UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ALI R. BAZZI and WELTHER OAKS

LLC,

Defendants.

Case No.:__________________

ECF CASE

COMPLAINT FOR 

INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR

CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE 

ACT AND COMMISSION 

REGULATIONS

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or 

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

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least March 2018 through the present (the “Relevant Period”), 

Ali R. Bazzi (“Bazzi”), individually and as agent and principal of Welther Oaks

LLC (“Welther Oaks”) (collectively “Defendants”), operated a fraudulent scheme 

in which Defendantssolicited, accepted and misappropriated funds for a pooled 

investment in off-exchange leveraged or margined foreign currency exchange 

(“forex”) contracts(“forex pool”).

2. Bazzi, as Chief Executive Officer and agent of Welther Oaks,

knowingly made fraudulent and material misrepresentations and omissions, in both 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 27
2

conversations and written communications, about his forex trading and returns to 

persuade at least 25 individuals (“Pool Participants”) to transfer at least $470,000 

to Defendants for the purpose of participating in a forex pool. 

3. To entice prospective Pool Participants, Defendants Bazzi and 

Welther Oaks, through Bazzi, knowingly and falsely represented, among other 

things: that Defendants had made large profits for themselves and Pool Participants 

from trading forex; that Defendants would trade forex with the funds deposited by

Pool Participants; that Pool Participants would realize guaranteed profits of at least 

15% per month on their funds without losses; and that upon request, Pool 

Participants could withdraw their funds at any time.

4. Defendants also omitted to tell Pool Participants material information, 

including failing to disclose to Pool Participants that Defendants did not fund the 

trading accounts and did no trading at all during parts of the Relevant Period; that 

the account statements issued by Defendants to several Pool Participants 

supposedly reflecting forex trading and profits were false; and that Defendants 

misappropriated approximately $387,000 of PoolParticipants’ funds for their own 

use.

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

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

practices in violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 27
3

Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6o(1)(A)-(B) 

(2018), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2020), which prohibit fraud in connection with forex transactions 

and fraud by a commodity pool operator (“CPO”).

6. In addition to the above-described fraudulent conduct, Defendant 

Welther Oaks acted at all times during the Relevant Period as a CPO by operating 

or soliciting funds for a forex pool that did not qualify as an eligible contract 

participant (“ECP”) and was marketed to Pool Participants that were, on 

information and belief, also not ECPs, and engaged in retail forex transactions, 

without being registered with the Commission as a CPO, in violation of Sections 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1) 

(2018), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2020).

7. Similarly, Defendant Bazzisolicited funds for participation in a forex 

pool for the purpose of trading in off-exchange leveraged or margined forex 

contracts, while associated with Defendant Welther Oaks as an officer, employee, 

or agent, without being registered with the Commission as an associated person 

(“AP”) of Welther Oaks, in violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4k(2) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2) (2018) and Regulation 

5.3(a)(2)(ii), 17 C.F.R. §5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2020).

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 27
4

8. 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 their compliance with the Act and the Regulations 

promulgated thereunder. 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 and further relief as the Court may deem necessary or

appropriate. 

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

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

acts and practices, as described below.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 (2018)(codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 

(2018) (providing that U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction over civil 

actions commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly authorized to 

sue by Act of Congress). In addition, Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 

(2018), provides that the U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions 

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

Act whenever it shall appear to the Commission that a person has engaged, is 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 27
5

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.

11. The CFTC has jurisdiction over the forex solicitations and 

transactions at issue in this case pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(2018). In addition, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) provides that “This Act 

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

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

agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency described in clause (i).”

12. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (2018), because Defendants reside in, transact or 

transacted business in this District, and certain transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred, are occurring, or are about 

to occur in this District. Additionally, some of the defrauded Pool Participants 

reside in and were solicited in this District.

