UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

In the Matter of: 

DAVID SECHOVICZ, 

CFTC Docket No. 20-01 

Respondent. 

----------) 

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 6(c) AND (d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, MAKING 

FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or "CFTC") has reason to 

believe that David Sechovicz ("Sechovicz" or "Respondent"), violated Sections 4c(b ), 4o(l ), and 

6(c)(l) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 60(1), 9(1) (2012), and 

Commission Regulations ("Regulations") 4.41(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, and 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.4l(a)(l)-(3), (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, 180.l(a)(l)-(3) (2019). Therefore, the Commission 

deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and 

hereby are, instituted to determine whether Respondent engaged in the violations set forth herein 

and to determine whether any order should be issued imposing remedial sanctions. 

In anticipation of the institution of an administrative proceeding, Respondent has 

submitted an Offer of Settlement ("Offer"), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Without admitting or denying any of the findings or conclusions herein, Respondent consents to 

the entry of this Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Section 6( c) and ( d) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions ("Order") and acknowledges 

service of this Order. 1 

1 Respondent consents to the use of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this 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. Respondent does not consent, however, to the use of this Order, or the 

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

to which the Commission is a party or claimant, other than: a proceeding in bankruptcy or receivership; or 

a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order. Respondent does not consent to the use of the Offer or 

this Order, or the findings or conclusions in this Order, by any other party in any other proceeding. 
II. FINDINGS 

The Commission finds the following: 

A. SUMMARY 

Between at least 2014 and December 2016 ("Relevant Period"), Sechovicz and his 

business partner ("Partner") solicited prospective customers throughout the United States and 

abroad to open and fund off-exchange binary options trading accounts ("binary options 

account(s)") at websites operated by unregistered third-party binary options brokers 

("Broker(s)") using emails, websites, promotional videos, advertorials, and social media. 

Sechovicz and Partner launched at least six binary options campaigns, and additionally promoted 

the campaigns of other affiliate marketers, during the Relevant Period in which they intentionally 

or recklessly disseminated solicitations containing numerous false and misleading material 

statements. Specifically, in mass-distributed emails, on websites, and in promotional videos, 

advertorials, and social media, Sechovicz and Partner offered prospective investors access to 

"free" automated trading software that would purportedly trade the investors' binary options 

accounts on their behalf. False and misleading material statements contained in their 

solicitations included: (1) claims that investors were guaranteed to make significant profits if 

they opened and funded binary options accounts at a recommended Broker; (2) the use of actors 

who pretended to be actual owners or users of automated trading software; and (3) depictions of 

investor bank or trading statements or "live" trading demonstrations showing profitable trading 

using automated trading software that were, in fact, fake. 

Sechovicz and Partner intentionally or recklessly disregarded that the solicitations they 

used in their campaigns included false and misleading statements. They therefore committed 

fraud in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

B. RESPONDENT 

David Sechovicz is a resident of Puerto Rico. Sechovicz has never registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

C. FACTS 

Between at least 2014 and December 2016, Sechovicz and Partner worked as affiliate 

marketers. Affiliate marketing is a form of performance-based marketing that is predominantly 

conducted via email solicitations and promotional materials made available on internet websites. 

An affiliate marketing campaign is a promotion of a product or service designed to convince the 

audience to take a specific action, including purchasing a product or service or opening and 

funding a binary options trading account. Affiliate marketing is referred to as a campaign or 

funnel because the marketing is designed to funnel ( or "drive") customers to the service provider 

or product owner. Affiliate marketing occurs in various business segments, including binary 

options.2 

2 A binary option is a type of option contract in which the payout depends entirely on the outcome of a 

discrete event-usually a "yes/no" proposition. The yes/no proposition typically relates to whether the 

2 
Affiliate marketing in binary options generally involves the creation and bulk 

dissemination of solicitation materials designed to entice recipients to click an embedded 

electronic link that routes the user to a binary options campaign website. The websites typically 

promote automated trading software-available for "free" upon opening and funding a binary 

options trading account at a Broker-that purports to trade successfully on behalf of prospective 

investors or otherwise promote the opening and funding of a binary options account at a Broker. 

