UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES FREDERICK WALSH

Defendant.

Civil Action No. _______________ 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF UNDER THE COMMODITY 

EXCHANGE ACT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”), by its 

attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. From at least September 2019 to the present (the “Relevant Period”), Defendant 

James Frederick Walsh fraudulently solicited members of the public for the purported purpose of 

trading off-exchange leveraged or margined retail foreign currency (“forex”) on their behalves. 

Primarily using social-media platforms YouTube and Craigslist, and email, Walsh fraudulently 

marketed himself as a highly successfully forex trader who generated for his clients “average 

monthly returns of 8% -11%” or “a flat 3% guaranteed profit each month.” To achieve these 

fictitious results, Walsh falsely claimed to have access to “legal, inside information” about the 

direction in which forex markets will move. More recently—and after he received a cease and 

desist letter from the Texas State Securities Board (“SSB”) related to his fraudulent 

solicitations—Walsh falsely represented that he was earning even greater trading profits now that 

the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the financial markets, claiming that “the returns in forex 

continue to grow as the rest of the financial world continues to suffer.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 1 of 23
2. In these and other solicitations, Walsh misrepresented and/or omitted material 

facts by, among other things: (1) falsely describing his trading experience, trading skills, and 

trading results; (2) failing to advise existing and/or prospective clients that he had no U.S.-based

forex trading accounts and was not listed on any U.S.-based forex trading account as holding 

discretionary trading authority on behalf of the account holder(s); (3) by failing to advise existing 

and/or prospective clients that he was not registered with the Commission to act as a commodity 

trading advisor (“CTA”), and therefore was operating an unlawful business venture; (4) by 

failing to advise existing and/or prospective clients of the inability of any CTA to minimize or 

control the risks associated with forex trading, or to “guarantee” a profit, let alone a specific 

positive rate of return; and (5) by failing to advise existing and/or prospective clients that the 

Texas SSB had issued him a cease and desist letter as a result of his fraudulent solicitations, 

which he was failing to obey. 

3. By this conduct, and the conduct further alleged herein, Walsh has engaged, is 

engaging, and is about to engage in fraud in violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 4o(1) 

of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or “Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6o(1) (2018), 

and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2019), 

and has operated, is operating, and may be about to operate as an unregistered CTA in violation 

of Sections 4m(1) and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(1), 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb)

(2018), and Regulation 5.3(a)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3) (2019). 

4. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a–1 (2018), the 

Commission brings this action to enjoin Walsh’s unlawful acts and practices and to compel his 

compliance with the CEA and the Regulations. In addition, the Commission seeks civil 

monetary penalties and remedial ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading and 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 2 of 23
registration bans, restitution, disgorgement, rescission, an accounting, pre- and post-judgment 

interest, and such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. 

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

Walsh will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018) 

(federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (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 (2018), provides that U.S.

district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought by the Commission against a person that

has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice that violates any provision 

of the CEA or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C) (2018), subjects the forex solicitations and transactions at issue in this action to, 

among other things, Sections 4b, 4o, and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b, 6o, 6m(1) (2018), and 

Regulations 5.2(b)(1), (3), and 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(3)(i) (2019), as 

further described below. 

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

§ 13a–1(e) (2018), because Walsh transacts or transacted business in this District, and/or certain 

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

occurring, or are about to occur within this District. 

III. THE PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act and 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 3 of 23
Regulations. The Commission maintains its principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 

21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. 

9. Public records indicate that Defendant James Frederick Walsh is a legal resident 

of Boca Raton, Florida, though Walsh also may claim to reside in the Dominican Republic. 

Walsh solicits clients throughout the United States, including within the State of Texas and, more 

specifically, within the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Walsh has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity.

IV. FACTS

A. Walsh Fraudulently Solicits Clients’ Funds

10. Throughout the Relevant Period, Walsh solicited existing and/or prospective 

clients for the purported purpose of trading forex on their behalves in exchange for a percentage 

of the trading profits that he earned. 

