Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, Case No: 1:19-CV-544

v. 

Hon.____________________ 

PETER SZATMARI,

Defendant. 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

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

independent federal agency, by and through its attorneys alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

1. Between at least 2014 and December 2016 (“Relevant Period”), Defendant Peter 

Szatmari and his business partner (“Partner”) created and disseminated millions of fraudulent 

solicitations to convince recipients to open and fund binary options trading accounts on websites 

operated by unregistered, off-exchange brokers. These solicitations, which included emails, 

websites, promotional videos, advertorials, and social media, enticed recipients with false and 

misleading promises that free automated trading software would trade binary options in their 

accounts, generating significant profits. Many of their solicitations used fictitious testimonials 

from actors or fake personalities who claimed to be successful owners or profitable users of the 

software. Other solicitations depicted fake bank and trading statements or simulated trading 

demonstrations showing profits purportedly made from trading binary options. 
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1 

2. Over the Relevant Period, Szatmari and Partner generated profits of at least 

$3.8 million from binary options brokers, who paid them a flat fee for each new account that was 

opened and funded as a result of their solicitations. 

3. Szatmari intentionally or recklessly disregarded that the testimonials depicted in 

his solicitations were fictitious, that the automated trading software did not work as claimed and 

resulted in trading losses, and that investors who deposit funds with brokers for binary options 

trading generally lose their funds and are unlikely to earn any profits, much less significant 

profits. Nevertheless, Szatmari and Partner disseminated solicitations that downplayed the risks 

involved in trading binary options by using minimal or no risk disclosures, or in some cases by 

disclaiming risk entirely and guaranteeing profits. 

4. By engaging in this conduct and the conduct further described herein, Szatmari 

has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in certain violations of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2012), and CFTC Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-

190 (2019). 

5. Specifically, Szatmari violated the following provisions of the Act and 

Regulations: 

(a) Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2012), and Regulation 

32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019), by engaging in fraud in connection with 

commodity options transactions; 

(b) Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2012), by engaging in 

fraud as a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”); 

(c) Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 

180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2019), by using or employing a 

2
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1 

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, making false or misleading 

material statements, and engaging in acts that operate or would operate as a fraud 

or deceit on any person, in connection with swaps; and 

(d) Regulations 4.41(a)(1)-(3) and (b)(1)-(2), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a)(1)-

(3), (b)(1)-(2) (2019), by engaging in fraudulent advertising by a CTA and not 

making required risk disclosures.

6. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Szatmari is likely to continue 

engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint or in similar acts and practices. 

Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 

(2012), to enjoin Szatmari’s unlawful acts and practices and to compel his compliance with the 

Act and Regulations. The CFTC also seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary 

relief, including restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, trading and 

registration bans, and such other equitable relief as this Court may deem necessary and

appropriate.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), which authorizes the CFTC to seek injunctive and other relief 

against any person whenever it appears to the CFTC 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.

8. Venue lies properly in this District pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(e) (2012), because Szatmari transacted business in this District, and certain of the acts 

and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations occurred within this District, among other 

places.

3
 

Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1 

III. THE PARTIES 

9. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations.

10. Defendant Peter Szatmari was a resident of Hawaii during the Relevant Period. 

Szatmari has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

IV. FACTS

A. Szatmari Was an Affiliate Marketer for Binary Options

11. Affiliate marketing is a form of performance-based marketing that promotes third 

party products or services and is typically conducted via solicitations that the affiliate marketer 

emails to recipients and/or posts on the internet.

12. Every time the affiliate marketer’s solicitations result in a person taking a specific 

action, such as buying a third party’s product or service, the third party typically pays the 

affiliate marketer a fee. 

13. Between at least 2014 and December 2016, Szatmari and Partner were affiliate 

marketers, including for binary options. 

