UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE ALISTA GROUP, LLC, MARVIN W. 

COURSON III, CHRISTOPHER A. 

KERTATOS, AND LUIS M. PINEDA 

PALACIOS, a/k/a LUIS PINEDA,

Defendants.

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTITUTION, CIVIL 

MONETARY PENALTY, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST

DEFENDANT MARVIN W. COURSON III

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or 

“CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendants The Alista Group LLC (“Alista”), Marvin W. 

Courson III (“Courson”), Christopher A. Kertatos (“Kertatos”), and Luis M. Pineda Palacios, a/k/a 

Luis Pineda (“Pineda”), seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as the imposition of 

restitution and civil monetary penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2018). 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against him without a trial on 

the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Courson: 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 23 PageID 569
2 

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

Civil Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Marvin W. Courson III

(“Consent Order”);

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that no 

promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the Commission 

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

to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint; 

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him and the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1345 (2018); 

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

issue in this action pursuant to the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2018); 

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (2018);

7. Waives:

(a) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 504 (2018) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2018), and/or the rules promulgated by the 

Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 148 

(2021), relating to, or arising from, this action; 

(b) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, §§ 201-253, 110 Stat. 847, 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID 570
3 

857-74 (1996) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in scattered sections of 5 

U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, this action; 

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

in this action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any other relief, including 

this Consent Order; and 

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

8. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the purpose of 

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

purpose relevant to this action, even if Courson now or in the future resides outside the jurisdiction 

of this Court; 

9. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on the ground, if 

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

hereby waives any objection based thereon; 

10. Agrees that neither he nor any of his agents or employees under his authority or 

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

allegation in the Complaint, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint 

and/or this Consent Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this 

provision shall affect his: (a) testimonial obligations; or (b) right to take legal positions in other 

proceedings to which the Commission is not a party; 

11. Agrees that he shall comply with this Consent Order and shall undertake all steps 

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

understand and comply with this Consent Order; 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 23 PageID 571
4 

12. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order, without admitting or denying the 

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

except as to jurisdiction and venue, which he admits; 

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

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

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

effect therein, without further proof;

14. Does not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the findings and 

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

which the Commission is a party, other than a proceeding in bankruptcy or receivership, or a 

proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order; 

15. Agrees to provide immediate notice to this Court and the Commission by certified 

mail, in the manner required by Paragraph 666 of Part VI of this Consent Order, of any bankruptcy 

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

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

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

other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), as set forth herein. The findings 

and conclusions in this Consent Order are not binding on any other party to this action. 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 23 PageID 572
5 

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS:

A. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties to This Consent Order

17. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations. 

18. Defendant Marvin W. Courson III is an individual who resides in Punta Gorda, 

Florida. Courson has never been registered with the CFTC.

Background 

19. Courson registered Alista as a domestic limited liability company in the state of 

Georgia on July 7, 2016. Alista’s articles of incorporation list Courson as the company’s organizer. 

The articles of incorporation list Alista’s principal business address as 100 Bull Street, Savannah, 

Georgia; however, Alista also operated at various times during the Relevant Period out of offices 

in Fort Myers, Florida and Orlando, Florida. 

20. During the Relevant Period, Alista, by and through Courson and others, solicited 

customers through an internet website and telephone calls to engage in leveraged precious metals 

transactions. 

21. At least some, if not all, of the customers solicited by Courson and others on behalf 

of Alista were non-Eligible Contract Participants (“ECP”s). 

22. During the Relevant Period, Alista, by and through Courson and others, solicited 

and accepted at least $890,500 from at least nineteen customers. Of this amount, $639,500 was 

sent by customers through checks or wire transfers directly to Alista’s bank accounts (“Alista 

Accounts”) and $77,500 was sent by customers to a bank account under the personal control of 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 23 PageID 573
6 

another Alista employee. In addition, at least one customer sent Alista numismatic coins as 

payment for his transactions. These coins were sent to Alista with the intention that they would be 

sold by Alista on behalf of the customer and the proceeds of such sale would be used to purchase 

leveraged precious metals for the customer’s account. These coins were sold for $173,500. 

23. With the exception of two fully-paid precious metals transactions which are not the 

subject of this action, no precious metals were ever purchased in the names of Alista’s customers. 

