Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 3460

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FIRST STATE DEPOSITORY COMPANY, LLC, 

ARGENT ASSET GROUP LLC, AND 

ROBERT LEROY HIGGINS, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:22-cv-1266-RGA 

[~ORDER FOR 

FINAL JUDGMENT BY 

DEFAULT,PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

MONET ARY PENAL TIES, 

AND OTHER STATUTORY 

AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 

On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

"Commission") filed a Complaint charging First State Depository Company, LLC ("FSD"), 

Argent Asset Group LLC ("Argent"), and Robert Leroy Higgins ("Higgins," collectively, 

"Defendants") with violations of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, and 

the Commission's Regulations ("Regulations") promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 

(2022). D.I. 2. 

On September 29, 2022, the Court entered a statutory restraining order ("SRO"), which, 

among other things, authorized the freezing of assets held in the name of or under the control or 

management of the Defendants, appointed Kelly Crawford as Temporary Receiver over 

Defendants, and authorized Mr. Crawford to take over the physical premises of FSD and Argent, 

and take control of their operations. See D.I. 12 at ,i,i 17-19, 28, 29.a.-b. 

On October 4, 2022, the Commission served the Summons, Complaint, SRO, and all 

other papers on Defendants. See D.I. 20-22 (Executed Summonses); D.I. 23 (describing service 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 3461

of summonses, complaint and other papers on counsel for all Defendants, who stated in writing 

that they would accept service on behalf of Defendants). 

Defendants have failed to appear or answer the Complaint within the time permitted by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(l). Accordingly, the Commission filed motions for entry of a clerk's 

default against Defendants and on December 30, 2022, the Clerk of this Court entered a default 

against Defendants. 

The Commission has moved this Court to grant final judgment by default against 

Defendant Robert Higgins, order permanent injunctive relief, and impose a restitution obligation 

and civil monetary penalty. 

The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the allegations of which are wellpleaded and hereby taken as true, the Commission's memorandum in support of its motion, the 

record in this case, and the Court being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby: 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Judgment by Default, Permanent 

Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief against Higgins is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court enters findings of fact, conclusions oflaw, and an Order of 

Final Judgment by Default for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other 

Statutory and Equitable Relief ("Order") pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as 

set forth herein. 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

A. Findings of Fact 

1. The Parties 

1. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations. 

2 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 3462

2. Defendant Robert Leroy Higgins is the owner, and was the operator, principal, 

and control person for FSD and Argent. Higgins has never been registered with the Commission 

in any capacity. 

3. Defendant First State Depository Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability 

company, organized on or about January 25, 2006, with an address of 100 Todds Lane, 

Wilmington, Delaware. FSD's website describes itself as a "private depository" that offers "a 

full range of precious metals custody, shipping and accounting services to both commercial and 

individual participants in the rare coin and precious metals markets." FSD has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

4. Defendant Argent Asset Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, 

organized on or about September 24, 2013, with an address of 100 Todds Lane, Wilmington, 

Delaware. Argent engages in the business of buying, selling, and leasing coins, bullion, bars, 

and other precious metals. Argent has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

2. Defendants' Scheme 

5. From at least January 2014 through the present (the "Relevant Period") 

Defendants engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive scheme (the "Scheme") that involved 

extensive misappropriation and other fraudulent and deceptive conduct in connection with the 

purchase and sale of precious metals. As described in more detail below, Defendants defrauded 

participants in two silver leasing programs ("Customers") as well as clients who were not 

involved in the silver leasing programs ("Clients"). Defendants misappropriated tens of millions 

of dollars of assets that were supposedly stored at FSD for safekeeping, diverted those assets to 

their own use, and issued statements and reports to Customers and Clients falsely indicating that 

the assets remained safely stored at FSD. On several occasions, Defendants falsely led 

3 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 3463

Customers and Clients to believe that Defendants had obtained assets for them, when in fact 

Defendants had not. Defendants also deceived and misled Customers who enrolled in the silver 

leasing programs known as the Maximus Program and Silver Lease Program (the "Programs"), 

and made misrepresentations to Customers and Clients about FSD 's insurance coverage. In 

instances when Customers or Clients tried to withdraw their assets, Defendants lied in order to 

conceal the misappropriation. 

6. The fraud and deception in Defendants' Scheme was material to Customers and 

Clients. As FSD itself said in marketing materials: 

We know that asset safety, transaction accuracy and expeditious fulfillment are of 

paramount importance to every depository customer, whether they are 

commercial enterprises conducting frequent, high volume business transactions or 

individuals simply seeking a highly secure facility to hold their personal coin and 

bullion investments. 

