UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TROY MASON and ZTEGRITY, INC., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 4:21-cv-1902 

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS TROY MASON AND ZTEGRITY, INC. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 On June 9, 2021, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or 

“CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Troy Mason (“Mason”) and Ztegrity, Inc. 

(“Ztegrity”) (or collectively “Defendants”) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well 

as the imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the Commission’s Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 

17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). (ECF #1, hereinafter “Complaint”) 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Defendants without a 

trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Defendants Mason and Ztegrity: 

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

Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendants Mason and Ztegrity (“Consent 

Order”); 

United States District Court

Southern District of Texas

ENTERED

October 08, 2022

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 26
2 

2. Affirm that they have read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that 

no promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the 

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

induce consent to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledge service of the summons and Complaint; 

4. Admit the jurisdiction of this Court over them and the subject matter of this action 

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

5. Admit the jurisdiction of the Commission over the conduct and transactions at 

issue in this action pursuant to the Act; 

6. Admit that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e); 

7. Waive: 

(a) Any and all claims that they may possess under the Equal Access to 

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

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

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2021), relating to, or arising from, this 

action; 

(b) Any and all claims that they 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 action; 

(c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or 

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

any other relief, including this Consent Order; and 

(d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action; 

8. Consent to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over them for the purpose of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and for any other 

purpose relevant to this action, even if Defendants Mason or Ztegrity now or in the future resides

outside the jurisdiction of this Court; 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 26
3 

9. Agree that they will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on the ground, 

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

hereby waive any objection based thereon; 

10. Agree that neither they nor any of their agents or employees under their authority 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

understand and comply with this agreement; 

11. Admit to all of the findings made in this Consent Order and all of the allegations 

in the Complaint;

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

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

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

preclusive effect therein, without further proof;

13. Do not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the findings and 

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

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

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

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 26
4 

14. Agree to provide immediate notice to this Court and the Commission by certified 

mail, in the manner required by paragraph 79 of this Consent Order, of any bankruptcy 

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

and

15. Agree that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair the 

ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy against Defendants 

Mason or Ztegrity in any other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

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

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

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

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

The Parties to this Consent Order 

16. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations. 

17. Defendant Troy Mason resides in Grand Prairie, Texas. Mason has never been 

registered with the CFTC in any capacity. Mason is not a United States financial institution, 

registered broker or dealer, financial holding company, or investment bank holding company, or 

an associated person of any such entity, as each of those terms is defined by the Act. At all times 

relevant to the actions described in this Consent Order, Mason has been: 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 26
5 

(a) an agent and/or officer of Ztegrity; and 

(b) operating the commodity pool known as, among other things, the Forex 

Savings Club by, among other things, soliciting pool participants throughout 

the United States, including within the State of Texas and, more specifically, 

within the Southern District of Texas. 

18. Defendant Ztegrity, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas with 

both a principal place of business and a registered office in Houston, Texas. Ztegrity has 

never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. Ztegrity is not a United States 

financial institution, registered broker or dealer, financial holding company, or investment 

bank holding company, or an associated person of any such entity, as each of those terms is 

defined by the Act. At all times relevant to the actions described in this Consent Order, 

Ztegrity has been: 

(a) controlled by Mason; and 

(b) operating the commodity pool known as, among other things, the Forex 

Savings Club by, among other things, soliciting participants throughout the 

United States, including within the State of Texas and, more specifically, 

within the Southern District of Texas. 

Overview of Defendants’ Scheme 

19. From at least October 2019 through at least June 2021 (the “Relevant Period”), 

the Defendants used the mails and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to 

engage in a business that was of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, 

or similar form of enterprise. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 26
6 

20. Specifically, the Defendants operated websites to solicit funds from members of 

the public in exchange for participation in the Forex Savings Club. Through the Defendants’ 

websites, the Defendants invited members of the public to send them between $100 and 

$10,000 to be used by the Defendants, and/or by others the Defendants directed or controlled, 

to trade commodity interests, namely, forex. In exchange for participants’ funds, the 

Defendants offered participants a percentage of the forex trading profits generated by the 

Forex Savings Club. 