III. THE PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commissionis an 

independent federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the responsibility 

of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2018),

and the Commission’s Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190

(2020). 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of 27
6

14. Defendant Ali R. Bazzi is a resident of Dearborn, Michigan. Bazzi is 

the Chief Executive Officer and sole owner of Defendant Welther Oaks. Bazzihas 

never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

15. Defendant Welther Oaks LLC was incorporated in Michigan on 

March 27, 2018. During the Relevant Period, Welther Oaks’ address was listed as 

either 6 Parklane Blvd., Dearborn, Michigan or 400 Renaissance Center Suite 

2600, Detroit, Michigan. Welther Oaks has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity.

IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

16. Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) (2018), provides 

that the Act applies to, and the CFTC has jurisdiction over, agreements, contracts, 

or transactions in forex. In addition, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) makes such 

agreements, contracts or transaction “subject to” Sections 4b and 4o of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6b, 6o (2018), among others, and 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv)states that 

7 U.S.C. § 6b applies to forex agreements, contracts, or transactions “as if” they 

were contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

17. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) (2018),

prohibits any person from operating or soliciting funds, securities, or property for 

any pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP in connection with agreements, 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 27
7

contracts, or transactions in forex, unless registered with the Commission, with 

certain exceptions not applicable to Defendants. 

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

(2018), defines an ECP, in relevant parts, as:

[A] commodity pool that–(I) has total assets exceeding $5,000,000; and (II) 

is formed or operated by a person subject to regulation under the Act, 

provided that for purposes of Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, the term 

ECP shall not include a commodity pool in which any participant is not 

otherwise an eligible contract participant, see 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(iv) (2018); 

or 

[A]n individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the 

aggregate of which is in excess of–(I) $10,000,000; or (II) $5,000,000 and 

who enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction in order to manage 

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

likely to be owned or incurred, by the individual.

19. Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) (2018), and Regulation 

5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2020), require any person acting as a CPO, as 

defined in Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. §5.1(d)(1) (2018), to be registered as 

such with the Commission. 

20. For the purposes of trading forex, a CPO is defined in 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.1(d)(1) as “any person who operates or solicits funds, securities, or property for 

a pooled investment vehicle that is not an [ECP] as defined in section 1a(18) of the 

Act, and that engages in retail forex transactions[.]”

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 27
8

21. Section 4k of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6k(2) (2018), and 17C.F.R. 

§ 5.3(a)(2)(ii) require any AP of a CPO, as defined in 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2), to be 

registered as such with the Commission.

22. For the purposes of trading forex, an AP of a CPO is defined in 

17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2) as “any natural person associated with a commodity pool 

operator . . . as a partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent . . . in any capacity 

which involves: (i) The solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a 

participation in a pooled investment vehicle; or (ii) The supervision of any person 

or persons so engaged.”

V. FACTS

A. Defendants’ Fraudulent Scheme 

23. During the Relevant Period, on information and belief, Defendants 

Bazzi and Welther Oaks, through Bazzi, fraudulently solicited at least $470,000

from at least 25 non-ECP Pool Participants, for the purpose of trading offexchange leveraged or margined forex contracts on their behalf in a commodity 

pool that was not itself an ECP. 

24. During this period, Bazzi held himself out as the Chief Executive, sole 

owner, and chief forex trader for Welther Oaks.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of 27
9

25. Bazzi solicited prospective Pool Participants through telephone calls, 

emails, text messages, and word of mouth, seeking out individuals who would 

agree to let Bazzi trade forex on their behalf through his company, Welther Oaks.

26. On or about March 28, 2018, Bazzi opened a business checking 

account at Fifth-Third Bank in the name of Welther Oaks with an account number 

ending in 3494 (the “3494 account”). On the application to open the account, 

Bazzi listed himself as the sole owner of and having complete control of Welther 

Oaks.

27. On or aboutJuly 30, 2018, Bazzi opened a second business checking 

account in the name of Welther Oaks at Bank of America with an account number 

ending in 3242 (the “3242 account”). On the application to open the account, 

Bazzi listed himself as the sole owner of and the owner with control of the entity.

28. On or about July 18, 2019, Bazzi opened a third business checking 

account in the name of Welther Oaks at Bank of America with an account number 

ending in 5461 (the “5461 account”). On the application to open the account, 

Bazzi listed himself as the sole owner of and the owner with control of the entity.

