UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, 

Ryan Masten, Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All 

Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC 

d/b/a SignalPush, Blue Moon Investments 

Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., 

Defendants. 

Case No.:1:20-cv-908 

Hon.___________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, AND 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

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

independent federal agency, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

1. Beginning in or before May 1, 2013 and continuing to at least April 29, 2018 (the 

“Relevant Period”), Defendants David Cartu (“David”), Jonathan Cartu (“Jonathan”), and Joshua 

Cartu (“Josh”) (collectively, the “Cartu Brothers”), acting individually, in concert with each 

other, and through dozens of off-shore entities they ultimately owned and controlled, operated a 

massive fraudulent “binary options” trading scheme. 

2. First, the Cartu Brothers, acting in concert with Defendants Leeav Peretz 

(“Leeav”) and Nati Peretz (“Nati”) (collectively, the “Peretz Brothers”), offered illegal, offexchange binary option trading on currency pairs, oil, and other commodities on internet 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 37
2 

websites through customer-facing brands they owned and operated including “BeeOptions,” 

“Glenridge Capital,” and “Rumelia” (collectively, the “Cartu Brands”). 

3. The Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, along with their agents, employees, and 

representatives who solicited and sold binary options on behalf of the Cartu Brands (the 

“brokers”), made material misrepresentations and omissions to individuals located in the United 

States and elsewhere (“customers”) in order to entice them to deposit funds to trade binary 

options. On the Cartu Brands’ websites and in emails, telephone calls, and other 

communications with customers and prospective customers, the Cartu Brothers, Peretz Brothers, 

and the individual brokers promised “quick” returns of “60-85%,” even though the substantial 

majority of customers lost money. They falsely stated that the interests of the Cartu Brands were 

aligned with the interest of customers and failed to disclose that the Cartu Brands (and the Cartu 

Brothers and Peretz Brothers themselves) profited from customer losses. Further, at the direction 

of the Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, the brokers misrepresented their financial expertise, 

compensation structure, physical location, and identity. 

4. During at least part of the Relevant Period, Defendants BareIt Media LLC d/b/a 

SignalPush (“BareIt”), while acting as an unregistered commodity trading advisor (“CTA”), and 

Ryan Masten (“Masten”), while acting as an unregistered Associated Person (“AP”) of a CTA, 

provided trade signals and/or auto-trader services to customers of the Cartu Brands. 

5. Unbeknownst to customers, beginning on or before September 26, 2015, the 

binary option transactions offered by the Cartu Brands were executed on an Internet-based 

trading platform (the “Cartu Platform”) operated by the Cartu Brothers and Masten, acting 

through and on behalf of Defendants All Out Marketing Limited (“All Out”), an entity owned 

and controlled by David; Blue Moon Investments, Ltd. (“Blue Moon”), an entity owned and 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 37
3 

controlled by Jonathan; Orlando Union Inc. (“Orlando Union”), an entity owned and controlled 

by Josh; and BareIt. Customers of the Cartu Brands, and later customers of other binary options 

brands operated by third-parties, accessed the Cartu Platform through each individual binary 

brand’s website, typically by logging in with their email address and password. 

6. In order to facilitate the transfer of funds from customers in the U.S. and 

elsewhere for illegal, off-exchange binary option transactions, the Cartu Brothers operated 

Greymountain Management Limited (“Greymountain”), a defunct “payment processor” that 

maintained its principal place of business in Ireland. During the Relevant Period, the Cartu 

Brothers and their employees and agents, acting through Greymountain and other related entities, 

processed over $165 million in credit card payments for binary option transactions offered by the 

Cartu Brands and other brands operated by third-parties, including processing over $149 million 

in credit card payments after September1, 2015. 

7. The Cartu Brothers and Masten also utilized Greymountain to distribute profits 

generated by the Cartu Platform. Between September 2014 and January 2017, Jonathan received 

at least $9,292,043 from Greymountain through transfers to off-shore accounts in the name of 

Blue Moon; Josh received at least $9,219,048 from Greymountain through transfers to off-shore 

accounts in the name of Orlando Union; and David received at least $4,868,859 from 

Greymountain through transfers to off-shore accounts in the name of All Out, as well as an 

additional $4,146,028 through transfers to off-shore accounts in the name of Memox Services 

Ltd. (“Memox”), another entity he ultimately owned and controlled. Further, between July 2015 

and January 2017, Masten received at least $1,448,209 from Greymountain through transfers to 

BareIt. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 37
4 

8. At least as of June 1, 2016, the Peretz Brothers also received funds generated by 

and through the Cartu Platform. Thus, the Cartu Brothers, Peretz Brothers, Masten, All Out, 

Blue Moon, Orlando Union, and BareIt (collectively “Defendants”) all profited from the 

fraudulent transactions executed on the Cartu Platform. 

9. During each stage of their fraudulent binary options scheme, Defendants violated 

the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26 (2018), and accompanying regulations 

(“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2019). Namely, by this conduct and further conduct 

described below, Defendants have engaged in acts and practices in violation of the following: 

a. Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4 (2019), which prohibit fraud in connection with commodity options 

transactions; 

b. Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 

17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2019), which prohibit deceptive devices, schemes 

and/or artifices in connection with, among other things, swaps, and prohibit false 

statements; and 

c. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019), which prohibit 

offering or entering into off-exchange transactions in commodity options. 

10. Further, Defendants Masten and BareIt have engaged in acts and practices in 

violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (2018), which prohibits BareIt from 

acting as a CTA unless registered as such, and Section 4k(3) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3) (2018), 

which prohibits Masten from acting as an AP of a CTA unless registered as such. 

11. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), the 

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

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 37
5 

Defendants’ compliance with the Act and Regulations, and to further enjoin Defendants from 

engaging in certain commodity options and swaps-related activities. 

12. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary 

relief, including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, restitution, disgorgement, 

rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the Court may deem 

necessary and appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018) 

(federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (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) (2018), 

authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive relief against any person whenever it shall appear 

that such person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice that 

violates any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order promulgated thereunder. 

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

Masten and BareIt are found in and inhabit the Western District of Texas, all Defendants 

transacted business in this District, and the acts and practices in violation of the Act and 

Regulations occurred within this District, among other places. 