11. In particular, Walsh, a self-proclaimed forex “master trader,” used internet social 

media platforms YouTube and Craigslist, email, the telephone, and text messages to solicit 

clients for a forex trading scheme that he claimed to operate and that he called the “Master 

Account Client Trading Program.” 

12. Walsh represented that, as part of his Master Account Client Trading Program, he 

placed forex trades in two “master accounts” that he controlled, and that his trades were 

“mirror[ed]” in “subaccounts” that held investor funds. The two master accounts purportedly 

differed based on the amount invested: one contained client investments ranging from $3,000 to 

$10,000; the other contained client investments greater than $10,000. 

13. Walsh claimed that, in his Master Account Client Trading Program, each client’s 

“financial investment is leveraged due to multiple sub-accounts under the master account.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 4 of 23
14. Walsh claimed that, as part of his Master Account Client Trading Program, he 

deposited sixty percent of forex trading profits into his clients’ subaccounts weekly, keeping the 

remaining forty percent as compensation for his services. 

15. At no point in his solicitations did Walsh limit his offer to trade forex to eligible 

contract participants (“ECP” or “ECPs”). Upon information and belief, funds received by Walsh 

in connection with his Master Account Client Trading Program were not provided by ECPs. 

B. Walsh’s Fraudulent YouTube Video

16. On or around September 19, 2019, Walsh posted, or had posted, on the internet 

video-sharing platform YouTube a video in which he offered participation in his Master Account 

Client Trading Program to the public, falsely claiming that his Master Account Client Trading 

Program’s “current clients are averaging eight to eleven percent net per month on their total 

accounts” through his trades, “seventy-six percent” of which were “winners.” 

17. In this YouTube video, Walsh claimed to achieve these results by using 

information received from “live feeds,” which allows him to “trade with the banks” that “move 

the market eighty percent of the time”—a trading strategy that Walsh called “target marketing” 

or “target trading.” 

18. In this YouTube video, Walsh offered to trade forex on behalf of members of the 

public in exchange for compensation equal to forty percent of the trading profits he generates. 

19. At no point in the YouTube video did Walsh disclose that: (1) he had no U.S.-

based forex trading accounts and was not listed on any U.S.-based forex trading account as 

holding discretionary trading authority on behalf of the account holder(s); (2) he was not 

authorized under the CEA to trade forex on behalf of U.S.-based clients; (3) he was operating an 

unlawful business venture because he was not lawfully registered to act as a CTA; or (4) no CTA

can minimize or control the risks associated with trading forex. 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 5 of 23
20. At no point in the YouTube video did Walsh limit his offer to trade forex to 

ECPs. 

C. Walsh’s Fraudulent Craigslist Solicitations 

21. On or around October 20, 2019, Walsh posted, or had posted, two solicitations on 

the classified advertisements website Craigslist. These two Craigslist solicitations employed 

misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to induce potential clients to transfer funds to 

forex trading accounts that Walsh would or could control. 

a. The Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation

22. In the first solicitation (the “Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation”), on or 

around October 20, 2019, Walsh posted, or had posted, on Craigslist an Austin-targeted

advertisement entitled “ARE YOU ONE OF THE FOREX RETAIL TRADERS THAT LOSE 

MORE MONEY THAN YOU [sic] (Austin, Texas),” which offered Austin-area residents, and 

the general public, participation in his Master Account Client Trading Program. 

23. In the Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh falsely claimed to be a 

“Forex Master Trader” who: (a) “routinely achieves a 76% PLUS winning average” on his 

trades, and (b) could use leverage to provide clients “average monthly returns [of] 8% - 11% net 

of account balance” “without losing a dime.” 

24. In the Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh falsely claimed to achieve 

these fictitious results using “a proprietary access to sophisticated world bank charts” that allows 

him to “trade with the banks, not against them.” Walsh further falsely claimed: “I receive their 

live feed charts daily, so I see what they are doing and when. This legal, inside information 

gives me a great advantage which I pass on you to.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 6 of 23
25. At the end of the Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh provided his 

telephone number and invited readers to “CALL TODAY” to “TURN YOUR LOSSES INTO 

CONSISTENT GAINS NOW!”

