to his personal bank account. Analysis of Defendant’s 

various trading accounts show no such deposit on or around March 26, 2021 for 

the purpose of retail forex trading. Defendant appears to have misappropriated 

the entire pool participant’s deposit. 

48. As recently as May 2023, Wonsey has made fraudulent excuses for 

not returning funds to at least one pool participant. When pressed, Wonsey 

alternately claimed that the funds were on hold because he was being 

investigated or audited, the funds were overseas and he needed time to transfer 

them to the United States, or that the funds were “stuck” in an investment 

retirement account and Wonsey needed time to secure their release. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 12 of 25 PageID 12
13 

49. When another pool participant voiced concerns about Wonsey losing 

money on trades, Wonsey made the excuse that, “I have been in retrograde for 

the past 2 months. But its [sic] not as bad as it seems. I will have our funds 

back . . . within the next 2 months give or take. Yes its [sic] a volatile 

period . . . but I need 2 months to close out the accounts not just for the 

investigation but for opportunities I have going in my direction.” 

E. Defendant’s Operation of the Pool 

50. Wonsey, while acting as an unregistered CPO freely moved money 

between the Wonsey-controlled bank accounts and various trading accounts 

opened in both his name and OneBell’s. In this manner, Wonsey commingled 

pool funds with his own money. Further, Wonsey did not operate the Pool as a 

legal entity separate from himself. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

COUNT I 

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

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

§ 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2022) 

(Retail Forex Fraud by Misappropriation, Misrepresentations and 

Omission)

51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are realleged and incorporated herein by 

reference. 

52. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) makes it unlawful: 

[F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to make, 

or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for 

future delivery, [ . . . ] 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 – 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 13 of 25 PageID 13
14 

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

other person; 

. . . . 

(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. 

53. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I), sets out 

that the Commission has jurisdiction over retail forex agreements, contracts, or 

transactions if certain requirements are met. These requirements are that: 1) the 

customers to the retail forex agreements, contracts, or transactions not be ECPs 

and 2) the retail forex agreements, contracts, or transactions are offered on a 

leveraged or margined basis. Both of those conditions are met in this case. 

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

part, makes retail forex agreements, contracts or transactions described in 

Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i), “subject to” Section 4b of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b, and thus 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C). Additionally, Section 

2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv), in part, provides that 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b, and thus 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C), also applies to the retail forex 

agreements, contracts, or transactions, offered by Defendants “as if” they were a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

55. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3), provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t 

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

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 14 of 25 PageID 14
15 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in or in connection 

with any retail forex transaction: (1) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or 

defraud any person . . . [or] (3) Willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any 

person by any means whatsoever.” 

56. In connection with retail forex transaction, Wonsey, through use of 

the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce: 

(1) misappropriated pool participant funds; (2) made material 

misrepresentations and omissions with scienter regarding, among other things, 

his past trading success, future profitability, frequency of payments, and lack of 

risk. 

57. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) 

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

58. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation and omission of material 

fact 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) and (C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1) and (3). 

COUNT II 

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

(Fraud and Deceit by a Commodity Pool Operator) 

59. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are realleged and incorporated herein by 

reference. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 15 of 25 PageID 15
16 

60. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) prohibits CPOs, by use of the mails or any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, from (A) employing 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud any client or participant or prospective 

client or participant, or (B) 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. 

61. 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 otherwise, for the purpose of 

trading in commodity interests, including any— . . . . 

(II) agreement, contract or transaction described in section 

[7U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C )(i)] . . . ; or 

(III) any commodity option authorized under section 4c 

[7 U.S.C. §6c]. 

62. Section 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R § 5.1(d)(1) (2022), defines a CPO as: 

[F]or purposes of [17 C.F.R. pt. 5], means any person who 

operates or solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled 

investment vehicle that is not an eligible contract 

participant as defined in section 1a(18) of the Act, and that 

engages in retail forex transactions; 

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

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), “[a]greements, contracts or transactions” in retail forex and 

accounts or pooled investment vehicles in retail forex “shall be subject 

to . . . [7 U.S.C. § 6o],” except in circumstances not relevant here. Additionally, 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 16 of 25 PageID 16
17 

Section § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), in part, provides 

that the CFTC has jurisdiction over an account or pooled investment vehicle that 

is offered for the purpose of trading foreign currency described in [7 U.S.C. §] 

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

64. During the Relevant Period, Wonsey solicited funds, securities, or 

property from non-ECPs for a pooled investment vehicle for the purpose of 

engaging in retail forex transactions and binary options trading; therefore, 

Wonsey was acting as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) and 17 C.F.R 

§ 5.1(d)(1). 

