COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JAMES H. HOLL, III. CA Bar No. 177885 

W. DAMON DENNIS

SARAH MATLACK WASTLER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Telephone: (202) 418-5000

jholl@cftc.gov

wdennis@cftc.gov

swastler@cftc.gov

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESHAQ M. NAWABI, individually 

and d/b/a, NAWABI 

ENTERPRISE, and 

HYPERION CONSULTING INC., 

Defendants.

 

 

Civil Case No. 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 25
- 2 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or 

“CFTC”), by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least October 2019 through the present (the “Relevant Period”), 

Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion Consulting Inc. (“Hyperion”), by and through Eshaq 

M. Nawabi (“Nawabi”), and Nawabi, individually, (collectively, “Defendants”) 

operated a fraudulent scheme in which Defendants, by and through Nawabi, solicited, 

accepted, and misappropriated funds for a pooled investment in off-exchange 

leveraged or margined retail foreign currency exchange (“forex”) contracts (“forex 

pool”).

2. Defendants knowingly made fraudulent and material misrepresentations 

and omissions, in both conversations and written communications, about their forex 

trading and returns to persuade potential and existing forex pool participants (“Pool 

Participants”) to transfer funds to Defendants for the purpose of participating in a 

forex pool. At least seven Pool Participants transferred no less than $543,000 to 

Defendants for the purpose of participating in Defendants’ forex pool. 

3. To entice prospective Pool Participants, Defendants knowingly and 

falsely represented, among other things, that: (1) Defendants had historically made 

large profits (between 8–25% per month) for themselves and Pool Participants from 

trading forex; (2) Pool Participants would realize profits of 8–25% per month on their 

funds with minimal risk; (3) Defendants would trade forex with the funds deposited 

by Pool Participants; and (4) upon request, Pool Participants could withdraw their 

funds at any time.

4. Instead of trading as promised, Defendants misappropriated pool funds. 

While some of the misappropriated funds were used by Nawabi for his own personal 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 25
- 3 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

benefit, Defendants used other misappropriated pool funds to pay other Pool 

Participants in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme. 

5. To conceal Defendants’ misappropriation, Defendants created and issued 

false account statements that misrepresented trading returns purportedly earned by 

Pool Participants. When Pool Participants requested return of their funds, Defendants 

either ignored the requests, provided bogus promises and excuses, or engaged in 

conduct designed to delay payouts to Pool Participants for as long as possible.

6. Defendants’ fraudulent conduct is ongoing. Nawabi has made 

fraudulent excuses for not returning funds to at least one Pool Participant as recently 

as November 2021. As recently as March of 2022, Ponzi-like payments were made 

by Nawabi to another Pool Participant.

7. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, are acting as unregistered Commodity 

Pool Operators (“CPOs”), and Nawabi, is acting as an unregistered Associated Person 

(“AP”) of Nawabi Enterprise and/or Hyperion. 

8. Defendants also did not set up the forex pool in the manner required by 

the Regulations, did not receive Pool Participant funds in the name of the forex pool, 

and commingled Pool Participant funds with their own. 

9. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, 

Defendants have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in acts and practices 

in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C), 

6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)–(B), and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), and Commission Regulations 

(“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c), 5.2(b)(1)–(3), and 5.3(a)(2) (2021). 

10. At all relevant times, Nawabi’s acts were committed within the scope of 

his employment, agency, or office with Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion. Therefore, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2021), Nawabi Enterprise and 

Hyperion are liable as principals for Nawabi’s actions in violation of the Act and 

Regulations.

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 25
- 4 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. At all times during the Relevant Period, Nawabi was the controlling 

person of Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion and knowingly induced the underlying 

violations or failed to act in good faith. Therefore, pursuant 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Nawabi is liable as the controlling person for the actions of Nawabi Enterprise and 

Hyperion in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

12. Accordingly, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 and § 2(c)(2)(C), the 

Commission brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and 

to compel their compliance with the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties, restitution, and remedial 

ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, 

disgorgement, rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and further 

relief as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate. 

13. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants will likely 

continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint and similar acts 

and practices, as described below.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has 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). In addition, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, provides that the U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to hear 

actions brought by the Commission for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance 

with the Act whenever it shall appear to the Commission that a 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. 7 U.S.C. 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 25
- 5 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 2(c)(2)(C), subjects the forex solicitations and transactions at issue in this action to, 

inter alia, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b, 6o, as further described below.

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

because Defendants reside in, transact, or 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. Additionally, some of 

the defrauded Pool Participants reside in and were solicited in this District.

III. THE PARTIES

16. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the responsibility of 

administering and enforcing the provisions of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the 

Commission’s Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). 

17. Defendant Eshaq M. Nawabi is a resident of either Salida, California, 

or Manteca, California. Nawabi is the Chief Executive Officer of Hyperion. Nawabi 

also d/b/a Nawabi Enterprise. Nawabi has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

18. Defendant Nawabi Enterprise is an unincorporated California 

company. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi listed Nawabi Enterprise’s mailing 

address as a specific location in Salida, California, which, upon information and 

belief, is also one of Nawabi’s home addresses. Nawabi is Nawabi Enterprise’s 

control person. Nawabi Enterprise has never been registered with the Commission in 

any capacity. 

19. Defendant Hyperion Consulting Inc., was incorporated in California on 

November 23, 2020. During the Relevant Period, Hyperion’s address was listed as 

either in Tracy, California, or Manteca, California. Nawabi is both Hyperion’s Chief 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 25
- 6 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executive Officer (“CEO”) and control person. Hyperion has never been registered 

with the Commission in any capacity.

IV. FACTS

A. Defendants’ Fraudulent Solicitation

20. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi held himself out both as an 

unincorporated d/b/a “Nawabi Enterprise” and as the CEO of Hyperion.

21. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, through the acts of Nawabi, 

solicited prospective Pool Participants through telephone calls, emails, text messages, 

and word of mouth, seeking out individuals who would agree to let Nawabi trade 

forex on their behalf, ostensibly through his business ventures: Nawabi Enterprise 

and/or Hyperion.

22. Rather than open an account in the name of either or both enterprises, in 

the fall of 2019, Nawabi opened a joint personal checking account in his name and in 

the name of a family member at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), (the “Chase

account”). Nawabi subsequently opened two additional personal accounts at (i) Bank 

of America N.A. in August 2021 and (ii) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in August 2021, as 

well as a business account at (iii) U.S. Bank N.A. in Hyperion’s name in December 

2020 that Defendants used to receive and/or disburse Pool Participant funds (with the 

Chase account, collectively, the “Nawabi-controlled bank accounts”). The Nawabicontrolled bank accounts contained funds that were unrelated to Defendants’ 

purported forex pool. 

23. Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants, through Nawabi, falsely 

and fraudulently represented to Pool Participants that: (1) Defendants had 

historically made large profits (between 8–25% per month) for themselves and Pool 

Participants from trading forex; (2) Pool Participants would realize profits of 8–25% 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 25
- 7 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

per month on their funds with minimal risk; (3) Defendants would trade forex with 

the funds deposited by Pool Participants; and (4) Pool Participants could withdraw 

their funds within three to five business days of any such request. 

24. Additionally, Defendants represented to Pool Participants, inter alia, that

Nawabi: 

(i) pools his clients’ funds together and uses an algorithm he 

created to determine when to make trades on foreign currency; 

(ii) earned 10–12% per month during the prior 24-month period, 

13–15% per month over the prior 12 months, and 8–9% per 

month over the prior three months; 

(iii) operates two pooled trading accounts: a “conservative” account 

and an “aggressive” account, which earns about 20–25% per 

month; 

(iv) is being advised by an “SEC attorney” on all appropriate legal 

issues; 

(v) has $11 million in “his Forex investment fund” of which 

roughly 85% is of his own money; and 

(vi) would return a Pool Participant’s funds within three to five 

business days after the Pool Participant notified Nawabi of their 

intent to withdraw funds from the forex pool. 

