IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, Missouri 64108, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAJIV PATEL, a/k/a RAVI PATEL, a/k/a 

RAJ PATEL, 

and 

BLUPRINT LLC, 

2783 Pillsbury Way 

Wellington, Florida 33414, 

Defendants. 

Case No. ____________________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

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

independent federal agency, by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY

1. Between at least June 2019 and continuing through the present (“Relevant

Period”), Defendants Rajiv Patel (“Patel”) and his Florida limited liability company, Bluprint 

LLC (“Bluprint”) (collectively, “Defendants”), have engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit 

and misappropriate money invested with Defendants for the purported purpose of trading 

commodity futures and securities in a commodity pool. Defendants solicited and/or accepted at 

least $9.8 million from at least sixteen individuals and entities (“Pool Participants”) to trade 

commodity futures and securities in a commodity pool (the “Bluprint Pool”). Instead of using 

MC Jan 18, 2022 MIAMI

22-cv-80092-DMM

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 1

of 30

SEALED 

FILED sv.__ ___ o.c. 

ANGJ:l)I I' N08l.E 

Ct.ERK U.S . OtST. ct. 

S. O.OFFLA. • 
2 

Pool Participant funds to trade on behalf of the Bluprint Pool, Defendants immediately 

misappropriated the funds. 

2. Defendants misappropriated Pool Participant funds by directing or depositing the 

funds into Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts. Patel used Pool Participant funds to 

support his lifestyle, including by making mortgage payments for two homes in Palm Beach 

County, Florida; making loan payments on several vehicles; and by making regular payments to 

credit card providers and personal loan financers. Patel also used Pool Participant funds to 

personally trade, among other things, commodity futures and options. Patel’s trading has been 

overall unprofitable and caused significant losses of Pool Participant funds. Meanwhile, Patel 

reported to Pool Participants that their investments were earning interest, when in reality, as of 

November 21, 2021, the investments were depleted and earning no interest. 

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

Defendants have violated certain anti-fraud, commodity pool registration, and related provisions 

of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act” or “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, namely, Sections 

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

6c(b), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A)-(B), and CFTC Regulations (“Regulations”) 4.20(a)(1), (b), and 

(c), 4.21, 4.22, and 32.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 4.21, 4.22, 32.4 (2021). 

4. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue 

engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint. 

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

brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel their 

compliance with the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, and to enjoin them from 

engaging in any commodity-related activity. The CFTC also seeks civil monetary penalties and 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 2

of 30
3 

remedial ancillary relief, including but not limited to, trading and registration bans, restitution, 

disgorgement from Defendants, rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and 

further relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 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). In addition, Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(a), provides that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought by the 

CFTC for injunctive and other relief or to enforce compliance with the Act 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. 

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

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), because the Defendants transacted business in this District, and certain of 

the acts and practices in violation of the Act have occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur 

within this District, among other places. 

III. PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 1-26, and Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1-190 (2021). The CFTC maintains its principal office at 

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

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 3

of 30
4 

9. Defendant Bluprint LLC is a Florida limited liability company formed in June 

2018 that operates from Patel’s residence in Wellington, Florida. During the Relevant Period, 

Blueprint operated as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) by accepting and receiving funds 

from pool participants for participation in the Bluprint Pool. Bluprint has never been registered 

with the CFTC in any capacity. 

10. Defendant Rajiv Patel, also known as Ravi Patel is a resident of Wellington, 

Florida, in Palm Beach County. Patel is the Managing Director of Bluprint and also describes 

himself as its CEO. During the Relevant Period, Patel acted as an Associated Person (“AP”) for 

CPO Bluprint by soliciting pool participants for participation in the Bluprint Pool. Patel has 

never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

IV. FACTS 

11. During the Relevant Period, Defendants misappropriated and solicited at least 

$9.8 million from at least sixteen Pool Participants. To conceal their fraud, Defendants provided 

Pool Participants with false account statements, and Patel lied to futures commission merchants 

about the source of the funds he used to trade in his personal trading accounts. Defendants also 

failed to register and properly operate the Bluprint Pool. 

A. Defendants Misappropriated and Commingled Pool Participants’ Funds with 

Patel’s Personal Trading and Bank Accounts. 