Instead, Courson and other Alista employees misappropriated Alista customer funds, using them 

to speculate in leveraged precious metals for Alista’s own account, to pay for Alista’s business 

expenses and their own personal expenses, and to make Ponzi-style payments to customers. 

Courson and Others Used Alista Customer Funds to Speculate for Alista’s

Own Account

24. For the first nine months of its operation, Alista signed up only one customer, who 

engaged in two fully-paid precious metals transactions through an arrangement Alista had with a 

Cayman Islands-based precious metals dealer (“Cayman Precious Metals Dealer”). 

25. Sometime in or around April 2017, Alista, by and through Courson and others,

began cold-calling customers to solicit them to engage in leveraged precious metals transactions. 

From April to October 2017, Alista, by and through Courson and others, acquired eighteen new 

customers. In addition, in April 2017, the one customer whom Alista had introduced to the Cayman 

Precious Metals Dealer was convinced to sell his fully-paid precious metals and to use the proceeds 

of this sale, along with additional funds, to engage in leveraged precious metals transactions. 

26. Neither Alista nor Courson ever opened any leveraged precious metals accounts in 

the names of Alista’s customers; nor did they ever purchase any precious metals on a leveraged 

basis in the names of Alista’s customers, deliver any precious metals to Alista’s customers, or store 

any precious metals on behalf of Alista’s customers. Rather, in May 2017, Courson opened a 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 23 PageID 574
7 

trading account in Alista’s name at a California-based precious metals dealer (“U.S. Precious 

Metals Dealer”). In the account application to the U.S. Precious Metals Dealer, Courson did not 

disclose that Alista was a precious metals broker dealer. Between May and July 2017, Courson 

and others took $239,300 of Alista’s customers’ funds and used those funds to speculate in 

leveraged precious metals for Alista’s own account. Customer funds were also used to pay interest 

charges and fees in connection with Alista’s account. These funds came from Alista Accounts over 

which Courson and another Alista employee had signatory authority. 

27. Between June and September 2017, Alista, by and through Courson and others,

sold some of the holdings from its U.S. Precious Metals Dealer account. A small amount of the 

proceeds of these sales was used to pay a customer who had requested a withdrawal from her 

account and the rest was used by Courson and others to pay for business, personal, and other 

expenses.

28. In late September 2017, the U.S. Precious Metals Dealer became aware that Alista 

was a precious metals broker dealer. When Courson was confronted with this information by the 

U.S. Precious Metals Dealer, he denied it; however, on the advice of its legal department, the U.S. 

Precious Metals Dealer thereafter refused to accept any new buy orders from Alista for its account.

29. Unable to make further purchases through its U.S. Precious Metals Dealer account, 

Alista, by and through Courson and another Alista employee, turned back to the Cayman Precious 

Metals Dealer in late October 2017. Because of the Cayman Precious Metals Dealer’s restrictions 

on engaging in leveraged precious metals transactions on behalf of U.S. clients, however, a 

leveraged precious metals trading account could not be opened in Alista’s name. Instead, a straw 

account was opened in the name of an individual who was an associate of the other Alista 

employee. This individual is a French citizen and used his French address on the account 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 7 of 23 PageID 575
8 

application. Alista was named in the account application as the broker agent and legal 

representative with discretionary control over all activities with regard to this account. 

30. The individual in whose name the account was opened was never an Alista 

customer and never put any of his own money into this account. Rather, Courson and the other 

Alista employee took $67,000 of Alista customer funds and used those funds to speculate in 

leveraged precious metals through this account. These funds came from an Alista Account over 

which Courson had sole signatory authority and from a personal account controlled by the other 

Alista employee into which Alista customer funds had been deposited. 

31. Beginning in December 2017, Alista began to receive margin calls from the U.S. 

Precious Metals Dealer with regard to its account. At the time of these margin calls, Alista owed 

the U.S. Precious Metals Dealer over $480,000 for the leveraged precious metals purchased for its 

account and it had less than $10,000 in its bank accounts. In response to these calls, Courson told 

the U.S. Precious Metals Dealer that “his ‘partners’ had embezzled money from him.” Ultimately, 

these margin calls forced Alista to sell all of its remaining holdings in its U.S. Precious Metals 

Dealer account. Alista never returned any of the proceeds of these sales to its customers.

