UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: 

Philip Reichenthal, 

Respondent.

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

)

)

) 

CFTC Docket No. 23-30

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 6(c) AND (d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, MAKING 

FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) has reason to believe that 

Philip Reichenthal (“Reichenthal or Respondent”) violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulations 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2022), of the Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated

thereunder. Therefore, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that

public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted to determine whether

Respondent engaged in the violations set forth herein and to determine whether any order should

be issued imposing remedial sanctions.

In anticipation of the institution of an administrative proceeding, Respondent has 

submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Without admitting or denying any of the findings or conclusions herein, except to the extent he 

admits the facts set forth in his allocution at his change of plea hearing on February 11, 2022 in 

United States v. Levine and Reichenthal, No. 20 Cr. 578 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 26, 2020) 

(“Reichenthal Criminal Action”), Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Making Findings, 

and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), and acknowledges service of this Order.1

 

1

 Respondent consents to the use of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this 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. Respondent 

does not consent, however, to the use of this Order, or the findings or conclusions herein, as the sole basis for any 

other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission is a party or claimant, other than: a 

proceeding in bankruptcy or receivership; or a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order. Respondent does not 
2 

II. FINDINGS 

The Commission finds the following: 

A. SUMMARY 

From in or about June 2018 through at least May 2019 (“Relevant Period”), while 

working as an attorney in the state of Florida, Reichenthal engaged in a deceptive and fraudulent 

scheme by knowingly or recklessly making false representations to induce investors to send over 

$5 million to Reichenthal for the purported purchase of Bitcoin. Specifically, Reichenthal 

promised to act as an escrow agent for over-the-counter Bitcoin transactions. Reichenthal 

promised to hold investors’ money in his attorney trust accounts in escrow until the investors 

received the Bitcoin that they were expecting to purchase. Rather than hold the funds until 

Bitcoin was transferred to the investors, however, Reichenthal sent millions of dollars of those 

investors’ funds to overseas accounts held by third parties. Contrary to Reichenthal’s false 

representations, Reichenthal did not intend to act as an escrow to ensure the investors’ successful 

purchase of Bitcoin. Reichenthal never intended for the Bitcoin to be delivered to the investors 

and failed to return the investors’ funds as promised when no Bitcoin was delivered. 

Accordingly, during the Relevant Period, Reichenthal violated the Act by using a 

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; making untrue or misleading statements of 

material fact, and engaging in an act, practice, or course of business, that operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit. Reichenthal’s transactions and misrepresentations thus violated 

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). 

B. RESPONDENT 

Respondent Philip Reichenthal is a resident of Homestead, Florida, where he practiced as 

an attorney during the Relevant Period. On or about October 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of the 

State of Florida granted Reichenthal’s own petition for voluntary disciplinary revocation of his 

bar license. Reichenthal has never been registered with the Commission. 

C. FACTS 

1. Fraud Against Investor-1 

In sum, in or about June and July 2018, Reichenthal purported to serve as an escrow 

agent to facilitate a purchase of Bitcoin by Investor-1, which is a business engaged in, among 

other things, trading Bitcoin and other digital assets. Investor-1 had engaged Individual-1, along 

with the company of which he was principal, to provide services as an intermediary for offexchange Bitcoin transactions. Reichenthal and the purported seller of the Bitcoin (the 

“Purported Seller”) induced Investor-1, through the intermediary Individual-1, to wire 

Reichenthal over $3 million of Investor-1’s funds under the pretense that Reichenthal would hold 

the money in escrow until Investor-1 confirmed receipt of the Bitcoin it was attempting to 

 

consent to the use of the Offer or this Order, or the findings or conclusions in this Order, by any other party in any 

other proceeding.
3 

purchase. Reichenthal, however, did not intend on holding the money in escrow until the Bitcoin 

was received by Investor-1 and knew that Investor-1 was not going to receive the Bitcoin. 

Accordingly, promptly after receiving the $3 million from Investor-1, despite the fact that that no 

Bitcoin had been transferred from the Purported Seller to Investor-1, Reichenthal wired over 

$2.5 million to the Purported Seller. No Bitcoin was ever given to Investor-1, nor was any of 

Investor-1’s money returned to it. 

Interactions between Reichenthal and Individual-1, acting as intermediary, began in or 

around June 2018. On or about June 4, 2018, an intermediary sent Individual-1 and others an 

email with a draft “Private Buy-Sell Bitcoin Agreement” (the “Draft Agreement”), which 

outlined procedures for a potential transaction for up to 500,000 Bitcoin to be conducted offmarket at a discount to the “spot” Bitcoin price. The Draft Agreement stated that all transactions 

would be “handled by, and processed through” Reichenthal’s law firm as “Escrow.” The Draft 

Agreement did not specify who the buyer or seller would be in the transaction. 