Affiliate marketers in binary options, like Sechovicz, typically launch their campaigns by 

sending out mass email solicitations, and they earn a flat commission from Brokers for each 

investor that opens and funds a trading account as a result of their solicitations. 

In addition to mass email solicitations, Sechovicz and Partner promoted their campaigns 

using social media and by paying various online subscription news services to publish their 

advertorials, which resembled news articles. Like the emails, the social media solicitations and 

advertorials were typically designed to entice recipients to click an embedded electronic link 

routing the user to a binary options campaign website. 

Between at least 2014 and December 2016, Sechovicz and Partner created and 

disseminated false and misleading solicitations for six binary options affiliate marketing 

campaigns, including: (1) Automated Money Kit (2014); (2) Wall Street Millionaire (2014); 

(3) Click Click Money (2014); (4) Guaranteed Wealth (2015); (5) The Cash Code/ Robert Allen 

System (2015); and (6) The Conservative Investor (2016). These campaigns were designed to 

lure prospective customers, primarily located in the United States, to open binary options trading 

accounts at one of more than thirty-five Brokers and make an initial deposit of funds to trade 

binary options using the automated trading software. These campaigns resulted in the 

dissemination of millions of false and misleading solicitations, which were viewed thousands of 

times by prospective investors in approximately 350,000 website visits. And they were 

successful: approximately 25,000 victims opened accounts with Brokers and funded those 

accounts with initial deposits, usually of $250 or more. For their affiliate marketing work on 

these campaigns, Sechovicz and Partner generated profits of at least $3.8 million. 

Sechovicz's work on these campaigns included monitoring the customer service email 

addresses associated with the campaigns and responding to investor emails; developing content 

and design for internet websites that supported the campaigns; registering campaign websites; 

and arranging for the bulk dissemination of solicitations. Partner's work included identifying, 

soliciting, and/or negotiating with binary options Brokers regarding commissions and other 

matters; creating solicitation materials; obtaining, rebranding, and distributing automated trading 

software; performing accounting functions; and arranging for the bulk dissemination of 

solicitations, including through social media. 

Sechovicz and Partner intentionally or recklessly made numerous false and misleading 

representations about profits and trading activity in the solicitation materials they disseminated in 

their campaigns, including mass-distributed emails, websites, promotional videos known in the 

affiliate marketing industry as video sales letters ("VSL"), advertorials, and in social media. 

price of a particular asset-such as a currency pairing or commodity future-will rise above or fall below 

a specified amount at a specified date and time. 

3 
For example, Sechovicz and Partner claimed in their Automated Money Kit campaign 

emails that it would take "Just 23 minutes to make profits" and invited email recipients to 

"Imagine $164.99 ... $760.90 ... even $3,432.60 slamming into your account on a daily basis." 

They prompted recipients of their Click Click Money campaign emails to "Take advantage of 

this unique money making strategy to bank at least $800 a day." The Cash Code I Robert Allen 

System campaign promised recipients that "This dead simple easy to use software has the ability 

to pull in up to $70,000 per month for average investors with no experience." None of these 

profit claims was supported by the trading results of actual investors or investors' actual 

experience using automated trading software, and Sechovicz and Partner knew that investors 

could not be assured of guaranteed profits, let alone the fake outsized profits touted in their 

campaigns. In an advertorial they wrote and disseminated for The Cash Code I Robert Allen 

System campaign, Sechovicz and Partner told the story of "Robert Allen," a "regular person with 

no investment experience" who parlayed his life savings of $1,500 into $2. 7 million using The 

Cash Code, a system that had been tested for three years and patented and was now available to 

the public for free. In fact, Robert Allen did not exist, and The Cash Code had neither been 

tested nor patented. 