Courson and Others Used Customer Funds to Pay for Business and Personal 

Expenses and to Make Ponzi-Style Payments to Customers 

32. In addition to using customer money to speculate for Alista’s own account, Courson 

and others also misappropriated customer money to pay for Alista’s business expenses, expenses 

related to travel, food, shopping, and entertainment, and to make Ponzi-style payments to 

customers who sought to cash out some of their purported holdings. For example: 

• At least $158,670 was withdrawn from the Alista Accounts in checks made out to 

cash, cash withdrawals, and ATM withdrawals. The checks for cash and the cash 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 8 of 23 PageID 576
9 

withdrawals were signed at various times by both Courson and another Alista 

employee. 

• At least $104,590 was paid in checks drawn on the Alista Accounts and made out 

to Courson, and other Alista employees. These checks were signed at various times 

by both Courson and another Alista employee. 

• At least $17,950 was drawn on the Alista Accounts to cover other business-related 

expenses such as rent, communications expenses (phone and internet), and state 

fees. Checks for these expenses were signed at various times by both Courson and 

another Alista employee. 

• At least $14,290 was drawn on the Alista Accounts to cover expenses related to 

travel, food, shopping, entertainment, and other expenses. 

• At least $149,632 was paid to four customers who sought to cash out some of their 

purported holdings. In one instance, Alista paid one customer $55,232.25 within 

three days of receiving $67,500 from two other customers. 

An Alista Employee Used Bank Accounts Under His Personal Control to 

Misappropriate Customer Funds

33. An Alista employee used two bank accounts under his personal control to 

misappropriate at least $205,000 in Alista customer funds. 

34. During the Relevant Period, this employee received a net total of $67,500 of 

customer funds directly from Alista into a bank account in the name of a company of which the 

employee was the incorporator and President. Most, if not all, of this money was either withdrawn 

by the employee via ATM withdrawals or used by the employee to make payments to Alista 

employees and to pay personal expenses, including payments for travel, hotels, and restaurants. 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 9 of 23 PageID 577
10 

35. During the Relevant Period, the employee also took certain coins which had been 

sent to Alista by a customer for the purpose of purchasing leveraged precious metals and sold them 

to a coin and jewelry exchange for $173,500. Of this amount, the employee sent only $36,000 to 

Alista. The remainder was deposited either into the employee’s corporate bank account or into a 

personal bank account in his name, from which it then was either withdrawn by the employee via 

ATM withdrawals or used by the employee to pay personal expenses, to make payments to a 

second employee, and to speculate in leveraged precious metals through the straw account 

established at the Cayman Precious Metals Dealer.

A Second Alista Employee Used a Bank Account Under His Personal Control 

to Misappropriate Customer Funds

36. A second Alista employee used a bank account under his personal control to 

misappropriate at least $77,500 in Alista customer funds. 

37. During the Relevant Period, at least two Alista customers sent funds totaling at least 

$77,500 directly to the second Alista employee’s personal checking account in connection with 

their leveraged precious metals transactions. None of this money was used by the second Alista 

employee to purchase leveraged precious metals on behalf of these customers. Rather, the second 

Alista employee either withdrew the money via ATM withdrawals or used it to pay his personal 

expenses, including food, travel, and entertainment. 

Courson Acted as a Controlling Person of Alista 

38. At all times during the Relevant Period, Courson acted as a controlling person of 

Alista. Courson registered Alista with the State of Georgia and is listed in Alista’s incorporation 

papers as the company’s organizer. Courson was the Manager and sole Member of Alista, and at 

various times he held himself out as Alista’s “Owner with Control of Entity.” As the Manager and 

Sole Member of Alista, Courson had authority to hire and fire employees and to set policies and 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 10 of 23 PageID 578
11 

procedures for Alista. Courson opened Alista’s bank accounts and was a signatory on all of them. 

Courson also opened Alista’s leveraged precious metals trading account at the U.S. Precious 

Metals Dealer. 

B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Jurisdiction and Venue

39. The Court possesses jurisdiction 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). The Commission has jurisdiction over the transactions at 

issue in this case pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D) (2018). 

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

§ 13a-1(e) (2018), because Courson resides in this jurisdiction and certain transactions, acts, and 

practices alleged in the Complaint occurred, are occurring, and/or are about to occur within this 

District.