III. PARTIES 

15. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is 

the independent federal regulatory agency charged with the administration and enforcement of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 5 of 37
6 

A. Individual Defendants

16. Defendant David Cartu was born in 1985 and is the youngest of the three Cartu 

Brothers. David is a Canadian citizen and, upon information and belief, currently resides in 

Ontario, Canada. During the Relevant Period, David lived in Israel, among other places, and 

frequently traveled to Ireland. David has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

17. Defendant Jonathan Cartu was born in 1983 and is the middle of the three Cartu 

Brothers. Jonathan is a Canadian citizen. Upon information and belief, Jonathan currently 

resides in Israel, where he also resided during the Relevant Period. During at least part of the 

Relevant Period, and in connection with the acts and practices described herein, Jonathan used 

the alias Jonathan Cartier. Jonathan has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

18. Defendant Joshua Cartu was born in 1979 and is the eldest of the three Cartu 

Brothers. Josh is a Canadian citizen. Upon information and belief, Josh currently resides in 

Budapest, Hungary. Josh has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

19. Defendant Ryan Masten was born in 1985 and is an American citizen. Masten 

currently resides in or around Austin, Texas. During at least part of the Relevant Period, and in 

connection with the acts and practices described herein, Masten used the alias Jax Navarro. 

Masten has been registered with the Commission as an AP and principal of a CTA since June 13, 

2017, and was registered as an AP and principal of an Introducing Broker from approximately 

May 2017 to March 2018. 

20. Defendant Leeav Peretz is from Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Upon information 

and belief, Leeav currently resides in Israel. During the Relevant Period, and in connection with 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 6 of 37
7 

the acts and practices described herein, Leeav used the alias Lee Cole. Leeav has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

21. Defendant Nati Peretz is, like his brother Leeav, from Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 

Upon information and belief, Nati currently resides in Israel. During the Relevant Period, and in 

connection with the acts and practices described herein, Nati used the alias Steven (or Steve) 

Grey. Nati has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

B. Corporate Defendants 

22. Defendant All Out Marketing Limited was incorporated in the British Virgin 

Islands on April 16, 2010. Throughout the Relevant Period, David has owned and controlled All 

Out, and has used it to operate the Cartu Platform, including opening accounts and/or entering 

into agreements on behalf of the Cartu Platform; and to transfer, hold, and conceal funds 

obtained in connection with Defendants’ fraudulent binary options scheme. All Out has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

23. Defendant BareIt Media LLC, d/b/a SignalPush, is a Texas LLC incorporated 

on March 27, 2012 with its principal place of business in Lakeway, Texas. BareIt has done 

business as “SignalPush” since at least October 2, 2012 and has used the website 

www.signalpush.com. Throughout the Relevant Period, Masten, along with his wife, has owned 

and controlled BareIt, and Masten has used BareIt to operate the Cartu Platform, including 

opening accounts and/or entering into agreements on behalf of the Cartu Platform; and to 

transfer, hold, and conceal funds obtained in connection with Defendants’ fraudulent binary 

options scheme. During a portion of the Relevant Period, BareIt and Masten d/b/a SignalPush, 

offered trade signals and auto-trader services for the Cartu Brands. BareIt has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 37
8 

24. Defendant Blue Moon Investments Ltd. was incorporated in the Seychelles on 

December 6, 2012. Throughout the Relevant Period, Jonathan has owned and controlled Blue 

Moon, and has used it to operate the Cartu Platform, including opening accounts and/or entering 

into agreements on behalf of the Cartu Platform; and to transfer, hold, and conceal funds 

obtained in connection with Defendants’ fraudulent binary options scheme. Blue Moon has 

never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

25. Defendant Orlando Union Inc. was incorporated in Belize on October 18, 2010. 

Throughout the Relevant Period, Josh has owned and controlled Orlando Union, and has used it 

to operate the Cartu Platform, including opening accounts and/or entering into agreements on 

behalf of the Cartu Platform; and to transfer, hold, and conceal funds obtained in connection with 

Defendants’ fraudulent binary options scheme and to open accounts and/or enter into agreements 

on behalf of the Cartu Platform. Orlando Union has never been registered with the Commission 

in any capacity. 

C. Related Entities and Fictitious Binary Brands 

26. Atmosphere Management IR Ltd. (“Atmosphere”) was incorporated in Ireland on 

February 25, 2015, and maintained an office in Dublin, Ireland. During the Relevant Period, 

David Cartu owned and operated Atmosphere. Atmosphere has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

27. Greymountain Management Limited was incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

on May 20, 2014, and entered into liquidation effective July 13, 2017. David Cartu owned and 

operated Greymountain. Upon information and belief, Jonathan and Josh invested in, and were 

partial owners of, Greymountain. During the Relevant Period, Greymountain offered payment 

processing services through various subsidiaries, successor entities and/or fictitious entities, 

including without limitation SnowCharge and SnowPay. At various times during the Relevant 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 8 of 37
9 

Period, Greymountain also offered “white label solutions”, a type of software product, for the 

Cartu Brands and other third-party binary option brands. Greymountain has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

28. Mega Optimization Limited d/b/a MegaCharge (“MegaCharge”) was incorporated 

in Ireland on or around March 24, 2016, and has maintained offices in Dublin, Ireland and, upon 

information and belief, in Berlin, Germany. David Cartu is the sole shareholder and one of the 

directors of MegaCharge. Upon information and belief, Jonathan and Josh invested in, and are 

partial owners of, MegaCharge, and MegaCharge is a subsidiary or successor entity to 

Greymountain. MegaCharge has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

29. Memox Services Ltd. (“Memox”) was incorporated in England and Wales on 

July 9, 2012. Since at least May 27, 2015, David Cartu has been the Director and sole 

shareholder of Memox. Upon information and belief, David operated and controlled Memox 

throughout the Relevant Period. On July 31, 2018, Memox changed its name to Slingshot 