26. At no point in the Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation did Walsh advise 

prospective clients that: (1) he had no U.S.-based forex trading accounts and was not listed on 

any U.S.-based forex trading account as holding discretionary trading authority on behalf of the 

account holder(s); (2) he was not authorized under the CEA to trade forex on behalf of U.S.-

based clients; (3) he was operating an unlawful business venture because he was not lawfully 

registered to act as a CTA; and (4) no CTA can minimize or control the risks associated with 

trading forex, or guarantee profitable trading. 

27. At no point in the Austin-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation did Walsh limit to ECPs 

his offer of participation in his Master Account Client Trading Program. 

b. The Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation

28. On or around October 20, 2019, Walsh posted, or had posted, on Craigslist a 

Dallas-targeted solicitation entitled “TURN YOUR CONSISTENT FOREX LOSSES INTO 

CONSISTENT DAILY GAINS! (Dallas, Texas)” (the “Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation”), 

which offered Dallas-area residents, and the general public, participation in his Master Account 

Client Trading Program.

29. In the Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh falsely claimed to “currently 

average 8% - 11% per month net to client sub accounts!” and to have an “astounding 78% 

winning average!” 

30. In the Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh further claimed as follows:

If you decided to make your sub account a retirement fund, what 

could you expect to achieve? 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 7 of 23
$3,000 at a low of 8% average per month (depending on compound 

interest) could get you up $300,000 or more. YOU DO THE 

MATH! 

$5,000 at a low of 8% average per month (depending on compound 

interest) could get you up $500,000 or more. YOU DO THE 

MATH!

31. At the end of the Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation, Walsh provided his 

telephone number and invited members of the public to “CALL TODAY” to “TURN YOUR 

LOSSES INTO CONSISTENT GAINS NOW!”

32. At no point in the Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation did Walsh advise 

prospective clients that: (1) he had no U.S.-based forex trading accounts and was not listed on 

any U.S.-based forex trading account as holding discretionary trading authority on behalf of the 

account holder(s); (2) he was not authorized under the CEA to trade forex on behalf of U.S.-

based clients; (3) he was operating an unlawful business venture because he was not lawfully 

registered to act as a CTA; or (4) no CTA can minimize or control the risks associated with 

trading forex, or guarantee profitable trading. 

33. At no point in the Dallas-Targeted Craigslist Solicitation did Walsh limit to ECPs 

his offer of participation in his Master Account Client Trading Program. 

D. Texas SSB’s Investigation of Walsh’s Fraud 

34. On or around November 19, 2019, a Texas SSB Investigator reviewed the DallasTargeted Craigslist Solicitation and contacted Walsh by telephone using the telephone number 

Walsh provided to discuss Walsh’s offer of participation in his Master Account Client Trading 

Program (the “November 19, 2019 Telephone Call”). 

35. Beginning on the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, the Texas SSB Investigator

began to act undercover by posing as “Earl Franklin,” a potential client. Walsh was unaware that 

“Earl Franklin” was a Texas SSB investigator. 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 8 of 23
36. On the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, and in other communications with the 

Texas SSB Investigator that continued through at least April 2, 2020, Walsh claimed to trade 

forex on behalf of others in exchange for compensation. 

37. On the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, and in other communications with the 

Texas SSB Investigator that continued through at least April 2, 2020, Walsh offered to trade 

forex on behalf of the Texas SSB Investigator in exchange for compensation. Specifically, 

Walsh described his Master Account Client Trading Program and the fees he charges for trading 

clients’ funds in this program. 

