1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 1 

SUSAN B. PADOVE (ILBN 3127019)

DAVID TERRELL (ILBN 6196293)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Tel. 312-596-0700; Fax 312-596-0714

spadove@cftc.gov

dterrell@cftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA

______________________________

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”), by and 

through its attorneys, hereby alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least 2018 through May 2022(the “Relevant Period”), Defendant 

William Koo Ichioka operated a scheme in which he fraudulently solicited tens of 

millions of dollars from more than one hundred individuals and entities (“participants”)

to trade commodity interests, digital assets, including bitcoin and ether, and to engage in 

retail foreign currency transactions (“forex”) through a pool he operated under the name 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAM KOO ICHIOKA, 

Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

AND EQUITABLE RELIEF AND 

PENALTIES UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. ________________________

Case No. _____________________

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 2 

Ichioka Ventures. Ichioka misappropriated tens of millions of dollars in participant funds

and used a portion of those funds for his personal uses and expenses. 

2. By engaging in this conduct and the conduct further described herein, the 

Defendant has violated certain anti-fraud and registration provisions of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, namely, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 

6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6m(1), 6o(a)(A), (B), 9(1), and CFTC Regulations (“Regulations”) 

4.20(c), 5.2(b), 5.3(a)(2)(i) and 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(c), 5.2(b), 5.3(a)(2)(i), 

180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022). 

3. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, the Defendant is likely to 

continue engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this complaint or in similar acts and 

practices.

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

Commission brings this action to enjoin such acts and practices and compel compliance 

with the Act. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial 

ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, a trading and registration ban, restitution, 

disgorgement, rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the 

Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (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(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), 

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

appear to the Commission that such person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to 

engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Act or any rule, regulation, or 

order thereunder.

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

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), because Defendant transacts business in this District and certain 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 3 

transactions, acts, practices, and business alleged in this Complaint occurred, are 

occurring, and/or are about to occur within this District. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. Under Civil Local Rule 3-2(d), this civil action should be assigned to the 

San Francisco Division because a substantial portion of the events or omissions which 

give rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in San Francisco County and, further, 

because Defendant William Koo Ichioka resided in San Francisco for part of the relevant 

period. 

III. THE PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or 

“Commission”) is an independent federal regulatory agency that administers and enforces 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, and the Commission’s Regulations promulgated thereunder, 

17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 (2022). 

9. Defendant William Koo Ichioka is 30 years old and currently resides in 

New York City, NY, but at various times during the Relevant Period has lived in San 

Francisco, California. Ichioka has, at all relevant times, represented that he was the 

manager of a purported entity called Ichioka Ventures. Ichioka has never been registered 

with the Commission in any capacity.

IV. OTHER ENTITY

10. Ichioka Ventures, LLC (“IVLLC”) is located in New York City, NY and 

was formed by Ichioka as a Delaware limited liability corporation on August 2, 2019, 

under the original name of Ichioka Ventures, GP, LLC. On or about October 3, 2019, 

Ichioka changed the entity’s name to Ichioka Ventures, LLC. IVLLC has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity.

V. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

11. Digital assets include virtual currencies such as bitcoin and ether, which are 

digital representations of value that function as mediums of exchange, units of account, 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 4 

and/or stores of value. Certain digital assets are “commodities,” including those alleged 

herein, as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). 

12. The terms “forex,” “retail forex transactions,” “forex agreements,” “forex 

contracts,” or “foreign currency transactions,” as variously described herein, refer to 

leveraged, margined, or financed transactions with customers that are not eligible 

contract participants (“ECPs”) as described in Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act. These 

transactions are commodity interests.

VI. FACTS

A. Defendant Ichioka’s Fraudulent Scheme 

13. Beginning no later than in or about 2018, through at least in or about May 

2022, Ichioka launched a commodity pool. To induce prospective participants to deposit 

funds, Ichioka represented to prospective participants that he would invest their money in 

various ways — including, among other investments, commodity interests, including 

forex, and digital asset commodities, including bitcoin and ether. He also represented to 

prospective participants that they would earn 10% returns every 30 business days (or 

approximately 42 calendar days) to induce their investments, and that his investment and 

trading activities had actually been generating and/or had the ability to generate returns in 

excess of these amounts. 

14. In or about 2019, Ichioka began doing business under the name “Ichioka 

Ventures,” creating various business entities including ICHIOKA VENTURES LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company he formed on or about August 21, 2019. 