Sechovicz and Partner knew their automated trading software had not been tested and did 

not work as marketed, as they did not test the software themselves and received numerous 

complaints from investors who lost money using the automated trading software. Some of the 

software that Sechovicz and Partner disseminated was not even the software marketed, as when 

they recycled software used with other campaigns. On one occasion, Sechovicz wrote to Partner, 

"Funny thing is the last two weeks no one has questioned why they are using 'wall street 

millionaire' software when they got the product from click click money!" On another occasion, 

when a potential investor noted that two different names had been used for software, Partner 

wrote to Sechovicz, "thank him for his eagle eye, and offer him our trading tool for free lol ;-)". 

And for a time while conducting their Wall Street Millionaire campaign, Sechovicz and Partner 

represented that the automated trading software they marketed existed, when in fact it did not. 

Many of the promotional videos that Sechovicz and Partner used in their campaigns 

depicted fictitious testimonials from actors who claimed to be successful owners or users of 

automated trading software, and some of the videos featured fake account statements showing 

tens of thousands of dollars or more in profits, purportedly from binary options trading using 

automated trading software. None of these emails or videos disclosed that the persons or 

statements portrayed were fictitious. 

Sechovicz and Partner also knew or recklessly disregarded that investors who deposit 

funds with Brokers for binary options trading generally lose their funds and are unlikely to make 

any profit, while Brokers profit from investor losses. 

Additionally, Sechovicz and Partner downplayed the risks involved with trading binary 

options in their campaign materials. Some of their campaign materials included no disclaimers 

regarding risk, while others explicitly disclaimed any risk. For example, a "Guaranteed Wealth" 

email stated "YOU can NOT lose .. period." 

Finally, Sechovicz and Partner also engaged in what they referred to as "remarketing" by 

distributing other affiliate marketers' false and misleading binary options marketing campaigns, 

4 
including using their own email mailing lists, for compensation. Sechovicz and Partner knew or 

recklessly disregarded that the campaigns they "remarketed" included false and misleading 

statements about profits and risk of loss. 

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

A. Option Fraud in Violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4 

Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2012), makes it unlawful for any person "to 

offer to enter into, enter into or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any 

commodity regulated under [the] Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the 

trade as," inter alia, an "option," "bid," "offer," "put," or "call," in contravention of Commission 

rules or regulations "prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction under 

such terms and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe." Binary options qualify as 

commodity option transactions within the meaning of the Act and Regulations. See CFTC v. 

Vision Fin. Partners, LLC, Case No. 16-60297-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, 2016 WL 3163071, at *3 

(S.D. Fla. June 3, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss; holding that binary options are commodity 

options within the meaning of Section 4c(b) of the Act). 

Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019), provides that, in connection with an offer to enter 

into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any commodity option transaction, it 

shall be unlawful "for any person directly or indirectly: (a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat 

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

or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false record thereof; or (c) To 

deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever." Fraud involving 

commodity options is established when a person or entity: (A) makes a misrepresentation, 

misleading statement, or a deceptive omission; (B) acts with scienter; and (C) the 

misrepresentation or omission is material. CFTC v. R.J Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 310 F .3d 1321, 

1328 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding commercial that overemphasized profit potential, downplayed risk 

of loss, and urged viewers to take immediate action or risk missing the opportunity materially 

misleading, despite inclusion of boilerplate risk disclosures); CFTC v. Rosenberg, 85 F. Supp. 2d 

424, 446-47 (D.N.J. 2000) (holding that "the CFTC must demonstrate that the defendant made a 

material misrepresentation of presently existing or past fact with scienter" to establish a claim for 

futures and options fraud under Sections 4b(a) and 4c(b) of the Act."); CFTC v. Nat'! Invest. 

Consultants, Inc., No. C 05-02641, 2005 WL 2072105, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2005) 

(Commission can establish scienter under Section 4b(a) of the Act by showing that a defendant 

"knew the representations were false and were calculated to cause harm or by showing that the 

representations were made with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity." (citing CFTC v. 