On or about June 27, 2018, Individual-1, acting on behalf of prospective buyers of 

Bitcoin, including Investor-1, executed a Private Buy–Sell Bitcoin Agreement (the “June 27 

Agreement”). Like the Draft Agreement circulated on or about June 4, 2018, the June 27 

Agreement outlined procedures for transactions in Bitcoin at a discount from the “spot” Bitcoin 

price. Similarly, the June 27 Agreement stated that all transactions would be “handled by, and 

processed through” Reichenthal’s law firm as “Escrow.” The June 27 Agreement also provided 

that Investor-1 would deposit funds for the purchase of Bitcoins with the Escrow, and that the 

Escrow would not release the funds to the seller until the Bitcoin had been delivered to the 

buyer’s Bitcoin wallet. 

Although Investor-1 transferred money to Reichenthal’s firm, acting as the Escrow, 

Investor-1 never received any Bitcoin, or a refund of its money. Specifically, on or about June 

28, 2018, Individual-1 emailed a trader for Investor-1 an order form for a 100 Bitcoin test 

purchase by Investor-1, which cost approximately $600,000 at the time. The purpose of the test 

purchase, as is common in over-the-counter virtual currency transactions, was to confirm that the 

process of buying Bitcoin through Individual-1’s company worked as expected before engaging 

in transactions of 1,000 Bitcoin (worth $6 million) per day. 

On or about June 28, 2018, Investor-1 wired $650,000 to a bank account used by 

Individual-1’s company (the “Company Bank Account”) in order to fund the purchase of the 100 

Bitcoin test purchase. On or about July 2, 2018, Individual-1 received a pdf copy of a letter from 

Reichenthal that assured Individual-1 that Reichenthal was acting as the “escrow agent” for 

Individual-1’s company and that Reichenthal “will not send funds to the [Purported Seller] until 

all agreed upon Bitcoins from the Invoice have been confirmed to me in writing by you. I look 

forward to working with you on daily tranches and satisfying your clients.” 

Based on this letter, and other communications received by Individual-1, on or about July 

3, 2018, Investor-1 wired an additional $2.6 million into the Company Bank Account (bringing 

the total in the Company Bank Account from Investor-1 to $3.25 million). The additional cash 

was to fund the purchase of an additional 400 Bitcoin, for a total of 500 Bitcoin. Also on or 

about July 3, 2018, Individual-1’s company wired approximately $3,090,250 of Investor-1’s 

funds from the Company Bank Account to an attorney trust account held in the name of 
4 

Reichenthal’s law firm (“Reichenthal Account-1”). Reichenthal is the sole signatory on 

Reichenthal Account-1. Over the ensuing week, however, no Bitcoin was ever sent to Investor-1 

or to Individual-1 for the benefit of Investor-1, either by Reichenthal or by the Purported Seller. 

Instead, Individual-1 was told numerous false excuses for why the Bitcoin could not be sent. 

Throughout the month of July 2018, Reichenthal wired funds from Reichenthal Account1 totaling over $2.5 million to both domestic and overseas bank accounts held in the names of 

third parties for the benefit of the Purported Seller. Investor-1 never received any Bitcoin, and 

its funds were never returned. 

2. Fraud Against the Investor-2 Group 

In sum, from at least in or about February 2019 through at least in or about May 2019, 

Reichenthal and the Purported Seller induced Individual-2 to cause investors (“Investor-2 

Group”) to send Reichenthal over $2 million of the Investor-2 Group’s money so that 

Reichenthal would act as escrow in a purchase of Bitcoin from the Purported Seller. In fact, 

Reichenthal knew the Investor-2 Group was not going to receive the Bitcoin. After receiving the 

funds from the Investor-2 Group, Reichenthal in turn sent over $1.9 million of those funds to the 

Purported Seller and others. No Bitcoin was ever transmitted to Individual-2 or any member of 

the Investor-2 Group and no funds were ever returned to Individual-2 or the Investor-2 Group. 

In or about 2018, Individual-2 met with a representative of the Purported Seller and this 

representative provided Individual-2 with a letter from Reichenthal attesting that the Purported 

Seller had Bitcoin to sell. Individual-2 also spoke to Reichenthal about the Purported Seller. 