Violations of Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018)

41. Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018), provides in relevant part, that it is 

unlawful: 

[F]or any person to offer to enter into, to enter into, to execute, to confirm 

the execution of, or to conduct any office or business anywhere in the 

United States, its territories or possessions, for the purpose of soliciting or 

accepting any order for, or otherwise dealing in, any transaction in, or in 

connection with, a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for 

future . . . unless— 

(1) such transaction is conducted on or subject to the rules of a board of 

trade which has been designated or registered by the Commission as a 

contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility for such 

commodity; 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 11 of 23 PageID 579
12 

(2) such contract is executed or consummated by or through a contract 

market . . . 

42. During the Relevant Period, the retail commodity transactions described in this 

Complaint were offered and entered into by Alista: (a) on a leveraged or margined basis, or 

financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or 

counterparty on a similar basis, (b) with persons who are not ECPs as defined by the Act, and (c) 

not made or conducted on, or subject to, the rules of any board of trade, exchange, or contract 

market. 

43. The leveraged precious metals that are the subject of the retail commodity 

transactions discussed in this Complaint are commodities as defined by Section 1a(9) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 1a(9) (2018). 

44. The retail commodity transactions did not result in actual delivery within 28 days. 

In fact, there was no actual delivery of precious metals. 

45. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Act, 7 U.S. C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) (2018), the 

retail commodity transactions alleged herein are subject to Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) 

(2018), as if they are contracts of sale for future delivery. 

46. In an Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2021 (Dkt. #31), the Court entered a 

judgment against Alista on, among other things, the charge of violating 7 U.S.C. § 6(a). Courson 

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

or indirectly, the acts constituting Alista’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6(a), as committed by Alista’s 

employees and agents. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018), 

Courson is liable as a controlling person of Alista for each of Alista’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6(a).

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 12 of 23 PageID 580
13 

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

and (C) (2018) 

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

provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful: 

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

of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future delivery, or swap, that 

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

than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market— 

(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person . . . 

or... 

(C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive the other person by any means 

whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the disposition or execution 

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

respect to any order or contract for or, in the case of paragraph (2), with the 

other person . . . 

48. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) (2018), the 

leveraged precious metals transactions engaged in by Alista are subject to 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) (2018) as if they are contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery. 

49. By the conduct described above, Courson cheated and defrauded, or attempted to 

cheat and defraud, and/or willfully deceived, or attempted to deceive, customers by

misappropriating their funds in connection with retail commodity transactions in violation of 7 

U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

50. In an Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2021 (Dkt. #31), the Court entered a 

judgment against Alista on, among other things, the charge of violating 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and 

(C). Courson directly or indirectly controlled Alista and did not act in good faith, or knowingly 

induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting the Alista’s violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), as committed by Alista’s employees and agents. Therefore, pursuant to 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 13 of 23 PageID 581
14 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018), Courson is liable as a controlling person for 

each of Alista’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

Need for Injunction

51. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable likelihood that 

Courson will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint and in similar 

acts and practices in violation of the Act. 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), Courson is permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly:

(a) offering to enter into, entering into, executing, confirming the execution of, 

or conducting any office or business anywhere in the United States, its 

territories or possessions, for the purpose of soliciting or accepting any 

order for, or otherwise dealing in, any transaction in, or in connection with, 

a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery (other 

than a contract which is made on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, 

exchange, or market located outside the United States, its territories or 

possessions) in violation of Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018); 

and

(b) in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract 

of sale of any commodity for future delivery, or swap, that is made, or to be 

made, for or on behalf of, or with, any other person, other than on or subject 

to the rules of a designated contract market, (1) cheating or defrauding or 

attempting to cheat or defraud the other person; or (2) willfully deceiving 

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

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

or contract, or in regard to any act of agency performed, with respect to any 

order or contract for or, in the case of paragraph (2), with the other person, 

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

6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) (2018). 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 14 of 23 PageID 582
15 

53. Courson is also permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or 

indirectly: 

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

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2018));

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

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

account or for any account in which he has a direct or indirect interest; 

(c) Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

(d) Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

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

commodity interests;

(e) Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose 

of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

(f) Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

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

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except as 

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

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

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

that term is defined in Section 1a(38) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38) (2018)), 

registered, exempted from registration or required to be registered with the 

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

§ 4.14(a)(9) (2021). 