12. Patel and Bluprint have misappropriated and commingled Pool Participants’ funds 

by accepting them and depositing or directing them into Patel’s personal trading or bank 

accounts. From there, Patel and Bluprint largely traded the funds in commodity futures trading 

accounts and incurred significant overall losses, distributed funds back to other Pool Participants 

(akin to a Ponzi scheme), or used the funds on Patel’s own personal spending. Consequently, as 

of November 21, 2021, Pool Participants’ funds were depleted. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 4

of 30
5 

13. Specifically, during the Relevant Period, Patel deposited more than $5,100,000 

into futures accounts; he traded E-mini Nasdaq-100, Micro E-mini Nasdaq, E-mini Russell 2000 

Index, E-mini S&P 500 Index, and Natural Gas futures, and he traded Natural Gas, Mini S&P, 

and other index options; and the accounts incurred overall trading losses of nearly $3,900,000 

during the same timeframe. Patel paid more than $605,000 in trading fees during the Relevant 

Period. 

14. Patel also distributed nearly $2,000,000 back to some Pool Participants during the 

Relevant Period in the manner of Ponzi payments. 

15. Patel spent the remaining Pool Participant funds on personal expenses supporting 

his lavish lifestyle, including by paying for the mortgages for two homes in Palm Beach County, 

Florida; loan payments on several vehicles totaling nearly $95,000; personal loan payments 

totaling more than $271,000; and regular credit card payments totaling more than $407,000. 

16. Defendants knowingly or recklessly defrauded Pool Participants by 

misappropriating Pool Participant funds instead of investing the Pool Participants’ money as 

promised. At a minimum, this conduct operated as a fraud on pool participants. 

B. The Defendants Made Material Misrepresentations and Issued False Account 

Statements to Pool Participants. 

17. To encourage Pool Participants to invest, Patel and/or Bluprint entered into 

agreements with Pool Participants that purported to pay Pool Participants a specific interest rate 

in exchange for the Pool Participants’ capital contributions to Bluprint. As discussed below, 

these agreements contained a number of material misrepresentations. 

18. Defendants also provided false periodic account statements to Pool Participants. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 5

of 30
6 

i. Defendants’ Investment Agreements with and Periodic Account 

Statements to Pool Participant A Contained Material 

Misrepresentations. 

19. On or around January 15, 2020, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a commodity pool participant (“Pool Participant A”) provided to 

Defendants one million dollars ($1,000,000) and entered into an “Investment Agreement” with 

Bluprint and Patel. Patel personally guaranteed repayment, personally signed the Investment 

Agreement, and signed the Investment Agreement on behalf of Bluprint as Bluprint’s Managing 

Director.

20. On or around September 9, 2020, Pool Participant A and Defendants entered into 

a second Investment Agreement, this time for Pool Participant A’s capital contribution of five 

hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Other than the amount invested and the date of the 

agreement, the Investment Agreements’ terms were functionally the same.

21. The Investment Agreements provided that “[i]n exchange for [Pool Participant 

A’s] capital contribution . . . [Bluprint] shall pay to [Pool Participant A] an annual rate of return 

of twenty percent (20%) on the Capital Contribution[s] . . . until the earlier of: (i) a period of 

three (3) years . . . or (ii) until such time that [Bluprint] returns the full amount of the Capital 

Contribution[s] to [Pool Participant A].” 

22. The Investment Agreements further provided that Defendants 

[J]ointly and severally represent[ed] and warrant[ed]: (a) the accuracy of all 

statements and representations made in any Written Report; (b) that no portion of 

[Pool Participant A’s] Book Capital Account balance shall be used for personal 

benefit by [Patel] or [Bluprint], or for any purpose other than set forth in [the 

Investment Agreements]; and (c) that [Pool Participant A’s] Capital Contribution 

will be invested solely for the purpose of increasing the [Pool Participant A’s] 

Book Capital Account[.] 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 6

of 30
7 

23. These representations were false. Instead of investing Pool Participant A’s funds 

as promised, Defendants immediately misappropriated Pool Participant A’s capital contribution 

by spending the funds on personal expenses, making payments to other Pool Participants, and 

using the funds for Patel’s personal trading (which suffered significant trading losses). The 

funds never accumulated interest. Defendants never maintained a Book Capital Account for 

Pool Participant A. Moreover, Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they had 

no past history of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant A that Defendants 

would generate trading profits that would allow Defendants to pay a 20% annual rate of return on 

Pool Participant A’s investment. 

24. Bluprint and Patel also represented and warranted that the execution, delivery, 

and performance of the Investment Agreements and the “consummation of the transactions 

contemplated” within the Investment Agreements would not “violate any federal, foreign, state, 

county or local law, rule, regulation, order, writ injunction or decree applicable to [Bluprint] or 

[Patel].” Defendants knew, however, that their operation of the Bluprint Pool and their failure to 

register or file a registration exemption violated federal law. 

25. Periodically, Defendants provided Pool Participant A with account statements 

purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant A provided, an “Annual Simple 

Interest Rate” of 20.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.05479%. Defendants provided Pool 

Participant A one such statement on Bluprint letterhead dated October 31, 2021, which provided 

a table reflecting total “Principal” invested as $1,500,000, and falsely show total interest 

accumulated as of October 31, 2021 as $459,863.01. 