21. For example, during the Relevant Period the Defendants’ websites stated as 

follows: 

Step 1. You supply us with capital ranging from $100 - $10,000. 

For legal purposes your money is classified as a loan which we 

guarantee will be repaid to you by no later than the expiration date 

of your contract. 

Step 2. We issue you a 12 month contract in exchange for your 

money. ($100 = $100 contract, $5,000 = $5,000 contract) The 

contract allows you to earn a specific percentage of the profits we 

generate from our Forex trading account. 

Step 3. When your account grows to 100% of your contract 

amount we pay you back 100% of your money plus profits. 

Step 4. You will continue to receive 100% payments plus profits 

from your contract each time your account surpasses 100% of the 

contract amount until your contract expires. Your money could 

easily multiply many times over the year. 

Step 5. Each time you send us money for the Forex Savings Club 

we issue you another 12 month contract for that amount. 

22. These statements were materially false and/or materially misleading because, 

among other things, the Defendants could not guarantee that they would not sustain losses 

trading forex with participants’ funds such that the Defendants would be able to repay the 

money that participants “loan[ed]” them, and because the Defendants omitted material facts 

necessary to make these statements not materially false and/or materially misleading, 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 26
7 

including, among other things, the inherent risks involved in trading forex on a leveraged or 

margined basis, and that the Defendants had no U.S. forex trading accounts. 

23. In another example, during the Relevant Period, the Defendants’ websites stated 

as follows: 

The Black Club is a program designed to help our members earn a 

passive income. Imagine being part of a club that with a 100% 

certainty allows you to earn substantial profit without ever having 

to recruit a single person. Your bank offers you a savings account 

with a horrendous 1% to 3% return a year. That means that it 

could take over 35 years for your money to double. As a member 

of our Black Club we use the the [sic] money you loan us to 

generate additional revenue through a multitude of different 

projects and ventures and we share profits with you that can easily 

outperform the percentage your money is currently earning from 

your bank. This is a loan not an investment which is paid back to 

your over the course of a year! Please take a look at our video to 

get a better understanding as to how it works. 

24. These statements were materially false and/or materially misleading because, 

among other things, the Defendants could not guarantee “with a 100% certainty” that they 

would generate “substantial profit” for participants, and because the Defendants omitted 

material facts necessary to make these statements not materially false and/or materially 

misleading, including, among other things, the inherent risks involved in trading forex, and 

that the Defendants had no U.S. forex trading accounts. 

25. As indicated above, the Defendants’ websites also directed prospective 

participants to a video embedded in the Defendants’ websites that further described the 

workings of the Forex Savings Club. This video stated that by pooling participants funds 

together, the Defendants were able to retain “expert” forex traders who were purportedly able 

to provide participants with returns greater than those offered by banks to holders of savings 

accounts while offering similar levels of risk. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 26
8 

26. Specifically, the video stated as follows: 

When it comes to the Forex market we have found that often it is 

only made up of two types of people. The first type of people are 

those that are new to Forex, let’s call them the students, and the 

second type of people are those who understand and trades [sic] 

their own Forex account, let’s call these people Teachers. 

Often the only way for a new person to profit from the Forex 

market is to find someone willing to teach them how to trade. The 

problem is that everyone does not have the patience, level[-

]headedness and composure it takes to become a successful trader. 

That is why so many people lose their money and quit. 

We look at Forex differently. We let the experts do the trading for 

us. However there are a couple of problems we had to overcome 

for this concept to work. 

First it was next to impossible to find an expert to trade for us. 

You see trading someone else’s $100 or even $10,000 is of no 

interest to the good traders. However when we come together as a 

club with our tens of thousands of combined dollars it’s a little 

easier to find traders to work with us. 

Now for the second problem; most traders are simply accustomed 

to going after the big gains with high risk. We instruct[s] our 

traders to be conservative; all we want to do is beat the banks[’] 

return week after week[.] That’s it! We don’t need any homeruns 

because the banks are not even paying us 3% a year on our money. 