15. In 2019, Ichioka also created a website for Ichioka Ventures at 

www.ichiokaventures.com that Ichioka used as a platform to solicit participants and to 

communicate with them regarding making an investment with the Ichioka Ventures pool 

(referred to on the website as a “fund”). The website’s publicly accessible homepage 

describes Ichioka as a “self-made investor” who “began his quest at a very early age and 

has already amassed a multimillion-dollar fortune.” The website further describes 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 5 

Ichioka as a “savant in his craft” who “seeks to deliver a consistent enhanced total return 

through his ability to identify and execute immediately on global market opportunities.”

16. The website stated, among other things: “The investment term is 30 

business days with a 10% return” and “Principal and profits are distributed directly to 

account balance and can easily be withdrawn or reinvested.” The Ichioka Ventures 

website further allowed participants to create and login to accounts to “Invest,” “Re 

Invest/Withdraw,” view balances, view “Transaction History,” among other things. 

Ichioka presented investment contracts, including styled as a “Promissory Note,” in 

which participants agreed to entrust funds to Ichioka and/or Ichioka Ventures. 

18. Ichioka invested participant funds in, for example, commodity interests, including forex, 

and digital asset commodities, including bitcoin and either, precious metals, and stock in 

start-up companies. However, he failed to invest other portions of the participants funds 

entrusted to him as he had promised. Instead, Ichioka commingled participant money 

with his own funds and used participant money to fund his own personal expenses (such 

as rent for his personal residence, restaurants and bars, grocery stores, taxi or car share 

rides, retail stores, gym membership fees, and online purchases, among other things) and 

to make purchases of luxury items (such as watches and other jewelry, and luxury 

vehicles). 

19. Moreover, Ichioka and Ichioka Ventures did not actually earn 10% returns 

every 30 business days for participants throughout the time that Ichioka represented that 

it did. Rather, Ichioka and Ichioka Ventures sustained losses from portions of funds that 

Ichioka had invested. By the end of 2019 – unbeknownst to participants – Ichioka had 

privately acknowledged that the “[c]ompany hasn’t made any money since we started.”

20. Ichioka also concealed and hid, and caused to be concealed and hidden, the 

acts done and the purpose of the acts done in furtherance of the scheme, including to 

further perpetuate the scheme. These concealments included, but were not limited to:

a) Ichioka doctored, and/or caused to be doctored, financial documents to 

falsely overstate the value of assets, including bank, brokerage, and 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 6 

cryptocurrency exchange materials. For example, in or about November 

2019, Ichioka falsified a purported “proof of funds” letter and screenshot 

indicating the value of his holdings with the cryptocurrency exchange 

Kraken to be approximately 1200 Bitcoin (BTC) (valued at approximately 

$10.8 million) and a balance of $500,000 U.S. dollars, when in fact his 

holdings with that exchange did not exceed approximately 18 BTC (valued 

at approximately $150,000) and/or a balance of approximately $100,000 

U.S. dollars.

b) Ichioka provided doctored documents showing falsely overstated values of 

assets to prospective participants. For example, on or about October 11, 

2019, Ichioka emailed a falsified Bank of America statement for account to a 

participant showing a purported balance of approximately $1.5 million 

(when in fact the account’s balance during this time did not exceed 

$200,000). As an additional example of showing falsely overstated values 

of assets to prospective participants, on or about February 12, 2020, Ichioka 

provided a doctored Kraken screenshot via text messaging prior to receiving 

a participant’s investment funds.

c) Ichioka presented false statements of account to participants, including via 

participant account updates on the Ichioka Ventures website, divorced from 

the actual performance or value of invested funds with him. 

d) Ichioka repaid existing participants’ principal amounts and/or purported 

gains (“profits”) using new participant funds.

21. Ichioka transmitted and/or caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign 

commerce numerous wire communications for the purpose of executing the scheme to 

defraud, for example: (a) $200,000 wire transfer on or about August 2, 2018 from a 

participant via Fedwire Funds Transfer to his J.P. Morgan Chase (“JPMC”) personal 

checking account ending in -2053, funds that Ichioka misdirected for personal expenses 

(including the purchase of a luxury vehicle, payment of rent, and credit card payments); 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 7 

(b) $150,000 wire transfer on or about June 12, 2019 from a participant via Fedwire 

Funds Transfer System to his JPMC personal checking account ending in -2053, funds 

that he misdirected for personal expenses (including jewelry and credit card payments) 

and repayment of other participants; and (c) $200,000 wire transfer on or about 

February 13, 2020 from a participant via Fedwire Funds Transfer System to his Ichioka 

Ventures Bank of America account ending in – 7517, following his transmittal of 

doctored financial documents overstating the value of his and/or Ichioka Ventures’ 

holdings. 

22. The money and property obtained by Ichioka through this fraudulent scheme 

totaled more than $21 million. 

