UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOUGLAS LIEN, individually and d/b/a 

WESTEND INVESTMENTS, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 19-cv-1153 WJ/SCY 

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT DOUGLAS LIEN, 

individually and d/b/a WESTEND INVESTMENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Douglas Lien, individually and 

d/b/a Westend Investments (“Lien”) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as the 

imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 1–26 (2018), and the Commission’s Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 

17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2020). The Court entered a Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction and 

Other Ancillary Relief against Defendant Lien on December 11, 2019. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

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

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

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 19
2 

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

Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Douglas Lien, individually and 

d/b/a Westend Investments (“Consent Order”); 

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that no 

promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the Commission 

or any member, officer, agent, or representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce this 

Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint; 

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

pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018); 

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission 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: 

i. Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2018) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2018), and/or the rules 

promulgated by the Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2020), relating to, or arising from, this 

action; 

ii. Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, 

§§ 201–253, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412 and in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or 

arising from, this action; 

iii. 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 

iv. Any and all rights of appeal from this action; 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 19
3 

8. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on the ground, 

if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

hereby waives any objection based thereon; 

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

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

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, 

or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is 

without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect his: 

(a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to which the 

Commission is not a party. Defendant shall comply with this agreement, and shall undertake all 

steps necessary to ensure that all of his agents and/or employees under his authority or control 

understand and comply with this agreement; 

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

in the Complaint; 

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

proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission 

is a party or claimant, and agrees that they shall be taken as true and correct and be given 

preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

12. Does not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the findings and 

conclusions herein, as the sole basis for any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to 

which the Commission is a party, other than a: statutory disqualification proceeding; proceeding 

in bankruptcy, or receivership; or proceeding to enforce the terms of this Consent Order; 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 19
4 

13. Agrees to provide immediate notice to this Court and the Commission by certified 

mail, in the manner required by paragraph 60 of Part V. of this Consent Order, of any bankruptcy 

proceeding filed by, on behalf of, or against him, whether inside or outside the United States; and 

14. Agrees that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair 

the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy against him in any 

other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the 

entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction and equitable 

relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), as set forth herein. 

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

The Parties to this Consent Order 

15. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations. 

16. Defendant Douglas Lien is 79 years old, resides in Santa Fe, New Mexico and has 

never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Lien’s Long-Running Fraud 

17. Lien maintains a futures trading account in his own name at a futures commission 

merchant (“FCM A”) registered with the CFTC. Lien originally opened his trading account at a 

different registered FCM (“FCM B”) in 2001, and Lien’s original account opening paperwork 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 19
5 

includes a November 25, 2001, letter to FCM B signed by Lien that states, “this is to confirm 

that all the funds in my account are my own and will be traded only at my discretion.” Lien’s 

account was ultimately acquired by FCM A in 2012, and his personal trading account has 

remained open there since. 

18. Starting in at least August 2000, Lien solicited and accepted funds from friends 

and acquaintances for the purpose of trading their funds in commodity futures contracts, 

primarily U.S. Treasury bond futures.

19. Lien did not disclose to clients or prospective clients that he was not registered 

with the CFTC as an FCM or any other capacity. 

20. Lien typically entered into an account agreement with each new client on 

letterhead stating “Douglas Lien” or “Douglas Lien / westend investments.” A typical agreement 

stated that the client’s funds would be traded, that Lien would reinvest monthly income by 

adding it to client equity, and that Lien’s fee would be 15% of net trading profits each month, 

calculated as gross trading profits minus broker commissions. No provision in the agreement 

gave Lien the right to receive any other fees or funds from the client’s account. 

21. Until approximately 2010 or 2011, Lien instructed clients to wire funds to a bank 

account in the name of “Douglas Lien / westend investments” at a bank in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. After that, and during the Relevant Period, Lien instructed clients to wire funds to an 

account in Lien’s name at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ending in 8968. 

22. Lien socialized with his clients over the years, even inviting some of his clients to 

vacation with him and his wife on a private family-owned island near Martha’s Vineyard, and 

many of Lien’s clients viewed him as a friend. 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 19
6 

23. For years, including during the Relevant Period, Lien led his clients to believe 

that he profitably traded their funds, including by issuing clients periodic account statements and 

annual tax forms showing profits. 

