IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:22-CV-21520-GAYLES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DAMIAN CASTILLA, DCAST CAPITAL 

INVESTMENTS LLC, and FIVE TRADERS 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST

DEFENDANTS DCAST CAPITAL AND FIVE TRADERS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, 

Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Ancillary Statutory and Equitable Relief 

Against Defendants DCAST Capital Investment LLC and Five Traders LLC. [ECF No. 22]. The 

Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Motion is granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or 

“CFTC”) filed a Complaint charging Defendants Damian Castilla (“Castilla”), DCAST Capital 

Investments LLC (“DCAST”), and Five Traders LLC (“Five Traders”) (collectively 

“Defendants”), with violating Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4k(2), 4m(1), 4o(1)(A) and (B), and 

6(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6k(2), 6m(1), 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 1 of 29
2

6o(1)(A), (B), 9(2), and Commission Regulations (“Regulation”) 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 (2021). [ECF No. 1]. On June 9, 2022, the Commission caused the summons 

and Complaint to be served upon DCAST and Five Traders by personally serving Castilla, the sole 

director and managing member of each entity, at a residence associated with him in Miami, Florida 

in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). [ECF Nos. 6, 8]. 

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders failed to appear or answer the Complaint within the 

time permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Accordingly, the Commission filed motions for entry 

of a clerk’s default against Defendants DCAST and Five Traders on July 8, 2022, the Clerk of this 

Court entered a default against Defendants DCAST and Five Traders. On December 6, 2022, the 

Court entered a Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other 

Equitable Relief Against Defendant Damian Castilla. [ECF No. 20]. 

The Commission now moves this Court to grant final judgment by default against 

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, order permanent injunctive relief, and impose a restitution 

obligation, disgorgement obligation, and civil monetary penalties. Based thereon, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment by Default, 

Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief against 

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court 

enters findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order of Final Judgment by Default for 

Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief 

(“Order”) pursuant to Sections 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), as set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 2 of 29
3

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Findings of Fact

1. The Parties

1. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations.

2. Defendant DCAST Capital Investments LLC is a Florida entity with its last known 

place of business in Miami, Florida. DCAST previously claimed an exemption from registration 

with the Commission as a commodity trading advisor but withdrew its exemption in April 2015. 

It has never been registered with the Commission. Castilla is the sole owner and manager of 

DCAST. 

3. Defendant Five Traders LLC is a Wyoming entity with its principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida. It has never been registered with the Commission. Castilla is the sole 

owner and manager of Five Traders. 

4. Defendant Damian Castilla is a resident of Miami, Florida and is the sole owner 

and sole managing member of DCAST and Five Traders. Castilla applied for registration with the 

Commission as a commodity trading advisor in August 2013 but withdrew that application in 

November 2013. 

2. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited Pool Participants for the Pools. 

5. Between at least January 1, 2014, and continuing through May 17, 2022, the date 

of the filing of the Complaint (the “Relevant Period”), Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders, 

engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit and misappropriate money given to them for the purpose 

of trading commodity futures contracts (“futures”) in commodity pools. DCAST and Five Traders 

were unregistered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”), and Castilla was an unregistered 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 3 of 29
4

associated person (“AP”) of both CPOs. During the Relevant Period, Defendants fraudulently 

solicited over $3.4 million from over fifty individuals and entities (“pool participants”) to trade 

futures in commodity pools (the “Pools”) that did not exist. 

6. During the Relevant Period, Defendants made material misrepresentations and 

omissions to pool participants and prospective pool participants about the Pools via telephone, inperson, video-conferencing, and electronic communications. 

7. Defendants misrepresented a long history of professional trading—claiming, at 

times, that Castilla had nearly twenty years of successful professional trading experience, over five 

years of futures trading experience, and that trading futures had become Castilla’s full-time job. 

In reality, Defendants engaged in very little futures trading and the little trading Defendants 

engaged in was not profitable. 