So here’s how our Forex Savings Club works. For legal purposes 

the money you place into our club is considered a loan to our 

company and over the course of the one[-]year term you will earn a 

percentage of the profits generated by our traders. Any and all 

payments made to you by the company is [sic] designed to pay you 

back the amount you loaned to the company. You cannot 

withdraw any money from your account until the amount you 

earned surpasses the amount of money you loaned the company. If 

you quit the Forex Savings Club before the end of your calendar 

year you are only due your loan money back and you will not be 

due ANY profits at all from the club! If you are a quitter please do 

not join our Forex Savings Club. However for those of you who 

are willing to follow the rules we feel confident that together we 

will easily outperform what we all are currently getting from our 

bank account. 

Welcome to our Forex Savings Club. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 26
9 

27. This video, coupled with the Defendants’ guarantees both to repay participants the 

amounts that they contributed and “to earn a substantial profit,” was materially misleading 

because it was willfully or recklessly designed to lead prospective participants into believing 

that funds contributed to the Forex Savings Club were as safe as funds contributed to a 

savings account at a bank, but would earn a greater rate of return. 

28. To further lead existing and prospective participants into believing that funds 

contributed to the Forex Savings Club were as safe as funds contributed to a savings account 

at a bank, the Defendants required participants to obtain a “debit card” called “zBlackcard,” 

which, in turn, required cardholders to contribute certain amounts to their respective accounts 

monthly. 

29. The Defendants also posted or had posted this video to the video sharing platform 

YouTube to solicit funds from prospective Forex Savings Club participants. 

30. Any attempts by the Defendants to provide participants with notice of risks 

associated with the Forex Savings Club were insufficient to render the statements made by 

the Defendants on the Defendants websites, including in the embedded videos, not 

misleading with respect to material facts. 

31. In addition, throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendants claimed to have 

received and accepted funds that members of the public sent them as a result of their 

solicitations for participation in the Forex Savings Club. The Defendants’ websites claimed 

that the Forex Savings Club had received over $460,000 from 411 participants as of July 31, 

2020, the last date for which this information was published on the Defendants’ websites. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 26
10 

32. The funds received by the Defendants in connection with the Forex Savings Club 

were contributed by one or more persons who were not eligible contract participants 

(“ECPs”), and at no time did the Defendants limit their solicitations to ECPs. 

33. At no time during the Relevant Period were the Defendants registered with the 

CFTC as commodity pool operators. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

34. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

(codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that U.S. district courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency 

expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress). Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), 

provides that the Commission may bring actions for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance 

with the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder in the proper district court of the United 

States whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or 

is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or 

any rule, regulation, or order thereunder.

35. The Court has jurisdiction over Mason because Mason’s transactions, acts, 

practices, and courses of business at issue in this Complaint occurred within this District. 

36. The Court has jurisdiction over Ztegrity because it has a principal place of 

business in this District and because Ztegrity’s transactions, acts, practices, and courses of 

business at issue in this Complaint occurred within this District. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 26
11 

37. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(e), because Defendants transacted business in this District, and/or certain transactions, 

acts, practices, and courses of business at issue in this Complaint occurred within this District. 

Forex Fraud 

38. Under Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), it 

is unlawful: 

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

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

delivery . . . that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf of, or 

with, any other person other than on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market—(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to 

cheat or defraud the other person; . . . [or] (C) willfully to deceive 

or attempt to deceive the other person by any means whatsoever in 

regard to any order or contract or the disposition or execution of 

any order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency performed, 

with respect to any order or contract for or, in the case of 

paragraph (2), with the other person. 

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

§ 6b applies to forex transactions, agreements, and contracts that are offered to, or entered into 

with, any person that is not an ECP (“retail forex transactions”) “as if the agreement, contract, or 

transaction were a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.” Similarly, Section 

2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), provides that 7 U.S.C. § 6b shall apply to 

retail forex transactions and pooled investment vehicles that engage in retail forex transactions. 