7. But instead of storing assets safely, reporting transactions accurately, and 

fulfilling transactions expeditiously, Defendants misappropriated tens of millions of dollars, took 

steps to conceal that misappropriation, and made numerous misrepresentations and material 

OIIDSSlOnS. 

3. Misappropriation of Customer and Client Assets 

8. In the course of conducting an inventory of assets stored at 100 Todds Lane, 

Baker Tilly, the public accounting firm retained by the Receiver, has discovered that as much as 

$112.7 million of Customer and Client assets are missing from FSD. See D.I. 82-1 at 14. In 

some instances, they found empty boxes at FSD with a Customer's or Client's name on it, or 

boxes that did not contain metal but instead held an "IOU" of sorts-a piece of paper stating the 

quantity of metal that should have been stored there. D.I. 78-1 at 22. In other instances, nothing 

could be found for a particular Customer or Client, not even empty boxes. Defendants 

4 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 3464

misappropriated these assets, diverted them to their own uses, and sold them for their own 

benefit. 

9. Some of the missing assets were purchased directly through Argent to be stored at 

FSD, while other assets were obtained from other precious metals dealers, and then sent by 

Customers and Clients to FSD for storage. For the missing assets purportedly purchased from 

Argent, it is not clear whether Defendants obtained the assets and then subsequently 

misappropriated them, or if Defendants instead misappropriated the funds sent for the purpose of 

obtaining assets, failed to obtain the assets, and sent invoices and account statements that falsely 

indicated the assets had been obtained. There is some indication that Defendants used both 

methods. Whatever the method used, Defendants misappropriated tens of millions of dollars of 

assets from Customers and Clients. Defendants concealed their misappropriation by sending 

account statements to Customers and Clients that falsely indicated that their assets were stored at 

FSD, when in fact they were not. When Customers and Clients sought to withdraw their assets, 

Defendants attempted to delay the return of assets for as long as possible. Defendants offered 

false and misleading excuses for why the assets could not be returned immediately. 

4. The Maximus Program 

10. Starting in or around November 2013, Argent and Higgins promoted an 

investment program called the Maximus Program and solicited individuals to participate in it. 

The Maximus Program purported to offer Customers guaranteed monthly payments in exchange 

for their agreement to lease to Argent silver that the Customers purchased or owned. Maximus 

Customers were supposed to receive a monthly "lease" payment based on a sliding scale that in 

part depended on the amount of silver the Maximus Customers leased to Argent. 

5 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 3465

11. All of the leased silver in the Maximus Program was in the form of American 

Silver Eagles ("ASEs"). 1 The ASE, also referred to as a "Silver Eagle" or "SAE," is the 

official silver bullion coin issued by the United States Mint. Each coin weighs one ounce and is 

a minimum of 99.9% pure silver. The weight and purity of ASEs is guaranteed by the United 

States government. 

12. Maximus Customers signed an agreement with Argent that was known and 

referred to as the "Maximus Agreement" or "Maximus Silver Agreement." The Maximus 

Agreements set forth the terms and conditions of the leasing relationship and included various 

representations and warranties. Maximus Customers also entered into a Depository Account 

Agreement with FSD regarding the purported storage of assets at FSD. In accordance with the 

Depository Account Agreement, FSD provided Maximus Customers with weekly or monthly 

"Holdings Reports" that purported to show each Customer's account balance and holdings at 

FSD, and "Activity Reports" that were purportedly distributed every time a transaction occurred 

in their account (collectively, the "Reports"). 

13. In February 2014, Argent entered into a Maximus Agreement with Metals Dealer 

1, an entity owned and controlled by Individual 1. Pursuant to the Maximus Agreement between 

Argent and Metals Dealer 1, Argent agreed to pay Metals Dealer 1 twenty cents ($0.20) per 

month for each ASE that Metals Dealer 1 pledged to the Maximus Program. Higgins told Metals 

Dealer 1 that Argent used the Leased Silver to fulfill short-term sales of ASEs to third parties as 

needed, and that if Leased Silver was sold, an equivalent amount of ASEs would promptly be 

returned to the account. 

1 This Order uses the term "Leased Silver" to refer to the ASEs that were part of either the Maximus Program or the 

Silver Lease Program. 