Investments Limited. Upon information and belief, the company is no longer active. Memox 

has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

30. Tracy P.A.I. Management Ltd. a/k/a Tracy PAI Management Ltd. (“Tracy PAI”) 

was incorporated in Israel on or before April 16, 2012. During the Relevant Period, Tracy PAI 

operated out of an office in Tel Aviv, Israel, and employed the individual brokers who solicited 

and sold binary options on behalf of the Cartu Brands. Prior to June 2016, Tracy PAI was 

owned, operated, and controlled by Jonathan and David. On or around June 1, 2016, Leeav and 

Nati, who had previously been senior managers at the company, purchased at least a portion of 

Tracy PAI and took over the business’ day-today operations. Tracy PAI has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 9 of 37
10 

31. UKTVM Limited (“UKTVM”) was incorporated in the United Kingdom on 

October 8, 2012, and dissolved on December 18, 2018. David Cartu owned and operated 

UKTVM. Upon information and belief, UKTVM providing payment processing services for the 

Cartu Brands in 2013 and 2014. UKTVM has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

32. BeeOptions (“BeeOptions”) is a binary options brand. At various times during 

the Relevant Period, the Cartu Brothers have used Tracy PAI and UKTVM, among other entities, 

to enter into agreements, open accounts, hire individual brokers, and engage in other activities in 

the name of or on behalf of BeeOptions. 

33. Glenridge Capital (“Glenridge”) is a binary options brand. At various times 

during the Relevant Period, the Cartu Brothers have used Greymountain, Tracy PAI and 

UKTVM, among other entities, to enter into agreements, open accounts, hire individual brokers, 

and engage in other activities in the name of or on behalf of Glenridge. 

34. Rumelia Capital (“Rumelia”) is a binary options brand. At various times during 

the Relevant Period, the Cartu Brothers have used Tracy PAI and UKTVM, among other entities, 

to enter into agreements, open accounts, hire individual brokers, and engage in other activities in 

the name of or on behalf of Rumelia. 

IV. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 

A. Prohibitions Against Off-Exchange Options Trading 

35. Section 1a(47)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A) (2018), defines “swap” to 

include, among other things, any agreement, contract, or transaction that: (a) is a put, call, cap, 

floor, collar, or similar option of any kind; (b) provides for payment dependent on the 

occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency; or (c) 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 10 of 37
11 

provides on an executory basis for payments based on the value or level of one or more interest 

or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, 

quantitative measures, or other financial or economic interests or property of any kind, without 

also conveying an ownership interest in any asset or liability. 

36. Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), makes it unlawful for any 

person to offer to enter into, enter into, or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving 

any commodity regulated under the Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known to 

the trade as, inter alia, an “option”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, or “call”, contrary to any rule, 

regulation or order of the Commission prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such 

transaction under such terms and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe. Thus, through 

7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), Congress has given the Commission jurisdiction and plenary rulemaking 

authority over all commodity option transactions. 

B. Prohibitions Against Fraud 

37. The Act and Regulations contains numerous anti-fraud provisions applicable to 

various categories of entities or transactions. 

i. Options Fraud 

38. Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019), states in relevant part: 

[I]t shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons to offer to enter 

into, enter into, confirm the execution of, maintain a position in, or 

otherwise conduct activity related to any transaction in interstate 

commerce that is a commodity option transaction, unless: 

(a) Such transaction is conducted in compliance with and subject to the 

provisions of the Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, or order 

thereunder, otherwise applicable to any other swap, or 

(b) Such transaction is conducted pursuant to § 32.31

. 

 

1

 Regulation 32.3, 17 C.F.R. § 32.3 (2019), applies to certain transactions offered to a producer, 

processor, or commercial user that are intended to be physically settled and requires that every counter 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 11 of 37
12 

39. Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019), promulgated under 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), 

provides that: 

In or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the 

confirmation of the execution of, any commodity option transaction, it 

shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly: 

(a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; 

(b) To make or cause to be made to any other person any false report or 

statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false record 

thereof; or 

(c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means 

whatsoever. 

ii. Swaps Fraud 

40. Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), makes it unlawful for any 

person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with 

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

and regulations as the Commission shall promulgate. 

41. Regulation 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) (2019), provides in relevant part, that it 

shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly: 

In connection with any swap . . . to intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) Use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) Make, or attempt to 

make, any untrue or misleading statement of materials fact or to 

omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the 

statements made not untrue or misleading; (3) Engage, or attempt 

to engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, which 

operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any 

person . . . . 

 

party to such transaction that is not a swap dealer or major swap participant obtain a legal entity identifier 

pursuant to Regulation 45.6, 17 C.F.R. § 45.6 (2019). 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 12 of 37
13 

C. Registration Requirements 

42. Section 1a(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12) (2018), defines a commodity trading 

advisor or CTA as any person who for compensation or profit, engages in the business of 

advising others, either directly or through publications, writings or electronic media, as to the 

value or advisability of trading in any commodity option, among other products. 

43. An “Associated Person” or AP of a CTA is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. 

1.3 (2019), as any person who is associated with a CTA 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) the solicitation of a client’s or prospective client’s 

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

44. Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (2018), makes it unlawful for any 

CTA, unless registered with the CFTC, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality 

of interstate commerce in connection with its business as a CTA. 

45. Section 4k(3) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3) (2018), makes it unlawful for any 

person to associated with a CTA as a partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent (or any other 

person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which 

involves: (i) the solicitation of a client’s or prospective client’s discretionary account or (ii) the 

supervision of any person or persons so engaged, unless such person is registered with the 

CFTC. 

V. FACTS 

A. Overview of Binary Options and Relevant Terms 

46. A binary option is a type of options contract in which the payment depends 

entirely on the outcome of a discrete event—typically a “yes/no” proposition. A binary options 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 13 of 37
14 

customer enters into a trade that predicts the price of an underlying asset by a pre-determined 

date and time, commonly referred to as the “expiration” or “expiry.” The price of the option at 

expiry is commonly referred to as the “strike price.” Basic binary options involve a prediction as 

to the direction that the underlying asset’s price will take relative to the price of entry, while 

binary option pairs involve a prediction as to whether one asset will outperform another. 

47. Binary option “brands” sell and market binary options. Typically, a binary option 

customer enters into a trade through a trading “platform” accessed through the brand’s website. 