29. Bazzi asked prospective pool participants to wire funds into one of the 

three Welther Oaks bank accounts. Defendants also deposited checks received 

from pool participants into these accounts.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 27
10

30. On October 23, 2018, Bazzi opened a retail forex account in his own 

name at a retail forex dealer and funded it with $5,000. Bazzi did not disclose any 

other owners on the account application and answered that there were no 

undisclosed persons with an ownership interest in the account. The account was 

open for approximately fourteen days during which time it lost $615. Bazzi 

subsequently closed the account on November 6, 2018 and transferred the 

remaining balance of $4,385 to his personal credit card.

31. Over a year later, on December 11, 2019, Bazzi opened a second retail 

forex account in the name of Welther Oaks LLC with another retail forex dealer. 

Bazzi represented on the account application that he was trading his own funds, 

and no one else held a financial interest in the account. Bazzi made two deposits 

into the account, totaling $70,000. The account was open for approximately 36 

days, engaged in sixty-six trades and sustained net losses of approximately $973. 

Bazzi subsequently closed the account on January 13, 2019 and transferred the 

remaining balance of $68,889 out of the account to a Welther Oaks bank account.

32. On information and belief, these were the only two forex accounts 

Bazzi and Welther Oaks opened and traded in during the Relevant Period 

B. Defendants’ Fraudulent Misrepresentations and Omission

33. Throughout the Relevant Period, Bazzi falsely and fraudulently 

represented to PoolParticipants that: Defendants had made large profits for 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 of 27
11

themselves and Pool Participants from trading forex; Defendants would trade forex 

with the funds deposited by Pool Participants; Pool Participants would realize 

guaranteed profits as high as 15% per month on their funds without losses; and 

upon request, Pool Participants could withdraw the funds at any time. 

34. Bazzi also omitted to tell Pool Participants material information, 

including failing to disclose to Pool Participants that the majority of the funds 

received were not placed in trading accounts and Defendants did no trading at all 

during most of the Relevant Period; that the account statements issued by 

Defendants to several Pool Participants supposedly reflecting forex trading and 

profits were false; and that Defendants misappropriated Pool Participants’ funds 

for their own use.

35. In fact, Defendants performed little if any forex trading on behalf of 

Pool Participants with the funds they received, never earned any profits on the 

funds they did trade, provided false account statements to Pool Participants 

showing profits, never paid out profits to most Pool Participants, and ultimately 

refused Pool Participants’ requests to return their money. Instead, Defendants 

intentionally misappropriated Pool Participants’ funds for Defendants’ own benefit 

and personal use.

36. At the direction of Defendants, several Pool Participants entered into a 

written “Trading Agreement” with Welther Oaks. Bazzi provided the Trading 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 of 27
12

Agreement to Pool Participants by email or through other means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Some of the agreements contained the 

following fraudulent representation, “Welther Oaks will Honor any withdrawal 

requests made by the investor.”

37. To conceal from Pool Participants that their funds had been 

misappropriated and lull Pool Participants into leaving their funds in control of 

Welther Oaks and Bazzi, Bazzi advised some Pool Participants, both orally and in 

written account statements, that their funds were making profits, though in reality 

they were not.

38. For example, one Welther Oaks pool participant received statements 

from Defendants showing that forex trades placed in his account between January 

22, 2019 and May 10, 2019 had earned profits totaling $89,447, when in fact Bazzi 

had done no forex trading during that time period. 

39. Additionally, Defendants issued statements to at least six pool 

participants reflecting that between May 2018 and July 2019, Defendants had 

earned over $244,000 in profits for those participants. In fact, Bazzi only had an 

active forex account for about one month of that timespan, during which time he 

lost $972. 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 of 27
13

40. Defendants made the misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein 

willfully or with reckless disregard for the truth and by use of the wires or other 

means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. 

C. Defendants Misappropriated Pool Participants’Funds

41. Bazzi instructed Pool Participants either to wire their funds to one of

the three business checking accounts in the name of Welther Oaks or, if they 

wished to submit a check or cash, to send the funds to Welther Oak’s business 

address.