24. Lien typically emailed or hand delivered to his clients account statements on a 

monthly or quarterly basis. Client account statements were usually sent as Word documents on 

letterhead stating “Douglas Lien.” The statements were individualized and reflected account 

balances, profits, deposits or withdrawals, Lien’s 15% management fees, and sometimes 

corrections or adjustments to prior statements. Lien typically included market commentary in his 

statements, and he sometimes added personal notes to clients about health, family, vacation 

plans, and other topics. 

25. Lien also emailed or hand delivered to his clients annual tax forms, primarily 

handwritten Form 1099s, showing profits of as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars. The 

tax forms typically listed as the payer name “Douglas H. Lien,” and some of them included as a 

descriptor “Regulated Futures Contracts.” As with the periodic account statements, each tax 

form was individualized, reporting only a single client’s profits. 

26. For example, in March 2016, Lien emailed Client A an account statement for the 

month of January 2016. The statement reported a month-end account balance of $2,502,609, 

monthly “Trade/Investment” profits of $22,797, and Lien’s 15% management fee on those 

profits, totaling $3,552. Lien’s commentary in the statement included a congratulatory statement 

to Client A for exceeding a $2.5 million balance: “You finally made it. (I think I should have a 

silver – not Gold – pin made for you that signifies that you are now a member of a very select 

club.).” The following year, Lien emailed Client A a handwritten Form 1099 that reported his 

2016 profit as $235,615 and included the description “Regulated Futures Contracts.” 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 6 of 19
7 

27. Lien accepted $14,275,632 in funds from clients from August 17, 2000 to the 

present and he also reported more than $1.7 million in profits on tax forms he issued to clients 

during the period from 2014 to 2018. 

28. However, the account statements and tax forms that Lien sent his clients did not 

reflect Lien’s actual futures trading results, but instead showed fake trading profits and 

management fees that Lien charged on those fake profits. 

29. Lien maintained a trading account balance of approximately $25,000 from at least 

January 31, 2013, shortly after FCM A acquired Lien’s account, until March 2019. During the 

Relevant Period, Lien made no deposits into his trading account and placed only three trades: 

two trades in U.S. Treasury bond futures in 2017 and one trade in mini-corn futures in 2019, 

resulting in a combined net loss of approximately $200. In March 2019, Lien withdrew $23,000 

of his account balance with instructions to wire the funds to a bank account in his name at 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ending in 8968. Lien’s current account balance at FCM A is 

approximately $1,880. 

30. From at least January 31, 2013 to the present, Lien maintained no other futures 

trading accounts in his name at FCM A or any other FCM registered with the CFTC, nor did he 

maintain any futures trading accounts in the name of “Westend Investments” at any FCM 

registered with the CFTC. 

31. Throughout 2019, several of Lien’s clients requested the return of all or a portion 

of their funds. While Lien has returned some of the funds requested, he failed to disclose to 

clients that on multiple occasions, he paid clients using funds he received from other clients, in 

the manner of a Ponzi scheme, or using funds he obtained from equity lines of credit, and not 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 7 of 19
8 

using funds from clients’ own account balances or trading profits. He has otherwise strung 

clients along with false excuses or simply ignored them. 

32. For example, in 2019, Clients A and B requested funds from their accounts. Lien 

paid them a portion of the funds they requested in April 2019 using funds obtained from another 

client, in the manner of a Ponzi scheme, without disclosing the source of those funds. As of midJune, Clients A and B had still not received the remainder of the funds they had requested. At 

various points, including on approximately April 24, May 25, and June 18, 2019, Lien sent 

Client A emails in which he blamed his delay in returning their funds in part on a change in 

brokers, claiming that his old broker had left for another brokerage job and that his new broker 

did not understand instructions delivered over the phone. These representations were false. No 

FCM A broker managed funds for Lien or his clients from at least 2018 through the present. 

33. Lien also told at least one of his clients that, prior to having heart surgery in 

August 2018, he placed client funds under management with an FCM A broker, who had placed 

the funds in long-term investments that Lien could not access without incurring penalties. These 

representations also were false. Neither Lien’s nor his clients’ funds are, or were, locked up in 

long-term investments at FCM A. 