48. Frequently, binary option brands rely on “affiliate marketers” to disseminate 

solicitations to prospective customers through targeted campaigns advising them to open and 

fund off-exchange binary option trading accounts. Affiliate marketing is a form of performancebased marketing that is predominantly conducted via email solicitations and promotional 

materials, including videos, made available on internet websites. Affiliate marketers may also 

offer “trade signals” or “auto-trader” functions that purport to assist customers by providing 

recommendations as to specific trades or automatically executing a trade at so-called opportune 

market conditions. 

49. Once the customer acquires a binary option, there is no further decision for the 

holder to make as to whether or not to exercise or trade the binary option, as binary options 

exercise automatically at expiry. The expiration date and time are typically determined at the 

time the customer enters into a binary option trade. 

50. Binary options involve a variety of underlying assets, including currency pairs 

(e.g., EUR/USD); commodities such as oil, gold, and platinum; equity indices (e.g., the Down 

Jones Industrial Index); and stocks (e.g., Google, Nike, etc.). However, unlike other types of 

options, a binary option does not give the holder the right to purchase or sell the underlying 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 14 of 37
15 

asset. Instead, binary options are “cash settled.” When the binary option expires, if the customer 

has correctly predicted the asset’s movement, the customer is “in the money” and entitled to a 

payout of a pre-determined amount of money. If the customer has made an incorrect prediction, 

he or she is “out of the money,” loses the premium paid (i.e., the amount of the trade), and gets 

nothing. 

51. There are only three designated contract markets (“DCMs”) currently authorized 

to offer binary options that are commodity options transactions to retail customers in the United 

States: Cantor Exchange LP, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc., and the North American 

Derivatives Exchange, Inc. All other entities offering binary options in the U.S. or to U.S. 

customers are doing so illegally. 

B. Overview of the Cartu Enterprise 

52. Defendants engaged in fraudulent activity at each stage of a typical binary option 

transaction. Often, a potential U.S. customer first encountered Defendants after a fraudulent 

email solicitation or video created and disseminated by an affiliate marketer directed the 

customer to one of the Cartu Brands to open and fund a binary option trading account. The 

customer was then contacted by a broker who solicited the customer to open and fund a trading 

account with one of the Cartu Brands. If the customer chose to pay by credit card, those 

payments were usually charged to and processed by Greymountain, and therefore Greymountain, 

as opposed to the specific Cartu Brand, would appear as the merchant on the customer’s credit 

card bill. Customers entered into binary options trades through the Cartu Brand websites, and 

those trades were executed on the Cartu Platform. The Cartu Brothers and Masten, acting 

through and on behalf of All Out, Blue Moon, Orlando Union, and BareIt, controlled those 

transactions and, at times, manipulated the results of those trades to force customer losses. The 

Cartu Brands and the Cartu Platform shared in the resulting profits. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 15 of 37
16 

53. The Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers marketed, offered, and sold binary 

options to retail customers, including customers in the United States, through one or more 

internet trading websites, including www.beeoptions.com and www.beeoptions.us (collectively, 

the “BeeOptions website”); www.glenridgecapital.com (the “Glenridge website”); and 

www.rumeliacapital.com (the “Rumelia website”) (collectively, the “Cartu Brand websites”). 

Tracy PAI registered the BeeOptions website, Greymountain registered the Glenridge website, 

and Atmosphere registered the Rumelia website. 

54. During at least part of the Relevant Period, Masten and BareIt also offered trade 

signals and auto-trading for customers to use when entering into transactions on the Cartu Brand 

websites. At least certain customers received an email advising them that the Cartu Brands had a 

“partnership with a company called SignalPush” that “offer[ed] trade signals and auto-trader 

services” and directing them to the website www.signalpush.com (the “SignalPush website”) to 

open an account with SignalPush. Masten registered and operated the SignalPush website. 

55. Between January 2014 and August 2017, MasterCard processed a total of $69,107 

in transactions for SignalPush. Between May 2016 and July 2017, Visa processed a total of 

$15,855 in transactions for SignalPush. 

56. In addition to the Cartu Brand websites, Defendants utilized other websites in 

connection with their fraudulent binary option trading scheme, including 

www.greymountainmanagement.com; www.megacharge.com, www.megacharge.net and 

megaoptimization.com; as well as www.tracypai.com (the “Tracy PAI website”). At various 

times during the Relevant Period Masten was responsible for managing and administering the 

Tracy PAI website, among others. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 16 of 37
17 

57. Further, the Cartu Brothers, through Greymountain, accepted and processed 

payments for binary option transactions offered by third-parties; and the Cartu Brothers and 

Masten, along with defendant entities they control, have offered and accepted binary option 

transactions through the Cartu Platform with at least ten unique binary option brands, including 

brands operated by third-parties. 

58. The binary options Defendants marketed, offered, and sold, were not offered on 

an authorized DCM and most, if not all, of the customers who entered into binary option 

transactions with Defendants were not “Eligible Contract Participants” or ECPs, defined in 

Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(A)(xi) (2018). 

59. When offered on a DCM or other regulated exchange, customers on opposite 

sides of each binary option transaction are typically matched, meaning that for each customer 

who correctly predicts an asset’s price movement and is in the money, there is an customer who 

made an incorrect prediction and is out of the money. The binary option exchange earns a 

commission on the trade, but otherwise has no interest in its outcome. 

60. The binary options marketed, offered, and sold by Defendants did not operate like 

those on regulated exchanges. Defendants did not connect customers to legitimate binary 

options exchanges or otherwise match buyers and sellers of binary options. The Cartu Brands 

were the counterparties to each transaction and acted in a manner similar to that of a casino or 

sports book by taking the opposite position on each trade, while the Cartu Platform “executed” 

the trade and received a percentage of each customer’s net deposits. 

61. The binary options marketed, offered, and sold by Defendants are not actual 

transactions, but rather book entries that gave the appearance of actual transactions. Defendants’ 

binary options did not result in the transfer of money from one segregated, customer account to 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 17 of 37
18 

another account at expiry. No funds actually changed hands at the conclusion of any given 

binary option transaction with the Cartu Brands. 