6 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 3466

14. At or around the same time, Metals Dealer 1 began soliciting prospective 

Customers for a silver leasing program of its own that operated in parallel to Argent's Maximus 

Program. The result of this arrangement was a set of back-to-back leases, through which Metals 

Dealer 1 's customers leased AS Es to Metals Dealer 1, and Metals Dealer 1 exclusively leased 

those ASEs to Argent. 

15. Metals Dealer 1 agreed to provide Silver Lease Customers with a monthly 

payment of between one cent and ten cents per ASE invested in the Silver Lease Program, with 

the rate set in tiers based on the quantity of the ASEs leased to Metals Dealer 1 (the "Silver 

Lease Payment"). For example, a Silver Lease Customer who pledged between 1,000 and 1,999 

ASEs received a monthly payment of $0.0 I per coin; a Silver Lease Customer who pledged 

between 9,000 and 9,999 ASEs received a monthly payment of $0.09 per coin, and a Silver 

Lease Customer who pledged more than 10,000 ASEs received a monthly payment of $0.10 per 

coin. Silver Lease Customers had the option to receive this monthly payment in cash, or instead 

to have additional ASEs put into their account. 

16. From 2014 to present, Silver Lease Customers collectively sent millions of dollars 

of money, silver, or other assets to Metals Dealer 1 or FSD to join the Silver Lease Program. At 

the time of the Commission's complaint, there were approximately 200 Silver Lease Customers 

who collectively enrolled more than 537,000 ASEs in the Silver Lease Program, worth more than 

$10 million at prevailing market prices. 

17. Although certain iterations of the Lease Agreements were silent as to what Metals 

Dealer 1 intended do with the Leased Silver, and others permitted Metals Dealer 1 to transfer the 

Leased Silver to non-specified "customers desiring to purchase silver," in every case and without 

fail, Metals Dealer 1 pledged the Leased Silver to the Maximus Program. 

7 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 3467

18. In other words, Metals Dealer 1 essentially served as a vehicle for directing ASEs 

to Argent's Maximus Program. Consequently, a large majority of the ASEs in the Maximus 

Program came from Metals Dealer 1 and Silver Lease Customers. In light of Argent's agreement 

to pay Metals Dealer 1 $0.20 for each ASE pledged to the Maximus Program, Metals Dealer l's 

Silver Lease Payments to Customers were essentially a pass-through arrangement in which 

Argent paid $0.20 to Metals Dealer l for each ASE that Silver Lease Customers held, and Metals 

Dealer 1 paid up to $0.10 per ASE to Silver Lease Customers, keeping the rest as profit. 

19. If Silver Lease Customers asked how leasing of the Leased Silver worked, Metals 

Dealer 1 told them the same thing that Higgins told Metals Dealer 1-that the Leased Silver was 

used to fulfill short-term sales of ASEs as needed, but that if this occurred, an equivalent amount 

of ASEs would promptly be returned to their account. Based on representations by Defendants, 

Metals Dealer l also told Silver Lease Customers that their ASEs were insured for 100% of their 

value and stored in physically segregated storage at FSD. 

a) Fraud Regarding ASEs Held at FSD 

20. Defendants led Customers to believe that their ASEs were held securely at FSD. 

FSD's website unequivocally states that "your coins and bullion always remain physically stored 

in our depository, in your account and your legal property at all times," and Argent's Maximus 

Agreements (both with Metals Dealer 1 and with other Maximus Customers) required Argent to 

"maintain, in its possession and/or control, the specific property borrowed or property of similar 

nature that is fungible with the property borrowed." 

21. FSD represented that it was "fully transparent" in reporting transactions, that it 

engaged in "full disclosure" and "accurate and timely reporting" and that an account owner could 

rely on the Reports to know the "exact status of all holdings secured at FSD." Consistent with 

those representations, FSD sent monthly account statements to Customers indicating that the 

8 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 3468

Leased Silver remained in Customers' accounts at all times. All of these representations, taken 

together, were intended to give Customers the impression that all of their Leased Silver was 

physically and securely stored in their accounts at FSD at all times. 

22. In fact, the exact opposite was true. To the extent Defendants even obtained 

ASEs for Customers in the first place, Defendants' practice was to transfer all of the Leased 

Silver to Argent and Higgins, and for Higgins to sell that Leased Silver to third parties and 

remove it from 100 Todds Lane. After this occurred, neither the Leased Silver, metal similar to 

the Leased Silver, nor assets roughly equivalent in value to the Leased Silver were returned to 

the Customers' account at FSD. This is confirmed by the fact that after the Complaint in this 

case was filed, only 2,500 ASEs were found in Silver Lease Customers' accounts, despite FSD's 

records and Reports indicating there should have been more than 537,000. D.I. 78-1 at 94. 