42. Most, if not all, funds transmitted to Defendants by Pool Participants 

during the Relevant Period were deposited into one of the three Welther Oaks bank

accounts (either by wire transfers sent directly from Pool Participants, or by 

Defendants depositing checks or cash received from Pool Participants).

43. Bazzi was the sole signatory on all three Welther Oaks bank accounts

during the Relevant Period. 

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

for trading forex as Defendants had represented they would, Defendants instead 

used those Pool Participant funds for Bazzi’s personal benefit. Specifically, 

Defendants used at least approximately $387,000 for, among other things, 

automobiles, jewelry, retail purchases, meals, entertainment, travel, and bank 

withdrawals for cash expenses.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 of 27
14

45. One example occurred on March 9, 2020, when a Pool Participant 

made a $35,000 deposit by wire transfer to the Welther Oaks account at Bank Two. 

None of this Pool Participant’s deposit was used to trade forex. Instead Bazzi used 

this money he received to pay for personalliving expenses such as food, gym 

memberships, gas and utilities, and retail purchases, including clothing, auto 

accessories, and over $13,000 in jewelry.

46. To date, despite repeated requests to Bazzi for the return of their 

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

Defendants. 

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

Defendants, those funds were misappropriated by Defendants from other Pool 

Participants, in the nature of a Ponzi scheme. 

48. Defendants misappropriated Pool Participants’ funds by use of the 

mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

D. Welther Oaks Acted as an Unregistered CPO, and Bazzi Acted as an 

Unregistered AP of a CPO

49. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Welther Oaks, through 

Defendant Bazzi, acted by operating or soliciting funds from individuals who were 

not ECPs for a forex pool that was not an ECP and that engaged in retail forex 

transactions.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 of 27
15

50. During the Relevant Period, Bazzi acted in a capacity requiring 

registration as an AP of a CPO by soliciting Pool Participants and prospective Pool 

Participantsfor participation in a forex pool, while associated with Welther Oaks

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

51. During the Relevant Period, Welther Oaks was not registered with the 

Commission as a CPO, and Bazzi was not registered with the Commission as an 

AP of a CPO as required by the Act and Regulations. 

E. Bazzi Was a Controlling Person of Welther Oaks

52. Defendant Bazziwas a controlling person of Welther Oaks. Bazzi

was the founder, Chief Executive Officer and sole owner of Welther Oaks. Bazzi

told Pool Participants that he was responsible for the trading at Welther Oaks and 

was generally the sole source of information for Pool Participants regarding 

Welther Oaks and the status of their funds. Bazzicontrolled the Welther Oaks 

bank accounts, into which Pool Participants transferred funds for the purpose of

trading forex.

F. Bazzi Acted as an Agent for Welther Oaks

53. Through his solicitation of prospective and existing Pool Participants 

and his continued communication with Pool Participants regarding their purported 

trading success on behalf of Welther Oaks, Bazzi acted as an agent of Welther 

Oaks.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 08/17/21 Page 15 of 27
16

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND 

COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT ONE—AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

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

(2018), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2020)

(Fraud In Connection with Forex Transactions by Fraudulent Solicitation and 

Misappropriation)

54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

55. Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C)(2018)

makes it unlawful “for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or 

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

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

or subject to the rules of a designated contract market–(A) to cheat or defraud or 

attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; (B) willfully to make or cause to be 

made to the other person any false report or statement or willfully to enter or cause 

to be entered for the other person any false record; or (C) willfully to deceive or 

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

order or contract or the disposition or execution of any order or contract, or in 

regard to any act of agency performed, with respect to an order or contract for or, 

in the case of paragraph (2), with the other person.”

56. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) (2018), 

provides that 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, also applies to the forex 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 08/17/21 Page 16 of 27
17

transactions, agreements, or contracts offered by Defendants “as if” they were a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

57. Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2020) makes it 

unlawful “for any person, by use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of 

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

transaction: (1) [t]o cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; 

(2) [w]illfully to make or cause to be made to any person any false report or 

statement or cause to be entered for any person any false record; or (3) [w]illfully 

to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any means whatsoever.” 