38. On the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, and in other communications with the 

Texas SSB Investigator that continued through at least April 2, 2020, Walsh purported to explain 

his trading strategy. Specifically, Walsh again falsely claimed to receive information by “live 

feeds” that allows him to “trade with the banks” that “move the market eighty percent of the 

time”—a trading strategy Walsh called “target marketing” or “target trading.” That is, Walsh 

indicated that he obtains information about the directions of “the banks’” trades before those 

trades are placed. Walsh also represented that he charges clients $150 per month to purportedly 

“cover the costs” of these so-called “banker charts,” and that this $150 monthly fee was the sole 

risk clients faced if they allowed Walsh to trade forex on their behalves. 

39. On the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, and in other communications with the 

Texas SSB Investigator that continued through at least April 2, 2020, Walsh again falsely 

represented that he has achieved average monthly returns between eight and eleven percent by 

trading on behalf of clients while at the same time minimizing the risk of forex trading, falsely 

claiming that trading in his Master Account Client Trading Program is “risk free.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 9 of 23
40. Following the November 19, 2019 Telephone Call, Walsh sent the Texas SSB 

Investigator an email dated November 19, 2019 in which Walsh represented that he directs 

clients to open their so-called subaccounts with FX Choice, a broker located in Belize where his 

so-called master accounts are held. At no time did Walsh advise the Texas SSB Investigator (or 

any other potential recipients of the same or similar emails) that FX Choice is not registered with 

the Commission as a Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer, or in any other capacity, and therefore 

cannot lawfully open accounts or engage in retail forex transactions with U.S. citizens. 

41. At no point in his communications with the Texas SSB Investigator (or any other 

potential recipients of the same or similar emails) did Walsh state that: (1) he had no U.S.-based 

forex trading accounts and was not listed on any U.S.-based forex trading account as holding 

discretionary trading authority on behalf of the account holder(s); (2) he was not authorized 

under the CEA to trade forex on behalf of U.S.-based clients; (3) he was operating an unlawful 

business venture because he was not lawfully registered to act as a CTA; or (4) no CTA can 

minimize or control the risks associated with trading forex, or guarantee profitable trading. 

42. At no point in his communications with the Texas SSB Investigator (or any other 

potential recipients of the same or similar emails) did Walsh limit to ECPs his offer of 

participation in his Master Account Client Trading Program. 

E. Texas SSB’s Cease and Desist Order 

43. On February 7, 2020, Joe Rotunda, Director of Texas SSB’s Enforcement 

Division sent a Cease and Desist letter to Walsh by email (the “Cease and Desist Letter”). The 

Cease and Desist Letter stated that Walsh, through his solicitations, was violating the registration 

and disclosure provisions of the Texas Securities Act and requested that Walsh “immediately 

cease and desist from offering the investments until you are fully compliant with the statutory 

and registration requirements” of the Texas Securities Act. Although the Cease and Desist Letter 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 10 of 23
requested a response by 12:00 PM on February 10, 2020, Walsh did not immediately respond to 

the Cease and Desist Letter. 

44. On February 18, 2020, Justin Stoll and Seth Oufnac, employees of the Texas 

SSB’s Enforcement Division, spoke with Walsh about the Cease and Desist Letter and his failure 

to respond. On the call, Walsh also confirmed his email address. 

45. On February 18, 2020, after the telephone call with Walsh, Stoll resent the Cease 

and Desist Letter to Walsh by email. On the same day, Walsh replied to Stoll’s email, writing “I 

read the letter and agree to cease and disist [sic].” 

F. Walsh’s Violation of the Cease and Desist Letter 

46. On February 24, 2020, the Texas SSB Investigator, continuing his undercover 

investigation of Walsh, emailed Walsh to express interest in investing in Walsh’s Master 

Account Client Trading Program. 

47. On February 25, 2020, Walsh replied to the Texas SSB Investigator, among other 

things, “ready when you are” and suggested that the Texas SSB Investigator call him that night. 

48. Beginning on February 29, 2020, Walsh incorporated in his solicitations 

statements related to the COVID-19 global pandemic and its effects on the economy and the 

financial markets. 