8. Defendants claimed that pool participants would have separate subaccounts 

connected to a master trading account that would automatically allocate trades that Defendants 

placed among Defendants’ accounts and the accounts of other pool participants. In reality, 

Defendants never established any subaccounts for any pool participants; rather Defendants 

provided pool participants with fake account statements showing fictitious trades and fictitious 

account balances that represented pool participants’ individualized shares of Defendants’ trading 

activity. 

9. Once Defendants obtained money from pool participants, Defendants continued to 

misrepresent their futures trading as profitable by providing pool participants with fake trading 

account statements that showed regular and consistent profits in purported subaccounts. 

Defendants regularly used the false trading history reflected in these fake subaccount statements 

to solicit additional funds from pool participants as well as to solicit new pool participants. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 4 of 29
5

10. Defendants often solicited friends and family of earlier pool participants that 

received fake account statements. For example, Defendants regularly claimed during oral 

solicitations that they typically earned profits between eight and ten percent per month for other 

pool participants. The claimed returns were often consistent with the fake account statements that 

Defendants provided to pool participants. 

11. Additionally, Defendants made Ponzi payments to earlier pool participants, 

misrepresenting that the funds being returned were from profitable trading in futures accounts. 

Defendants used these Ponzi payments to further solicit friends and family members of pool 

participants. For example, during solicitations of new pool participants, Defendants pointed to the 

Ponzi payments as proof that Defendants ran legitimate, profitable commodity pools. In one 

instance, Defendants made Ponzi payments of over $40,000 between July and October 2020 to 

Participant A. Shortly thereafter, Defendants obtained $200,000 from two pool participants that 

were acquaintances of Participant A. Within three weeks of receiving this $200,000 contribution, 

Defendants made additional Ponzi payments of over $150,000 to other pool participants. 

Defendants’ bank records show that on many occasions, Defendants would often dole out recentlyreceived pool participant contributions to earlier pool participants within days of receipt. 

12. The profits claimed were fake, and like all Ponzi schemes, Defendants became 

unable to repay all pool participants that requested redemptions. Defendants then resorted to even 

more false claims to pool participants who requested funds. In a number of instances, Defendants 

claimed that the money was available, but that Defendants’ bank accounts had been frozen by 

various government agencies. To some pool participants, Defendants claimed that the Office of 

Foreign Assets Control had frozen Defendants’ bank accounts due to issues with the funding 

source of another pool participant. To other pool participants, Defendants claimed that the 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 5 of 29
6

Commission froze Defendants’ bank accounts during an investigation that Defendants were trying 

to resolve. Defendants’ bank accounts were never frozen by a government agency; Defendants 

simply did not have the funds available to repay pool participants. 

3. Defendants Misappropriated the Vast Majority of Pool Funds for 

Personal Expenses and to Make Ponzi Payments. 

13. Of the over $3.4 million that Defendants received from pool participants, 

Defendants paid over $1.6 million in Ponzi payments to pool participants, claiming that the 

payments were the result of profitable trading. 

14. Defendants misappropriated approximately $1.8 million for personal expenses. 

Defendants regularly used corporate bank accounts for Castilla’s personal expenses, which 

included car payments, home remodeling, lawn services, clothing, restaurants, and other 

withdrawals to Castilla’s personal bank accounts. 

15. Defendants deposited only a small portion of pool participants’ funds for their 

intended purpose of trading futures—only $105,000 of the over $3.4 million received. Yet 

Defendants ultimately withdrew over $50,000 from trading accounts for personal expenses and to 

make Ponzi payments. 

16. The small amount of futures trading that Defendants engaged in was not profitable. 

4. Defendants Provided False Account Statements Misrepresenting the 

Value of Client Accounts.

17. Defendants regularly provided pool participants with account statements that 

purportedly showed account values and trading activity for each pool participant’s subaccount. 

18. The account statements that Defendants provided showed regular and consistent 

growth in the value of the purported subaccounts for each pool participant. For example, in at 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 6 of 29
7

least one instance, Defendants issued false account statements that, over time, showed consistent 

profits for an account showing growth from $50,000 to over $5 million. 

19. No accounts existed for any pool participants. Defendants never created 

subaccounts for pool participants and very little of pool participants’ funds were ever used for 

trading futures.