23. In other words, Defendants did not temporarily remove Leased Silver from 

Customer accounts to satisfy specific orders by third parties, and then replace the Leased Silver 

with other ASEs shortly thereafter, as Defendants led Customers to believe they were doing. 

Nor did Defendants replace Customers' ASEs with other assets of an equivalent value. Instead, 

Defendants misappropriated the Leased Silver, simply taking it and diverting it to their own use. 

None of this was disclosed to Customers, either on the Reports or elsewhere. FSD repeatedly 

sent Customers false and misleading Holdings Reports showing that the Customers' ASEs were 

securely stored in their account at FSD, when in fact no such metal was there. FSD also sent 

false and misleading Activity Reports showing that AS Es were added to Customers' accounts, 

when in fact no metal had been moved to the accounts, and no metal was there. FSD 's failure to 

inform Customers that their metal was not actually stored at FSD was also a deceptive omission, 

in light of their representations to the contrary on the Holdings Reports. Defendants knew that 

9 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 3469

the Reports were false and misleading or were reckless as to their truth or falsity. Defendants 

knew that the Leased Silver was not stored at FSD, and knew that they were nonetheless sending 

Holdings Reports that gave Customers the contrary impression. 

b) Fraud Regarding the Acquisition of AS Es 

24. Defendants' Scheme also involved several occasions in which Defendants never 

obtained ASEs for Customers in the first place. Defendants instead misappropriated the money 

and assets they received for the purpose of purchasing AS Es, diverting those assets to Higgins' 

personal use or the general use of FSD and Argent. 

25. In those instances, Defendants deceived Metals Dealer 1, Customers, and IRA 

Custodians about their acquisition of ASEs. Defendants directly deceived Silver Lease 

Customers by sending false and misleading Reports. Defendants also deceived Metals Dealer 1 

and IRA Custodians with the knowledge that those parties would rely on Defendants' deception 

and make representations to Silver Lease Customers that were misleading. Defendants' 

deception involved issuing invoices and purchase orders falsely indicating that Argent had 

obtained ASEs, falsely stating in communications that ASEs had been obtained or were being 

delivered to Defendants' offices at 100 Todds Lane, and issuing Reports that indicated that ASEs 

had been deposited to Customers' accounts. Defendants knew that Argent had not in fact 

obtained those ASEs, but instead simply created fake invoices and made fictitious "paper 

entries" in FSD's inventory management system. 

26. For example, between October 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, the number of ASEs 

pledged to Metals Dealer 1 's Silver Lease Program increased by more than 100,000. The vast 

majority of the new ASEs came from four separate Customers. Those four Customers 

collectively transferred more than $1.53 million of money or other assets to Metals Dealer 1 with 

the understanding that those assets would be used to acquire ASEs for the Silver Lease Program. 

10 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 3470

Metals Dealer 1, in tum, wired funds and transferred assets to Argent with the understanding that 

Argent would use those assets to acquire AS Es. 

27. Rather than obtaining ASEs for Customers 1-4, Defendants misappropriated their 

assets, made fictitious entries in IBMS, and sent false and misleading emails and Reports to 

Metals Dealer 1, Customers 1-4, and IRA Custodian 1, purporting to show that the ASEs had 

been transferred into the accounts of Customers 1-4 at FSD, and were stored there. In fact, 

Defendants did not obtain the required ASEs for Customers 1-4 and deposit them into their 

accounts. 

28. During the Relevant Period, Argent received millions of dollars in Customer 

funds and assets for the purpose of obtaining ASEs for the Programs. The four transactions 

identified above were not the only time that Defendants failed to obtain ASEs for Customers. 

Indeed, as noted above, of the 537,000 ASEs enrolled in the Silver Lease Program, almost none 

of those AS Es were stored at FSD. Whether Defendants actually obtained AS Es for Customers 

and then subsequently misappropriated them, or whether Argent simply misappropriated 

Customers' funds and fraudulently failed to obtain AS Es, Defendants did not store Leased Silver 

at FSD on behalf of Customers, as they led Customers to believe they were doing. 