C. Operation of the Cartu Brands 

62. Beginning in or before April 2013, Jonathan, and others acting on behalf and 

under the direction of the Cartu Brothers, began soliciting individuals in the United States and 

elsewhere to trade illegal, off-exchange binary options through the BeeOptions website. At that 

time, BeeOptions operated out of a conference room in the offices of an Israeli-based gaming 

company owned by Josh and David. 

63. At least by May 2014, the Peretz Brothers were responsible for supervising the 

individual brokers who solicited customers to trade with BeeOptions and, thereafter, Glenridge 

and/or Rumelia. At various times during the Relevant Period, Nati supervised the individual 

brokers responsible for soliciting prospective customers and obtaining an initial deposit and 

Leeav supervised the individual brokers responsible for soliciting customers to make additional 

deposits. 

64. Beginning in or around December 2014, the Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers 

began soliciting individuals in the United States and elsewhere to trade illegal, off-exchange 

binary options through the Glenridge website; and beginning in or around January 2015, the 

Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers began soliciting individuals in the United States and 

elsewhere to trade illegal, off-exchange binary options through the Rumelia website. The 

BeeOptions website expired on May 11, 2017, the Glenridge website expired on April 29, 2018, 

and the Rumelia website expired on December 24, 2017. 

65. The Cartu Brands utilized affiliate marketers to identify potential customers by 

creating and disseminating fraudulent marketing campaigns that advise prospective customers to 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 18 of 37
19 

open and fund binary option trading accounts. Upon information and belief, Masten and BareIt 

first became involved with the Cartu Brothers as an affiliate marketer for BeeOptions. 

66. Beginning in or before July 2013, Masten and his company, BareIt, d/b/a 

SignalPush, entered into a partnership with the Cartu Brothers to provide trading signals for 

customers of the Cartu Brands. An email sent to at least certain BeeOptions customers during 

the Relevant Period introduced SignalPush as an auto-trading network or “essentially a computer 

program based on a complex algorithm that works in conjunction with emanating trade signals. 

It is able to execute trades on behalf of the trader, at moments of opportune market conditions 

. . . can be customized according to the trader’s desired level of financial risk . . . [and] allows 

trades to be executed when the trader is away.” 

67. BareIt and Masten solicited individuals in the U.S. and elsewhere to open a 

SignalPush account and receive trading recommendations from “top notch” “signal providers” 

for transactions with binary options brands, including the Cartu Brands. On the SignalPush 

website, BareIt and Masten represented that they had “interview[ed]” potential signal providers 

to gain information about “their strategies, amount of clients, [and] money management,” 

reviewed six months of performance records and required “the potential provider submit certain 

legal documents” before approving them. Upon information and belief, each of these 

representations was false. 

68. Upon information and belief, the trading recommendations provided to customers 

by SignalPush were not designed to generate profits for the customer as advertised, nor were 

they generated by vetted and experienced money managers or financial professionals. Further, at 

least certain customers lost money due to trades executed by SignalPush. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 19 of 37
20 

69. The Cartu Brands began utilizing Greymountain for payment processing in or 

around September 2014. On October 2, 2014, Jonathan sent an email to BeeOptions brokers and 

other employees of Defendants informing them that “All of you work for Tracy PAI . . . an 

online B2B and B2C service provider” that has “taken on a new account, Greymountain 

Management.” In that same email, Jonathan stated that “Tracy PAI broke the $1,500,000.00 

target set us by our previous clients and surpassed even $1,600,000.00” and shared his plan to 

“go out and find us more business to represent. You can be confident that your fortunes will not 

rest on one far away company doing unregulated business forever, and neither will mine.” 

70. On or before June 1, 2016, the Peretz Brothers purchased Tracy PAI and took 

over ownership of the Cartu Brands. 

D. Defendants’ Fraudulent Misrepresentations and Deception 

71. Defendants David, Jonathan, Josh, Leeav, and Nati, have misrepresented the 

fundamental nature of the binary option transactions offered to customers on the Cartu Brands’ 

websites and in emails, telephone calls, and other communications with customers and 

prospective customers. 

72. The Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, along with their employees, agents, and 

others acting on their behalf, have misrepresented the profitability of trading binary options with 

the Cartu Brands. When communicating with customers, brokers promised returns “between 60-

85%” and the Cartu Brand websites promoted “knowledgeable account executives who will walk 

you through the 5-step process of trading assets online . . . so you can increase your returns up to 

85%.” 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 20 of 37
21 

73. At least in 2016 and 2017 the Glenridge website offered a “warm welcome” to the 

brands’ customers from “Vincent Glenn, CEO”: 

 . . .Your fiscal achievement is important to us, therefore you can 

count on Glenridge Capital to help you reach a profitable financial future. 

After all, we know that in order for us to succeed, you must succeed. That 

is why we have become the foremost binary options trading platform in 

the industry. . . . 

 We understand that the financial market can be a challenge to 

navigate in today’s rapidly changing world, thus I left my job as a 

financial broker in order to further develop online trading with a team of 

close colleagues and associates. . . . With a simple touch of a button, you 

can predict whether an asset will increase (call) or decrease (put) by expiry 

time. It is so easy, that it is practically intuitive. 

 Further, we take pride in our friendly atmosphere and individual 

attention to traders. We have created a place where you can build 

relationships as you increase your revenue. . . . Our knowledgeable 

account executives will walk you through the 5-step process of trading 

assets online with easy to understand language and educational 

opportunities so you can increase your returns up to 85%. Rest assured 

that [you] will get fast withdrawals with conventional and alternative 

payment methods for your convenience. 

The Glenridge website did not disclose that binary option transaction were executed on the Cartu 

Platform, and it did not disclose that the brand (and its owners, the Cartu Brothers and Peretz 

Brothers) were on the opposite side of each transaction and actually benefitted from customer 

losses. Further, upon information and belief, Vincent Glenn is entirely fictional. 

74. In emails and telephone communications the brokers, along with other employees 

and agents acting on behalf and at the direction of the Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, would 

falsely represent that their interests were aligned with the interest of customers, when in fact the 

Cartu Brands were the counterparty to each customer and profited from customer losses. For 

example, one broker routinely told customers that “BeeOptions pays me to help you make 

money.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 21 of 37
22 

75. At the direction of the Cartu Brothers and, later, the Peretz Brothers, the 

individual brokers employees who solicited customers to trade binary options with the Cartu 

Brands and certain other employees used alias or stage names when interacting with customers 

and prospective customers, including those located in the U.S., and would misrepresent their 

location, educational background, and financial expertise. 