20. During the Relevant Period, Defendants operated only three commodity interest 

trading accounts—two in the name of DCAST and one in the name of Five Traders. Despite 

receiving over $3.4 million from pool participants for the purpose of trading commodity interests, 

Defendants deposited a mere $105,000 to their trading accounts. Defendants lost about $50,000 in 

trading, and ultimately withdrew over $50,000 from the trading accounts—using the withdrawn 

funds for personal use or for Ponzi payments to pool participants. 

5. Defendants’ Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, and Omissions 

Were Intentional or Reckless and Operated as a Fraud on Pool 

Participants.

21. Defendants intentionally or recklessly made material misrepresentations. Each 

solicitation of a pool participant was done with the intended purpose to obtain more funds for 

personal use or to make Ponzi payments to placate earlier pool participants. 

22. Defendants knew that their misrepresentations to pool participants were false and 

that the Pools did not exist.

23. Defendants never intended to trade pool participants’ funds.

24. Less than four percent of pool participants’ funds were deposited to futures trading 

accounts as promised and Defendants never used any pool participants’ funds to establish 

subaccounts as promised. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 7 of 29
8

25. Defendants issued false account statements to pool participants showing significant 

growth in pool participants’ subaccounts that never existed. 

26. On March 19, 2020, the Florida State Attorney’s Office charged Castilla, in MiamiDade County Case No. 13-2020-CF-004700-0001, with fraud and grand theft in connection with 

his fraudulent investment scheme. In communications with pool participants after being charged, 

Defendants misrepresented the nature of the allegations against Castilla. Defendants claimed to 

some pool participants that the charges were due to a misunderstanding with an investor while 

reassuring pool participants that the account values in the statements Defendants provided were 

accurate and that Defendants had the funds to repay participants. 

27. After Castilla was charged criminally, Defendants continued soliciting new pool 

participants to keep the fraudulent scheme alive, using new funds to continue making Ponzi 

payments. 

28. In total, Defendants solicited over $700,000 from pool participants after Castilla 

was charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office. Defendants used these funds for personal 

expenses and for Ponzi payments. 

6. Defendants Failed to Operate the Pools as Separate Legal Entities or 

Receive Pool Funds in the Pools’ Names.

29. Defendants did not operate the Pools as separate legal entities. Defendants never 

created separate legal entities to receive contributions from pool participants. Although Defendants 

solicited money on behalf of the Pools, Defendants failed to open bank or futures trading accounts 

for the Pools. Rather, Defendants received pool funds in the name of DCAST or Five Traders, the 

CPOs, before the funds were then misappropriated for Castilla’s personal use, misappropriated to 

make Ponzi payments, or transferred to Castilla’s personal bank account. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 8 of 29
9

30. By transferring pool funds to Castilla’s personal bank accounts, Defendants also 

commingled pool funds with non-pool funds. 

31. Defendants did not even treat the CPOs as separate entities, but instead commingled 

funds between DCAST and Five Traders treating both entities as interchangeable. For example, in 

some instances, Castilla used funds received by Five Traders to make Ponzi payments to pool 

participants that had previously provided funds to DCAST. 

7. Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders Failed to Register with the 

Commission. 

32. During the Relevant Period, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders acted as CPOs 

in that they engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, 

syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and they solicited, accepted, or received funds, securities, 

property, or capital contributions for the purpose of trading in commodity interests. 

33. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders used emails, wire transfers, internet video 

messaging, text messaging, and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to solicit, 

accept, and receive pool participants’ funds for the purpose of trading futures. 

34. During the Relevant Period, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders were never 

registered as CPOs and were not exempt or excluded from registration as CPOs. 

35. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Castilla was associated with DCAST and 

Five Traders as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent in a capacity that involved the 

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

36. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Castilla was never registered as an AP of 

DCAST or Five Traders. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 9 of 29
10

8. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Relevant 

Documents.

37. DCAST and Five Traders, while acting as the CPOs of the Pools, failed to provide 

pool disclosure documents and other documents required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.21, 4.22 (2021), including but not limited to required cautionary statements, risk disclosures, 

fees and expenses incurred by the Pools, past performance disclosures, a statement that the CPO 

is required to provide to all pool participants with monthly or quarterly account statements, and an 

annual report containing financial statements certified by an independent public accountant. 