VII. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

COUNT I

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

180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-3) (2022) 

(Fraud by Deceptive Device or Contrivance)

23. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

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

directly or indirectly, to:

[U]se or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any swap, or a 

contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery 

on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, any manipulative or deceptive 

device or contrivance, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the 

Commission shall promulgate . . . . 

25. Regulation 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) (2022), provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any 

swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or contract 

for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, to 

intentionally or recklessly:

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 8 

(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 a material 

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

made not untrue or misleading; [and/or]

(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 . . . . 

26. A digital asset is anything that can be stored and transmitted electronically 

and has associated ownership or use rights. Digital assets include virtual currencies, such 

as bitcoin and ether, which are digital representations of value that function as mediums 

of exchange, unites of account, and/or stores of value. Certain digital assets are 

“commodities,” including those alleged herein, as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). There are commodity futures contracts on bitcoin and ether that trade 

on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a designated contract market regulated by the 

CFTC.

27. During the Relevant Period, as described above, Ichioka violated 7 U.S.C.

§ 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) by, among other things, in connection with digital 

asset commodities, including bitcoin and ether, misappropriating pool participant funds. 

28. During the Relevant Period, as described above, Ichioka violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) by, among other things, in connection with any 

contract of sale of any commodities in interstate commerce, digital assets or forex, 

intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements of material fact, or 

omitting to state material facts, to pool participants and prospective participants, by, 

among other things:

a) Falsely representing Ichioka’s trading expertise and past profitability; 

b) Misrepresenting the expected profits and risk of loss of investing with

Ichioka;

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 9 

c) Failing to disclose that participant funds were commingled with Ichioka’s 

funds and other participants’ funds and were being used to pay Ichioka’s

personal expenses and to pay other participants in a manner akin to a Ponzi 

scheme. 

29. Ichioka willfully, intentionally or recklessly engaged in the acts and 

practices described above.

30. Each use or employment or attempted use or employment of any 

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, including, but not limited to any act 

of misappropriation and misrepresentation or omission of material fact, including but not 

limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation.

COUNT II

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

Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2022) 

(Fraud in Connection with Forex Transactions) 

31. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

32. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) 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; . . . 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.”

33. Moreover, 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2022), 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 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 10 

or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; . . . or (3) [w]illfully to deceive or 

attempt to deceive any person by any means whatsoever.”

34. Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C), among other things, 

contains three grants which clarifies that the CFTC has jurisdiction over, and that certain 

antifraud provisions in the Act apply to, retail forex:

a) Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), forex agreements, contracts, or 

transactions described in 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i) “shall be subject to” the 

antifraud provisions of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b and 6o, among other Sections of the 

Act;

b) Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv), 7 U.S.C. § 6b, “shall apply to” the 

forex agreements, contracts, or transactions described in 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C) “as if” they were a contract of sale of a commodity for future 

delivery; and

c) Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), “[t]his Act applies to, and the 

Commission shall have jurisdiction over, an account or pooled investment 

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

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

35. The foreign currency transactions offered by Ichioka are retail forex 

transactions as defined by Regulation 5.1(m), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(m) (2022). 

36. Defendant Ichioka violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1), (3), by willfully, among other things:

a) Falsely representing Ichioka’s trading expertise and past profitability;

b) Misrepresenting the expected profits and risk of loss of investing with 

Ichioka; 

c) Failing to disclose that participant funds were commingled and were being 

used to pay Ichioka’s personal expenses and to pay other participants in a 

manner akin to a Ponzi scheme; and

d) Misappropriating pool participant funds. 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 10 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 11 

37. Defendant Ichioka engaged in such acts by the use of the mails or other 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce.

38. Each act of misappropriation, misrepresentation or omission of material 

facts, made during the Relevant Period, including, but not limited to, those specifically 

alleged herein, constitute 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 III

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

(Fraud and Deceit by a Commodity Pool Operator) 

39. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 37 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

40. A commodity pool is defined in Section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(10), as “any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for 

the purpose of trading in commodity interests . . . .”

41. A Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) is defined in Section 1a(11) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11), as “any person . . . engaged in a business that is of the nature of a 

commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate or similar form of enterprise, and who, in 

connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, securities or 

property . . . for the purpose of trading in commodity interests . . . .” And for purposes of 

forex transactions, a CPO is similarly defined under 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d) as “any person 

who operates or solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle that 

is not an eligible contract participant [“ECP”] as defined in section 1a(18) of the Act, and 

that engages in forex transactions.” 

42. During the Relevant Period, Ichioka acted as a CPO by soliciting, accepting, 

or receiving funds from others for the purpose of trading in “commodity interests” (as 

that term is defined in Commission Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), including 

forex. 

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 11 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 12 

43. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a CPO or an associated 

person of a CPO, “by use of the mails or any 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.” 