34. From August 17, 2000 to the present, Lien misappropriated $5,195,679 in client 

funds, including client funds he used to pay other clients and “management fees” that he charged 

based on fake trading profits. Of that sum, Lien kept $3,517,373 for himself as these 

management fees. 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 8 of 19
9 

B. Conclusions of Law 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

35. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 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). Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(a) (2018), provides that the Commission 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 Commission that any person has 

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

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

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

Defendant resides in this jurisdiction and the acts and practices in violation of the Act occurred 

within this District. 

Fraud by Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, Material Omission, and False 

Statements 

37. Section 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) (2018), in relevant 

part, makes it unlawful for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making 

of, any contract of sale of any commodity 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 such other person; 

(B) willfully to make or cause to be made to such other person any false report or statement, or 

willfully to enter or cause to be entered for such other person any false record; or (C) willfully to 

deceive or attempt to deceive such other person by any means whatsoever in regard to any order 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 9 of 19
10 

or contract or the disposition or execution of any order or contract, or in regard to any act of 

agency performed, with respect to any order or contract for such other person. 

38. Lien violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) from August 17, 2000 to the present by, 

among other things: making misrepresentations to his clients about trading their funds in futures 

contracts, the location of their funds, and why he did not return their funds as requested; failing 

to disclose to clients that he used client funds to pay other clients, in the manner of a Ponzi 

scheme, and was not registered with the CFTC as an FCM; misappropriating client funds; and 

issuing false periodic account statements and annual tax forms to clients. 

39. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information and making false 

statements to others, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, constitutes a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C). 

Failure to Register as an FCM 

40. Section 1a(28) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(28) (2018), in relevant part, defines an 

FCM as “an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust” that is “engaged in 

soliciting or accepting orders for . . . the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery” 

and in connection therewith accepts any money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu 

thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result 

therefrom.” 

41. Section 4d(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018), in relevant part, makes it 

unlawful for any person to be an FCM unless such person is currently registered with the CFTC 

as an FCM. 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 19
11 

42. Lien violated 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) by accepting money from clients to margin, 

guarantee, or secure commodity futures trades without being registered with the CFTC as an 

FCM. 

43. Each act of accepting money to margin, guarantee, or secure commodity futures 

trades without being registered with the CFTC as an FCM, including, but not limited to, those 

specifically alleged herein, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1). 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

44. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to Section 6c 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), Lien is permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly:

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, or willfully deceiving or 

attempting to deceive other persons 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, on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market, for or on behalf 

of any other person, in violation of Section 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) (2018); 

b. Accepting money to margin, guarantee, or secure commodity futures trades without 

being registered with the CFTC as an FCM, in violation of Section 4d(a)(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018). 

45. Lien is also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or 

indirectly: 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 19
12 

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

in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2018); 

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2020)) for his own personal accounts or 

for any account in which he has a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

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

whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account involving commodity 

interests; 

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

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

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) (2020); and/or 

g. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 3.1(a) (2020)), agent or any other officer or employee of any person (as that 

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

required to be registered with the Commission except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.14(a)(9). 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 12 of 19
13 

V. RESTITUTION AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

A. Restitution 

46. Defendant shall pay restitution in the amount of Five Million One Hundred 

Ninety-Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($5,195,679) (“Restitution 

Obligation”). If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately, post-judgment interest shall 

accrue on the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and 

shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent 

Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2018).

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

restitution payments to Defendant’s clients, the Court appoints the National Futures Association 

(“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive restitution payments from 

Defendant and make distributions as set forth below. Because the Monitor is acting as an officer 

of this Court in performing these services, the NFA shall not be liable for any action or inaction 

arising from NFA’s appointment as Monitor, other than actions involving fraud. 

48. Defendant shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any post-judgment 

interest payments, under this Consent Order to the Monitor in the name “Lien—Settlement 

Fund” and shall send such payments by electronic funds transfer, or by U.S. postal money order, 

certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank money order, to the Office of Administration, 

National Futures Association, 300 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60606 under 

cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant and the name and docket number of this 

proceeding. Defendant shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of 

payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581 and to Deputy Director, 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 13 of 19
14 

Robert T. Howell, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of Enforcement, 525 W. 

Monroe St., Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60661. 