5. Fraud Regarding Insurance 

29. Defendants led Customers and Clients to believe that their assets were insured for 

100% of their value. During the Relevant Period, FSD's publicly-visible website advertised that 

"[ a ]11 Accounts [are] Insured for 100% of value," stated that "assets are stored in insured 

accounts," and said that "First State is fully insured, with an approximate insured contents limit 

of $400 million, depending on the 'mix' of assets held." In marketing materials and 

communications with potential Customers and Clients, FSD made similar assertions, stating that 

11 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 3471

"[a]ll assets stored in First State's vaults are insured for 100% of its [sic] value through our ALL 

RISK policy with Lloyds of London." 

30. FSD made similar representations in the standard Depository Account Agreement 

it entered into with Customers and Clients, which provided that "First State agrees to maintain in 

effect all-risk insurance on Assets stored in Account for Client." FSD's Depository Account 

Agreements also stated that upon request, FSD would "provide a Certificate of Insurance 

evidencing insurance coverage for Assets held by First State." On numerous occasions 

Customers or Clients requested these certificates, which were referred to as "Evidences of 

Insurance." The Evidences oflnsurance listed FSD as the "Insured," and typically identified the 

Customer or Client as a "Memorandum Holder and Loss Payee." When requested, FSD 

provided these Evidences oflnsurance, intending to reassure them that the Customer's and 

Client's assets were fully insured. 

31. Defendants' representations regarding insurance were false and misleading. 

Defendants deceived Customers and Clients regarding insurance in at least three ways. 

32. First, despite the fact that throughout the Relevant Period FSD's website has 

touted and continues to tout an "approximate insured contents limit of $400 million," in actuality 

FSD's insurance policy limit has not been close to that from at least November 2014 through the 

present. To the contrary, FSD's insurance policy limit was $85 million from approximately 

November 2014 to November 2016, $100 million from approximately November 2016 through 

May 2021, and $75 million from May 2021 through the filing of the Commission's complaint. 

FSD's misrepresentations regarding the purported $400 million insurance policy impacted all 

FSD Customers and Clients. Defendants knew their representations regarding a $400 million 

policy limit were false, or were reckless as to their truth or falsity. 

12 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 3472

33. Second, FSD's representations that "[a]ll Accounts [are] Insured for 100% of 

value," that "First State is fully insured," and that "[a]ll assets stored in First State's vaults are 

insured for l 00% of its [sic] value" were false. Not only did FSD not have a $400 million policy 

limit, FSD's actual, much lower policy limits were insufficient to cover the full value of assets 

that FSD purportedly held for Customers and Clients. Like the misrepresentation regarding the 

$400 million insurance policy, this deception impacted all FSD Customers and Clients. 

34. For example, according to FSD records, as of March 2021, the total value of 

inventory purportedly stored at FSD was more than $176 million, and the total insured value of 

inventory was more than $158 million, at least $50 million more than the then-applicable policy 

limit of$100 million. Likewise, in October 2022, when FSD's policy limit was $75 million, 

FSD' s own records indicated that the total value of inventory purportedly stored at FSD was 

more than $138 million, and the total insured value of inventory was more than $125 million. 

35. In short, Defendants falsely represented that all assets purportedly stored at FSD 

were fully insured for 100% of their value. Defendants made this misrepresentation repeatedly: 

on FSD's website, in marketing materials, in communications with prospective Customers and 

Clients, in FSD's standard agreement with Customers and Clients, and elsewhere. As with 

FSD' s misrepresentations regarding the $400 million policy limit, this misrepresentation 

impacted all Customers and Clients. 

36. Third, FSD provided Evidences oflnsurance to Customers with the intent to give 

a misleading assurance that their Leased Silver was insured, when Defendants knew it was not 

insured, or when the risk that it was not insured was so high that they must have been aware of it. 

37. For the Relevant Period, FSD's primary insurance policy limit only covered assets 

stored at 100 Todds Lane. But as explained above, FSD and Argent did not store the Leased 

13 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 3473

Silver in FSD's vault at 100 Todds Lane (to the extent it was bought in the first place), but 

instead systematically and immediately transferred those ASEs to Argent's offices at 100 Todds 

Lane, where the Leased Silver was briefly stored before being sold to third parties. But none of 

FSD's insurance policies covered metal that was sold by Argent, delivered to third parties, and 

removed from the possession, custody, or control of FSD and Argent. 

38. In addition, assets that were misappropriated from Clients who were not part of 

the Programs were also removed from FSD's premises and diverted to Defendants' own use. 

But none of FSD's insurance policies covered metal that was misappropriated. Defendants' 

provision of Evidences of Insurance upon request thus provided false assurances that assets were 

insured by FSD's insurance policies. 