44. During the Relevant Period, as described above, Ichioka, while acting as a 

CPO, committed fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) by misappropriating 

pool participant funds.

45. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Ichioka, acting as a CPO, also 

committed fraud by misrepresentation and omission of material fact in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) by, among other things:

a) Falsely representing Ichioka’s trading expertise and past profitability;

b) Misrepresenting the expected profits and risk of loss of investing with 

Ichioka; and

c) Failing to disclose that participant funds were commingled with Ichioka’s 

own funds and were being used to pay Ichioka’s personal expenses and to 

pay other participants in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme. 

46. Each act of misappropriation, misrepresentation, or omission of material 

facts, made during the Relevant Period, including, but not limited to, those specifically

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

COUNT IV 

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) and 6m(1), and 

Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022) 

(Failure to Register as a CPO) 

47. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 46 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 12 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 13 

48. Several provisions under the Act and Regulations require persons operating 

or soliciting funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle in connection 

with any forex contract to register as a CPO, including 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 

which makes it unlawful for any person, unless registered as a CPO, to operate or solicit 

funds for any pooled investment vehicle in connection with any forex contract that 

accepts funds from non-ECP investors; 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), which states that it shall be 

“unlawful for any commodity trading advisor or commodity pool operator, unless 

registered under this Act, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce in connection with his business as such commodity trading advisor 

or commodity pool operator . . . .”; and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022), which requires 

anyone acting as a CPO for a pooled investment vehicle that engages in retail forex 

transactions to register as a CPO.

49. During the Relevant Period, Ichioka acted as a CPO by operating, or 

soliciting funds for, a pooled investment vehicle that engages in retail forex transactions 

without limiting participants to ECPs and used the mails or means of interstate commerce 

in connection with his business as a CPO, while not being registered with the 

Commission as a CPO.

50. By reason of the foregoing, Ichioka violated 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i), by acting as a CPO 

without the benefit of registration with the Commission.

COUNT V

Violations of Regulation 4.20(c), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) (2022): 

(Commingling of Funds by a CPO) 

51. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 49 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

52. Under 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c), a CPO may not “commingle the property of any 

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

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 13 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 14 

53. During the Relevant Period, Ichioka caused pool participant funds to be 

commingled with funds of other persons, including funds belonging to Ichioka.

54. By reason of the foregoing, Ichioka commingled participant funds in 

violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c). 

55. Each commingling of a pool participant’s funds is alleged as a separate and

distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c). 

VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED

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

by Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers:

A. Find that Defendant Ichioka is liable for violating Sections 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 4m(1), 4o(1)(A) and (B), and 6(c)(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A), (B), 9(1), and Regulations 4.20(c), 

5.2(b), 5.3(a)(2)(i) and 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(c), 5.2(b), 180.1(a)(1)-(3)

(2022);

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Ichioka, and his

affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in 

active concert with him, 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), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A), (B), and 9(1), and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20(c), 5.2(b), 5.3(a)(2)(i) and 180.1(a) (2022); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant Ichioka and 

any of his affiliates, agents, servants, employees, assigns, attorneys, and persons in active 

concert or participation with him, from directly or indirectly:

1. 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)); 

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

is defined in Commission Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)) or “digital 

asset commodities,” (as that term is described herein), including bitcoin and

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 14 of 17
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 15 

ether, for accounts held in the name of Ichioka or in which Ichioka has a 

direct or indirect interest;

3. Having any commodity interests or digital asset commodities, including 

bitcoin and ether, traded on Ichioka’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, or digital asset commodities, including bitcoin and

ether; 

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

of purchasing or selling any commodity interests, or digital asset

commodities, including bitcoin, and ether; 

6. 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) (2022); and/or

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

§ 3.1(a) (2022)), 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)) 

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 Ichioka, 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 participants, 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 the Regulations 

described herein, including post-judgment interest;

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 15 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 16 

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

full restitution to every person or entity who has sustained losses proximately caused by 

the violations described herein, including post-judgment interest;

F. Enter an order directing Ichioka, as well as any successors thereof, to

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

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

any of the participants whose funds were received by Ichioka as a result of the acts and 

practices that constituted violations of the Act and Regulations as described herein;

G. Enter an order directing Ichioka 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), 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 (2022), for each violation of the Act and Regulations, as described herein;

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

28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2); and

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

deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 16 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CFTC COMPLAINT – PAGE: 17 

Date: JUNE 22, 2023 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

By its attorneys: 

/s/ Susan B. Padove

Susan B. Padove

David Terrell 

Attorneys for 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Tel. 312-596-0700 

Padove Cell: 202-390-6885

Fax 312-596-0714

spadove@cftc.gov

dterrell@cftc.gov

Case 3:23-cv-03095 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 17 of 17