1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JARED J. DAVIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:19-cv-2140-JZ

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT JARED J. DAVIS

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Jared J. Davis (“Davis” or 

“Defendant”) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as the imposition of civil 

penalties, for violations of Section 4c(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. 

6c(b), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2022). 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Defendant without a 

trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Defendant: 

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction and Other

Equitable Relief Against Defendant (“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 CFTC or 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 1 of 19. PageID #: 237
2 

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; 

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the CFTC over the conduct and transactions at issue in

this action pursuant to the Act; 

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e);

7. Waives:

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

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the rules promulgated

by the CFTC in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17

C.F.R. pt. 148 (2022), 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,

§§ 201–53, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (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 Defendant now or in the future resides outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court; 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 2 of 19. PageID #: 238
3 

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

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

CFTC is not a party. Defendant shall comply with this agreement, 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 agreement; 

11. Admits to all of the findings made in this Consent Order and all of the allegations

in the Complaint;

12. Acknowledges that in United States v. Davis, No. 3:18-cr-225-JZ (N.D. Ohio)

(the “Criminal Action”), Davis pleaded guilty to eleven counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1343 on behalf of Erie Marketing, LLC, a company he owned and controlled with his

former business partner, and also pleaded guilty individually to three counts of tax evasion in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and in connection with those pleas, Davis admitted the facts set 

out in his signed plea agreements, and those same facts are admitted as if set forth in this Order. 

See Plea Agreements, United States v. Davis, No. 3:18-cr-225-JZ (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2022), ECF 

Nos. 94, 95; and

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 3 of 19. PageID #: 239
4 

A. Findings of Fact

1. The Parties to this Consent Order

14. 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. 

15. Defendant Davis is an individual residing in Nantucket, Massachusetts and

previously resided in Sandusky, Ohio. Defendant directly or indirectly owned, operated, and 

controlled various businesses, including Erie Marketing, LLC, and internet websites that offered 

binary options trading to customers. Defendant has never been registered with the CFTC in any 

capacity. In the Criminal Action, on January 27, 2023, the Court sentenced Davis to thirty (30) 

months in prison and to be jointly and severally liable for the debts of Erie Marketing, LLC, 

among other things. See United States v. Davis, No. 3:18-cr-225-JZ (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2023). 

The Court also ordered Davis and Erie Marketing, LLC to pay restitution, jointly and severally, 

in the amount of $656,493.20 to defrauded victims. See Judgments, United States v. Davis, No. 

3:18-cr-225-JZ (N.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2023), ECF Nos. 137, 138. 

13. 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 Defendant

in any other proceeding.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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, as set forth herein. 

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS:

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 4 of 19. PageID #: 240
5 

2. Binary Options Trading Background

16. A binary option is a type of options contract in which the payout depends entirely

on the outcome of a discrete event—usually a “yes/no” proposition. The “yes/no” proposition 

typically relates to whether the price of a particular asset (e.g., a commodity, a foreign currency, 

or an individual stock) will rise above or fall below a specified amount on a specified date and 

time. For example, the “yes/no” proposition might be whether the price of silver will be higher 

than $15.26 per ounce at 11:17 am on a particular day, or if the exchange rate between the U.S. 

Dollar and the Euro will be above $1.18 at 2:15 pm on a given day. 

17. Once the option holder acquires a binary option through payment of a premium,

there is typically no further decision for the investor to make regarding the exercise of the binary 

option because binary option contracts expire automatically. 

18. Unlike other types of options, a binary option does not give the holder the right to

purchase or sell the underlying asset—instead, it is “cash settled.” When the binary option 

expires, the option holder typically receives a pre-determined amount of money if he or she made 

a correct prediction. If the investor made an incorrect prediction, he or she gets nothing and 

loses the premium paid. 

19. The unregistered binary options industry is often comprised of three main

components, sometimes referred to as “trading platforms,” “brands,” and “affiliate marketers.”

20. Trading platforms offer services for a fee that brands (discussed below) purchase

or license and use to accept orders and execute binary option trades with customers. Trading 

platforms may offer software related to (a) trade entry and execution services; (b) customer 

account and client relationship management services; (c) access to investment products (i.e., 

various binary option contracts); and (d) back-office information technology support. 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 5 of 19. PageID #: 241
6 

21. Some platforms, including ones used by Davis including SpotOption and Hello

Binary, offer their brand customers access to software protocols, sometimes referred to as “risk

management.” “Risk management” protocols, applied at the platform level to investor accounts, 

allow a brand operator like Davis to manipulate the trading software to distort binary options 

prices and payouts, thereby determining whether customers lose or make money trading binary 

options. 