40. Under Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) (2021), it is unlawful: 

[F]or any person, by use of the mails, or by any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in or 

in connection with any retail forex transaction: (1) to cheat or 

defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; . . . or 

(3) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any 

means whatsoever. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 26
12 

41. As described herein, the Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3) by cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, other 

persons, and/or by willfully deceiving or attempting to deceive other persons in connection with 

the offering of, or entering into, the off-exchange leveraged or margined retail forex transactions, 

to wit, by making statements to existing and prospective participants that were false or 

misleading with respect to a material fact, including, among other things, that the Forex Savings 

Club “with a 100% certainty allows you to earn substantial profit,” and that “[f]or legal purposes 

your money is classified as a loan which we guarantee will be repaid to you by no later than the 

expiration date of your contract”; and by making statements to existing and prospective 

participants that were materially false and/or materially misleading because they omitted 

material facts, including, but not limited to, that no forex trader can guarantee trading profits, 

guarantee that participants would not sustain losses, or otherwise minimize the risks associated 

with trading forex, and that the Defendants had no U.S forex trading accounts. 

42. The Defendants committed the acts and practices described above using means 

and/or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the use of the internet and interstate 

wires for the transfer of funds. 

43. The Defendants committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, or 

with reckless disregard for the truth. 

44. Each act of material misrepresentation or material omission, and/or act or 

omission that did or attempted to cheat and/or deceive another, including but not limited to those 

specifically described herein, and each day such act or omission occurred, is a separate and 

distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3). 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 26
13 

Failure to Register as Commodity Pool Operators 

45. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), prohibits 

any unregistered person from “operat[ing] or solicit[ing] funds, securities, or property for any 

pooled investment vehicle that is not an eligible contract participant in connection with 

agreements, contracts, or transactions in [forex].” 

46. Section 1a(18) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18), defines eligible contract participants, 

in pertinent part, as individuals who have in excess of $10,000,000 invested on their behalves on 

a discretionary basis, or who have in excess of $5,000,000 invested on their behalves and who 

enter into the agreement, contract, or transaction in order to manage the risk associated with an 

asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the 

individuals, or a commodity pool comprised of participants whom are all eligible contract 

participants. 

47. Accordingly, through the conduct described above, the unregistered Defendants 

have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) by operating the Forex Savings Club, a pooled 

investment vehicle that is not an ECP, for the purpose of trading forex; and by soliciting, 

accepting, and/or receiving funds or other property from individuals who are not ECPs for the 

Forex Savings Club, a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP, for the purpose of trading 

forex. 

48. Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful 

for any . . . commodity pool operator, unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the 

mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as 

such . . . commodity pool operator[.]” 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 26
14 

49. Section 1a(11)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i)(II) defines a 

commodity pool operator as any person: 

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

investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, 

in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, 

funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital 

contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or 

otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, 

including any . . . agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of this title or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of this title 

. . . . 

50. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i), defines “commodity 

interests” to include agreements, contracts, and transactions in foreign currency on a leveraged or 

margined basis that are “offered to, or entered into with, a person that is not an eligible contract 

participant.” 

51. In addition to Section 1a(11)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i)(II), 

pursuant to Section 1a(11)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(B), and Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2021), defines a commodity pool operator as “any person who operates or 

solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle that is not an eligible 

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

transactions.” 

52. Accordingly, through the conduct described above, the unregistered Defendants 

have violated 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) by using the mails and other means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce to solicit, accept, and/or receive funds or other property, either directly or 

otherwise, from individuals who were and are not ECPs, for the purpose of trading in commodity 

interests, including margined or leveraged forex. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 26
15 

53. Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i), requires commodity pool 

operators to be registered with the Commission for purposes of their pool’s retail forex 

transactions. 

54. Accordingly, through the conduct described above, the Defendants have violated 

17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) by acting as unregistered commodity pool operators. 

55. Each instance during the Relevant Period in which the Defendants acted as 

unregistered commodity pool operators, including, but not limited to, those specifically described 

herein, and each day on which such unregistered conduct took place, is a separate and distinct 

violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i). 

Fraud by a Commodity Pool Operator 

56. Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) and (vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), (vii), 

provide that 7 U.S.C. § 6o applies to pooled investment vehicles engaging in retail forex 

transactions. 

57. Pursuant to Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1), it is unlawful for a 

commodity pool operator to use “the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly—(A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any . 

. . participant or prospective . . . participant; or (B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or 

course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any . . . participant or prospective . . . 

participant.” 

58. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendants operated the Forex Savings Club 

as a business that was of the nature of a commodity pool. 