58. During the Relevant Period, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. §5.2(b)(1)-(3), by, among other things,

misrepresenting that:

a. Defendants had made large profits for themselves and Pool 

Participants from trading forex;

b. Defendants would trade forex with the funds deposited by Pool 

Participants;

c. Pool Participants would realize guaranteed profits as high as 15% per 

month on their funds without losses; and 

d. Upon request, Pool Participants could withdraw their funds from 

Welther Oaks at any time;

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 08/17/21 Page 17 of 27
18

59. During the Relevant Period, Defendants further violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. §5.2(b)(1)-(3), by, among other things, omitting 

to disclose to Pool Participants that:

a. Defendants did not fund the trading accounts and did no trading at all 

during parts of the Relevant Period;

b. the account statements issued by Defendants to several Pool 

Participants supposedly reflecting forex trading and profits were 

false; and

c. Defendants misappropriated Pool Participants’ funds for their own 

use.

60. Defendants committed the acts and practices described above using 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the use of interstate wires for 

transfer of funds.

61. Defendants committed the acts and practices described herein 

willfully, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

62. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures as alleged in this Count of 

Bazzi, and of all other agents of Welther Oaks, occurred and are occurring within 

the scope of their employment, office or agency with Welther Oaks; therefore, 

Welther Oaksis liable for these acts, omissions and failures pursuant to Section 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 08/17/21 Page 18 of 27
19

2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2018), and Commission Regulation 

1.2, 17 C.F.R. §1.2 (2020).

63. Bazzi directly or indirectly controls Welther Oaks, and did not act in 

good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Welther Oaks’ violations

alleged in this Count, and is thus liable for Welther Oaks’ violations pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018).

64. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and 

misappropriation, including, but not limited to, those specifically alleged herein, 

constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

COUNT TWO—AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violations of Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) (2018)

(Fraud by a CPO and an Associated Person of a CPO)

65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

66. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) makes it unlawful for CPOs and APs of CPOs by use 

of the mails or any other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly 

or indirectly–(A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or 

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

practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client 

or participant or prospective client or participant.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 08/17/21 Page 19 of 27
20

67. As alleged herein, during the Relevant Period, Welther Oaks, through 

Bazzi, acted as a CPO by operating, or soliciting funds for, a forex pool that is not 

an ECP and that engages in retail forex transactions.

68. Bazzi acted as an AP of a CPO because he was associated with a CPO 

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

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

69. Welther Oaks, through Bazzi, and Bazzi in his individual capacity, 

violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), in that by use of the mails or any other means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, they employed or are employing a device, 

scheme, or artifice to defraud actual or prospective Pool Participants, or engaged or 

are engaging in transactions, practices, or a course of business which operated or 

operates as a fraud or deceit upon actual or prospective Pool Participants. 

70. Bazzi directly or indirectly controls Welther Oaks, and did not act in 

good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Welther Oaks’ violations 

alleged in this Count, and is thus liable for Welther Oaks’ violations pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

71. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Bazzi as alleged in this 

Count, and of all other agents of Welther Oaks, occurred and are occurring within 

the scope of their employment, office or agency with Welther Oaks; therefore, 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 08/17/21 Page 20 of 27
21

Welther Oaksis liable for these acts, omissions and failures pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2.

72. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, and 

misappropriation, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is 

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

COUNT THREE—AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violations of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1) (2018), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 

5.3(a)(2)(i) (2020)

(Failure to Register as a Commodity Pool Operator)

73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by 

reference.

74. As alleged herein, during the Relevant Period, Defendant Welther 

Oaks, which was not exempt from registration as a CPO, acted as a CPO and made 

use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in 

connection with its business as a CPO by operating or soliciting funds for a forex 

pool that is not an ECP and that engages in retail forex transactions. Welther Oaks

engaged in this conduct without being registered with the Commission as a CPO in 

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

§ 5.3(a)(2)(i).