22. For example, a brand operator may request that a platform manipulate the starting

prices of a trade and increase the chances of an investment loss for customers with a history of 

trading success. Similarly, a brand operator may request that a platform increase the chances of

an investment win for discouraged customers in order to induce them to keep trading and/or to 

deposit additional funds into their binary options trading account. 

23. Brands, also known in the unregistered binary options industry as “private labels,”

“white labels,” or “brokers,” may be established with a relatively modest investment and

typically operate under a trade name while contracting with a platform for trading, customer 

account, back-office systems, and services.

24. Generally, brand operators, such as Davis, possess custody of customer funds and

are the counterparty to each customer’s binary options transaction. Brands make money by 

being the counterparty to losing customer trades and retaining the premiums paid by losing

customers. In other words, binary option brands have an interest in having their customers lose 

money through binary options trading. 

25. In order for brands to maintain their fraudulent binary options scheme and cover

their expenses, they need to ensure that they have an active customer base losing money to the 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 6 of 19. PageID #: 242
7 

brands via losing trades, and that there is a constant stream of new customers to replace those 

who have either lost all of their investment or who have closed their account. 

26. Affiliate marketers are independent entities who produce and disseminate

marketing and promotional materials on internet websites and via email solicitations touting 

exaggerated profits that can be obtained through binary options trading. 

27. Affiliate marketers either work directly with brands or they use brand

intermediaries to direct prospective customers and customers from their marketing campaigns to 

the brand website. Affiliate marketers, including those hired by Davis, frequently employ 

materially false or misleading statements to induce prospective customers to open an account and 

trade binary options through a specific brand. 

3. Davis’s Binary Options Trading Business

28. From at least July 2012 through at least June 2016 (the “Relevant Period”), Davis,

operating through multiple private entities and using various trade names, fraudulently solicited 

and accepted at least $10 million from customers in the United States and elsewhere to trade offexchange binary options on commodities, foreign currencies, individual stocks, and stock 

indices. 

29. Davis created, operated, and controlled a number of domestic and foreign

business entities and internet websites to facilitate his binary options scheme. This binary 

options enterprise, referred to hereinafter as the “Enterprise,” was at all times primarily managed 

by Davis. 

30. During the Relevant Period, Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise,

using various trade names and websites, solicited customers for the fraudulent offer and sale of 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 7 of 19. PageID #: 243
8 

binary options through internet marketing campaigns, one or more of the Enterprise’s websites, 

and call centers located in Sandusky, Ohio, and later located in Costa Rica and Sint Maarten. 

31. During or before July 2012, Davis established his first binary options brand,

Option Mint (www.optionmint.com) by forming various shell companies with foreign bank 

accounts, among other things. 

32. Over the next few years, Davis established three additional brands—Option King

(www.optionking.com), Option Queen (www.optionqueen.com), and Option Prince 

(www.optionprince.com)—by forming additional shell companies with foreign bank accounts, 

among other things. 

33. Throughout the Relevant Period, Davis, directly or indirectly through the

Enterprise, solicited customers located throughout the United States and around the world to 

trade binary option contracts, including binary option contracts based on commodities and 

foreign currencies, through internet websites, e-mails, and telephone communications. 

34. During the Relevant Period, the Enterprise accepted at least $10 million from

customers for the purpose of trading binary options, of which Davis obtained a portion thereof. 

The Enterprise instructed customers to fund their trading accounts either with wire transfers to 

bank accounts that Davis controlled or through credit card or PayPal charges to accounts that 

Davis also controlled. 

35. During the Relevant Period, Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise,

offered or entered into binary option trades that were agreements, contracts, or transactions in 

foreign currency, to or with persons who were not ECPs, and Davis was not an enumerated 

counterparty as defined by Section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(aa)-(ff), 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(aa)-(ff). 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 8 of 19. PageID #: 244
9 

4. Davis’s Fraud in Connection with Off-Exchange Binary Options

36. During the Relevant Period, Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise,

engaged in an off-exchange binary options trading scam and falsely claimed in his solicitations 

that customers would generate significant profits through binary options trading, with winning 

trades offering a payout of up to 85%. 

37. Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise, defrauded customers by

making misrepresentations of material facts to attract and retain customers to enter into illegal, 

off-exchange binary options transactions, including by misrepresenting that:

a. Customer funds were maintained in individual trading accounts, when in reality

the funds were commingled with the general funds of the Enterprise;

b. Enterprise employees were “brokers” or “market analysts” who possessed

specialized knowledge and financial expertise necessary to recommend profitable

binary options trades, when in reality Davis and his employees had no relevant

experience or qualifications;

c. Customers could make “risk free” or “guaranteed” binary options trades if they

deposited more money, when in reality customers were often placed in losing

trades; and

d. Customers could withdraw money from their binary options accounts at any time,

when in reality customers were often not permitted to withdraw funds even after

complying with Enterprise requests for additional burdensome paperwork and/or

funds.

38. Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise, defrauded customers by

making omissions of material facts to attract and retain customers to enter into off-exchange 

binary options transactions, including by failing to disclose that: 

a. Davis did not connect customers to a legitimate binary options exchange that

matched customers who chose different binary option outcomes;

b. Davis effectively took the opposite position on each trade and thus made money

for the Enterprise and himself every time a customer lost money;

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 9 of 19. PageID #: 245
10 

c. Davis could and oftentimes did instruct, and directed Enterprise employees to

instruct, the trading platforms to manipulate internal software settings via “risk

management” protocols to make it more likely for certain customers to win or

lose; and

d. Enterprise employees, at the direction of Davis, provided fictitious trading results

to customers in an effort to induce them to deposit additional funds and “burned”

certain customer accounts through excessive trading.

39. Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise, communicated with

SpotOption to use “risk management” as a way of increasing individual customer losses. For 

example:

a. On or about June 2, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” that referred to “optionmint 16312,” a

specific OptionMint customer. Defendant wrote: “He is burying us. Please do

something with him.”

b. On or about February 19, 2014, an employee for Defendant wrote an email to

“Risk Management <risk@spotoption>,” stating “[p]lease look at user #15747 . . .

He’s taking out positions for random amounts and is killing us.” The employee

copied Davis to this email using Defendant’s “jared@davisinvestment.com”

account.

c. On or about February 25, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” stating “[p]lease adjust risk for following

trader. He is crushing us.” The employee copied Davis to this email using

Defendant’s “jared@davisinvestment.com” account.

d. On or about April 9, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” stating “[c]an you please adjust risk for

the below OptionMint user. He is crushing us with this straddle strategy.” The

employee copied Davis to this email using Defendant’s

“jared@davisinvestment.com” account.

e. On or about April 10, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” as a follow up to his April 9, 2014 email.

The employee asked, “[h]as this risk been changed yet. This was sent yesterday

but no reply yet.” The employee copied Davis. A SpotOption employee replied

the same day, copying Davis and stating “[t]hank you for contacting us. We had

changed the status risk for the guy below. It should be more aggressive and

reducing his profits in the soon [sic] future.”

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 10 of 19. PageID #: 246

-
11 

f. On or about April 21, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” stating “[t]his user is still crushing us

even though the risk was adjusted 6 days ago. Can you please take another look

immediately and fix this ASAP.” The employee copied Davis to this email. A

SpotOption employee responded, copying Davis, and writing that the customer

“lost 621$ in the last 6 days . . . Eventually, we believe the changes will do the

work.”

g. On or about November 4, 2014, an employee for Davis wrote an email to “Risk

Management <risk@spotoption.com>,” stating “[p]lease adjust risk for

OptionMint user: [xxxxx]@gmail.com. Large trade amounts and at a 76% win

rate.” The employee copied Defendant to this email using Davis’s

“jared@davisinvestment.com” account.

40. Davis, directly or indirectly through the Enterprise, also defrauded customers who

requested withdrawals from their accounts by falsely representing that their accounts had been 

reassigned to other brokers, that they had not made enough trades to withdraw their money, 

and/or that their money was tied up in pending trades which they eventually lost. Further, Davis 

falsely induced certain customers to send additional funds to cover purported fees and taxes in 

order to return their funds. 

41. Ultimately, although Davis occasionally allowed customers to withdraw small

amounts from their accounts, the majority of customers were unable to obtain any funds back 

from Davis or the Enterprise despite repeated demands. 

B. Conclusions of Law

1. Jurisdiction and Venue

42. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that U.S. district courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency 

expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress). Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), 

provides that the CFTC may bring actions for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance with the 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 11 of 19. PageID #: 247
12 

Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder in the proper district court of the United States 

whenever it shall appear to the CFTC that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to 

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

regulation, or order thereunder. 

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

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

Act and Regulations occurred within this District, among other places. 

2. Davis Committed Commodity Options Fraud in Violation of Section 4c(b) of

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2022)

44. By the conduct described in paragraphs 17 through 42 above, Defendant, in or in

connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any 

commodity option transaction, directly or indirectly: (a) cheated or defrauded, or attempted to 

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

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

to deceive customers and prospective customers, in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 6c(b), and Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2022).