Noble Wealth Data Information Services, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 676, 686 (D. Md. 2000))). 

For each of the six binary options campaigns described above, Sechovicz intentionally or 

recklessly created and disseminated solicitations promoting automated trading software for binary 

options that misrepresented, among other things: (1) outsized fake profits; (2) actors as actual 

owners or users of automated trading software; (3) hypothetical and fictitious trading results as real 

results; ( 4) testing or patenting of automated trading software; and ( 5) the risk of loss. By 

engaging in this conduct, Sechovicz violated Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4. 

5 
B. CTA Fraud in Violation of Section 4o(l) of the Act 

Section 4o(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 60(1) (2012), makes it unlawful for a commodity 

trading advisor ("CTA"), using the mails or any 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." Section 4o( 1) of the Act applies to CT As regardless of whether or not they are 

registered as CTAs with the Commission. CFTC ex rel. Kelley v. Skorupskas, 605 F. Supp. 923, 

932 (E.D. Mich. 1985). 

ACTA is defined by Section la(l2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(12) (2012), as including 

any person who, for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others, either 

directly or through publications, writings, or electronic media, as to the value of or the 

advisability of trading in any swap or commodity option. One who authors and sells automated 

trading software acts as a CT A. See, e.g., CFTC v. Wall St. Underground, Inc., 281 F. Supp. 2d 

1260, 1269 (D. Kan. 2003) (entering preliminary injunction on CTA fraud claims and finding that 

defendants acted as CT As "in that the trading systems they author and sell provide specific 

recommendations for clients and prospective clients to use to trade commodity futures and 

commodity options."), ajf'd, 128 F. App'x 726 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Sechovicz acted as a CT A by advising potential customers using emails, websites, 

promotional videos, advertorials, and social media as to the value and advisability of trading in 

binary options using marketed automated trading software that purported to trade in customers' 

accounts on their behalf, both in the campaigns he launched and the campaigns he remarketed for 

other affiliate marketers. He did so for compensation or profit, as he earned a commission for 

each investor that opened and funded a trading account as a result of receiving a solicitation from 

Sechovicz and Partner. See CFTC v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279-80 (9th Cir. 1979) ("We do not 

believe that the definition of commodity trading advisor requires that the 'compensation or 

profit' flow directly from the person or persons advised" ( citing CFTC Interpretive Letter No. 

75-11 (1975-77 Transfer Binder) Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ,r 20,098 at 20,763 n.6)). 

While acting as a CTA, Sechovicz intentionally or recklessly created and disseminated 

solicitations promoting automated trading software for binary options that misrepresented, 

among other things: (1) outsized fake profits; (2) actors as actual owners or users of automated 

trading software; (3) hypothetical and fictitious trading results as real results; ( 4) testing or 

patenting of automated trading software; and (5) the risk ofloss. By engaging in this conduct, 

Sechovicz violated Section 4a of the Act. 

C. Manipulative or Deceptive Device in Violation of Section 6(c)(l) and Regulation 

180.l(a) 

Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), provides in relevant part that "[i]t shall 

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

in connection with any swap ... any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in 

contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission shall promulgate .... " 

6 
Pursuant to this provision, the Commission promulgated Regulation 180.1 ( a)(l )-(3 ), 

17 C.F .R. § 180.1 ( a)(l )-(3) (2019), which makes it unlawful for any person, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with any swap, "to intentionally or recklessly: (1) Use or employ, or 

attempt to use or employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) 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] 

(3) 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." 

Section la(47)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(47)(A) (2012), defines a "swap" as including, 

inter alia, "any agreement, contract, or transaction" that: (i) is an option of any kind; (ii) provides 

for payment dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or extent of occurrence of an event or 

contingency; or (iii) provides on an executory basis for payments based on the value of one or 

more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, or other financial or economic 

interests or property, and that transfers in whole or part the financial risk associated with a future 

change in such value between the parties to the transaction without also conveying an ownership 

interest in the asset or liability. Binary options qualify as swaps based on the plain language of 

Section la(47)(A). See CFTCv. Vault Options, Ltd .. , No. 1:16-CV-01881, 2016 WL 5339716, at 

*6 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2016) (default judgment holding that binary options are swaps). 