25. The statements described in paragraphs 23 and 24 are false. As set forth 

more fully below, Defendants did not transfer any Pool Participant funds to a forex 

trading account. Moreover, Defendants repeatedly failed to timely return Pool 

Participants’ funds upon their request.

26. Defendants also, among other things, failed to disclose that they were 

not properly registered with the Commission; thus, they were not authorized to trade 

forex with Pool Participants’ funds. 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 25
- 8 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27. Based upon Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, Pool 

Participants entered into a written “Investment Agreement” with either Nawabi 

Enterprise or Hyperion, with Nawabi acting as the signatory for both entities. 

Nawabi provided the Investment Agreement to Pool Participants by email, or through 

other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. 

28. The Investment Agreement provided that “the Company shall earn profit 

[sic] for the Investor in a monthly changing APR [sic] until the termination. All 

profits left in will be compounded monthly.” The Investment Agreement also 

provided that the sole compensation for Defendants for their forex trading services 

was to be from “monthly profits” and varied in amount between 10% to 15%. The 

Investment Agreement included a provision indicating that Pool Participant funds 

were “secured” by “security equity in the fund,” and the “Minimum balance of 

equity” was identified as “$5,237,819.72.” 

29. Once an “Investment Agreement” was executed, Nawabi deposited Pool 

Participants’ funds into a Nawabi-controlled bank account, for participation in the

purported pooled forex trading. 

30. Through their misrepresentations and omissions ̧ at least seven Pool 

Participants deposited no less than $543,000 into the Nawabi-controlled accounts. 

B. Defendants Misappropriated Pool Participants’ Funds

31. During the Relevant Period, rather than using Pool Participants’ funds 

for trading forex, as Defendants had represented they would, Defendants, through the 

acts of Nawabi, instead used those Pool Participant funds for Nawabi’s personal 

benefit and to make Ponzi payments. 

32. Specifically, Nawabi used Pool Participants’ funds for, among other 

things, purchases at luxury car dealerships, retail purchases, an Onlyfans.com 

account, meals, entertainment, travel, and cash withdrawals. 

33. As one example, on January 24, 2020, a Pool Participant made a $50,000 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 8 of 25
- 9 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deposit into the Chase account and all of the funds were used to pay expenses 

unrelated to trading forex. Nawabi used the majority of the funds for a $40,000 

payment to a car dealer in Redwood City, California, and used the remainder to pay 

for food, his cell phone expense, and gas.

34. To the extent some Pool Participants have received funds back from 

Defendants, those funds did not originate from any known forex trading firm. In at 

least one instance, funds paid to a Pool Participant were misappropriated by 

Defendants from other Pool Participants, in the nature of a Ponzi scheme. 

35. Further, as recently as March of 2022, Ponzi payments were made by 

Nawabi to a Pool Participant. 

36. To date, despite repeated requests to Nawabi for the return of their 

funds, multiple Pool Participants have not received their funds back from the 

Defendants. 

37. For example, in mid-October 2021, one Pool Participant attempted to 

terminate his Investment Agreement with Defendants, and demanded a return of his 

funds. However, Nawabi failed to return any of his funds, instead, making numerous 

implausible excuses regarding his failure to do so. 

38. In addition, Nawabi has made fraudulent excuses for not returning funds 

to at least one Pool Participant as recently as November 2021. 

C. False Account Statements

39. To conceal their lack of forex trading and misappropriation of Pool 

Participant money, Defendants, through Nawabi, issued false monthly account 

statements and made other oral and written misrepresentations to lull Pool 

Participants into leaving their funds in Defendants’ control. 

40. Defendants routinely failed to send pool participants monthly account 

statements or when they did send them, they were often sent late. This conduct 

caused more than one Pool Participant to make repeated requests to Nawabi to send 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 9 of 25
- 10 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the monthly account statements.

41. When Nawabi did issue account statements to Pool Participants 

supposedly reflecting forex trading and profits, they were false. 