59. During the Relevant Period, while operating the Forex Savings Club as a business 

that was of the nature of a commodity pool, the Defendants used the internet, interstate wires, 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 26
16 

and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, to employ a 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud existing and prospective participants, and to engage in 

transactions, practices, or a course of business that operated and is operating as a fraud or deceit 

upon existing and prospective participants; to wit, by making statements to existing and 

prospective participants that were false or misleading with respect to a material fact, including, 

among other things, that the Forex Savings Club “with a 100% certainty allows you to earn 

substantial profit,” and that “[f]or legal purposes your money is classified as a loan which we 

guarantee will be repaid to you by no later than the expiration date of your contract”; and by 

making statements to existing and prospective participants that were false or misleading because 

they omitted one or more material facts, including, but not limited to, that no forex trader can 

guarantee trading profits, guarantee that participants would not sustain losses, or otherwise 

minimize the risks associated with trading forex, and that the Defendants had no U.S forex 

trading accounts. 

60. By and through this conduct, the Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and 

(B). 

61. Each act of fraudulent solicitation and/or deception, including but not limited to 

those specifically described herein, and each day of such fraudulent solicitation and/or deception, 

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

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Mason and Ztegrity are permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 26
17 

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

or attempting to deceive other persons in or in connection with any order to make, 

or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future delivery that is 

made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market, for 

or on behalf of any other person, in violation of Section 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A), (C); 

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

or attempting to deceive other persons in or in connection with any order to make, 

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

swap, that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf of, or with, any other person, 

other than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market, in violation 

of Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), and 

Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2021); 

c. Using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly 

or indirectly, as a CPO or an AP of a CPO, to (A) employ any device, scheme, or 

artifice to defraud any participant; or (B) engage in any transaction, practice, or 

course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon any participant, in 

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

d. Failing to register as a CPO, in violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 

4m(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(l), and Regulation 

5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2021). 

63. Mason and Ztegrity are also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

directly or indirectly: 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 26
18 

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

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

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)) for their own personal accounts 

or for any account in which they have a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests traded on their behalf; 

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

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

interests; 

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

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

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and/or 

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

§ 3.1(a) (2021)), agent or any other officer or employee of any person (as that 

term is defined in Section 1a(38) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38), registered, 

exempted from registration or required to be registered with the Commission 

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

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 26
19 

V. RESTITUTION AND A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

A. Restitution 

64. Defendants shall pay restitution, jointly and severally, in the amount of six 

hundred forty-three thousand and five hundred seventy dollars ($643,570.00) (“Restitution 

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

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

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

Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

65. Defendants represent that they have partially repaid some of the funds taken in 

from defrauded pool participants. For those amounts already repaid by Defendants to pool 

participants, and for which the Defendants can prove repayment to the satisfaction of the CFTC, 

the Defendants shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution Obligation. 

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

restitution payments to Pool Participants, the Court appoints the National Futures Association 

(“NFA”) as monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive Restitution Obligation payments 

from Defendants made pursuant to this Consent Order and make distributions as set forth below. 

Because the Monitor is acting as an officer of this Court in performing these services, the NFA 

shall not be liable for any action or inaction arising from NFA’s appointment as Monitor, other 

than actions involving fraud. 

67. Any payment Defendants shall make in satisfaction of the Restitution Obligation 

under this Consent Order shall be made to the Monitor in the name “Troy Mason Settlement 

Account” and such payments shall be sent 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 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 19 of 26
20 

Administration, National Futures Association, 300 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, 

Illinois 60606 under cover letter that identifies the paying Defendants and the name and docket 

number of this proceeding. Defendants 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. 

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

to determine the manner of distribution of any such funds it obtains in an equitable fashion to 

Pool Participants 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 Pool Participants is impractical, the Monitor may, in its 

discretion, treat such restitution payments as civil monetary penalty payments, which the 

Monitor shall forward to the Commission following the instructions for civil monetary penalty 

payments set forth in Part V.B. below. 

69. Defendants shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such 

information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify Pool Participants to 

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

any Restitution Obligation payments. 

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

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Pool Participants during the previous year. 