6. Higgins Was a Controlling Person of FSD and Argent 

39. Higgins was a controlling person of both FSD and Argent. Higgins was the 

operator, principal, and control person for FSD and Argent. Higgins held himself out as, and in 

fact was, the owner and manager of both FSD and Argent. Higgins controlled and was the 

signatory on the bank accounts of FSD and Argent. Higgins had ultimate decision-making 

authority over FSD and Argent, and he was authorized to and did enter into contractual 

agreements on behalf of both entities. Higgins had primary and often exclusive responsibility for 

managing the purchase and sale of silver and gold coins, bars, and bullion on behalf of Argent. 

Higgins was the individual with primary responsibility for managing the Maximus Program for 

Argent. Higgins also conducted business on FSD's behalf throughout the Relevant Period. 

Higgins communicated with Customers, Clients, and other counterparties on FSD's behalf, 

including, for example, by communicating with Customers and Clients regarding the return or 

distribution of assets stored at FSD, and communicating with FSD's insurance brokers and 

underwriters regarding FSD's insurance policies. 

14 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 3474

7. FSD and Argent Operated as a Common Enterprise, and Higgins Was 

a Controlling Person of the Common Enterprise 

40. FSD and Argent did not conduct business at arm's length or observe corporate 

formalities, but rather were commonly controlled by Higgins. Although Higgins on occasion 

told counterparties that the companies were separate and that he had no control over FSD, that 

was not true. In other communications Higgins held himself out to third parties as owner, 

manager, President, or CEO ofFSD. As noted above, Higgins conducted business on FSD's and 

Argent's behalf throughout the Relevant Period, he was the primary or an authorized signer on 

FSD's and Argent's bank accounts, and the primary credentials for online access to FSD's and 

Argent's bank accounts were in his name. 

41. FSD and Argent shared the same address and office at 100 Todds Lane. FSD and 

Argent also shared employees, consultants, or agents, including Higgins. Higgins installed one 

of his sons as nominal operational head of FSD and another son as nominal operational head of 

Argent. Higgins' sister performed services on behalf of both FSD and Argent, and a third son 

and Higgins' wife worked for FSD and/or Argent at various points during the Relevant Period. 

42. FSD and Argent commingled corporate funds--on various occasions throughout 

the Relevant Period, Argent paid bills for FSD or wired money to FSD in order to ensure its bank 

account balance remained positive. FSD and Argent also transferred Customer funds between 

them. Defendants' misappropriation was at least partially premised on Higgins taking Customer 

and Client assets from FSD and selling them through Argent. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

1. Jurisdiction and Venue 

43. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13a-l(a), which authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive and other relief in United 

15 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 3475

States district court against any person whenever it shall appear to the Commission that such 

person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a 

violation of any provision of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, and provides 

that district courts "shall have jurisdiction to entertain such actions." This Court also has 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (United States 

as plaintiff). 

44. Venue lies properly with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act because 

Higgins can be found in this District, transacted business in this District, and certain transactions, 

acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred, are occurring, or are 

about to occur in this District. 

2. Count I-Fraud by Manipulative or Deceptive Device or Contrivance 

45. Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), makes it unlawful for any person, 

directly or indirectly, to: 

[U]se or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any ... contract 

of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce ... any manipulative or 

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

the Commission shall promulgate by not later than 1 year after [July 21, 2010, the 

date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act]. 

46. Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180. l(a)(l)-(3) (2022) provides, in part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any . 

. . contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce ... 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 .... 

4 7. As described above, during the Relevant Period, Higgins violated Section 6( c )( 1) 

of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3) by, among other things, in connection with contracts of 

16 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 3476

sale of a commodity ( e.g., precious metals) in interstate commerce, using or employing, or 

attempting to use or employ, a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and engaging, or attempt to 

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

deceit upon any person, including by: 

a. Misappropriating precious metals and other assets owned by Customers and 

Clients; 

b. Misappropriating funds that were sent by Customers and Clients for the 

purpose of obtaining precious metals and other assets, and instead diverting 

those funds to Higgins' personal uses or the general use of FSD and Argent; 

c. Leading Metals Dealer l, other Customers, and IRA Custodians to believe 

that AS Es had been obtained for the Programs, and that AS Es for the 

Programs were stored at FSD, when in fact they were not; and 

d. Leading Metals Dealer 1, other Customers, IRA Custodians, and Clients to 

believe that their assets were fully insured for 100% of their value, when in 

fact they were not. 