65. Wonsey, through use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce: (1) misappropriated pool participant funds; (2) made 

material misrepresentations and omissions with scienter regarding, among other 

things, his past trading success, future profitability, frequency of payments, and 

lack of risk. 

66. By reason of the foregoing, Wonsey violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). 

67. Each misappropriation and misrepresentation and omission of 

material fact, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is 

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

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 17 of 25 PageID 17
18 

COUNT III 

Violations of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and Regulation 

32.4(a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. § 32.4(a) and (c) (2022) 

(Options Fraud) 

68. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 50 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

69. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) provides “No person shall offer to enter into, enter 

into or confirm the execution of any transaction involving any commodity 

regulated under this Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known in 

the trade as, an “option”, . . . “bid”, . . . “offer”, . . . “put” [or] “call” . . . contrary to 

any rule [or] regulation, of the Commission . . . prohibiting any such transaction 

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

Commission shall prescribe.” 

70. 17 C.F.R. § 32.4(a) and (c) provides that: 

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; . . . or (c) To deceive or attempt to 

deceive any other person by any means whatsoever. 

71. The terms “commodity option transaction” and “commodity option” 

are defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022), to include: 

[A]ny transaction or agreement in interstate commerce which 

is or is held out to be of the character of, or is commonly 

known to the trade as, an “option,” “privilege,” “indemnity,” 

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

guaranty,” and which is subject to regulation under the Act 

and the regulations . . . . 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 18 of 25 PageID 18
19 

72. In connection with commodity options on retail forex and digital 

assets, Wonsey, through use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, violated 7 U.S.C. 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4(a) and (c) by, 

among other things: (1) misappropriating pool participant funds; (2) making 

material misrepresentations and omissions with scienter regarding, among other 

things, his past trading success, future profitability, frequency of payouts, and 

lack of risk. 

73. Defendant engaged in the acts and practices described above 

willfully or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

74. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation and omission of material 

fact, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4(a) and (c). 

COUNT IV 

Violations of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) of the Act, 

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

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

(Failure to Register as a CPO) 

75. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 50 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

76. 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) in relevant part prohibits any person, 

unless registered, from operating or soliciting funds, securities, or property for 

any pooled investment vehicle that is not an eligible contract participant in 

connection with agreements, contracts, or transactions described in 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(i). 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 19 of 25 PageID 19
20 

77. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i) defines a CPO, in relevant part, as any person: 

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

pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of 

enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, 

or receives from others, funds, securities, or property, either 

directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or 

other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of 

trading in commodity interests, including any— . . . . 

(II) agreement, contract or transaction described in section 

2(c)(2)(C)(i) [7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C )(i)] . . . ; or 

(III) any commodity option authorized under section 4c 

[7 U.S.C. §6c]. 

78. Subject to certain exceptions and exemptions not relevant here, 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), makes it “unlawful for any . . . [CPO], unless registered under 

this chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce in connection with his business as such . . . [CPO] . . .”. 

79. Section 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R § 5.1(d)(1) (2022), defines a CPO as: 

[F]or purposes of [17 C.F.R. pt. 5], means any person who 

operates or solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled 

investment vehicle that is not an eligible contract 

participant as defined in section 1a(18) of the Act, and that 

engages in retail forex transactions. 

80. 17 C.F.R § 5.3(a)(2)(i) requires that any person who meets the CPO 

definition set forth in 17 C.F.R § 5.1(d)(1) must register as a CPO. 