75. Bazzi directly or indirectly controls Welther Oaks, and did not act in 

good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Welther Oaks’ violations 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 08/17/21 Page 21 of 27
22

alleged in this Count, and is thus liable for Welther Oaks’ violations pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

COUNT FOUR—AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violations of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2) (2018), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2020)

(Failure to Register as an Associated Person of a Commodity Pool Operator) 

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

reference.

77. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Bazzi acted as an AP of a 

CPO by operating or soliciting funds, securities, or property for the Welther Oaks

forex pool, which was not an ECP, in connection with off-exchange leveraged or 

margined forex transactions. Welther Oaks engaged in this conduct without being 

registered with the Commission as an AP of CPO Welther Oaks, in violation of 

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

78. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Bazzi as alleged in this 

Count, occurred and are occurring within the scope of his employment, office or 

agency with Welther Oaks; therefore, Welter Oaks is liable for these acts, 

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

§ 1.2.

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 08/17/21 Page 22 of 27
23

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 its 

own equitable powers:

A. Enter an order finding that Defendants Welther Oaks and Bazzi 

violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 4k(2), 4m(1), and 

4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6k(2), 

6m(1), 6o(1)(A)-(B) (2018), and Regulations 5.2(b)(1)-(3) and 5.3(a)(2)(i)-(ii), 

17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 5.3(a)(2)(i)-(ii) (2020).

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining, enjoining and 

prohibiting Defendants Bazzi and Welther Oaks, and their affiliates, agents, 

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

active concert with them, who receive actual notice of such order by personal 

service or otherwise, from engaging in the conduct described above, in violation of 

7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 6k(2), 6m(1), and 6o(1)(A)-(B), 

and 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 5.3(a)(2)(i)-(ii).

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

prohibiting Defendants Bazziand Welther Oaks, and their affiliates, agents, 

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

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 08/17/21 Page 23 of 27
24

active concert with them, who receive actual notice of such order by personal 

service or otherwise, from, directly or indirectly:

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

term is defined by Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) 

(2018));

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

that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. §1.3 (2020)), for 

accounts held in the name of any Defendant or for accounts in 

which any Defendant has a direct or indirect interest; 

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

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

person or entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any 

account involving commodity interests;

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

the purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests;

6. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration 

with the CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity 

requiring such registration or exemption from registration with the 

CFTC except as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.14(a)(9) (2020); and

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 08/17/21 Page 24 of 27
25

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2020)), agent, or any other officer or employee 

of any person registered, exempted from registration, or required to 

be registered with the CFTC except as provided for in Regulation 

4.14(a)(9).

D. Enter an order requiring Defendants, as well as any third-party 

transferee and/or successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the 

Court may order, all benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, 

commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived directly or 

indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act and 

Regulations as described herein, including pre-judgment interest thereon from the 

date of such violations, plus post-judgment interest.

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

thereof, to make full restitution, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may 

order, to every person or entity who sustained losses proximately caused by 

Defendants’ violations, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

F. Enter an order directing Defendants and any of their successors, to 

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

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

Defendants and any of the clients whose funds were received by them as a result of 

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 08/17/21 Page 25 of 27
26

the acts and practices which constituted violations of the Act and Regulations as 

described herein.

G. Enter an order requiring each Defendant to pay a civil monetary 

penalty under the Act, to be assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the 

penalty described 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, Tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 

599-600, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2020), for each violation of the 

Act and Regulations, as described herein.

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

by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2) (2018).

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

may deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Dated: August 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jon J. Kramer 

Jon J. Kramer 

Senior Trial Attorney 

jkramer@cftc.gov

(312) 802-6773

Illinois ARDC No. 06272560

David A. Terrell

Chief Trial Attorney

dterell@cftc.gov

(312) 835-2921

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.26 Filed 08/17/21 Page 26 of 27
27

Illinois ARDC No. 6196293

Scott R. Williamson

Deputy Regional Counsel

swilliamson@cftc.gov

(312) 420-8950

Illinois ARDC No. 6191293

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission

525 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Case 2:21-cv-11909-MFL-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.27 Filed 08/17/21 Page 27 of 27