26. These account statements were false. Pool Participant A’s capital contributions 

are largely or completely depleted and are not accruing any interest. Defendants did not direct 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 7

of 30
8 

any of Pool Participant A’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendants 

directed Pool Participant A’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and bank 

accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds for personal expenses and to trade index futures and 

options products, which then suffered significant losses. 

ii. Defendants’ Profit Sharing Agreements with and Periodic Account 

Statements to Pool Participant B Contained Material 

Misrepresentations. 

27. On or around January 29, 2021, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a commodity pool participant (“Pool Participant B”) entered into a 

“Profit Sharing Agreement” with Bluprint and provided a “capital contribution of Two Hundred 

Thousand U.S. Dollars ($200,000.00), in exchange for certain profit[-]sharing rights in 

Bluprint’s investment activities.” 

28. In the January 29, 2021 Profit Sharing Agreement, in exchange for the $200,000, 

“Bluprint agree[d] to pay [Pool Participant B] an annual return of fifteen percent (15%) on [Pool 

Participant B’s] Capital Contribution (“Annual Return”) for a period of three (3) years . . . or 

until such time that Bluprint returns the capital to [Pool Participant B], whichever is first 

(“Agreement Term”).” 

29. On or around March 29, 2021, still under the impression that Patel was a 

successful and experienced trader, Pool Participant B entered into a second Profit Sharing 

Agreement with Bluprint, providing a “capital contribution of Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars 

($20,000.00).” Likewise, on or around April 26, 2021, Pool Participant B entered into a third 

Profit Sharing Agreement with Bluprint, providing a “capital contribution of One Hundred 

Thousand U.S. Dollars ($100,000.00).” On or around August 2, 2021, Pool Participant B 

entered into a fourth Profit Sharing Agreement with Bluprint (“August 2, 2021 Profit Sharing 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 8

of 30
9 

Agreement”), providing a “capital contribution of Two Hundred Thirty Thousand U.S. Dollars 

($230,000.00).” Other than the dates of the agreements and the amounts invested, the terms of 

all of the Profit Sharing Agreements were functionally the same. 

30. Patel signed each of the Profit Sharing Agreements on behalf of Bluprint as 

Bluprint’s Managing Director. 

31. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they had no past history 

of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant B that Defendants would generate 

trading profits that would allow Defendants to pay a 15% annual rate of return on Pool 

Participant B’s investment. 

32. Approximately monthly, Defendants provided Pool Participant B account 

statements purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant A invested, an “Annual 

Simple Interest Rate” of 15.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.04110%. Defendants provided 

Pool Participant B one such statement on Bluprint letterhead dated September 30, 2021, which 

provided a table reflecting the total Pool Participant B invested as $550,000.00 and total interest 

accumulated as of September 30, 2021 as $33,571.23. The statement also provided a “Projected 

Schedule,” projecting accumulated interest of $54,365.75 by December 31, 2021. 

33. These account statements were false. Pool Participant B’s capital contributions 

are largely or completely depleted and are not accruing any interest. Defendants did not direct 

any of Pool Participant B’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendants 

directed Pool Participant B’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and bank 

accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds for personal expenses and to trade index futures and 

options products, which then suffered significant losses. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page 9

of 30
10 

iii. Defendants’ Investment Agreements with and Periodic Account 

Statements and Verbal Communications to Pool Participant C 

Contained Material Misrepresentations. 

34. On or around February 2, 2021, under the impression that Patel was a successful 

and experienced trader, a Pool Participant (“Pool Participant C”) entered into a “Profit Sharing 

Agreement” with Bluprint and provided a “capital contribution of Seventy Five Thousand U.S. 

Dollars ($75,000.00), in exchange for certain profit[-]sharing rights in Bluprint’s investment 

activities.” 

35. According to the Profit Sharing Agreement, in exchange for the $75,000.00 

investment, “Bluprint agree[d] to pay [Pool Participant C] an annual return of fifteen percent 

(15%) on [Pool Participant C’s] Capital Contribution (“Annual Return”) for a period of three (3) 

years . . . or until such time that Bluprint returns the capital to [Pool Participant C], whichever is 

first (“Agreement Term”).” 

36. On or around April 9, 2021, Pool Participant C and Bluprint entered into a second 

Profit Sharing Agreement, this time for one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Other than the 

amount invested and the date, the Profit Sharing Agreements’ terms were functionally the same. 

37. Patel signed both Profit Sharing Agreements on behalf of Bluprint as Bluprint’s 

Managing Director. 

38. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they had no past history 

of trading success or basis to represent to Pool Participant C that Defendants would generate 

trading profits that would allow Defendants to pay a 15% annual rate of return on Pool 

Participant C’s investment.

39. Approximately monthly, Defendants provided Pool Participant C account 

statements purporting to show the amount of “Principal” Pool Participant C invested, an “Annual 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

10 of 30
11 

Simple Interest Rate” of 15.00%, and a “Daily Interest Rate” of 0.04110%. Defendants provided 

Pool Participant C one such statement on Bluprint letterhead dated September 30, 2021, which 

provided a table reflecting total “Principal” invested as $175,000.00 and total interest 

accumulated as of September 30, 2021 as $14,578.77. The statement also provided a “Projected 

Schedule,” projecting accumulated interest of $21,195.21 by December 31, 2021. 

40. These account statements were false. Pool Participant C’s capital contributions 

are largely or completely depleted and are not accruing any interest. Defendants did not direct 

any of Pool Participant C’s capital contributions to the Bluprint Pool. Instead, Defendants 

directed Pool Participant C’s capital contributions to Patel’s personal futures trading and bank 

accounts. Thereafter Patel used the funds for personal expenses and to trade index futures and 

options products, which then suffered significant losses. 

41. Furthermore, during the Relevant Period, Patel verbally told Pool Participant C 

that Bluprint traded “S&P E-Mini futures.” Bluprint, however, had no futures trading accounts 

and has never traded any futures. 

C. Patel Made Material Misrepresentations to Futures Commissions Merchants 

and an Introducing Broker To Conceal Defendants’ Fraud. 

42. On November 28, 2020, Patel applied for a personal trading account with Dorman 

Trading, LLC, a registered futures commission merchant (“FCM”), introduced by NinjaTrader 

Brokerage, LLC (“NinjaTrader”), a registered introducing broker (“IB”). Patel used this account 

to trade Pool Participants’ funds. The application asked whether Patel was “trading or planning 

on trading any funds beside [his] own,” and whether “anyone other than the joint owner [would] 

share in the profits or losses in this account?” To each question, Patel misrepresented “No.” 

43. On or around December 25, 2020, Patel and his wife signed a “Proprietary Funds 

Letter.” In the Proprietary Funds Letter, Patel falsely “certif[ied] that the funds that [they] 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

11 of 30
12 

deposited with Dorman Trading, LLC [were] proprietary funds of [theirs] and [did] not represent 

the interests of any other person, companies or pools.” In the Proprietary Funds Letter, Patel 

further stated that [they did] not hold [themselves] out as engaging in the business of investing 

capital from other participants in the commodity futures markets,” and Patel agreed that 

“[s]hould any of the foregoing representations change or become untrue, [he would] immediately 

notify Dorman Trading, LLC of such change.” 

44. On or around March 5, 2021, NinjaTrader requested information from Patel 

regarding his annual income and the source of the funds he had been trading since opening the 

account in November 2020. NinjaTrader requested a “written statement confirming that the 

funds in the account are proprietary funds.” Patel responded, “All the funds in my account are 

personal funds. What do you mean by proprietary?” The NinjaTrader representative stated that 

“‘proprietary just means that the funds belong solely to you, and were not solicited from any 

third party.’” Patel responded, “Correct. They are my own funds.” 

45. On or around September 10, 2021, Patel and his wife signed and certified a 

second Proprietary Funds Letter to Dorman Trading, LLC, identical in substance to the 

December 25, 2020 Proprietary Funds Letter. 

46. On or around October 20, 2021, in connection with an application to open a new 

futures trading account in which to trade Pool Participant funds, Patel and his wife signed and 

submitted to Ironbeam, Inc., an FCM, a “Proprietary Account Representation Letter.” In the 

Proprietary Account Representation Letter, Patel falsely represented and affirmed, 

[U]nder the penalty of perjury, that the [account is] solely a proprietary account of 

[Patel] and no funds from customers, clients or any other third parties are 

deposited nor placed in said account. Neither [Patel], nor any person on [his] 

behalf has solicited, nor will solicit in the future, any person for the purpose of 

depositing funds in said account. Further, [Patel] represents that [he] is not 

required to be registered in any capacity with the [CFTC] . . . . [Patel] agrees to 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

12 of 30
13 

notify, in writing, Ironbeam, Inc., in the event of any change in the representations 

contained herein. Further, [Patel] acknowledges that Ironbeam, Inc. is relying on 

the representations contained herein in regard to the manner in which Ironbeam, 

Inc. carries and treats the above account. 

 

47. Defendants have misrepresented the source of trading funds to FCMs and an IB to 

conceal Defendants’ unauthorized and illegal operation of a commodity pool. 