48. During the Relevant Period, Higgins violated Section 6( c )( 1) of the Act and 

Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3), by, among other things, in connection with contracts of sale of a 

commodity (e.g., precious metals) in interstate commerce, making or attempting to make untrue 

or misleading statements of material fact or omitting to state or attempting to omit material facts 

necessary in order to make statements made not untrue or misleading, including by: 

a. Making false and misleading statements that Customer and Client assets were 

stored at FSD when in fact they were not; 

17 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 3477

b. Making false and misleading statements that assets had been acquired for 

Customers and Clients when in fact they had not; 

c. Making false and misleading statements regarding insurance coverage that 

applied to Customer and Client assets; and 

d. Making false and misleading statements in connection with certain 

Customers' and Clients' attempts to retrieve their assets from FSD. 

49. Higgins engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully, knowingly or 

with reckless disregard for the truth. 

50. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation or omission of material fact, false 

statement, or other act in furtherance of the Scheme is a separate and distinct violation of Section 

6(c)(l) and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3). 

51. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures of Argent's employees and agents, 

including Higgins and others, occurred within the scope of their employment, agency, or office 

with Argent. As alleged in the Complaint and established in the [Proposed] Consent Order of 

Permanent Injunction and Other Statutory Equitable Relief ("[Proposed] Consent Order") being 

filed simultaneously with this Order, Argent is liable pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022), as principal for the violative 

actions and omissions of Argent's employees and agents. 

52. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures of FSD's employees and agents, 

including Higgins and others, occurred within the scope of their employment, agency, or office 

with FSD. As alleged in the Complaint and established in the [Proposed] Consent Order being 

filed simultaneously with this Order, FSD is liable pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act and 

18 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 3478

Regulation 1.2, as principal for the violative actions and omissions ofFSD's employees and 

agents. 

53. Higgins directly or indirectly controlled Argent and did not act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting Argent's violations of Section 

6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3). Higgins is therefore liable for Argent's 

violations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

54. Higgins directly or indirectly controlled FSD and did not act in good faith, or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting FSD's violations of 

Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3). Higgins is therefore liable for FSD's 

violations pursuant to Section l 3(b) of the Act. 

55. Higgins directly or indirectly controlled the common enterprise and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting the common 

enterprise's violations of Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3). Higgins is 

therefore liable as a control person for the violative acts of each member of the common 

enterprise. 

56. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable likelihood that 

Higgins will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint and in similar 

acts and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

II. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Higgins is permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

directly or indirectly: 

19 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 3479

a. directly or indirectly, using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, in 

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

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

entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, including by 

intentionally or recklessly: ( 1) using or employing, or attempting to use or 

employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) making, 

or attempting 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) engaging, or attempting to engage, in any act, 

practice, or course of business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or 

deceit upon any person, or otherwise violating Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180. l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180. l(a)(l)-(3) 

(2022). 

58. Higgins is also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or 

indirectly: 

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

defined in Section la of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la (40)); 

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), for his own personal 

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

c. having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

20 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 3480

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) (2022); and/or 

g. acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3. l(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 3. l(a) (2022)), 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)), registered, 

exempted from registration or required to be registered with the Commission 

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

III. RESTITUTION AND CIVIL MONET ARY PENAL TY 

A. Restitution 

59. Higgins shall pay restitution in the amount of one hundred and twelve million 

seven hundred thousand dollars ($112,700,000) ("Restitution Obligation"). Higgins' Restitution 

Obligation will be joint and several with any restitution obligation imposed by this Court as to 

FSD and Argent. If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately in full, post-judgment 

interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Restitution 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. 

21 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 3481

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

restitution payments to Defendants' customers, the Court appoints the National Futures 

Association ("NF A") as Monitor ("Monitor"). The Monitor shall receive restitution payments 

from Defendants 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 NF A's appointment as Monitor, other than actions involving fraud. 

61. Higgins shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any post-judgment 

interest payments, under this Order to the Monitor in the name "FSD/ Argent/Higgins 

Settlement/Restitution 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, Illinois 60606 under cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. Higgins 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. 

62. 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 Defendants' 

customers 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 customers is impractical, the Monitor may, in its discretion, 

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

22 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 3482

forward to the Commission following the instructions for civil monetary penalty payments set 

forth below. 

63. Higgins shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such 

information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify Defendants' customers 

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

of any Restitution Obligation payments. Higgins 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. 