14. A binary option is a type of option contract in which the payout depends entirely 

on the outcome of a discrete event and is typically in the form of a binary “yes” or “no” 

proposition. That proposition typically relates to whether—yes or no—the price of a particular 

asset, such as a currency pair or commodity future, will exceed or fall below a specified amount 

at a specified date and time. The investor only makes money if his yes or no prediction is 

correct.

4
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1 

15. For every new account opened and funded as a result of their solicitations, 

Szatmari and Partner were paid a flat fee, usually between $350 and $450, from the broker with 

whom the account was opened. 

16. During the Relevant Period, Szatmari and Partner tracked the success of their 

binary options solicitations. Solicitations they created and disseminated for these six campaigns 

were, in all, viewed thousands of times by prospective investors, including prospective investors 

located in the United States, in approximately 350,000 website visits. As a result of those views, 

approximately 25,000 victims opened accounts with unregistered, off-exchange brokers and 

funded their accounts with initial deposits, usually of $250 or more. These newly opened and 

funded accounts generated profits for Szatmari and Partner of at least $3.8 million in fees paid by 

binary options brokers. 

17. For their binary options-related affiliate marketing, Szatmari and Partner shared 

some tasks and split others. Szatmari’s work included identifying, soliciting, and/or negotiating 

with binary options brokers regarding fees and other matters; creating solicitation materials; 

obtaining, rebranding, and distributing the promoted automated trading software; performing 

accounting functions; and arranging for the bulk dissemination of solicitations, including through 

social media. Partner’s work included monitoring customer service email addresses associated 

with their solicitations; registering websites and developing their content and design; and 

arranging for the bulk dissemination of solicitations. 

18. Finally, Szatmari and Partner also engaged in what they referred to as 

“remarketing” by distributing, including using their own email lists, other affiliate marketers’ 

binary options-related solicitation materials for compensation.

5
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1 

B. Szatmari’s Binary Options-Related Affiliate Marketing Was Fraudulent 

19. During the Relevant Period, Szatmari and Partner created and disseminated false 

and misleading solicitations that promoted binary options trading in at least six different affiliate 

marketing campaigns: (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). Solicitations for these campaigns 

were designed to convince recipients to open and fund binary options trading accounts on 

websites operated by unregistered, off-exchange brokers, who paid Szatmari and Partner a fee 

for each new account opened and funded as a result of their solicitations. 

20. The solicitations Szatmari and Partner created and disseminated for these six 

campaigns included emails, websites, promotional videos, advertorials resembling news articles, 

and social media. They steered recipients to click on embedded electronic links that routed to 

binary options websites, where recipients would purportedly learn a “secret” method of making 

money using a trading system. 

21. For example, a Guaranteed Wealth email promised, “The best traders the trading 

community has ever known will help you earn over $15,000 without taking ANY payment 

>from [sic] you. Take advantage of their FREE mentorship NOW.” A Click Click Money email 

enticed recipients to “Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. PROFIT. That’s only 

7 clicks in total. And that’s all it takes to set up this software and profit from it on complete 

autopilot . . . . But don’t take my word for it. Have a look at how these beta testers got on 

(without paying a pennyfor [sic] this software)[.] Do me a favor? Email me tomorrow and let me

know how much you made in 24 hours. If it isn’t more than at least $1,000 I’ll retire and never email you 

again. That’s a promise! Get in there (for FREE) before someone else beats you to it.”

6
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1 

22. Similarly, the binary options websites to which solicitation recipients were routed 

after clicking on the embedded electronic links typically promoted automated trading software 

that would trade binary options and generate significant profits, all for “free” if the solicitation 

recipient opened and funded a binary options trading account at a recommended broker. 

23. Szatmari and Partner made numerous false and misleading representations in their 

solicitation materials about profits, including that trading binary options using the promoted 

automated trading software had generated significant profits for prior users and would generate 

significant, even guaranteed, profits for recipients of their solicitation materials. None of these 

profit claims was supported by trading results of actual investors who used the automated trading 

software. To the contrary, Szatmari and Partner intentionally or recklessly disregarded that 

investors who deposit funds with brokers for binary options trading generally lose their funds 

and that investors are unlikely to earn any profit, much less a significant profit, from trading 

binary options using automated trading software. 