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

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

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

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 20 of 26
21 

71. The amounts payable to each Pool Participant shall not limit the ability of any 

Pool Participant from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendants or any other 

person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of 

any Pool Participant that exist under state or common law. 

72. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each Pool Participant 

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

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

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

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

provision of this Consent Order. 

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

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

disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above. 

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

74. Defendants shall pay, jointly and severally, a civil monetary penalty in the amount 

of Three-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) (“CMP Obligation”). If the CMP Obligation is 

not paid immediately, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning 

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

prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

75. Defendants shall pay their 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 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 21 of 26
22 

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

below: 

MMAC/AMK-326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendants shall contact Tonia King or her 

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

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

that identifies Defendants and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendants shall 

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

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

NW, Washington, D.C. 20581 and to Deputy Director, Paul Hayeck, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Division of Enforcement, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. 

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

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

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

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

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

77. Asset Freeze: On June 10, 2021, the Court entered an asset freeze order 

prohibiting the transfer, removal, dissipation and disposal of Defendants’ assets (“Asset Freeze 

Order”), which was continued pursuant to the preliminary injunction order entered on July 14, 

2021. The Court hereby lifts the Asset Freeze Order. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 22 of 26
23 

D. Miscellaneous Provisions 

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

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

Notice to Commission: 

Paul Hayeck 

Deputy Director 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

1155 21st Street NW 

Washington, DC 20581

Notice to Defendants: 

Troy Mason, individually and on behalf of Ztegrity, Inc. 

2747 Neblina Court 

Grand Prairie, TX 75054 

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 Defendants satisfy in full their 

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

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

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

80. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This Consent Order incorporates all of the 

terms and conditions of the settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to 

amend or modify this Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to writing; 

(b) signed by all parties hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court. 

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

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

application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the 

holding. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 23 of 26
24 

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

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

right of the party or client at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of this 

Consent Order. No waiver in one or more instances of the breach of any provision contained in 

this Consent Order shall be deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of such 

breach or waiver of the breach of any other provision of this Consent Order. 

83. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Defendants waive service of this 

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

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

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

is filed with the Clerk of Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that Defendants have 

received and read a copy of this Consent Order. 

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

action to ensure compliance with this Consent 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 

Consent Order. 

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

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

authority or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Consent Order, by 

personal service, e-mail, facsimile or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Defendants. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 24 of 26
25 

86. Authority: Troy Mason hereby warrants that he is an agent and/or officer of 

Ztegrity, and that this Consent Order has been duly authorized by Ztegrity and he has been duly 

empowered to sign and submit this Consent Order on behalf of Ztegrity. 

87. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be executed in 

two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall 

become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto 

and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood that all 

parties need not sign the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other signature to this Consent 

Order that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as constituting good and 

valid execution and delivery by such party of this Consent Order. 

88. Contempt: Defendants understand that the terms of the Consent Order are 

enforceable through contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings they may not 

challenge the validity of this Consent Order. 

89. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendants shall comply with any and all 

undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

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

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

Against Defendants Troy Mason and Ztegrity, Inc., forthwith and without further notice. 

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 25 of 26

-
8/15/2022

7th October

Case 4:21-cv-01902 Document 40 Filed on 10/07/22 in TXSD Page 26 of 26

IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of • 2021. -- . ---------

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

Troy Mason 

President and Chief E."<ccutive Officer 

Zttgrity, Inc. 

2747 Neblina Court 

Grand Prairie, TX 75054 

Dote: %[ 1s/ ll. 

~ Troy Muon, individually 

2747 Ncblina Court 

Grand Prairie, TX 75054 

Approved as to fonn: 

~~ Nelson S. Ebaugh, P.C. 

3730 Kirby Drive 

Suite 1200 

Houston. TX 77098 

Attorneys for Defendants, Troy Mason and 

Ztegrity, Inc. 

~Q:-J,/c,49' 

G~anks.Jr. 

UNITED ST A~ DISTRICT JUDGE 

25 

Isl launn E. Bennett 

Lauren E. Bennett 

Trial Attorney 

Commodity Futura Tnding Commission 

1155 21 11 Stn:et NW 

Washington. DC 20581 

202-418•5290 

lbcnnctt@cftc.gov 

Date: ____ _