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

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendants' customers 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. 

65. Higgins shall receive dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution Obligation for 

any funds that are disbursed to customers as the result of the liquidation of any assets of 

Defendants by the Receiver. The Receiver shall, under a cover letter that identifies the name and 

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

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

copies of the form of payment to those customers. 

66. Upon the termination of the receivership estate, the Receiver shall provide the 

Commission with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendants' customers. The 

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

23 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 3483

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

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

67. The amounts payable to each customer shall not limit the ability of any customer 

from proving that a greater amount is owed from Higgins or any other person or entity, and 

nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of any customer that 

exist under state or common law. 

68. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each customer of 

Defendants who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended third-party beneficiary of this 

Order and may seek to enforce obedience of this Order to obtain satisfaction of any portion of 

the restitution that has not been paid by Higgins to ensure continued compliance with any 

provision of this Order and to hold Higgins in contempt for any violations of any provision of 

this Order. 

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

Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be disbursed in accordance with the procedures set forth 

above. 

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

70. Higgins shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of thirty-three million 

dollars ($33,000,000) ("CMP Obligation"). Higgins' CMP Obligation will be joint and several 

with any civil monetary penalty obligation imposed by this Court as to FSD and Argent. If the 

CMP Obligation is not paid in full within ten ( 10) days of the date of the 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. 

24 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 3484

71. Higgins 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: 

MMAC/ESC/ AMK.326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQRoom266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

72. If payment is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Higgins shall contact Tonia 

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

comply with those instructions. Higgins shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with 

a cover letter that identifies Higgins and the name and docket number of this proceeding. 

Higgins 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. Higgins shall also transmit a copy of the cover letter 

and the form of payment to Rick Glaser, Deputy Director, Commodity Futures Trading 

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

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

73. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission of any partial payment of the 

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. 

25 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 3485

IV. CONTINUATION OF RELIEF FROM STATUTORY RESTRAINING ORDER 

A. Asset Freeze Order Prohibiting the Withdrawal, Transfer, Removal, Dissipation, 

and Disposal of Assets 

74. Except as otherwise modified by this Order and subsequent court orders, the SRO, 

D.I. 12, shall remain in full force and effect. 

75. Higgins and his agents, servants, employees, assigns, attorneys, and persons in 

active concert or participation with him, including any successor thereof, who receive actual 

notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are immediately restrained and enjoined, 

except as otherwise ordered by this Court, from directly or indirectly withdrawing, transferring, 

removing, dissipating or otherwise disposing of any assets, wherever located, including but not 

limited to assets held in the names of Defendants, or other property held outside the United 

States, in accordance with the Court's SRO. This paragraph does not apply to any social security 

benefits Higgins receives. 

76. At the request of the Receiver, Higgins and any other person who has possession, 

custody, or control of any of Defendants' funds, assets, or other property shall transfer 

possession of all funds, assets, or other property subject to this Order to the Receiver in 

accordance with the SRO. 

77. Except as excluded in Paragraph 75, the funds, assets, or other property affected 

by this Order shall include both existing funds, assets or other property, and funds, assets, or 

other property acquired after the effective date of this Order. 

V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

78. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Order, except as 

set forth in the previous paragraph, shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as 

follows: 

26 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 3486

Notice to Commission: 

Rick Glaser 

Deputy Director, Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 2 ist Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

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

79. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as he satisfies the Restitution 

Obligation and CMP Obligation, Higgins shall provide written notice to the Commission by 

reasonable means of any change to his telephone numbers and mailing addresses within ten 

calendar days of the change. 

80. Invalidation: If any provision of this Order or if the application of any provision 

or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this Order and the application of the 

provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the holding. 

81. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of 

this action to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to this action, 

including any motion by Defendants to modify or for relief from the terms of this Order. 

82. Injunctive and Equitable Relief: The injunctive and equitable relief provisions 

of this Order shall be binding upon the following persons who receive actual notice of this Order, 

by personal service or otherwise: (1) Higgins; (2) any officer, agent, servant, employee, or 

attorney of Higgins; and (3) any other persons who are in active concert or participation with any 

persons described in subsections (1) and (2) above. 

83. Th.ere being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to 

enter this Order for Final Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, 

and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief forthwith and without further notice. 

27 
Case 1:22-cv-01266-RGA Document 138 Filed 06/30/23 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 3487

{h 

IT SO ORDERED, at Wilmington, Delaware on this 3o day ofJ;i'( 2023, at 

.m. 

28