24. For example, Szatmari and Partner claimed in emails for their Automated Money 

Kit campaign 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 solicited recipients of Click Click Money campaign emails to “Take advantage of this 

unique money making strategy to bank at least $800 a day.” Their Cash Code / Robert Allen 

System campaign materials 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 claims was supported by the trading results of actual investors who used the promoted 

software, nor were they likely to be replicated by future software users. 

7
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1 

25. Szatmari and Partner also made numerous false and misleading representations 

about the functionality, reliability, or even existence of the automated trading software they 

promoted. In doing so, they intentionally or recklessly disregarded that the software had not 

been tested and did not work as claimed, as they did not test the software themselves and 

received numerous complaints from investors who lost money using the software. 

26. For example, in an advertorial they wrote and disseminated for The Cash Code / 

Robert Allen System campaign, Szatmari 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 before now 

being made available to the public for free. In fact, “Robert Allen” did not exist, and The Cash 

Code had been neither tested nor patented. On another occasion, the software they promoted did 

not exist, and they instead disseminated recycled software from a prior binary options campaign. 

27. In multiple solicitation materials, including written materials and videos featured 

on binary options websites, Szatmari and Partner used fictitious testimonials from actors or fake 

personalities, such as “Robert Allen,” who claimed to be successful owners or profitable users of 

automated trading software. However, they failed to disclose that the actors and fake 

personalities were not, in fact, actual owners or users of the software. They also failed to 

disclose that paid actors were, in fact, paid actors, or that testimonials were not representative of 

the experience of others or a guarantee of future performance or success.

28. In multiple solicitation materials, in particular videos featured on binary options 

websites, Szatmari and Partner depicted fake bank and trading account statements showing 

thousands of dollars or more in purported profits or simulated “live” trading demonstrations 

showing purported “real time” profits being made from trading binary options using automated 

8
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1 

trading software. However, Szatmari and Partner failed to disclose that the depicted trading 

results were simulated or hypothetical results and did not represent actual trading results.

29. Szatmari and Partner minimized the risks of trading binary options in numerous 

solicitation materials, including no statements regarding risk in some solicitation materials and 

explicitly disclaiming any risk in others. In doing so, they intentionally or recklessly disregarded 

that binary options trading involves the risk of loss, and that investors who deposit funds with 

brokers for binary options trading generally lose their funds and are unlikely to earn any profit 

from trading binary options using automated trading software. 

30. For example, a “Guaranteed Wealth” email disseminated by Szatmari and Partner 

stated “YOU can NOT lose.. [sic] period.” This statement was baseless. 

31. Szatmari and Partner failed to disclose in their solicitation materials that they 

received a fee from the binary options brokers they recommended every time a new account was 

opened and funded as a result of their solicitations, and that this fee arrangement was their sole 

basis for recommending brokers. 

32. Finally, in “remarketing” binary options-related solicitations of other affiliate 

marketers, Szatmari and Partner intentionally or recklessly disregarded that those materials 

included false and misleading statements about profits, trading activity, and risk of loss. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

COUNT I

OPTIONS FRAUD 

Violations of Sections 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2012), and 

Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019) 

33. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

9
 

Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1 

34. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), in relevant part, 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 CFTC rules or 

regulations “prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction under such terms

and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe.” 

35. 17 C.F.R. § 32.4, provides in relevant part 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.”