9. Defendants Made False Statements of Material Fact to the 

Commission.

38. On June 21, 2021, the Commission’s Division of Enforcement issued a subpoena 

to Defendants requiring, among other things, that Defendants produce “[d]ocuments sufficient to 

show the names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail address, and any other contact information of 

all current and former customers or clients” of Defendants since 2012. On August 27, 2021, after 

retaining counsel, Defendants produced a document that included a list identifying five clients. 

39. On August 31, 2021, Defendants, through counsel, confirmed that Defendants had 

completed their response to the subpoena’s request for information concerning current or former 

customers or clients. 

40. Defendants’ response, identifying only five customers or clients, was a false 

statement of material fact because Defendants had at least 50 clients during the Relevant Period. 

41. On September 28, 2021, Defendants submitted a supplemental list identifying 

additional customers or clients. This list, containing fourteen customers or clients, was also a false 

statement of material fact. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 10 of 29
11

42. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their responses to the 

subpoena were false or misleading. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose over forty clients 

that provided, collectively, almost $2 million. Defendants communicated with at least one 

undisclosed client as recently as October 2021 concerning repayment of funds—with Defendants 

making false statements to the pool participant that funds were available in trading accounts or 

bank accounts, but that Defendants were having temporary delays in accessing those funds. 

B. Conclusions of Law

1. The Court Has Jurisdiction, and Venue Is Proper.

43. 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.

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

Defendant Castilla resides in this jurisdiction and the acts and practices in violation of the Act 

occurred within this District.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 11 of 29
12

2. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited, Misappropriated Funds, and 

Issued False Account Statementsin Violation of Section 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C).

45. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful:

(1) [F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the 

making of, any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce 

or 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 . . . 

(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 . . . the other person[.]

46. Defendants engaged in a fraud by, among other things: (1) misrepresenting that 

Defendants earned significant profits on behalf of pool participants by trading futures; 

(2) misrepresenting that the returns Defendants paid to pool participants were generated from 

futures trading profits; (3) misrepresenting that Castilla was an experienced and profitable trader; 

(4) misrepresenting that pool participants would have their own trading subaccounts with 

Defendants DCAST or Five Traders; (5) misappropriating pool participants’ funds for Castilla’s 

personal expenses; (6) issuing false account statements to pool participants; and (7) failing to 

disclose that Castilla had been charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office for fraud and grand 

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

47. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, in or in connection with any 

order to make, or the making of, commodity futures transactions made on or subject to the rules 

of a designated contract market knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 12 of 29
13

cheat or defraud pool participants; and/or (2) deceived or attempted to deceive pool participants 

by any means whatsoever. 

48. By reason of the foregoing, Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders violated 7 U.S.C. § 

6b(a)(1)(A)-(C). 

49. Defendants committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, knowingly, 

or with reckless disregard for the truth.

50. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or false report or statement

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

3. Defendants Committed Fraud by Commodity Pool Operators and 

Their Associated Person in Violation of Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B).

51. Section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(10), in part, defines a commodity pool as 

“any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading 

in commodity interests . . . .”

52. Section 1a(11)(A)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in relevant 

part, 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—

(I) commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or swap[.]

53. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders engaged in a business, for 

compensation or profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or 

similar form of enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 13 of 29
14

stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; 

therefore, DCAST and Five Traders acted as CPOs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11).

54. Under Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2), in relevant part, a person is an 

AP of a CPO if that person is associated with a CPO as 

[A] partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any person occupying a similar 

status or performing similar functions), 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[.]

55. During the Relevant Period, Castilla was a partner, officer, employee, consultant, 

or agent of DCAST and Five Traders (or occupied a similar status or performed similar functions), 

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

Pools. 

56. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered with 

the CFTC or not, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, 

directly or indirectly, from employing devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud any client or 

participant or prospective client or participant, or 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. 