76. Defendants also utilized various manipulative or deceptive devices, including socalled “bonuses” and “risk free trades” to entice Cartu Brand customers to deposit additional 

funds and then prevent customers from withdrawing funds. The Cartu Brothers and Masten, 

acting through and on behalf of the various entities they controlled, including All Out, BareIt, 

Blue Moon and Orlando Union, designed the Cartu Platform to provide the functionality needed 

for the Cartu Brands, and other binary option brands, to offer bonuses and risk free trades. 

Jonathan and the Peretz Brothers mandated that Cartu Brand brokers pitch bonuses to customers 

as being helpful, and informed the brokers that bonuses were actually a tool to keep money in the 

system by preventing withdrawals and therefore increasing the brand’s profits. 

77. As used by Defendants, the term bonus is misleading as it suggests that it 

provided a benefit to customers, when in fact the bonus was designed to limit customers’ ability 

to withdraw funds. Typically, a bonus required customers to trade 30-times the amount of the 

bonus plus any accompanying deposit (known as the “turnover requirement”) before any funds 

could be withdrawn. By way of example, if a customer received a $5,000 bonus on a $10,000 

deposit with one of the Cartu Brands, that customer would have been required to trade $450,000 

(30 x $15,000) before any funds could be withdrawn. Similarly, a risk free trade, which was 

typically offered as a “refund” for trading losses questioned by a customer or to entice an 

additional deposit, typically had a turnover requirement of 10-times the refunded amount. The 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 22 of 37
23 

bonuses and risk free trades offered by Defendants did not involve the transfer of actual funds to 

a customer or customer’s account. 

E. The Cartu Brothers and Masten Developed the Cartu Platform 

78. At the beginning of the Relevant Period, the Cartu Brothers utilized a trading 

platform and related software operated by third-parties (the “Spot Platform”) to perpetuate their 

fraudulent binary options scheme. Customers would access the platform through the Cartu 

Brands’ websites, typically by logging in with their email and password. The Spot Platform 

customer relationship management or “CRM” software system allowed Defendants’ employees 

and agents to see customer names and contact information, including their geographic location, 

as well as the customer’s account history, trades attempted, and withdrawal requests. In at least 

certain instances, the Spot Platform CRM also identified a customer’s risk level–i.e., the risk that 

the customer would meet their turnover requirement and be able to withdraw funds from their 

account. 

79. Unbeknownst to customers, the results of binary option transactions could be 

manipulated on the Spot Platform, for example, by changing the strike price of a trade just before 

expiry. For at least part of the Relevant Period, Jonathan and/or the Peretz Brothers typically 

approved requests to alter trading outcomes for customers of the Cartu Brands. 

80. By at least September 2014, Masten and the Cartu Brothers began developing the 

Cartu Platform. Upon information and belief, Masten owned 30% of the Cartu Platform and the 

Cartu Brothers owned 70% of the platform. Masten was the lead developer for the Cartu 

Platform. Between July 2015 and January 2017, Masten received at least $1,448,209 from 

Greymountain through transfers to BareIt. Upon information and belief, those funds represent 

only a small percentage of the revenue Masten received in connection with the development and 

operation of the Cartu Platform. David, along with Masten and Jonathan, made decisions 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 23 of 37
24 

regarding platform functionality on behalf of the Cartu Brands and participated in pre-release 

testing of the Cartu Platform. The Cartu Platform went through numerous updates and iterations, 

and has been referred to at various times during the Relevant Period as the “Glenridge platform” 

“Novustra Binary Trading Platform” and “Inovesto platform.” 

81. The Cartu Platform “went live” in or around September 2015. Thereafter, 

Defendants used the Cartu Platform to offer and execute binary option transactions, including 

currency pairs and commodities; to track customer information including deposits; generate 

commission reports for individual brokers; and control at least certain customer transactions. 

82. Unbeknownst to the individuals who traded binary options with the Cartu Brands, 

the Cartu Platform included functionality to “manage risk” associated with a customer, including 

by altering the pre-set spread or strike price of a trade and delaying execution of a trade. It also 

allowed binary brands to limit a customer’s open volume or number of trades, without disclosure 

to the customer, or to limit the brand’s maximum daily loss. Increasing the risk setting allowed 

the Cartu Brands (and other third-parties brands that utilized the Cartu Platform) to decrease the 

number of winning trades, thereby increasing customer loses–and their own profits 

83. By March 2016, at least ten binary options brands offered and entered into illegal, 

off-exchange binary option transactions with their customers through the Cartu Platform. Upon 

information and belief, Greymountain provided payment processing services for all of the brands 

that utilized the Cartu Platform. 

84. David, Jonathan, Josh, and Masten shared the revenues generated by the Cartu 

Platform and utilized various entities they owned and controlled, most notably All Out, BareIt, 

Blue Moon, and Orlando Union, to open accounts and enter into agreements on behalf of the 

Cartu Platform, and to transfer and conceal revenue generated through the Cartu Platform. At 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 24 of 37
25 

least after June 1, 2016, the Peretz Brothers received funds generated by and through the Cartu 

Platform in connection with their ownership of the Cartu Brands. 

85. In telephone calls and other solicitations, the brokers, as well as other employees 

and agents acting on behalf of the Cartu Brands and at the direction of Jonathan or the Peretz 

Brothers, among others, falsely represented to customers and prospective customers that their 

funds were held in regulated financial institutions. 

86. In fact, Defendants individually and collectively utilized dozens of off-shore 

entities and accounts to hold, transfer, and conceal funds received from customers of the Cartu 

Brands and other brands that utilized the Cartu Platform, and/or Greymountain’s payment 

processing services. 

87. Credit card companies typically prohibit financial institutions that accept and 

process credit and debit card transactions from engaging in or supporting activity that is illegal or 

reflects negatively on the credit card brand. In order to limit the risk that banks and credit card 

companies would refuse to transfer customer funds to the Cartu Brands due to suspected fraud, 

Defendants developed Greymountain as their own payment service processor for credit card 

transactions. 