36. Szatmari violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 during the Relevant 

Period by, among other things, making misrepresentations in affiliate marketing solicitations that 

he and Partner created and disseminated to convince recipients to open and fund binary options 

trading accounts to be traded using automated trading software, including the following: 

(1) misrepresenting that trading binary options would generate significant, even guaranteed, 

profits while minimizing or disclaiming any risks; (2) claiming that automated trading software 

had been tested and generated profits when, in reality, the software had not been tested, did not 

work as claimed, and in some cases did not exist; (3) portraying actors or fake personalities as 

actual owners or users of automated trading software, without disclosing that they were not real 

10
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1 

users of the software; and (4) depicting fictitious trading results as real. Szatmari engaged in the 

acts and practices described herein knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

37. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material facts related to trading activity, 

profits, losses, and risks, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged 

as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2012) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

COUNT II

FRAUD BY A CTA 

Violations of Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2012) 

38. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

39. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) 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.” 

40. Section 1a(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12) (2012), defines a CTA 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 or advisability of 

trading in any swap or commodity option.

41. During the Relevant Period, Szatmari acted as a CTA by advising recipients of his 

affiliate marketing solicitations, which included emails, websites, promotional videos, 

advertorials, and social media, as to the value and advisability of opening and funding binary 

options trading accounts to be traded using automated trading software. Szatmari did so for 

11
 

Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1 

compensation or profit, as he earned a fee for each person that opened and funded a binary 

options trading account as a result of his solicitations. 

42. Szatmari violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) during the Relevant Period by, among other 

things, making misrepresentations in affiliate marketing solicitations that he and Partner created 

and disseminated to convince recipients to open and fund binary options trading accounts to be 

traded using automated trading software, including the following: (1) misrepresenting that 

trading binary options would generate significant, even guaranteed, profits while minimizing or 

disclaiming any risks; (2) claiming that automated trading software had been tested and 

generated profits when, in reality, the software had not been tested, did not work as claimed, and 

in some cases did not exist; (3) portraying actors or fake personalities as actual owners or users 

of automated trading software, without disclosing that they were not real users of the software; 

and (4) depicting fictitious trading results as real, all while acting as a CTA and using 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Szatmari engaged in the acts and practices described 

herein knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

43. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material facts related to trading activity, 

profits, losses, and risks, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged 

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

COUNT III

MANIPULATIVE OR DECEPTIVE DEVICE, SCHEME, OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD 

Violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act,7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.1(a) (1)-

(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2019) 

44. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

45. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) 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 

12
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1 

any swap . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of such rules 

and regulations as the Commission shall promulgate . . . .” 

46. 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), in part, 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.” 

47. Binary options qualify as swaps pursuant to Section 1a(47)(A) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A) (2012), which 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.

48. Szatmari violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) during the 

Relevant Period by, among other things, making misrepresentations in affiliate marketing 

solicitations that he and Partner created and disseminated to convince recipients to open and fund 

binary options trading accounts to be traded using automated trading software, including the 

following: (1) misrepresenting that trading binary options would generate significant, even 

13
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1 

guaranteed, profits while minimizing or disclaiming any risks; (2) claiming that automated 

trading software had been tested and generated profits when, in reality, the software had not been 

tested, did not work as claimed, and in some cases did not exist; (3) portraying actors or fake 

personalities as actual owners or users of automated trading software, without disclosing that 

they were not real users of the software; and (4) depicting fictitious trading results as real, all 

while acting as a CTA and using instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Szatmari engaged in 

the acts and practices described herein knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

49. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material facts related to trading activity, 

profits, losses, and risks, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged 

as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

COUNT IV 

FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING BY A CTA 

Violations of Regulation 4.41(a)(1)-(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(1)-(2) (2019) 

50. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

51. 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(1)-(2), in part, prohibits a CTA from advertising in a manner 

that “(1) Employs any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” any client or prospective client, or 

“(2) Involves any transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit 

upon” any client or prospective client.