D. Defendants Violated Registration and Other Commodity Pool-Related 

Requirements. 

 

i. Bluprint and Patel Failed To Register with the CFTC. 

48. Patel, a self-described “Investor, Serial Entrepreneur, [and] Advisor,” founded 

Bluprint in June 2018. Patel, Bluprint’s Managing Director and CEO, describes Bluprint as a 

“special purpose investment vehicle that was formed by [Patel] for purposes of engaging in 

investment activities.” Patel has also described Bluprint as a “consulting” business. 

49. During the Relevant Period, Bluprint, by and through its officers, employees or 

agents, used the mails, electronic mails, wire transfers, websites, and other means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, to solicit pool participants and to receive property from 

pool participants. 

50. Bluprint acted as a CPO of the Bluprint Pool because it engaged in a business that 

is of the nature of a commodity pool and, in connection with that business, solicited and/or 

accepted pool funds for a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP and that engaged in 

futures and options transactions. 

51. Bluprint was not statutorily exempt or excluded from registration as a CPO. 

Moreover, Bluprint never filed any electronic or written notice with the NFA that it was exempt 

or excluded from registration as a CPO, as required by Regulations 4.5(c) and 4.13(b)(1). 

52. Bluprint was never registered with the Commission as a CPO. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

13 of 30
14 

53. Patel acted as an AP of a CPO because he solicited funds or property for 

participation in a pooled investment vehicle that is not an ECP and that engaged in futures and 

options. 

54. During the Relevant Period, Patel was never registered with the Commission as 

an AP of a CPO. 

55. Patel was aware of Defendants’ obligation to register with the CFTC. In former 

litigation, Patel, under oath, said that he knew about the CFTC and its registration requirements 

for CPOs. Defendants have avoided registering Bluprint as a CPO with the CFTC to avoid 

detection of Defendants’ illegally operated commodity pool and associated fraud. 

ii. Bluprint and Patel Failed To Operate the Bluprint Pool as a Separate 

Legal Entity, Failed To Receive Pool Funds in the Commodity Pool’s 

Name, and Commingled Pool Participants’ Funds with Patel’s. 

56. Bluprint and Patel have not operated the Bluprint Pool as a separate legal entity. 

Defendants have failed to open bank or trading accounts in the name of the Bluprint Pool, and 

Defendants received pool funds that were not in the name of the Bluprint Pool when they 

received pool funds in Patel’s name and deposited them into bank accounts Patel personally held 

instead of separate trading and bank accounts. 

iii. Defendant Failed To Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Relevant 

Documents. 

57. Bluprint, while acting as the CPO of the Bluprint Pool, has failed to provide pool 

disclosure documents and other documents required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.21, 4.22 (2021), including but not limited to required cautionary statements, risk 

disclosures, fees and expenses incurred by the Bluprint Pool, past performance disclosures, a 

statement that the CPO is required to provide to all pool participants with monthly or quarterly 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

14 of 30
15 

account statements, and an annual report containing financial statements certified by an 

independent public accountant. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

COUNT I 

Violations of Section 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C): 

Fraud in Connection with Commodity Futures Transactions by 

Misappropriating Pool Participant Funds, Making Material Misrepresentations, 

and Issuing False Account Statements 

58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

59. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful: 

(1) [F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or 

the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate 

commerce or for future delivery that is made, or to be made, on or subject 

to the rules of a designated contract market, for or on behalf of any other 

person . . . 

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

person; 

(B) willfully to make or cause to be made to the other person any 

false report or statement or willfully to enter or cause to be entered 

for the other person any false record; [or] 

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

any means whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the 

disposition or execution of any order or contract, or in regard to 

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

for . . . the other person[.] 

60. Defendants engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ funds, 

including when Defendants used Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s lavish lifestyle, made 

Ponzi payments to some Pool Participants, and directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds 

into Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint 

Pool; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendants’ use of Pool Participant 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

15 of 30
16 

funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as promised, and the legality of 

Bluprint’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool Participants; and (4) making 

material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud. 

61. By reason of the conduct above, Defendants, in or in connection with any order to 

make, or the making of, commodity futures transactions made on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to 

cheat or defraud Pool Participants; and/or (2) deceived or attempted to deceive Pool Participants 

by any means whatsoever. 

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C). 

63. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants knowingly or recklessly 

made or caused to be made to Pool Participants false reports or statements. 

64. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(B). 

65. Defendants committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, 

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

66. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count I. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

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

67. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count I, pursuant to 

Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2021). 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

16 of 30
17 

68. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, false statement, and 

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

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C). 