42. For example, despite receiving monthly account statements showing 

gains of roughly 8–9% per month, one Pool Participant began to question the 

legitimacy of Nawabi’s forex trading because he noticed that his monthly account 

statements appeared to have been altered, as the columns and rows were aligned 

differently on different parts of the page, suggesting that the text had been manually 

shifted (rather than caused by a file conversion error).

43. Further, several Pool Participants noted that their statements contained 

inaccurate/conflicting information, as the stated amount of profit earned from the 

trading did not match the profit percentage calculated. 

44. In addition to issuing the monthly account statements, Nawabi advised 

some Pool Participants, both orally and in written communications, that their funds 

were making profits. 

45. The profit representations made by Defendants in the monthly account 

statements and in other oral and written communications are false. There is no 

evidence that Defendants transferred any Pool Participant funds to a forex trading

account. Rather, Defendants misappropriated Pool Participant funds for Nawabi’s 

personal use and to make Ponzi payments. 

D. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion Are Unregistered CPOs, and Nawabi Is 

an Unregistered AP of a CPO

46. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, through 

Nawabi, each are acting as an unregistered CPO by soliciting funds from individuals 

who were not Eligible Contract Participants (“ECP”), as defined in 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(18)(A)(xi), for a forex pool that was not an ECP, as defined in 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(18)(A)(iv), for the purpose of engaging in retail forex transactions.

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 10 of 25
- 11 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi is acting as an unregistered AP of 

two CPOs by soliciting Pool Participants and prospective Pool Participants for 

participation in a forex pool, while associated with Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion

as a partner, officer, employee, or similar agent.

E. Nawabi Is a Controlling Person of Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion

48. Nawabi is a controlling person of both Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion. 

As stated above, Nawabi was interchangeable with Nawabi Enterprise. In fact, 

Nawabi did business as Nawabi Enterprise, an unincorporated entity. Nawabi was 

also Hyperion’s CEO. Specifically, Nawabi executed Investment Agreements on 

behalf of Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion; represented to Pool Participants that he 

was personally and solely responsible for trading Pool Participant funds; and was the 

sole source of information for Pool Participants regarding Nawabi Enterprise and 

Hyperion, including any information regarding the status of their funds. Nawabi also

had control over the Nawabi-controlled bank accounts into which Pool Participants 

transferred funds for the purported purpose of trading forex.

F. Nawabi Is Acting as an Agent for Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion

49. Through his solicitation of prospective and existing Pool Participants 

and his continued communication with Pool Participants regarding their purported 

trading success on behalf of both Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, Nawabi is acting

as an agent of both entities. 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 11 of 25
- 12 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND 

COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT ONE

Violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) (2021) 

(Forex Fraud by Misappropriation, Misrepresentations and Omissions, and

False Statements)

(All Defendants)

50. Paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

51. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C) makes it unlawful:

(2) for 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;

(B) willfully to make or cause to be made to the other 

person any false report or statement or willfully to enter 

or cause to be entered for the other person any false 

record; [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[.]

52. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(A)(xi), defines an ECP, in relevant part, as an 

individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which 

exceeds $10 million, or $5 million if the individual enters into the transaction to 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 12 of 25
- 13 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

manage the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably 

likely to be owned or incurred, by the individual. 

53. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(iv), defines a commodity pool as having assets 

exceeding $5,000,000 and “formed and operated by a person subject to regulation 

under this chapter or a foreign person performing a similar role or function subject as 

such to foreign regulation (regardless of whether each investor in the commodity pool 

or the foreign person is itself an eligible contract participant) provided, however, that 

for purposes of section 2(c)(2)(B)(vi) of this title and section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of this 

title, the term ‘eligible contract participant’ shall not include a commodity pool in 

which any participant is not otherwise an eligible contract participant.” 

54. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), “[a]greements, contracts, or 

transactions” in retail forex “shall be subject to . . . [7 U.S.C. §] 6b,” except in 

circumstances not relevant here. Moreover, under 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv), 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b applies to forex transactions described herein “as if” they were a contract of sale 

of a commodity for future delivery because they were “offered to, or entered into 

with, a person that is not an” ECP. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), “[t]his Act 

applies to, and the Commission shall have jurisdiction over an account or pooled 

investment vehicle that is offered for the purpose of trading, or that trades,” forex 

agreements, contracts, or transactions described in 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i). 

55. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) provides, in relevant part, that:

[i]t shall be unlawful for 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; 

(2) Willfully to make or cause to be made to any person 

any false report or statement or cause to be entered 

for any person any false record; or 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 13 of 25
- 14 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(3) Willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person 

by any means whatsoever.

56. Defendants, by use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in connection with retail forex 

transactions, knowingly or recklessly: (1) misappropriated Pool Participant funds; 

(2) made material misrepresentations and omissions with scienter regarding, among 

other things, the profitability of trading forex with Defendants; and (3) issued false 

monthly account statements to conceal their fraudulent conduct.

57. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–

(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)–(3). 

58. The foregoing acts, misrepresentations, omissions, and failures occurred 

within the scope of Nawabi’s employment or office with Nawabi Enterprise and/or 

Hyperion. Therefore, Nawabi Enterprise and/or Hyperion are liable for his acts, 

misrepresentations, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)–(3), pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2.

59. Nawabi controls Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, directly or indirectly, 

and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Nawabi 

Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s conduct alleged in this Count. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b), Nawabi is liable for Nawabi Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s violations of 7 

U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)–(3).

60. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation and omission of material fact, 

and false statement, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is 

alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C) and 17 

C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)–(3).

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 14 of 25
- 15 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT TWO 

Violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)–(B) 

(Fraud and Deceit by CPOs and an AP of CPOs)

(All Defendants)

61. Paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

62. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in relevant part, as any person: 

engaged 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— 

i. commodity for future delivery, security futures 

product, or swap; [or] 

ii. agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

[S]ection 2(c)(2)(C)(i) [of the Act] or [S]ection 

2(c)(2)(D)(i) [of the Act]. 

63. Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2021), and subject to certain 

exceptions not relevant here, any person who operates or solicits funds, securities, or 

property for a pooled investment vehicle and engages in retail forex transactions is 

defined as a CPO. 

64. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), “[a]greements, contracts, or 

transactions” in retail forex and accounts or pooled investment vehicles in retail forex 

“shall be subject to . . . [7 U.S.C. §] 6o,” except in circumstances not relevant here. 

65. Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021), defines an AP of a CPO as any 

natural person associated with:

(3) A [CPO] as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or 

agent (or any natural person occupying a similar status or 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 15 of 25
- 16 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

performing similar functions), in any capacity which involves 

(i) the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a 

participation in a commodity pool or (ii) the supervision of any 

person or persons so engaged[.]

66. Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2), any person associated with a CPO “as 

a partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent (or any natural person occupying a 

similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which involves: (i)

[t]he solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a pooled 

investment vehicle; or (ii) [t]he supervision of any person or persons so engaged” is 

an AP of a CPO. 

67. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion solicited 

funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle for the purpose of 

engaging in retail forex transactions; therefore, Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion are 

acting as CPOs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) and17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1). 

68. During the Relevant Period, Nawabi was associated with Nawabi 

Enterprise and Hyperion, both CPOs, as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or 

agent in a capacity that involved the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for 

participation in a commodity pool. Therefore, Nawabi was an AP of two CPOs as 

defined by 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 and 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2). 

69. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered 

with the Commission or not, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, from (A) employing devices, schemes or 

artifices to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or participant, or 

(B) engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operate as a 

fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant.

70. Defendants, while acting in an unregistered capacity, through use of the 

mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce: (1) misappropriated 

Pool Participant funds; (2) made material misrepresentations and omissions with 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 16 of 25
- 17 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

scienter regarding, among other things, the profitability of trading forex with 

Defendants; and (3) issued false monthly account statements to conceal their 

fraudulent conduct. 

71. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1). 