57. Defendants engaged in a fraud by, among other things: (1) misrepresenting that 

Defendants earned significant profits on behalf of pool participants by trading futures; 

(2) misrepresenting that the returns Defendants paid to pool participants were generated from 

futures trading profits; (3) misrepresenting that Castilla was an experienced and profitable trader; 

(4) misrepresenting that pool participants would have their own trading subaccounts with 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 14 of 29
15

Defendants DCAST or Five Traders; (5) misappropriating pool participants’ funds for Castilla’s 

personal expenses; (6) issuing false account statements to pool participants; and (7) failing to 

disclose that Castilla had been charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office for fraud and grand 

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

58. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, through use of the mails or 

any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce: (1) knowingly or recklessly employed 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud pool participants and prospective pool participants; or 

(2) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit 

upon pool participants or prospective pool participants, by misappropriating pool participant funds 

and making material misrepresentations to pool participants. 

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

60. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or false report or statement

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

4. DCAST and Five Traders Failed to Register as a Commodity Pool 

Operator in Violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6m(1).

61. 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] . . . .”

62. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders engaged in a business, for 

compensation or profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or 

similar form of enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 15 of 29
16

stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; 

therefore, DCAST and Five Traders acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

63. DCAST and Five Traders, while using the mails or means of interstate commerce 

in connection with its business as a CPO, were not registered with the CFTC as a CPO. 

64. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders acted as unregistered CPOs 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

65. Each instance that DCAST and Five Traders acted as a CPO but failed to register 

with the CFTC as such is a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

5. Castilla Failed to Register as an Associated Person of Commodity Pool 

Operators in Violation of Sections 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2).

66. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it “unlawful 

for any person to be associated with a [CPO] as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent 

. . . in any capacity that involves . . . the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participant 

in a commodity pool[.]”

67. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) also makes it “unlawful for any commodity pool operator to permit 

[an unregistered AP] to become or remain associated with the [CPO] in such capacity if the [CPO] 

knew or should have known that such person was not so registered[.]” 

68. During the Relevant Period, Castilla was associated with DCAST and Five Traders 

as a member, partner, officer, employee, consultant, agent, or in a similar capacity, and Castilla 

solicited funds for participation in the Pools. 

69. Castilla was never registered with the CFTC as an AP of DCAST or Five Traders. 

70. By reason of the foregoing, Castilla acted as an unregistered AP of DCAST and 

Five Traders, CPOs, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6(k)(2). 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 16 of 29
17

71. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders knew that Castilla acted as 

an unregistered AP of DCAST and Five Traders, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

72. Each instance that Castilla acted as an unregistered AP of DCAST and Five Traders 

but failed to register with the CFTC as such is a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2).

6. Defendants Failed to Operate a Pool as a Separate Entity, Failed to 

Accept Funds in the Name of the CPO, and Commingled Pool Property 

in Violation of Regulation 4.20, 17 C.F.R. § 4.20 (2021).

73. 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. 

74. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from receiving pool 

participants’ funds in any name other than that of the pool. 

75. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) requires that a CPO may not commingle the property of any 

pool that it operates or that it intends to operate with the property of any other person. 

76. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders, while acting as CPOs for 

the Pools, failed to operate the Pools as a legal entity separate from themselves and from Castilla 

as an individual. Defendants received pool participants’ funds in their own names rather than the 

name of a legally cognizable commodity pool. Defendants commingled pool participants’ funds 

with Castilla’s funds in Castilla’s personal bank accounts. 

77. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders violated of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and(c). 

78. Each act of failing to operate the Pools as separate legal entities, receiving pool 

participants’ funds in the name of DCAST or Five Traders rather than in the name of the Pools, 

and commingling pool funds with non-pool funds is a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 17 of 29
18

7. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents in Violation of Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 

4.22 (2021).

79. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

[E]ach [CPO] registered or required to be registered under the Act must 

deliver or cause to be delivered to a prospective participant in a pool that it 

operates or intends to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool prepared 

in accordance with §§ 4.24 and 4.25 by no later than the time it delivers to 

the prospective participant a subscription agreement for the pool . . . .

80. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders did not provide to 

prospective pool participants a Disclosure Document with the necessary disclosures in accordance 

with 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24 and 4.25. 

81. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

registered) provide periodic account statements to investors—presented and computed in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles—itemizing, among other things, the 

total amount of realized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions liquidated during the 

reporting period, the total amount of unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions 

during the reporting period, and the total amount of net gain or loss from all other transactions in 

which the pool engaged during the reporting period.

82. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders did not provide periodic 

account statements to pool participants that itemized the total amount of realized net gain or loss 

on commodity interest positions liquidated during the reporting period, the total amount of 

unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions during the reporting period, and the 

total amount of net gain or loss from all other transactions in which the Pools engaged during the 

reporting period.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 18 of 29
19

83. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 

and 4.22. 

84. Each failure to furnish the required disclosure documents and account statements 

and reports to prospective pool participants and pool participants is a separate and distinct violation 

of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22.

8. Defendants Made False Statements to the Commission in Violation of 

Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(2).

85. 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person to make any false 

or misleading statement of a material fact to the Commission . . . if the person knew, or reasonably 

should have known, the statement to be false or misleading.” 

86. By submitting false and misleading statements that Defendants knew or reasonably 

should have known were false, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

87. Each false statement of material fact to the Commission is a separate and distinct 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(2).

9. DCAST and Five Traders are Liable for Castilla’s Violations Pursuant 

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

88. Castilla committed the acts, omissions, and failures described herein within the 

course and scope of his employment, agency, or office within DCAST and Five Traders. 

Therefore, DCAST and Five Traders are liable under 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 

for Castilla’s acts, omissions, and failures in violation of the Act.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 19 of 29
20

II. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders are permanently restrained, 

enjoined, and prohibited from directly or indirectly:

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, 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, for or on behalf of, or 

with, any other person in violation of Section 4b(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(1)(A);

b. Willfully making or causing to be made false statements or reports to another 

person 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 in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B);

c. 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 in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(C).

d. Employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or 

prospective client or participant, or engaging in any transaction, practice or course 

of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or 

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

and

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 20 of 29
21

e. Making any false or misleading statement of material fact to the Commission in 

violation of Section 6(c)(2), 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

90. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders are also permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

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

defined in Section 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 

account 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)),

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 21 of 29
22

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).

III. RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

A. Restitution

91. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall pay, jointly and severally, restitution in 

the amount of two million, six hundred eighty-seven thousand, four hundred forty dollars

($2,687,440) (“Restitution Obligation”), representing losses to persons proximately caused by 

such violations described above. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall receive a dollar-fordollar credit against this Restitution Obligation to the extent that Castilla makes payment of any 

restitution in accordance with the restitution provisions contained in the Consent Order for 

Permanent Injunction, Restitution, and Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief. 

92. If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately in full, post-judgment interest 

shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of 

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

of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

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

restitution payments to Defendants’ customers/pool participants/clients, the Court appoints the 

National Futures Association (“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive

restitution payments from Defendants DCAST and Five Traders 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.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 22 of 29
23

94. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall make Restitution Obligation payments,

and any post-judgment interest payments, under this Order to the Monitor in the name “Defendant 

Castilla–SETTLEMENT/RESTITUTION Fund” and shall send such payments by electronic funds 

transfer, or by U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank money 

order, to the Office of Administration, National Futures Association, 300 South Riverside Plaza, 

Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60606 under cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant and the 

name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders 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.

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

to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to Defendants’

customers/pool participants/clients identified by the Commission or may defer distribution until 

such time as the Monitor deems appropriate. In the event that the amount of Restitution Obligation

payments to the Monitor are of a de minimis nature such that the Monitor determines that the 

administrative cost of making a distribution to eligible customers/pool participants/clients 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 below.

96. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall cooperate with the Monitor as 

appropriate to provide such information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to 

identify Defendants’ customers/pool participants/clients to whom the Monitor, in its sole 

discretion, may determine to include in any plan for distribution of any Restitution Obligation 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 23 of 29
24

payments. Defendants DCAST and Five Tradersshall execute any documents necessary to release 

funds that they have in any repository, bank, investment, or other financial institution, wherever 

located, in order to make partial or total payment toward the Restitution Obligation. 