COUNT II 

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

Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2021): 

Fraud in Connection with Commodity Options Transactions by 

Misappropriating Pool Participant Funds, Making Material Misrepresentations, 

and Issuing False Account Statements 

69. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

70. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) provides, in relevant part: 

No person shall offer to enter into, enter into or confirm the execution 

of, any transaction involving any commodity regulated under this 

chapter which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade 

as, an “option”, “privilege”, “indemnity”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, “call”, 

“advance guaranty”, or “decline guaranty”, contrary to any rule, 

regulation, or order of the Commission prohibiting any such transaction 

or allowing any such transaction under such terms and conditions as the 

Commission shall prescribe. 

71. 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 provides: 

In or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the 

confirmation of the execution of, any commodity option transaction, it 

shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly: 

(a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other 

person; 

(b) To make or cause to be made to any other person any false 

report or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any 

person any false record thereof; or 

(c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any 

means whatsoever. 

72. Defendants engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ funds, 

including when Defendants used Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s lavish lifestyle, made 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

17 of 30
18 

Ponzi payments to some Pool Participants, and directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds 

into Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint 

Pool; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendants’ use of Pool Participant 

funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as promised, and the legality of 

Bluprint’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool Participants; and (4) making 

material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud. 

73. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, in connection with offers 

to enter into, entry into, or confirmation of the execution of commodity option transactions, 

directly or indirectly, and knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or attempted to 

cheat or defraud Pool Participants; and (2) deceived or attempted to deceive Pool Participants by 

any means. 

74. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4(a) and (c). 

75. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants knowingly or recklessly 

made or caused to be made to Pool Participants false reports or statements. 

76. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4(b). 

77. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count II. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13(b). 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

18 of 30
19 

78. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count II, pursuant 

to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

79. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, false statement, and 

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

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4(a)-(c). 

COUNT III 

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

Commodity Pool Operators and 

Associated Persons of Commodity Pool Operators 

80. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

81. Section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(10), in part, defines a commodity pool as 

“any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading 

in commodity interests, . . . . ” 

82. Section 1a(11)(A)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in 

relevant part, as any person: 

[E]ngaged 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, either directly or through capital contributions, the 

sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of 

trading in commodity interests, including any— 

(I) commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or swap[.] 

83. During the Relevant Period, Bluprint engaged in a business, for compensation or 

profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of 

enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

19 of 30
20 

forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; therefore, 

Bluprint acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

84. Under Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2), in relevant part, a person is an 

associated person (“AP”) of a CPO if that person is associated with a CPO as 

[A] partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent (or any person occupying a similar 

status or performing similar functions), in any capacity that involves 

(i) the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a commodity 

pool or 

(ii) the supervision of any person or persons so engaged[.] 

85. During the Relevant Period, Patel was a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or 

agent of Bluprint (or occupied a similar status or performed similar functions), in a capacity that 

involved the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in the Bluprint Pool. 

86. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered with the 

CFTC or not, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, 

directly or indirectly, from employing devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud any client or 

participant or prospective client or participant, or engaging in transactions, practices, or courses 

of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client 

or participant. 

87. Defendants engaged in a fraud by: (1) misappropriating Pool Participants’ funds, 

including when Defendants used Pool Participants’ funds to pay for Patel’s lavish lifestyle, made 

Ponzi payments to some Pool Participants, and directed or deposited Pool Participants’ funds 

into Patel’s personal bank and trading accounts instead of investing the funds in the Bluprint 

Pool; (2) making material misrepresentations regarding Defendants’ use of Pool Participant 

funds, ability to generate trading returns and pay interest as promised, and the legality of 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

20 of 30
21 

Bluprint’s operations; (3) issuing false account statements to Pool Participants; and (4) making 

material misrepresentations to FCMs and an IB to conceal their fraud. 

88. By reason of the conduct described above, Bluprint, through use of the mails or 

any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce: (1) knowingly or recklessly employed 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud Pool Participants and prospective Pool Participants, or 

(2) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit 

upon pool participants or prospective pool participants, by misappropriating Pool Participant 

funds and making material misrepresentations to Pool Participants. 

89. By reason of the foregoing, Bluprint violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B). 

90. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count IV. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13(b). 

91. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count III, pursuant 

to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

92. Each misappropriation, misrepresentation, and omission of material fact, 

including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1).

COUNT IV 

Violations of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1): 

Failure to Register as a Commodity Pool Operator 

93. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

21 of 30
22 

94. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) states that it 

shall be “unlawful for any . . . [CPO], unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the 

mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as 

such . . . [CPO] . . . .” 