Reichenthal told Individual-2, in substance, that the Purported Seller was the biggest seller of 

Bitcoin in the world. Individual-2 then began communicating with the Purported Seller over 

cellphone messaging applications, including Signal. The Purported Seller told Individual-2, 

among other things, that he represented Bitcoin miners and had over one million Bitcoin to sell. 

In or about February 2019, Individual-2 proposed to various individual investors, the 

Investor-2 Group, that they invest in a transaction whereby they would buy Bitcoin from a seller 

and then sell the Bitcoin to a digital asset exchange in Canada for a profit. According to 

Individual-2, the Purported Seller would sell the Bitcoin to the Investor-2 Group at a 14% 

discount from the spot price, allowing the Investor-2 Group to turn a profit upon selling the 

Bitcoin to the digital asset exchange. Reichenthal would serve as the escrow for the transaction. 

Reichenthal represented to Individual-2 that after the Investor-2 Group transmitted money to 

Reichenthal’s attorney trust account, Reichenthal would not send the money to the Purported 

Seller before the Bitcoin was received by Individual-2. 

A member of the Investor-2 Group spoke to Reichenthal before transmitting his funds to 

Reichenthal. Reichenthal told this member that after the money was received in Reichenthal’s 

attorney trust account, Reichenthal would await confirmation that the purchased Bitcoin was 

received in Individual-2’s wallet. Only after the Bitcoin was received by Individual-2 would 

Reichenthal send this member’s money to the Purported Seller. In particular, Reichenthal falsely 

assured this member that he would verify on the blockchain ledger that the Bitcoin had arrived in 

Individual-2’s wallet before transmitting the funds to the Purported Seller. 
5 

From on or about February 15, 2019, to on or about February 19, 2019, the Investor-2 

Group sent six wire transfers, totaling approximately $850,000, to another of Reichenthal’s 

attorney trust accounts (“Reichenthal Account-2”). On or about February 22, 2019, 

approximately $775,000 was wired from Reichenthal Account-2 to an overseas bank account in 

the name of a third party (“Third-Party Account”). Despite Reichenthal’s explicit assurances 

that he would not transmit funds prior to confirming that Bitcoin had been sent to the Investor-2 

Group, no Bitcoin had been transmitted to Individual-2 or any member of the Investor-2 Group 

as of February 22, 2019. 

After the initial $850,000 was sent, in or about February 2019, Individual-2 spoke to 

Reichenthal and the Purported Seller, over the phone about the fact that no Bitcoin had been 

received. Reichenthal told Individual-2 that the $850,000 had been moved out of Reichenthal 

Account-2. The Purported Seller falsely represented to Individual-2 that the Bitcoin transaction 

could not be completed because the transaction was too small. Individual-2 then relayed these 

statements to the Investor-2 Group. 

A member of the Investor-2 Group then began to solicit new investors to the Investor-2 

Group to get enough money to complete the Bitcoin transaction with the Purported Seller. The 

new investors had a conference call with Individual-2 and Reichenthal. Reichenthal told the new 

investors that their money would be placed in an attorney trust account and could not legally be 

moved until Individual-2 had received the Bitcoin from the Purported Seller. Reichenthal said 

that there was no risk to the investors. Reichenthal also said that because he would not send the 

money before the Bitcoin was received, the investors could never lose money. 

From on or about April 1, 2019, to on or about April 5, 2019, the Investor-2 Group sent 

seven wires totaling approximately $1,275,000 to Reichenthal Account-2 (bringing the total from 

the Investor-2 Group to $2.125 million). On or about April 9, 2019, approximately $986,000 

was wired from Reichenthal Account-2 to the Third-Party Account. On or about April 10, 2019, 

approximately $169,374 was wired from Reichenthal Account-2 to the Third-Party Account. 

Yet as of April 10, 2019, no Bitcoin had been transmitted to Individual-2 or any member of the 

Investor-2 Group. 

From on or about April 10, 2019, through on or about April 12, 2019, Individual-2 and 

the Purported Seller exchanged numerous messages in which the Purported Seller 

misrepresented why the transaction could not be completed as agreed. Individual-2 then 

requested that all of the investors’ funds be returned in full by April 15, 2019, which the 

Purported Seller agreed to do. At the end of the day on April 15, 2019, no Bitcoin had been 

transmitted to Individual-2 or any member of the Investor-2 Group, and none of the Investor-2 

Group’s funds had been returned. 