88. On or around May 20, 2014, David caused Greymountain to be incorporated as a 

single member private company under the laws of Ireland. During the Relevant Period, 

Greymountain held itself out as providing “customer support, call center agents, graphic design, 

compliance/ risk management, account management, tech support and affiliation” for “Binary 

Options brands . . . and other entities operating in the binary options space” including “Tracy 

PAI, based out of Ramat Gan in Israel.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 25 of 37
26 

89. At various times during the Relevant Period, the Cartu Brothers opened accounts 

on behalf of Greymountain the name of All Out, Blue Moon, Orlando, and the Related Entities, 

and used those accounts to accept, hold, and transfer customer funds in connection with illegal 

off-exchange binary options transactions. 

90. During the Relevant Period, Greymountain received and processed over $165 

million in connection with illegal off-exchange binary options transactions. Between 

September 1, 2015 and November 6, 2017, the Greymountain bank account at Allied Irish Bank 

received deposits totaling $149,555,575. 

91. According to Greymountain, 60% of the transactions it processed were for 

individuals located in the United States or Canada, along with 20% for individuals in Africa, 

10% for individuals in Europe, 5% for individuals in Australia and Oceania, and 5% for 

individuals in the Commonwealth of Independent States, consisting of post-Soviet republics in 

Eurasia. 

92. Between January 2014 and August 2017, MasterCard processed a total of 

$38,334,722 in transactions for Cartu Brands on behalf of U.S. customers. 

93. Between May 2016 and July 2017, Visa processed a total of $19,757,074in 

transactions for Cartu Brands on behalf of U.S. customers. 

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

COUNT ONE 

Violations of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.4, 

17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019) 

Commodity Options Fraud 

94. The allegations set forth in the paragraphs above are realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 26 of 37
27 

95. During the Relevant Period, Defendants, in or in connection with an offer to enter 

into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any commodity option transaction, 

directly and indirectly: (a) cheated or defrauded, and attempted or cheat and defraud, customers 

and prospective customers; (b) made or caused to be made to customers and prospective 

customers false reports or statements; and (c) deceived or attempted to deceive customers and 

prospective customers in connection with commodity option transactions, in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. Defendants did so by engaging in the conduct alleged in 

the foregoing paragraphs, including by: 

a. As to Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, misrepresenting: (1) the risk, cost, and 

profit potential of binary option transactions offered to customers by the Cartu 

Brands; (2) that the financial interests of the Cartu Brands were aligned with the 

customers’ financial interest, and failing to disclose that they profited from 

customer losses; and (3) the financial experience and expertise, as well as the 

identity and physical location, of their employees and agents; and 

b. As to all Defendants, making or causing to be made false reports regarding the 

binary option transactions offered to customers by the Cartu Brands and executed 

on the Cartu Platform. 

96. Each of Defendants participated in the unlawful acts and practices described in 

this Complaint and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 committed by other Defendants . 

97. David has exercised direct and indirect control over All Out and either did not act 

in good faith or knowingly induced All Out’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018), for All Out’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

98. Masten had and exercised direct and indirect control over BareIt and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced BareIt’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for BareIt’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 27 of 37
28 

99. Jonathan has exercised direct and indirect control over Blue Moon and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Blue Moon’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Blue Moon’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4. 

100. Josh has exercised direct and indirect control over Orlando Union and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Orlando Union’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Orlando Union’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4. 

101. Each act of: (a) cheating or defrauding, and attempting to cheat and defraud, 

customers and prospective customers; (b) making or causing to be made to customers and 

prospective customers false reports or statements; and (c) deceiving or attempting to deceive 

customers and prospective customers, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

COUNT TWO 

Violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018) and 

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

Fraud by Deceptive Device or Contrivance 

102. The allegations set forth in the paragraphs above are realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

103. The binary option transactions offered by Defendants are swaps, as defined by 

Section 1a(47)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A) (2018). 

104. During the Relevant Period, Defendants intentionally or recklessly used or 

employed, or attempted to use or employ, manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances in 

connection with contracts of sale of swaps, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 28 of 37
29 

§ 180.1(a)(1)-(3). Defendants did so by engaging in the conduct alleged in the foregoing 

paragraphs, including by: 

a. As to Cartu Brothers and Peretz Brothers, misrepresenting: (1) the risk, cost, and 

profit potential of binary option transactions offered to customers by the Cartu 

Brands; (2) that the financial interests of the Cartu Brands were aligned with the 

customers’ financial interest and failing to disclose that they profited from 

customer losses; and (3) the financial experience and expertise, as well as the 

identity and physical location, of their employees and agents; 

b. As to all Defendants, making or causing to be made false reports regarding the 

binary option transactions offered to customers by the Cartu Brands and executed 

on the Cartu Platform; and 

c. As to all Defendants, using manipulative and deceptive devices, including 

bonuses and risk free trades, to entice customers to deposit additional funds and 

prevent them from withdrawing funds. 

105. During the Relevant Period, by the conduct alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, 

Defendants, directly or indirectly in connection with swaps, intentionally or recklessly: (a) used 

or employed, or attempted to use or employ, manipulative devices, schemes, and artifices to 

defraud; (b) made, or attempted to make, untrue or misleading statements of material facts; (c) 

omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make statements made not untrue or 

misleading; and (d) engaged, or attempted to engage, in acts, practices, and courses of business, 

which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon customers or prospective customers, 

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

106. Each of Defendants participated in the unlawful acts and practices described in 

this Complaint and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) committed by other Defendants. 