V. RESTITUTION AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

A. Restitution

54. Courson shall pay restitution in the amount of five hundred sixty thousand, one 

hundred fifty-two dollars and sixty cents ($560,152.60) (“Restitution Obligation”), representing 

the Alista customer losses caused by the violations cited above, plus post-judgment interest. If the 

Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately, post-judgment interest shall accrue on the 

Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and shall be determined 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 15 of 23 PageID 583
16 

by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1961 (2018). Courson’s Restitution Obligation shall be joint and several with the 

restitution order imposed on Alista by this Court’s Opinion and Order of March 2, 2021 (Dkt. #31). 

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

restitution payments to Alista customers by Courson, the Court appoints the National Futures 

Association (“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive restitution payments from 

Courson and make distributions as set forth below. Because the Monitor is acting as an officer of 

this Court in performing these services, the NFA shall not be liable for any action or inaction 

arising from NFA’s appointment as Monitor, other than actions involving fraud. 

56. Courson shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any post-judgment 

interest payments, under this Consent Order to the Monitor in the name “Marvin W. Courson III

Restitution Fund” and shall send such Restitution Obligation payments by electronic funds 

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

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

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

the name and docket number of this proceeding. Courson shall simultaneously transmit copies of 

the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures 

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

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

to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to Alista customers 

identified by the Commission or may defer distribution until such time as the Monitor deems 

appropriate. In the event that the amount of Restitution Obligation payments to the Monitor are of 

a de minimis nature such that the Monitor determines that the administrative cost of making a 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 16 of 23 PageID 584
17 

distribution to eligible customers is impractical, the Monitor may, in its discretion, treat such 

restitution payments as civil monetary penalty payments, which the Monitor shall forward to the 

Commission following the instructions for civil monetary penalty payments set forth in Part V. B. 

below. 

58. Courson shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such 

information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify the Alista customers to 

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

any Restitution Obligation payments. Courson shall execute any documents necessary to release 

funds that he has in any repository, bank, investment or other financial institution, wherever 

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

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

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Alista customers during the previous year. The 

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

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

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

60. The amounts payable to each Alista customer shall not limit the ability of any Alista 

customer from proving that a greater amount is owed from Courson or any other person or entity, 

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

that exist under state or common law. 

61. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each Alista customer 

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

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

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

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 17 of 23 PageID 585
18 

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

provision of this Consent Order. 

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

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

in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

63. Courson shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of five hundred sixty 

thousand, one hundred fifty-two dollars and sixty cents ($560,152.60) (“CMP Obligation”), plus 

post-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on 

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

prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2018).

64. Courson shall pay his CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest by electronic 

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

order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment shall be 

made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address below: 

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Division of Enforcement 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 181 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

(405) 954-6569 office 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Courson shall contact 9-AMC-ARCFTC@faa.gov at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with 

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

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

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 18 of 23 PageID 586
19 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20581. 

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions

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

payment of Courson’s Restitution Obligation or CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of 

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

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

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

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

Notice to Commission: 

Rick Glaser

Deputy Director

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Notice to Defendant Marvin W. Courson III: 

 Marvin W. Courson III 

 506 La Caruna Court 

 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 

All such notices to the Commission shall reference the name and docket number of this action.

67. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Courson satisfies in full his 

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

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

and mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 19 of 23 PageID 587
20 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

holding. 

70. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any customer at any 

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

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

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

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

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

71. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Courson waives service of this Consent 

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

Court will constitute notice to Courson of its terms and conditions. Courson further agrees to 

provide counsel for the Commission, within thirty (30) days after this Consent Order is filed with 

the Clerk of Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that he has received and read a copy of 

this Consent Order. 

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

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

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 20 of 23 PageID 588
21 

action, including any motion by Courson to modify or for relief from the terms of this Consent 

Order.

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

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Courson, upon any person under his 

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

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

participation with Courson. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

75. Contempt: Courson understands that the terms of the Consent Order are 

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

the validity of this Consent Order. 

76. Agreements and Undertakings: Courson shall comply with all of the undertakings 

and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 21 of 23 PageID 589
22 

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

Judgment by attaching this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Restitution, Civil Monetary 

Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Marvin W. Courson III as the Judgment 

without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1st day of March 2022. 

Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 22 of 23 PageID 590

E. STEELE 

IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 2:20-cv-00503-JES-NPM Document 44 Filed 03/01/22 Page 23 of 23 PageID 591

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

M'arvin W. Courson III 

Prose 

23 

Alan Edelman 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

Facsimile: (202) 418-5523 

Date l / z._ ~ ( 2-.2-