49. In an email to the Texas SSB Investigator on February 29, 2020, Walsh falsely 

stated “TIME TO MAKE SOME SERIOUS MONEY[,] I CLIENT [sic] JUST OPENED AN 

ACCOUNT FOR 16 K ON MONDAY AND MADE HIM 9.29% IN A WEEK !! [sic]” 

50. In an email to the Texas SSB Investigator on March 15, 2020, Walsh falsely 

stated: 

Regardless of the business you are in I hope that out of all the 

turmoil [of] the last few weeks about the virus and its massive 

effects on the world’s financial market, you can see your exposure 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 11 of 23
and what can happen if you don’t have a “safe haven” for needed 

funds? The last 3 weeks, while everyone was losing, I took a 16 k 

account and made $6500 in Forex!!! That’s 40% . . . . The world 

is entering a “Bear market” and recession is just around the corner. 

Have you asked yourself how do I make a living if I cannot go out 

of my house and take care of family if I don’t have a supplemental 

income source? . . . 

what is the true “safe haven” ? []IT[’]S FOREX! No matter what, 

this $ 6 trillion dollar a day monster just keeps on making 

professional traders and their clients[’] money. This business is 

the only one that I know that is ‘recession proof’ you just have to 

be on the banks side as they win 94% of the time regardless of the 

problems in the rest of the [w]orld! and the bank charts I work with 

give me that information[.] 

I would think after this past two weeks it has become very clear to 

you that the writing is on the wall and how . . . important an asset 

that the FOREX EXPERIENCE can be to your life and well 

being[. ]If you still have an interest in this avenue call me or email 

me for more info on this opportunity[.] 

51. In an email to the Texas SSB Investigator on March 26, 2020, Walsh falsely 

stated “Earl you need to call me anytime today as [I] have a lot more information and exactly 

why everyth[i]ng else is going to hell and why forex and the bankers charts sh[ine. I] have taken 

a 100k account [t]o as of this writing [] 143k plus and counting[. L]ooking for your call . . . .” 

52. In a telephone call with the Texas SSB Investigator on March 26, 2020, Walsh 

again offered to trade forex on the Texas SSB Investigator’s behalf in exchange for forty percent 

of profits earned through his trading. To induce the Texas SSB Investigator to give him money, 

Walsh made a number of misrepresentations including the following: 

• “The forex market is recession proof.” 

• “Because of the volatility and because of the charts I have, and because of . . . what I’ve 

learned, it’s a duck shoot.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 12 of 23
• That these charts “give us an indication of what the market’s gonna do and that that’s 

magic.”

• “I’ve taken a $100,000 account from a week ago Monday to $146,000. Ten days.” 

• “I’m making more money now in . . . this recession and the corona virus thing than 

before it started.”

• “My winning percentage is about seventy-eight percent.” 

• That “the smartest thing [the Texas SSB Investigator] could ever do” would be to transfer 

his parents’ retirement accounts to Walsh’s Master Account Client Trading Program for 

Walsh to trade.

• That a retiree who had rejoined the workforce because he was not earning enough to live 

on and was laid off would be a “perfect candidate” for Walsh’s Master Account Client

Trading Program. 

53. In an email to the Texas SSB Investigator on March 26, 2020, Walsh stated 

“N[i]ce chatting with you yesterday[.] [I] always get excited when [I]talk about this amazing 

financial safe haven so excuse me if [I] talk to[o] fast but [I] am so convinced that it is the 

answer to financial freedom and a very safe way to make money[.]” Walsh also wrote that his 

forex broker is FX Choice and that his personal contact at FX Choice, would assist the Texas 

SSB Investigator in opening a subaccount and in answering any questions the Texas SSB 

Investigator had. Walsh further asked the Texas SSB Investigator to provide contact information 

for other people that may be interested in having Walsh trade forex on their behalves. 