95. By reason of the foregoing, Bluprint engaged in a business, for compensation or 

profit, that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of 

enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other 

forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests; therefore, 

Bluprint acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

96. Bluprint, while using the mails or means of interstate commerce in connection 

with its business as a CPO, was not registered with the CFTC as a CPO. 

97. By reason of the foregoing, Bluprint acted as an unregistered CPO in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

98. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count IV. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13(b). 

99. Each instance that Bluprint acted as a CPO but failed to register with the CFTC as 

such is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

COUNT V 

Violations of Section 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2): 

Failure to Register as an Associated Person of a 

Commodity Pool Operator 

100. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

22 of 30
23 

101. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it 

“unlawful for any person to be associated with a [CPO] as a partner, officer, employee, 

consultant, or agent . . . in any capacity that involves . . . the solicitation of funds, securities, or 

property for a participant in a commodity pool[.]”

102. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it “unlawful for any commodity pool operator to permit 

[an unregistered AP] to become or remain associated with the [CPO] in such capacity if the 

[CPO] knew or should have known that such person was not so registered[.]” 

103. During the Relevant Period, Patel was associated with Bluprint as a member, 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, agent, or in a similar capacity, and Patel solicited funds 

for participation in the Bluprint Pool. 

104. Patel has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

105. By reason of the foregoing, Patel acted as an unregistered AP of Bluprint, a CPO, 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

106. During the Relevant Period, Bluprint knew that Patel acted as an unregistered AP 

of Bluprint, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

107. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count VI. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13(b).

108. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count V, pursuant 

to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2021).

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

23 of 30
24 

109. Each instance that Patel acted as an unregistered AP of Bluprint but failed to 

register with the CFTC as such is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

COUNT VI 

Violations of Regulation 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 

17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b), (c) (2021): 

Failure to Operate Pool as a Separate Entity, Failure to 

Receive Pool Participants’ Funds in Pool’s Name, and 

Commingling of Pool Participants’ Funds 

110. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

111. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to operate its 

pool as a legal entity separate from that of the CPO. 

112. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from receiving 

pool participants’ funds in any name other than that of the pool. 

113. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) prohibits CPOs from commingling the property of any pool 

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

114. During the Relevant Period, Bluprint, while acting as a CPO for the Bluprint Pool, 

failed to operate the Bluprint Pool as a legal entity separate from itself and from Patel as an 

individual. Bluprint and Patel received pool participants’ funds in their own names rather than 

the name of a legally cognizable commodity pool. Bluprint and Patel commingled Pool 

Participants’ funds with Patel’s funds in Patel’s personal trading and bank accounts. 

115. By reason of the foregoing, Bluprint violated of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b), 

and(c). 

116. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

24 of 30
25 

in Count VII. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint 7 U.S.C. § 13(b). 

117. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count VI, pursuant 

to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

118. Each act of failing to operate the Bluprint Pool as a separate legal entity and 

improperly receiving pool participants’ funds, including but not limited to those specifically 

alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b), and 

(c). 

COUNT VII 

Violation of Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22 (2021): 

Failure to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required Documents 

119. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

120. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

[E]ach [CPO] registered or required to be registered under the Act must 

deliver or cause to be delivered to a prospective participant in a pool that it 

operates or intends to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool prepared 

in accordance with §§ 4.24 and 4.25 by no later than the time it delivers to 

the prospective participant a subscription agreement for the pool . . . . 

121. Upon information and belief, during the Relevant Period, Bluprint did not provide 

to prospective Pool Participants a Disclosure Document with the necessary disclosures in 

accordance with 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24 and 4.25. 

122. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

registered) provide periodic account statements to investors—presented and computed in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles—itemizing, among other things, the 

total amount of realized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions liquidated during the 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

25 of 30
26 

reporting period, the total amount of unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions 

during the reporting period, and the total amount of net gain or loss from all other transactions in 

which the pool engaged during the reporting period. 

123. During the Relevant Period, Bluprint did not provide periodic account statements 

to Pool Participants that itemized the total amount of realized net gain or loss on commodity 

interest positions liquidated during the reporting period, the total amount of unrealized net gain 

or loss on commodity interest positions during the reporting period, and the total amount of net 

gain or loss from all other transactions in which the Bluprint Pool engaged during the reporting 

period. 

124. By reason of the foregoing, Bluprint violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22. 

125. Patel is a controlling person of Bluprint and has failed to act in good faith, or has 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts of Bluprint constituting the violations set forth 

in Count VIII. Accordingly, Patel is liable for each and every violation of the Act committed by 

Bluprint, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13(b). 