49. The Monitor shall oversee the Restitution Obligation and shall have the discretion 

to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to Defendant’s 

clients identified by the Commission or may defer distribution until such time as the Monitor 

deems appropriate. In the event that the amount of Restitution Obligation payments to the 

Monitor are of a de minimis nature such that the Monitor determines that the administrative cost 

of making a distribution to eligible clients is impractical, the Monitor may, in its discretion, treat 

such restitution payments as civil monetary penalty payments, which the Monitor shall forward 

to the Commission following the instructions for civil monetary penalty payments set forth in 

Part B. below. 

50. Lien shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such information 

as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify Defendant’s clients to whom the 

Monitor, in its sole discretion, may determine to include in any plan for distribution of any 

Restitution Obligation payments. Lien shall execute any documents necessary to release funds 

that he has in any repository, bank, investment or other financial institution, wherever located, in 

order to make partial or total payment toward the Restitution Obligation.

51. The Monitor shall provide the Commission at the beginning of each calendar year 

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendant’s clients during the previous year. 

The Monitor shall transmit this report under a cover letter that identifies the name and docket 

number of this proceeding to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 14 of 19
15 

52. The amounts payable to each client shall not limit the ability of any client from 

proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendant or any other person or entity, and nothing 

herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of any client that exist under 

state or common law. 

53. Each client of Defendant who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended thirdparty beneficiary of this Consent Order and may seek to enforce compliance with this Consent 

Order to obtain satisfaction of any portion of the restitution that has not been paid by Defendant. 

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

Defendant’s Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor for 

disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above. 

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

55. Defendant shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of Five Million One 

Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($5,195,679) (“CMP 

Obligation”). If the CMP Obligation is not paid immediately, then post-judgment interest shall 

accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and shall be 

determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

56. Defendant shall pay his CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest, by 

electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank 

money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment 

shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address 

below: 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 15 of 19
16 

 MMAC/ESC/AMK326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 181 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

(405) 954-6569 office 

(405) 954-1620 fax 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendant shall contact Marie Thorne or her 

successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with those 

instructions. Defendant shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that 

identifies Defendant and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendant shall 

simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial 

Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20581 and to Deputy Director, Robert T. Howell, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Division of Enforcement, 525 W. Monroe St., Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 

60661. 

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

57. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission or the Monitor of any partial 

payment of Defendant’s Restitution Obligation, or CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver 

of his obligation to make further payments pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the 

Commission’s right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance.

58. Asset Freeze: On December 11, 2019, the court entered a Consent Order of 

preliminary injunction that included an asset freeze order prohibiting the transfer, removal, 

dissipation and disposal of Defendant’s assets (“Asset Freeze Order”). Funds frozen pursuant to 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 16 of 19
17 

the Asset Freeze shall be released to the Monitor to help satisfy the Restitution Obligation and 

the court hereby lifts the Asset Freeze Order. 

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

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

shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

Notice to Commission: 

Robert T. Howell 

Deputy Director 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

525 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60661

Notice to Defendant: 

Douglas Lien, individually and d/b/a Westend Investments, 

37 Camino Tetzcoco 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508 

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

60. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant satisfies in full his 

Restitution Obligation, and CMP Obligation as set forth in this Consent Order, Defendant shall 

provide written notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to his telephone 

number and mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

61. 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. 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 17 of 19
18 

62. 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. 

63. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any client at any 

time to require performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no manner affect the 

right of the party or client 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. 

64. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Defendant waives service of this 

Consent Order and agrees that entry of this Consent Order by the Court and filing with the Clerk 

of the Court will constitute notice to the Defendant of its terms and conditions. Defendant 

further agrees to provide counsel for the Commission, within thirty days after this Consent Order 

is filed with the Clerk of Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that Defendant has 

received and read a copy of this Consent Order. 

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

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

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. 

66. 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 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 18 of 19
19 

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. 

67. Defendant understands that the terms of the Consent Order are enforceable, and 

that, in any such proceedings he may not challenge the validity of this Consent Order. 

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

undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to enter this 

Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief 

Against Defendant Douglas Lien, individually and d/b /a Westend Investments, forthwith and 

without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 ______________________________________ 

 WILLIAM P. JOHNSON 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:19-cv-01153-WJ-SCY Document 59 Filed 04/07/21 Page 19 of 19