81. During the Relevant Period, Wonsey operated or solicited funds, 

securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle from non-ECP pool 

participants for the purpose of retail forex transactions and binary options 

trading; thus, Wonsey acted as a CPO within the meaning of 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) and 

17 C.F.R § 5.1(d)(1). 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 20 of 25 PageID 20
21 

82. Wonsey violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1) and 17 

C.F.R § 5.3(a)(2)(i) by using the mails or other means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce in connection with his business as a CPO without being 

registered with the Commission as such. 

COUNT V 

Violation of Regulation 4.20(a)(1) and (c) and 5.4 

17 C.F.R § 4.20(a)(1), (c), 5.4 (2022) 

(Failure to Operate Pool as Separate Entity; Commingling of Pool 

Funds) 

83. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are realleged and incorporated herein by 

reference. 

84. 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 states, in part, that Part 4 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 4 (2022), applies to any person required to register as a CPO pursuant to Part 

5 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 (2022), and that “[f]ailure by any such person 

to comply with the requirements of part 4 will constitute a violation of this 

section and the relevant section of part 4.” 

85. 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. 

86. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits a CPO, whether registered or not, from 

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

person. 

87. Defendant, while acting as a CPO, failed to operate the Pool as a legal 

entity separate from himself or OneBell. Additionally, Defendant routinely 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 21 of 25 PageID 21
22 

commingled pool participant funds with his own personal funds and funds 

belonging to others. 

88. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 

4.20(a)(1) and (c) and 5.4. 

89. Each act of failing to operate a commodity pool as a legal entity 

separate from that of the CPO, and commingling the property of the pool with 

non-pool property, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, 

is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1) and (c) 

and 5.4. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as 

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

equitable powers: 

A. Find that Defendant violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 

4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4c(b), 4o(1)(A)–(B), and 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6c(b), 6o(1)(A)–(B), 6m(1), and 

Regulations 4.20(a)(1) and (c), 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 5.4, and 32.4(a) and 

(c), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (c), 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 5.4, 32.4(a), (c) (2022); 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction permanently restraining, 

enjoining, and prohibiting Defendant, and any other person or entity associated 

with him, from engaging in conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6c(b), and 6o(1)(A)–(B), and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20(a)(1) and (c), 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 5.4, and 32.4(a) and (c); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction permanently restraining, 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 22 of 25 PageID 22
23 

enjoining, and prohibiting Defendant, and any other person or entity associated 

with them, from directly or indirectly: 

1) Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that 

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

2) Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as 

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

accounts held in the name of Defendant or for accounts in which 

Defendant has a direct or indirect interest; 

3) Having any commodity interests traded on any Defendant’s behalf; 

4) Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other 

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

account involving commodity interests; 

5) Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests; 

6) Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration 

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

such registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC 

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

(2022); and 

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

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

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

registered with the CFTC except as provided for in 

17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9). 

D. Enter an order directing Defendant, as well as any third-party 

transferee and/or successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as 

the Court may order, all benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 23 of 25 PageID 23
24 

commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived, directly or 

indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act and 

Regulations as described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment 

interest; 

E. Enter an order requiring Defendant as well as any successors 

thereof, to make full restitution to every person who has sustained losses 

proximately caused by the violations described herein, including pre-judgment 

and post-judgment interest; 

F. Enter an order directing Defendant, as well as any successors 

thereof, to rescind, pursuant to such procedures as the Court may order, all 

contracts and agreements, whether implied or express, entered into between, 

with or among Defendant and any of the pool participants whose funds were 

received by Defendant as a result of the acts and practices that constituted 

violations of the Act and Regulations as described herein; 

G. Enter an order directing Defendant to pay a civil monetary penalty 

assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by 

Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted for inflation 

pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements 

Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–74, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599–600, see

Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2022), for each violation of the Act and 

Regulations, as described herein; 

H. Enter an order requiring Defendant to pay costs and fees as 

permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2413(a)(2); and 

I. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as this Court 

may deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID 24
25 

Dated: September 26, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

_/s/ Alison B. Wilson_____ 

ALISON B. WILSON – Lead Counsel 

KELLY M. FOLKS 

SEAN HENNESSY 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

awilson@cftc.gov 

kfolks@cftc.gov 

shennessy@cftc.gov

Case 8:23-cv-02174 Document 1 Filed 09/26/23 Page 25 of 25 PageID 25