72. The foregoing acts, misrepresentations, omissions, and failures occurred 

within the scope of Nawabi’s employment or office with Nawabi Enterprise and/or 

Hyperion. Therefore, Nawabi Enterprise and/or Hyperion are liable for his acts, 

misrepresentations, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1), 

73. Nawabi controls Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, directly or indirectly, 

and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Nawabi 

Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s conduct alleged in this Count. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b), Nawabi is liable for Nawabi Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s violations of 7 

U.S.C. § 6o(1).

74. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation and omission of material fact, 

and false statement, 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 THREE 

Violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2), 6m(1), 

and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2) (2021) 

(Failure To Register as a CPO 

and as an AP of two CPOs 

(All Defendants)

75. Paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

76. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in relevant part, as any person: 

engaged 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 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 17 of 25
- 18 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other forms 

of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in 

commodity interests, including any— 

i. commodity for future delivery, security futures 

product, or swap; [or] 

ii. agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

[S]ection 2(c)(2)(C)(i) [of the Act] or [S]ection 

2(c)(2)(D)(i) [of the Act.]

77. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) states 

that it shall be “unlawful for any . . . [CPO], 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 . . . [CPO] . . . .” 

78. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) states that a 

person, unless registered in such capacity as the Commission by 

rule, regulation, or order shall determine and a member of a 

futures association registered under section 21 of this title, shall 

not— 

. . . .

(cc) operate or solicit funds, securities, or property for any 

pooled investment vehicle that is not an eligible contract 

participant in connection with [retail forex agreements, 

contracts, or transactions].

79. For the purposes of retail forex transactions, a CPO is defined in 17 

C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) as any person who operates or solicits funds, securities, or property 

for a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 1a(18), 

and who engages in retail forex transactions. 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 18 of 25
- 19 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

80. Except in circumstances not relevant here, 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) 

requires those that meet the definition of CPO under 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d) to register as 

a CPO with the Commission. 

81. For the purposes of retail forex transactions, an AP of a CPO is defined

in 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2) as any natural person associated with a CPO as a partner, 

officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any natural person occupying a similar 

status or performing similar functions) in any capacity that involves soliciting funds, 

securities or property for participation in a pooled investment vehicle or supervising 

persons so engaged. 

82. Except in certain circumstances not relevant here, 17 C.F.R.

§ 5.3(a)(2)(ii) requires those that meet the definition of an AP of a CPO under 17 

C.FR. § 5.1(d) to register with the Commission.

83. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion operated or solicited funds, securities, 

or property for a pooled investment vehicle from pool participants who were not 

ECPs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18), for the purpose of trading in retail forex 

transactions; thus, Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion are acting as CPOs as define by 7 

U.S.C. § 1a(11) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1).

84. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, while using the mails or means of 

interstate commerce in connection with their business as a CPO, are not registered 

with the Commission as a CPO, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2I(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and

6m(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i). 

85. Nawabi associated with CPOs Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any natural person occupying a 

similar status or performing similar functions), in a capacity that involved the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a commodity pool 

and/or a pooled investment vehicle in retail forex; therefore, Nawabi acted as an AP 

of CPOs as defined by 17 C.F.R. §5.1(d)(2).

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 19 of 25
- 20 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

86. Nawabi is not registered with the Commission as an AP of either CPO; 

thus, Nawabi acted as an unregistered AP of CPOs in violation of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.3(a)(2)(ii). 

87. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) states 

that it shall be 

unlawful for any person to be associated with a [CPO] as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent . . . in any 

capacity that involves 

(i) the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a 

participation in a commodity pool or 

(ii) the supervision of any person or persons so engaged, 

unless such person is registered with the 

Commission under this chapter as an [AP] of such 

[CPO] . . . .

88. While associated with Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, Nawabi, while 

acting in an unregistered capacity, solicited Pool Participant funds for the forex pool, 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2).

89. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion supervised Nawabi and permitted him 

to solicit Pool Participants for the forex pool knowing that he was unregistered, in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2).

90. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures occurred within the scope of 

Nawabi’s employment or office with Nawabi Enterprise and/or Hyperion. Therefore, 

Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion are liable for his acts, omissions, and failures in 

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

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

91. Nawabi controls Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, directly or indirectly, 

and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Nawabi 

Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s conduct alleged in this Count. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 20 of 25
- 21 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 13c(b), Nawabi is liable for Nawabi Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s violations of 7 

U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2), 6m(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2) (2021)

92. Each instance that Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion acted as a CPO but 

failed to register with the Commission as such is alleged as a separate and distinct 

violation. 

93. Each instance that Nawabi acted as an AP of a CPO but failed to register 

with the Commission as such is alleged as a separate and distinct violation.

COUNT FOUR

Violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c) (2021) 

(Failure To Operate Pool as Separate Entity; Failure To Receive Pool 

Participant Funds in Pool’s Name; Commingling of Pool Funds)

(All Defendants)

94. Paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

95. 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 (2021), states that 17 C.F.R. Pt. 4 applies to any person 

required to register as a CPO pursuant to 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 (2021). 

96. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to 

operate its pool as a legal entity separate from that of the CPO.

97. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits a CPO, whether registered or not, from 

receiving pool funds in any name other than that of the pool. 

98. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits a CPO, whether registered or not, from 

commingling the property of any pool it operates with the property of any other 

person.

99. Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, while acting as CPOs, failed to operate 

the forex pool as a legal entity separate from Nawabi Enterprise and/or Hyperion; 

accepted Pool Participant funds into Nawabi-controlled bank accounts; and 

commingled the property of the forex pool with the property of others.

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 21 of 25
- 22 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

100. By reason of the foregoing, Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion violated 17 

C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c). 

101. Nawabi controls Nawabi Enterprise and Hyperion, directly or indirectly, 

and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Nawabi 

Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s conduct alleged in this Count. Therefore, under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13c(b), Nawabi is liable for Nawabi Enterprise’s and Hyperion’s violations of 

17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c). 

102. Each act of failing to operate a pool as a legal entity separate from that 

of the CPOs, improperly receiving pool participants’ funds, and commingling the 

property of the pool with non-pool property, including but not limited to those 

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

§ 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c). 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as 

authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers:

A. Find that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C), 6k(2), 

6m(1), 6o(1)(A)–(B), 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c), 

5.2(b)(1)–(3), 5.3(a)(2) (2021); 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction permanently restraining, 

enjoining, and prohibiting Defendants, and any other person or entity associated with 

them, from engaging in conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(2)(A)–(C), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)–(B), 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20(a)(1), (b)–(c), 5.2(b)(1)–(3), 5.3(a)(2);

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction permanently restraining, 

enjoining, and prohibiting Defendants, and their affiliates, agents, servants, 

employees, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them, from 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 22 of 25
- 23 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

directly or indirectly:

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

defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40));

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

term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)), for accounts held in the name 

of any Defendant or for accounts in which any Defendant has a direct or 

indirect interest; 

3) Having any commodity interests traded on any Defendants’ 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 of 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 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and

7) Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) 

(2021)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person 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 directing Defendants, 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; 

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 23 of 25
- 24 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. Enter an order requiring Defendants 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 Defendants as well as any successors thereof, to 

rescind, pursuant to such procedures as the Court may order, all contracts and 

agreements, whether implied or express, entered into between, with or among 

Defendants and any of the pool participants whose funds were received by 

Defendants as a result of the acts and practices that constituted violations of the Act 

and Regulations as described herein; 

G. Enter an order directing Defendants to pay a civil monetary penalty 

assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), 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 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2021), for each violation 

of the Act and Regulations, as described herein; 

H. Enter an order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted 

by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2413(a)(2); and

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

deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 24 of 25
- 25 - 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION

/s/ James H. Holl

JAMES H. HOLL, III. CA Bar. No. 177885

W. DAMON DENNIS

SARAH MATLACK WASTLER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Telephone: (202) 418-5000

jholl@cftc.gov

wdennis@cftc.gov

swastler@cftc.gov

Case 2:22-at-00421 Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 25 of 25