By intentionally or recklessly engaging in the same conduct that violated Sections 4c(b) 

and 4o of the Act and Regulation 32.4, Sechovicz violated Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and 

Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3). See CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 21 F.Supp.3d 1317, 

1347 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (finding that material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with 

the sale of commodities violated Section 6( c )(1) of the Act and Regulation 180.1 ). 

D. Fraudulent Advertising in Violation of Regulation 4.41(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2) 

Regulation 4.41(a)(l)-(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(l)-(2) (2019), prohibits fraudulent 

advertising by a CT A. Regulation 4.41 ( a)(3 ), 17 C.F .R. § 4.41 ( a)(3) (2019), makes it unlawful 

for a CTA to refer "to any testimonial, unless the advertisement or sales literature providing the 

testimonial prominently discloses: (i) That the testimonial may not be representative of the 

experience of other clients; (ii) That the testimonial is no guarantee of future performance or 

success; and (iii) If, more than a nominal sum is paid, the fact that it is a paid testimonial." 

Regulation 4.41(b)(l)-(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(l)-(2) (2019), requires CTAs to include specific 

disclosures in immediate proximity to any simulated or hypothetical performance presented in 

advertisements, including that the results are simulated and not from actual trading. The 

requirements of Regulation 4.41 apply to persons acting as a CTA, regardless of registration 

status. See R&W Tech. Servs. Ltd. v. CFTC, 205 F.3d 165, 174-76 (5th Cir. 2000). 

As set forth above, Sechovicz acted as a CT A by launching six affiliate marketing 

campaigns and remarketing additional campaigns for others that promoted binary options trading 

using automated trading software. Those campaigns included emails, websites, promotional 

videos, and advertorials featuring testimonials from persons who purported to be actual owners 

or users of automated trading software and who purported to have traded binary options using 

the marketed automated trading software for profit. The testimonials did not prominently 

disclose that: (i) they were not representative of the experience of other clients; and (ii) they 

7 
were no guarantee of future performance or success; or (iii) that they were fake and portrayed by 

paid actors. Further, the promotional materials used by Sechovicz and Partner depicted 

hypothetical and fictitious trading results without displaying required disclosures in immediate 

proximity, including that the results were simulated and not from actual trading. To the contrary, 

the hypothetical and fictitious trading results were depicted as "real." By engaging in this 

conduct, Sechovicz violated Regulation 4.4l(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2). See Wall St. Underground, 

Inc., 281 F. Supp. 2d at 1270 (finding that a CT A's advertising of a trading system in a manner 

that was misleading and omitted material information regarding commodity trading violated 

Regulation 4.41(a)); CFTC v. Heffernan, 245 F.Supp.2d 1276, 1296-99 (S.D. Ga. 2003) (finding 

CTA advertising of hypothetical results without the required disclaimer regarding such results 

violated Regulation 4.4l(b)). 

IV. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, during the Relevant Period, Respondent 

violated Sections 4c(b), 4o(l), and 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 60(1), 9(1) (2012), and 

Regulations 4.41(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, and 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.4l(a)(l)-(3), 

(b)(l)-(2), 32.4, 180.l(a)(l)-(3) (2019), by creating and disseminating affiliate marketing campaigns 

that fraudulently solicited investors and prospective investors to open and fund binary options 

trading accounts with Brokers and to trade binary options using automated trading software. 

V. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

Respondent has submitted the Offer in which he, without admitting or denying the 

findings and conclusions herein: 

A. Acknowledges service of this Order; 

B. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to all matters set forth in this 

Order and for any action or proceeding brought or authorized by the Commission based 

on violation of or enforcement of this Order; 

C. Waives: 

1. The filing and service of a complaint and notice of hearing; 

2. A hearing; 

3. All post-hearing procedures; 

4. Judicial review by any court; 

5. Any and all objections to the participation by any member of the Commission's 

staff in the Commission's consideration of the Offer; 

6. Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 504 (2012), and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2012), and/or the rules promulgated 

8 
by the Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 148 (2019), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

7. 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§§ 201-53, 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 proceeding; and 

8. Any claims of Double Jeopardy based on the institution of this proceeding or the 

entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any 

other relief, including this Order; 

D. Stipulates that the record basis on which this Order is entered shall consist solely of the 

findings contained in this Order to which Respondent has consented in the Offer; and 

E. Consents, solely on the basis of the Offer, to the Commission's entry of this Order that: 

1. Makes findings by the Commission that Respondent violated Sections 4c(b ), 4o( 1 ), 

and 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 60(1), 9(1) (2012), and Regulations 

4.4l(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, and 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a)(l)­

(3), (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, 180.l(a)(l)-(3) (2019), by creating and disseminating 

marketing campaigns that fraudulently solicited investors and prospective 

investors to open and fund binary options trading accounts with Brokers and to 

trade binary options using automated trading software; 

2. Orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Sections 4c(b), 4o(l), and 

6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulations 4.41(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, and 

180.1 ( a)(l )-(3 ); 

3. Orders Respondent to pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of nine hundred 

forty-nine thousand, nine hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty cents 

($949,918.50), plus post-judgment interest, within one year of the date of entry of 

this Order, as set forth in Part VI of this Order; and 

4. Orders that Respondent be pennanently prohibited from, directly or indirectly, 

engaging in trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term 

is defined in Section la(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2012)) for or on behalf 

of any other person or entity, and all registered entities shall refuse him trading 

privileges for such purposes; and 

5. Orders Respondent and his successors and assigns to comply with the conditions 

and undertakings consented to in the Offer and as set forth in Part VI of this Order. 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to accept the Offer. 

9 
VI. ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

A. Respondent shall cease and desist from violating Sections 4c(b), 4o(l), and 6(c)(l) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 60(1), 9(1) (2012), and Regulations 4.41(a)(l)-(3) and (b)(l)-(2), 

32.4, and 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.4l(a)(l)-(3), (b)(l)-(2), 32.4, 180.l(a)(l)-(3) 

(2019), by creating and disseminating marketing campaigns that fraudulently solicited 

investors and prospective investors to open and fund binary options trading accounts with 

Brokers and to trade binary options using automated trading software. 

B. Respondent shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of nine hundred forty-nine 

thousand, nine hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty cents ($949,918.50) (the "CMP 

Obligation"), within one year of the date of entry of this Order. If the CMP Obligation is 

not paid in full within one year of the date of entry of this Order, then post-judgment 

interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Order 

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

this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2012). 

Respondent shall pay the 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: 

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 is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Respondent shall contact Marie 

Thome or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions and shall fully 

comply with those instructions. Respondent shall accompany payment of the CMP 

Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the paying Respondent and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. The paying Respondent shall simultaneously transmit 

copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to: (i) the Chief Financial Officer, 

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

Washington, D.C. 20581; and (ii) Regional Counsel, Division of Enforcement, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, 525 West Monroe, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60661. 

C. Respondent is permanently prohibited from, directly or indirectly, engaging in trading on 

or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is defined in Section la(40) of 

10 
the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2012)) for or on behalf of any other person or entity, and all 

registered entities shall refuse him trading privileges for such purposes. 

D. Respondent shall comply with the following conditions and undertakings set forth in the Offer: 

1. Public Statements: Respondent agrees that neither he nor any agents or employees 

under his authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement 

denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, 

or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual basis; 

provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect Respondent's: (i) 

testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to 

which the Commission is not a party. Respondent shall comply with this agreement, 

and shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all agents and/or employees 

under his authority or control understand and comply with this agreement. 