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

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendants’ customers/pool 

participants/clients 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.

98. The amounts payable to each customer, pool participant, or client shall not limit the 

ability of any customer, pool participant, or client from proving that a greater amount is owed from 

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders or any other person or entity, and nothing herein shall be 

construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of any customer, pool participant, or client that 

exist under state or common law. 

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

participant, or client of Defendants DCAST and Five Traders who suffered a loss is explicitly 

made an intended third-party beneficiary of this Order and may seek to enforce obedience of this 

Order to obtain satisfaction of any portion of the restitution that has not been paid by Defendants

DCAST and Five Traders to ensure continued compliance with any provision of this Order and to 

hold Defendants DCAST and Five Traders in contempt for any violations of any provision of this 

Order.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 24 of 29
25

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

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders’ Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to 

the Monitor for disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

B. Disgorgement

101. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement 

in the amount of three million, three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($3,350,000) (“Disgorgement 

Obligation”), representing the gains received in connection with such violations. Defendants 

DCAST and Five Traders shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against this Disgorgement 

Obligation to the extent that Castilla makes payment of any disgorgement in accordance with the 

disgorgement provisions contained in the Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Restitution, 

and Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief. Further, for amounts paid in satisfaction 

of the Restitution Obligation under the terms of this Order, or by Castilla under the terms of the 

Consent Order, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit 

against their Disgorgement Obligation. 

102. If the Disgorgement Obligation is not paid in full immediately, then post-judgment 

interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Disgorgement Obligation beginning on the date 

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

of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

103. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall pay the Disgorgement Obligation and

any post-judgment interest by electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, 

bank cashier’s check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic 

funds transfer, then the payment shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission and sent to the address below:

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 25 of 29
26

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd.

HQ Room 266

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall 

contact Tonia King or her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall 

fully comply with those instructions. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall accompany 

payment of the Disgorgement Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant

and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders 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.

C. Civil Monetary Penalty

104. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall pay, jointly and severally, a civil 

monetary penalty in the amount of ten million, fifty thousand dollars ($10,050,000) (“CMP 

Obligation”), which represents three times the gains to Defendants from the violations of the Act 

and Regulations in accordance with 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1)(A). If the CMP Obligation is not paid 

in full immediately, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the CMP 

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

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

105. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall pay the CMP Obligation and any postjudgment 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 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 26 of 29
27 

transfer, then the payment shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

and sent to the address below: 

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall 

contact Tonia King or her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall 

fully comply with those instructions. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders shall accompany 

payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant and the 

name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders 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. 

D. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

106. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission/CFTC or the Monitor of any 

partial payment of Defendants’ Restitution Obligation, Disgorgement Obligation, or CMP 

Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of their obligation to make further payments pursuant to 

this Order, or a waiver of the Commission/CFTC’s right to seek to compel payment of any 

remaining balance.

IV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

107. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Order shall be 

sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 27 of 29
28

Notice to Commission: 

Charles Marvine

Deputy Director

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210

Kansas City, MO 64108

Notice to Defendants DCAST and Five Traders:

To Co-Defendant Damian Castilla, at an address he provided to the Commission, or 

provides in the future pursuant to the terms of his Consent Order. 

Notice to NFA:

Daniel Driscoll, Executive Vice President, COO

National Futures Association

300 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606-3447

All such notices to the Commission or the NFA shall reference the name and docket number of 

this action.

108. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendants DCAST and Five Traders

satisfy in full the Restitution, Disgorgement, and CMP Obligations under this Order, Defendants 

DCAST and Five Traders shall provide written notice to the Commission by certified mail of any 

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

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

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

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

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

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

including any motion by Defendants DCAST and Five Traders to modify or for relief from the 

terms of this Order.

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 28 of 29
29

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

provisions of this Order shall be binding upon Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, upon any 

person under the authority or control of Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, and upon any person

who receives actual notice of this Order, by personal service, e-mail, facsimile or otherwise insofar 

as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with Defendants DCAST and Five Traders.

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

Order for Final Judgment by Default forthwith and without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of April, 2023.

______________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 29 of 29