52. Szatmari violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(1)-(2) during the Relevant Period by, 

among other things, making misrepresentations in affiliate marketing solicitations that he and 

Partner created and disseminated to convince recipients to open and fund binary options trading 

accounts to be traded using automated trading software, including the following: 

(1) misrepresenting that trading binary options would generate significant, even guaranteed, 

14
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1 

profits while minimizing or disclaiming any risks; (2) claiming that automated trading software 

had been tested and generated profits when, in reality, the software had not been tested, did not 

work as claimed, and in some cases did not exist; (3) portraying actors or fake personalities as 

actual owners or users of automated trading software, without disclosing that they were not real 

users of the software; and (4) depicting fictitious trading results as real, all while acting as a 

CTA. Szatmari engaged in the acts and practices described herein knowingly or with reckless 

disregard for the truth.

53. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material facts related to trading activity, 

profits, and losses, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(1)-(2).

COUNT V

FAILURE TO INCLUDE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES BY A CTA 

Violations of Regulation 4.41(a)(3) and (b)(1)-(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(3), (b)(1)-(2) (2019) 

54. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

55. 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(3) 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.”

56. 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(1)-(2) requires CTAs to include specific disclosures in 

immediate proximity to any simulated or hypothetical performance presented in advertisements, 

including a statement that “These results are based on simulated or hypothetical performance 

15
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1 

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

record, these results do not represent actual trading.” 

57. Szatmari violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(3) and (b)(1)-(2) during the Relevant Period 

by, while acting as a CTA, using in binary options solicitations fictitious testimonials from actors 

or fake personalities who claimed to be successful owners or profitable users of the software 

without prominently disclosing that the testimonials: (i) were not representative of the 

experience of other clients; (ii) were no guarantee of future performance or success; or (iii) paid, 

where portrayed by paid actors.

58. Szatmari violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(1)-(2) during the Relevant Period by, while 

acting as a CTA, using in binary options solicitations simulated or hypothetical performance 

returns without including the specific disclosures required by 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(b)(1)-(2).

59. Each act of using testimonials and simulated or hypothetical trading results in 

solicitations as a CTA without making required disclosures, including, but not limited to, those 

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

§ 4.41(a)(3) and (b)(1)-(2). 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

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

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), and pursuant to its equitable powers: 

A. Find that Szatmari violated Sections 4c(b), 4o(1), and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6c(b), 6o(1), 9(1) (2012), and Regulations 4.41(a)(1)-(3) and (b)(1)-(2), 32.4, and 180.1(a)(1)-

(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a)(1)-(3), 4.41(b)(1)-(2), 32.4, 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2019); 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Szatmari, and his affiliates, 

agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons or entities in active 

16
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1 

concert with him, who receive actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from

engaging in conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 6o(1) and 9(1), and 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.41(a)(1)-(3), 4.41(b)(1)-(2), 32.4, 180.1(a)(1)-(3); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Szatmari, and his 

affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons or entities 

in active concert with him, from directly or indirectly: 

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

defined by Section la(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2012)); 

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

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019)) for accounts held in the name

of Szatmari or for accounts in which Szatmari has a direct or indirect interest; 

3. Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

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

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

interests; 

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

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

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

CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such registration or 

exemption from registration with the CFTC, except as provided for in Regulation 

4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2019); and 

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

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

17
Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1 

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

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

D. Enter an order requiring Szatmari, as well as any third-party transferee and/or 

successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all benefits 

received, including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading 

profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act 

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

E. Enter an order directing Szatmari, as well as any successors thereof, to make full 

restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations 

described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

F. Enter an order directing Szatmari to pay a civil monetary penalty assessed by the 

Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(d)(1) (2012), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599–

600, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2019), for each violation of the Act and 

Regulations, as described herein; 

G. Enter an order requiring Szatmari to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2) (2012); and 

18
 

Case 1:19-cv-00544 Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1 

H. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as this Court may deem

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Dated: October 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

 /s Susan Gradman 

Susan Gradman 

Camille Arnold 

Scott Williamson 

Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 W. Monroe St., Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60661 

p: (312) 596-0700 

f: (312) 596-0714 

carnold@cftc.gov 

sgradman@cftc.gov 

swilliamson@cftc.gov 

19