2. Respondent agrees that he shall never, directly or indirectly: 

a. control or direct 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" (as that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019)); 

b. solicit, receive, or accept any funds from any person for the purpose of 

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

c. apply for registration or claim exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, and engage 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/or 

d. act as a principal ( as that term is defined in Regulation 3 .1 (a), 17 C.F .R. 

§ 3.l(a) (2019)), agent or any other officer or employee of any person (as that 

term is defined in Section la(38) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(38) (2012)), 

registered, required to be registered, or exempted from registration with the 

Commission except as provided for in Regulation 4.14( a)(9). 

3. Disgorgement: Respondent agrees to pay disgorgement in the amount of one 

million, eight hundred ninety-nine thousand, eight hundred and thirty-seven 

dollars ($1,899,837), (the "Disgorgement Obligation"), representing the gains 

received in connection with such violations. Disgorgement shall be payable as 

follows: $25,000 within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of the Order, and 

$1,874,837 within one year from the date of entry of the Order. If the 

Disgorgement Obligation is not paid in full within one year of the date of entry of 

this Order, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the Disgorgement 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Order and shall be determined by 

using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Order pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2012). 

11 
To effect payment by Respondent and distribution to customers, the Commission 

appoints the National Futures Association as Monitor. The Monitor shall receive 

payments of the Disgorgement Obligation and any post-judgment interest from 

Respondent and make distributions as set forth below. Because the Monitor is not 

being specially compensated for these services, and these services are outside the 

normal duties of the Monitor, it shall not be liable for any action or inaction 

arising from its appointment as Monitor other than actions involving fraud. 

Respondent shall pay the Disgorgement Obligation under this Order in the name 

of the "BO Fraud Settlement Fund" and shall send such payments by electronic 

funds transfer, 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, Illinois 60606, under a cover 

letter that identifies the paying Respondent and the name and docket number of 

this proceeding. The paying Respondent 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. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is seeking disgorgement from 

Respondent for the same conduct at issue in this case. Consequently, any 

disgorgement that Respondent pays to the SEC for his binary options solicitation 

fraud shall result in a dollar for dollar reduction of Respondent's Disgorgement 

Obligation in this matter. 

The Monitor shall oversee Respondent's Disgorgement Obligation and shall have 

the discretion to determine the manner of distribution of funds in an equitable 

fashion to Respondent's customers or may defer distribution until such time as the 

Monitor may deem appropriate. In the event that the amount of payments of the 

Disgorgement Obligation to the Monitor are of a de minimis nature such that the 

Monitor determines that the administrative cost of making a restitution 

distribution 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, as discussed below. 

To the extent any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of Respondent's 

Disgorgement Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor for 

disbursement 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: 

MMAC/ESC/ AMK326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 181 

12 
Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

( 405) 954-6569 office 

(405) 954-1620 fax 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment is to be made by electronic funds transfer, the Monitor shall contact 

Marie Thorne or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions 

and shall fully comply with those instructions. The Monitor shall accompany 

payment .of the Disgorgement Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the 

paying Respondent and the name and docket number of this proceeding. The 

Monitor shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of 

payment to: (i) the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

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

20581; and (ii) Regional Counsel, Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures 

Trading C:'.ommission, 525 West Monroe, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60661. 

4. Cooperation, in General: Respondent shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with 

the Commission, including the Commission's Division of Enforcement, in this 

action, and in any current or future Commission investigation or action related 

thereto. Respondent shall also cooperate in any investigation, civil litigation, or 

administrative matter related to, or arising from, this action. 

5. Partial Satisfaction: Respondent understands and agrees that any acceptance by 

the Commission or the Monitor of any partial payment of Respondent's 

Disgorgement Obligation or CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of his 

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

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

6. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Respondent satisfies in full his 

Disgorgement Obligation and CMP Obligation as set forth in this Order, 

Respondent shall provide written notice to the Commission of any change to his 

telephone numbers and mailing addresses within ten calendar days of the change. 

The provisions of this Order shall be effective as of this date. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: October 7, 2019 

13