In reality, after receiving the Investor-2 Group’s funds from Reichenthal Account-2 on 

April 9 and 10, 2019, as discussed above, the Third-Party Account began to transfer the funds it 

had received to an overseas bank account for the benefit of the Purported Seller. In total, during 

the months of April and May 2019, over $1.4 million was transferred from the Third-Party 

Account to this overseas bank account for the Purported Seller’s benefit. The Investor-2 Group 

never received any Bitcoin, and their funds were never returned. 
6 

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 

(2022), prohibit the use or attempted use of any manipulative or deceptive device, untrue or 

misleading statements or omissions, or deceptive practice, in connection with any swap or 

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

Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3) makes it: 

[U]nlawful . . . , 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 (1) [u]se . . . or 

attempt to use . . . any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to 

defraud; (2) [m]ake, 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; (3) [e]ngage, 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. 

Section 6(c) of the Act and Regulation 180.1 prohibit fraud or manipulation. CFTC v. 

Monex Credit Co., 931 F.3d. 966, 976–77 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that, in the context of 

leveraged transactions, “the CFTC may sue for fraudulently deceptive activity regardless of 

whether it was also manipulative.”); see also In re Kim, CFTC No.19-02, 2018 WL 5993718, at 

*4 (Oct. 29, 2018) (consent order) (stating the Commission has authority under Section 6(c)(1) 

of the Act and Regulation 180.1 to take action against persons who engage in fraud and 

fraudulent schemes in connection with virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and Litecoin). 

To establish fraud in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–

(3), the Commission must establish that Reichenthal: (1) attempted to engage or engaged in 

prohibited fraudulent or manipulative conduct (i.e., employed a manipulative device, scheme, or 

artifice to defraud; made a material misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive 

omission; or engaged in a business practice that would operate as a fraud); (2) with scienter; and 

(3) 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. CFTC v. 

McDonnell, 332 F. Supp. 3d 641, 717 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); In re McVean Trading, CFTC No. 17–

15, 2017 WL 2729956, at *10 (June 21, 2017) (consent order); see also CFTC v. S. Tr. Metals, 

Inc., 894 F.3d 1313, 1325 (11th Cir. 2018). 

As set forth above, Reichenthal violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act by engaging in a 

scheme whereby he falsely agreed to serve as an escrow agent for various investors’ purchase of 

Bitcoin, but rather than holding investors’ funds as promised until the investors received their 

anticipated Bitcoin, he transferred the funds to accounts held by the Purported Seller and others, 

while the investors never received Bitcoin nor had their funds returned. Reichenthal further 

made false assurances directly to investors that he would serve in the capacity of escrow, with 

knowledge that he would instead transfer investor funds to the Purported Seller and that the 

investors were not going to receive the Bitcoin as promised. These knowingly false acts 
7 

constitute a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance. For the same reasons, 

Reichenthal also violated Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3) because he intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) used or employed a manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) made untrue or 

misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to 

make the statements made not untrue of misleading; and (3) engaged in acts, practices, or 

courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit on the investors. Reichenthal thus 

violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3).

IV. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, during the Relevant Period, 

Reichenthal violated 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). 

V. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

Reichenthal has submitted the Offer in which he, without admitting or denying the 

findings and conclusions herein, except to the extent that he admits the facts set forth in his 

allocution at his change of plea hearing on February 11, 2022 in the Reichenthal Criminal 

Action: 

A. Acknowledges service of this Order; 

B. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to all matters set forth in this 

Order and for any action or proceeding brought or authorized by the Commission based 

on violation of or enforcement of this Order; 

C. Waives: 

1. The filing and service of a complaint and notice of hearing; 

2. A hearing; 

3. All post-hearing procedures; 

4. Judicial review by any court; 

5. Any and all objections to the participation by any member of the Commission’s 

staff in the Commission’s consideration of the Offer; 

6. 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 

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

pt. 148 (2022), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

7. 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, 857–74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in scattered 
8 

sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

and 

8. Any claims of Double Jeopardy based on the institution of this proceeding or the 

entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any 

other relief, including this Order; 

D. Stipulates that the record basis on which this Order is entered shall consist solely of the 

findings contained in this Order to which Reichenthal has consented in the Offer; and 

E. Consents, solely on the basis of the Offer, to the Commission’s entry of this Order that: 

1. Makes findings by the Commission that Reichenthal violated 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); 

2. Orders Reichenthal to cease and desist from violating Section 6(c)(1) of the Act 

and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3); 

3. Orders Reichenthal to pay restitution in the amount of three million two hundred 

fifty thousand ($3,250,000) to Investor-1, and two million one hundred twenty-five 

thousand ($2,125,000) to the Investor-2 Group, plus any post-judgment interest. 