126. Bluprint is liable as a principal for the acts, omissions, or failures of Patel, and 

any other agents, employees, or persons otherwise acting for it as set forth in Count VII, pursuant 

to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

127. Each failure to furnish the required disclosure documents and account statements 

and reports to prospective pool participants and pool participants, including, but not limited to, 

those specifically alleged herein, is a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 

4.22. 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

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

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

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

26 of 30
27 

A. Find that Defendants violated Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4c(b), 4k(2), 4m(1), 

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

CFTC Regulations 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 4.21, 4.22, and 32.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and 

(c), 4.21, 4.22, 32.4 (2021); 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their affiliates, 

agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with 

them, who receive actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from engaging in 

the conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6c(b), 6k(2), 6m(1), 

6o(1)(A)-(B), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 4.21, 4.22, 32.4; 

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

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

active concert with them, from directly or indirectly: 

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

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

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)), for accounts held in the name 

of any Defendant or for accounts in which any Defendant has a direct or indirect 

interest; 

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

4) Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or entity, 

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

interests; 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

27 of 30
28 

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

purchasing or selling of any commodity interests; 

6) Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the CFTC 

in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such registration or 

exemption from registration with the CFTC except as provided for in Regulation 

4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and 

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

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

D. Enter an order directing Defendants, as well as any third-party transferee and/or 

successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all benefits 

received including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, loans, fees, revenues, and trading 

profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act 

and Regulations as described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

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

full restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations 

described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

F. Enter an order directing Defendants, 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 Defendants and any pool participants 

whose funds were received by Defendants as a result of the acts and practices that constituted 

violations of the Act and Regulations, as described herein; 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

28 of 30
29 

G. Enter an order directing Defendants to pay a civil monetary penalty assessed by 

the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by 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, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599-600; see 

Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2021), for each violation of the Act and Regulations, as 

described herein; 

H. Enter an order directing that Defendants, and any successors thereof, make an 

accounting to the Court of all of their assets and liabilities, together with all funds they received 

from and paid to investors and other persons in connection with commodity interests and all 

disbursements for any purpose whatsoever of funds received from commodity interests, 

including salaries, commissions, interest, fees, loans, and other disbursement of money or 

property of any kind from at least January 1, 2017 to the date of such accounting; 

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

28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2413(a)(2); and 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

29 of 30
30 

Date: January 18, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

By: _/s/ Monique M. McElwee ________________ 

 Jeff Le Riche (S.D. Fla. #A5501829) 

 Monique M. McElwee (S.D. Fla. #A5502823) 

 Division of Enforcement 

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 2600 Grand Boulevard 

 Kansas City, MO 64108 

 Telephone: (816) 960-7700 

 Facsimile: (816) 960-7751 

jleriche@cftc.gov

mmcelwee@cftc.gov

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

 

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

30 of 30
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) FLSD Revised 02/12/2021 CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided 

by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating 

the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

(d)Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated New Drug Application 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine

840 Trademark

880 Defend Trade Secrets

 Act of 2016

470 Racketeer Influenced and 

Corrupt Organizations

(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit 

 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability

 Injury Product Liability

710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 485 Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA)

of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters

Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 

Sentence

871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 

7609 Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/

Accommodations Other: 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION

290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application 

446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions

448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee – Conditions of 

Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

Transferred from

another district

(specify)

6 Multidistrict

Litigation

Transfer

8 Multidistrict 

Litigation 

– Direct 

File

9 Remanded from 

Appellate Court 

1 Original

Proceeding

2 Removed 

from State 

Court 

3 Re-filed 

(See VI 

below)

4 Reinstated 

or

Reopened

5 7 Appeal to 

District Judge 

from Magistrate

Judgment

VI. RELATED/

RE-FILED CASE(S)

(See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO

JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)

VIII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE

PERSONAL PROPERTY

January 18, 2022

X

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

1 of 3

□ □ □ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ 

□ 

□ □ 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 

□ 

□ □ □ □ □ 

□ □ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 

□ 

□ □ □ □ □ 

□ □ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

El 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ □ 

□ 

□ □ 
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) FLSD Revised 10/14/2020

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required 

by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the 

use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil 

complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, 

giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the

time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation 

cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting

in this section “(see attachment)”.

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in

one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the

Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and

box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4

is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of

suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition 

for removal is granted, check this box.

Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict 

litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this 

box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court. 

VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the

corresponding judges name for such cases.

VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553

 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

2 of 3
Form JS 44, Civil Cover Sheet—Attachment 

Section I.(c), continued: 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Jeff Le Riche (S.D. Fla. #A5501829) 

Monique M. McElwee (S.D. Fla. #A5502823) 

Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: (816) 960-7700 

Facsimile: (816) 960-7751 

jleriche@cftc.gov

mmcelwee@cftc.gov

Case 9:22-cv-80092-DMM *SEALED* Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2022 Page

3 of 3