45. During the Relevant Period, Davis was a controlling person of the Enterprise and,

through the conduct set forth in paragraphs 17-42, failed to act in good faith, or knowingly 

induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting the violations. Accordingly, Davis is liable 

for each and every violation of the Act committed by employees or agents of the Enterprise 

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

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

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

acts and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 12 of 19. PageID #: 248
13 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Defendant Davis is permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly:

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, customers and

prospective customers, making or causing to be made to customers and prospective

customers false reports or statements, and deceiving or attempting to deceive

customers or prospective customers, in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7

U.S.C. § 6c(b), and Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. 32.4 (2022);

48. Defendant Davis 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));

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), for his own personal account

or for any account in which it 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 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) (2022); and/or

g. 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 CFTC except as

provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 13 of 19. PageID #: 249
14 

V. RESTITUTION

A. Restitution

49. Defendant Davis shall pay restitution in the amount of five hundred sixty-one

thousand, nine hundred seventy-one dollars ($561,971) (“Restitution Obligation”). If the 

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

unpaid portion of the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this 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. 

50. In the Criminal Action, Davis has been sentenced to thirty (30) months

imprisonment and to be jointly and severally liable for the restitution owed to customers by Erie 

Marketing, LLC, in connection with the misconduct at issue in this matter. United States v. 

Davis, No. 3:18-cr-225-JZ (N.D. Ohio). For amounts disbursed to Defendant’s customers as a 

result of satisfaction of any restitution ordered in the Criminal Action, Defendant shall receive a 

dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution Obligation. Within ten days of disbursement in the 

Criminal Action to Defendant’s customers, Defendant shall, under a cover letter that identifies 

the name and docket number of this proceeding, transmit to the Chief Financial Officer, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20581, copies of the form of payment to those customers.

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

from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendant or any other person or entity, and 

nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of any customer that 

exist under state or common law. 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 14 of 19. PageID #: 250
15 

B. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions

53. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the CFTC of any partial payment of

Defendant’s Restitution Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of his obligation to make 

further payments pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the CFTC’s right to seek to 

compel payment of any remaining balance.

C. Cooperation

54. Defendant shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with the CFTC, including the

CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, in this action, and in any current or future CFTC investigation 

or action related thereto. Defendant shall also cooperate in any investigation, civil litigation, or 

administrative matter related to, or arising from, this action.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

55. Until such time as Defendant satisfies in full his Restitution Obligation under this

Consent Order, upon the commencement by or against Defendant of insolvency, receivership or 

bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of Defendant debts, all

notices to creditors required to be furnished to the CFTC under Title 11 of the United States

Code or other applicable law with respect to such insolvency, receivership bankruptcy or other 

proceedings, shall be sent to the address below: 

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

Defendant 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 Defendant to ensure continued 

compliance with any provision of this Consent Order and to hold Defendant in contempt for any 

violations of any provision of this Consent Order. 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 15 of 19. PageID #: 251
16 

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the General Counsel

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

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

except as set forth in paragraph 60, above, shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as 

follows: 

Notice to CFTC: 

Paul G. Hayeck, Deputy Director

Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Notice to Defendant Jared Davis: 

Jared J. Davis

c/o Braden Perry, Esq. 

Kennyhertz Perry LLC

2000 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 210 

Mission Woods, KS 66205 

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

57. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant satisfies in full his

Restitution Obligation as set forth in this Consent Order, Defendant shall provide written notice 

to the CFTC by certified mail of any change to his telephone number and mailing address within 

ten calendar days of the change.

58. 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.

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 16 of 19. PageID #: 252
17 

59. 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. 

60. 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. 

61. 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 

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

Order.

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

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Defendant, 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 Defendant. 

63. 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 

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 17 of 19. PageID #: 253
18 

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. 

64. Contempt: Defendant 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. 

65. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendant shall comply with all of the

undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

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

Consent Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Defendant Jared J. 

Davis forthwith and without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this _____day of ________________________, 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/ Jack Zouhary

27th April 2023.

Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 18 of 19. PageID #: 254
Case: 3:19-cv-02140-JZ Doc #: 54 Filed: 04/27/23 19 of 19. PageID #: 255

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

Jared J. Davis 

Date: 4/6/2023 --------

Approved as to (orm: 

Braden 

~-M. Perry, ~ Esq. 

Attorney for Defendant Jared J. Davis 

Kennyhertz Perry, LLC 

2000 Shawnee Mission Pkwy Ste. 210 

Mission Woods, KS 66205 

(816) 527-9445 

Danielle Karst 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

(202) 418-5000 

dkarst@cftc.gov 

Date: 4/w/UJZ:3 

19