107. David has exercised direct and indirect control over All Out and either did not act 

in good faith or knowingly induced All Out’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for All Out’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 29 of 37
30 

108. Masten had and exercised direct and indirect control over BareIt and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced BareIt’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for BareIt’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

109. Jonathan has exercised direct and indirect control over Blue Moon and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Blue Moon’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Blue Moon’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

110. Josh has exercised direct and indirect control over Orlando Union and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Orlando Union’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Orlando Union’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

111. Each act of: (a) using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, manipulative 

devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) making, or attempting to make, untrue or 

misleading statements of material facts; (c) omitting to state material facts necessary in order to 

make statements made not untrue or misleading; and (d) engaging or attempting to engage, in 

acts, practices, and courses of business, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged 

herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

COUNT THREE 

Violations of Sections 4k(3) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6k(3) and 6m(1) (2018) 

Failure to Register as a CTA (BareIt) and 

Failure to Register as an AP of a CTA (Masten) 

112. The allegations set forth in the paragraphs above are realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 30 of 37
31 

113. During the Relevant Period, BareIt acted as a CTA by advising customers on 

trading binary options for compensation or profit. By engaging in this activity without having 

registered as a CTA, BareIt violated 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

114. Each use by BareIt of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce in connection with its business as a CTA without proper registration, including, but 

not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

115. Masten held and exercised direct and indirect control over BareIt and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, BareIt’s violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6m(1) and is therefore liable, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for BareIt’s violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6m(1). 

116. During the Relevant Period, Masten was associated with the unregistered CTA 

BareIt and acted as a partner, officer or agent in a capacity that involved the solicitation of 

customer or prospective customer accounts and/or solicitation of such persons so engaged, while 

failing to register with the CFTC as an AP of the CTO, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3). 

117. Each act of soliciting a customer or prospective customer’s account by Masten, 

including those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6k(3). 

118. The foregoing acts, omissions, and failures by Masten, and other officers, 

employees, and agents of BareIt occurred within the course or scope of their employment or 

office with BareIt. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2018) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2019), BareIt 

is liable as a principals for its officers, employees, and agents’ acts, omissions, and failures, 

including by not limited to those of Masten, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3). 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 31 of 37
32 

COUNT FOUR 

Violations of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.2, 

17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019) 

Illegal Off-Exchange Commodity Options 

119. The allegations set forth in the paragraphs above are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

120. During the Relevant Period, Defendants have offered to enter into, entered into, 

confirmed the execution of, maintained positions in, and otherwise conducted activities relating 

to commodity option transactions in interstate commerce. 

121. The commodity options that Defendants have offered to enter into, entered into, 

confirmed the execution of, maintained positions in, and otherwise conducted activities relating 

to, were not executed on any registered exchange nor have Defendants sought registration as an 

exempt foreign exchange. 

122. Defendants, by the conduct alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, and by offering 

to enter into, entering into, confirming the execution of, maintaining a position in, or otherwise 

conducting activity related to commodity options, other than on a registered exchange, have 

violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019). 

123. Each of Defendants participated in the unlawful acts and practices described in 

this Complaint and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 committed by other Defendants. 

124. David has exercised direct and indirect control over All Out and either did not act 

in good faith or knowingly induced All Out’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for All Out’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 32 of 37
33 

125. Masten had and exercised direct and indirect control over BareIt and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced BareIt’s violations and is therefore liable, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for BareIt’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. 

126. Jonathan has exercised direct and indirect control over Blue Moon and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Blue Moon’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Blue Moon’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.2. 

127. Josh has exercised direct and indirect control over Orlando Union and either did 

not act in good faith or knowingly induced Orlando Union’s violations and is therefore liable, 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), for Orlando Union’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32. 

128. Each act of offering to enter into, entering into, confirming the execution of, 

maintaining a position in, or otherwise conducting activity related to commodity options, other 

than on a registered exchange, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED 

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

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), and pursuant to the Court’s own equitable 

powers: 

A. Find that Defendants David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, Ryan 

Masten, Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC d/b/a 

SignalPush, Blue Moon Investments Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., violated Sections 4c(b) 

and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b) and 9(1) (2018), and Regulations 32.2, 32.4, and 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 33 of 37
34 

180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 32.2, 32.4, and 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2019), and that Defendants 

Masten and BareIt also violated Sections 4k(3) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6k(3) and 

6m(1) (2018); 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their affiliates, 

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

with them, who receives actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from 

engaging in the conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b) and 9(1) and 17 

C.F.R. §§ 32.2, 32.4, 180.1(a)(1)-(3), and, as to Masten and BareIt, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6k(3) and 

6m(1); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction prohibiting all Defendants and any of 

their affiliates, agents, servants, employees, assigns, attorneys, and persons in active concert 

or participation with them, from directly or indirectly: 

i. 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) (2018); 

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

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

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

interest; 

iii. Having any commodity interests, traded on any Defendant’s behalf; 

iv. 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; 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 34 of 37
35 

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

vi. 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) (2019); and 

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

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

D. Enter an order directing David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, Ryan Masten, 

Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC d/b/a SignalPush, Blue 

Moon Investments Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., 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, real and 

personal property and trading profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which 

constitute violations of the Act and the Regulations as described herein , including pre- and postjudgment interest; 

E. Enter an order requiring David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, Ryan 

Masten, Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC d/b/a 

SignalPush, Blue Moon Investments Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., as well as any successors 

thereof, to make full restitution to every person or entity whose funds Defendants received or 

caused another person or entity to receive as a result of acts and practices that constituted 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 35 of 37
36 

violations of the Act and the Regulations, as described herein, and pre- and post-judgment 

interest; 

F. Enter an order directing David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, Ryan Masten, 

Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC d/b/a SignalPush, Blue 

Moon Investments Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., to pay a civil monetary penalty, assessed by the 

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

§ 13a-1(d)(1) (2018), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

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

129 Stat. 584. 599-600,see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2019), for each violation of the 

Act and Regulations, as described herein; 

G. Enter an order requiring David Cartu, Jonathan Cartu, Joshua Cartu, Ryan Masten, 

Leeav Peretz, Nati Peretz, All Out Marketing Limited, BareIt Media LLC d/b/a SignalPush, Blue 

Moon Investments Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2) (2018); and 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Dated: September 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth N. Pendleton 

Elizabeth N. Pendleton 

Benjamin Sedrish 

Elizabeth M. Streit 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 36 of 37
37 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 W. Monroe St 

Chicago, IL 60661 

Tel. (312) 596-0700 

Fac. (312) 596-0714 

ependleton@cftc.gov 

bsedrish@cftc.gov 

estreit@cftc.gov 

Case 1:20-cv-00908 Document 1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 37 of 37