Reichenthal will receive a dollar-for-dollar credit for any restitution payments 

made to Investor-1 pursuant to the Consent Order entered by the Court in CFTC v. 

Thompson, No. 19 Civ. 9052, 2020 WL 7122013 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) 

(“Thompson Civil Action”). In addition, Reichenthal also will receive a dollar-fordollar credit for any restitution payments: (a) made to Investor-1 pursuant to the 

order of restitution entered by the Court in United States v. Thompson, 19-CR00698 (S.D.N.Y filed July 18, 2019) (“Thompson Criminal Action”); (b) made to 

Investor-1 and Investor Group-2 pursuant to any orders of restitution entered by 

the Court in the Reichenthal Criminal Action; and (c) made to Investor-1 and 

Investor Group-2 pursuant to any other Orders entered by the Commission 

concerning the same facts and circumstances. 

4. Appoints the National Futures Association (“NFA”) as Monitor in this matter; 

5. Orders that Reichenthal be permanently prohibited from, directly or indirectly, 

engaging in 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)), and all registered 

entities shall refuse him trading privileges; and 

6. Orders Reichenthal to comply with the conditions and undertakings consented to in 

the Offer and as set forth in Part VI of this Order. 
9 

VI. ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

A. Reichenthal shall cease and desist from violating 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). 

B. Reichenthal shall pay restitution in the amount of three million two hundred fifty 

thousand ($3,250,000) to Investor-1 and two million one hundred twenty-five thousand 

($2,125,000) to the Investor-2 Group (“Restitution Obligation”). If the Restitution 

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

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

and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of 

this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Reichenthal shall receive a dollar-for-dollar 

credit for any restitution payments made pursuant to the Thompson Civil or Criminal 

Action as well as for any restitution payments made pursuant to the Reichenthal Criminal 

Action or pursuant to any other Orders entered by the Commission concerning the same 

facts and circumstances. . 

To effect payment by Reichenthal and the distribution of restitution to Reichenthal’s 

customers, Investor-1 and the Investor-2 Group, the Commission appoints NFA as 

“Monitor.” The Monitor shall receive payments of the Restitution Obligation and any 

post-judgment interest from Reichenthal and make distributions as set forth below. 

Because the Monitor is not being specially compensated for these services, and these 

services are outside the normal duties of the Monitor, it shall not be liable for any action 

or inaction arising from its appointment as Monitor other than actions involving fraud. 

Reichenthal shall make his payments of the Restitution Obligation and any post-judgment 

interest under this Order in the name of the “Philip Reichenthal Settlement Fund” and 

shall send such payments by electronic funds transfer, or 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 a cover letter that identifies the paying Reichenthal and 

the name and docket number of this proceeding. Reichenthal 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. 

The Monitor shall oversee Reichenthal’s Restitution Obligation and shall have the 

discretion to determine the manner of distribution of funds in an equitable fashion to the 

Reichenthal’s customers or may defer distribution until such time as the Monitor may 

deem appropriate. In the event that the amount of payments of the Restitution Obligation 

to the Monitor are of a de minimis nature such that the Monitor determines that the 

administrative cost of making a restitution distribution 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, as discussed below. To the extent any 

funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of Reichenthal’s Restitution Obligation, 
10 

such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor for disbursement in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in this Order. 

C. Reichenthal is permanently prohibited from, directly or indirectly, engaging in 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)), and all registered entities shall refuse him trading privileges; 

and 

D. Reichenthal shall comply with the following conditions and undertakings set forth in the 

Offer: 

1. Public Statements: Reichenthal 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 findings or conclusions in this Order or 

creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual basis; 

provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect Reichenthal’s: (i) 

testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to 

which the Commission is not a party. Reichenthal 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. 

2. Reichenthal agrees that he shall never, directly or indirectly: 

a. enter into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that term is 

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), or digital assets that are 

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

Reichenthal’s own personal accounts or for any accounts in which 

Reichenthal has a direct or indirect interest; 

b. have any commodity interests or digital assets (as defined in paragraph 

VI.D.2.a) traded on Reichenthal’s behalf; 

c. control or direct 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 assets (as defined in paragraph VI.D.2.a); 

d. solicit, receive, or accept any funds from any person for the purpose of 

purchasing or selling any commodity interests or digital assets (as defined in 

paragraph VI.D.2.a); 

e. apply for registration or claim exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, and engage 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 

f. act 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