54. In an email to the Texas SSB Investigator on April 2, 2020, Walsh falsely stated: 

I WANTED TO UPDATE YOU ON THE CURRENT STATUS 

OF THE FOREX. MARKET FOR ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY 

TO GET INVOLVED AS I HAVE TO NOW FOCUS ON 

CURRENT CLIENTS WHO HAVE SEEN THE WRITING ON 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 13 of 23
THE WALL AND CONTINUE TO BUILD THEIR MARGIN 

ACCOUNTS WITH ADDITIONAL CASH AND PROFITS 

FROM CURRENT TRADING. I[’]M SURE YOU SEE WHAT IS 

HAPPENING IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AROUND THE 

WORLD AND YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE NOT IN A 

“RECESSION” BUT THE BEGINNING OF A “DEPRESSION” 

AND RECOVERY WILL BE LONG AND DIFFICULT...

AS THIS DEVASTATING SAGA UNFOLDS I GET MORE 

EXCITED ABOUT THE PROFESSION I HAVE CHOSEN 10 

AGO YEARS [sic] IN FOREX AS IT CONTINUES TO PUT 

MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF MY CLIENTS AND MYSELF . 

IF YOU WANT TO LEARN TO TRADE, THE BEST WAY IS 

TO OPEN A SUBACCOUNT UNDER MY MASTER 

ACCOUNT THAT ONLY YOU HAVE ACCESS TO SO YOU 

CAN START ADDING FROM 8 - 11 % PROFITS TO YOUR 

ACCOUHT [sic] EACH MONTH OR YOU CAN CHOSE [sic] 

TO BE PAID A FLAT 3% GUUARANTEE [sic] EACH MONTH. 

ON THE 16TH OF MARCH I OPENED A 100K TRADING 

ACCOUNT FOR A CLIENT AND TODAY’S BALANCE IS IN 

EXCESS OF 150K!! ( SEE ATTACHED PIC OF ACCOUNT 

LAST WEEK). 50% INCREASE IN PROFITS IN TWO WEEKS 

! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN ? WHILE OTHER FINANCIAL 

MARKETS ARE FAILING THE FOREX MARKET[’]S 

VOLUME IN THE LAST MONTH HAS TRIPLED ! AS AN 

EXAMPLE, IF I HAD TRADED AN ACCOUNT FOR YOU 1 

MONTH AGO AND WE MADE $100 PROFIT [sic]. IF I 

TRADED THE SAME ACCOUNT FOR YOU TODAY WE 

WOULD HAVE MADE $300! THE RETURNS IN FOREX 

CONTINUE TO GROW AS THE REST OF THE FINANCIAL 

WORLD CONTINUES TO SUFFER.

AS STATED BEFORE THE FOREX MARKET IS[ 

“]RECESSION PROOF” AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE 

WHAT SIDE OF THE TRADE YOU WANT TO BE ON AND 

FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS I HAVE CHOSEN TO TRADE[ 

“]WITH THE BANKS”. I RECEIVE DAILY BANK CHARTS 

GIVING ME THE BANKS DIRECTIONS AND SINCE THEY 

WIN 94% THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE[.] 

. . . 

THIS FOREX PROGRAM WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME 

BREATHING ROOM KNOWING THAT EVERY WEEK YOU 

HAVE A PLACE TO DRAW CASH PROFITS. EACH FRIDAY 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 14 of 23
PROFITS ARE DETERMINED AND PAID THE FOLLOWING 

MONDAY.

(Capitalization in original.)

55. Walsh’s claims that he generated profits trading forex on behalf of clients were 

false, as were his statements about the forex markets being “recession proof” or a “safe haven” 

from the economic distress resulting from the COVID-19 global pandemic, or otherwise wrongly 

downplaying the risks associated with trading forex. 

56. At no point in his communications with the Texas SSB Investigator after February 

18, 2020 (or any other potential recipients of the same or similar emails) did Walsh state that: 

(1) he had no U.S.-based forex trading accounts and was not listed on any U.S.-based forex 

trading account as holding discretionary trading authority on behalf of the account holder(s); 

(2) he was not authorized under the CEA to trade forex on behalf of U.S.-based clients; (3) he 

was operating an unlawful business venture because he was not lawfully registered to act as a 

CTA; (4) no CTA can minimize or control the risks associated with trading forex, or guarantee 

profitable trading; or (5) the Texas SSB had issued him the Cease and Desist Letter as a result of 

his fraudulent solicitations, which he was failing to obey. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND REGULATIONS

COUNT I

FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH FOREX CONTRACTS

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

Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2019). 

57. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated herein 

by reference.

58. Under 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), it is unlawful: 

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

the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future 

delivery . . . that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf of, or 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 15 of 23
with, any other person other than on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market—(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to 

cheat or defraud the other person; . . . [or] (C) willfully to deceive 

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

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

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

with respect to any order or contract for or, in the case of 

paragraph (2), with the other person. 

59. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) (2018), provides that 

7 U.S.C. § 6b applies to retail forex transactions, agreements, and contracts that are offered to, or 

entered into with, a person that is not an ECP “as if the agreement, contract, or transaction were a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery.” 

60. In the case of an individual, Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(18)(A)(xi) (2018), defines an ECP to mean a person “acting for its own account . . . who has 

amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which is in excess of—(I) 

$10,000,000; or (II) $5,000,000 and who enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction in 

order to manage the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely 

to be owned or incurred, by the individual.” 

61. Under 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) it is unlawful:

[F]or any person, by use of the mails, or by any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in or 

in connection with any retail forex transaction: (1) to cheat or 

defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; . . . or (3) 

willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any means 

whatsoever. 

62. As described herein, Walsh violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) by cheating 

or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, other persons, and/or by willfully deceiving or 

attempting to deceive other persons in connection with the offering of, or entering into, the offexchange leveraged or margined forex transactions with non-ECPs by, among other things, by 

making misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to potential and actual clients about: 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 16 of 23
(1) his trading abilities and past returns, including his actual clients’ average profits and rates of 

return, that he can provide “a flat 3% guaranteed profit each month,” and that seventy-eight 

percent of his forex trades were “winners”; (2) the existence of his actual clients and his trades 

on their behalf; (3) his access to purported specialized information that allows him to trade in the 

same direction as “the banks” and thereby minimize market risk; (4) his ability to predict 

movements in the forex market; (5) the riskiness of investments in forex, including that the forex 

market is “recession proof,” a “safe haven” from the economic fallout caused by the COVID-19 

global pandemic; (6) by knowingly failing to inform actual and prospective clients that Walsh 

has no U.S.-based trading accounts; (7) by knowingly failing to inform actual and prospective 

clients that Walsh is not authorized to trade forex on behalf of clients; (8) by knowingly failing 

to inform actual and prospective clients that Walsh and is subject to—and violating—a cease and 

desist order issued by the Texas SSB; and (9) by knowingly failing to inform actual and 

prospective clients that Walsh was operating an unlawful business venture because he was not 

lawfully registered to act as a CTA. 

63. Walsh committed the acts and practices described above using instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, including the use of emails and interstate wires for the transfer of funds.

64. Walsh committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, or with 

reckless disregard for the truth. 

65. Each act of misrepresentation or omission of material fact, and/or act or omission 

that did or attempted to cheat and/or deceive another, including but not limited to those 

specifically alleged herein, and each day such act or omission occurred, is alleged as a separate 

and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and of 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and (3). 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 17 of 23
COUNT II 

FAILURE TO REGISTER AS COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR

Violations of Sections 4m(1) and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(1), 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb) (2019), and 

Regulation 5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i) (2019) 

66. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated herein 

by reference.

67. 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(1) and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i) require 

all CTAs, as defined in Regulation 5.1(e)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(e)(1) (2019), to register with the 

Commission. 

68. Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(e)(1), a CTA is defined, in relevant part, as any 

person who exercises discretionary trading authority or obtains written authorization to exercise 

discretionary trading authority over any account on or on behalf of any person that is not an ECP, 

in connection with retail forex transactions. 

69. During the Relevant Period, Walsh acted as a CTA, as defined in 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.1(e)(1), by exercising discretionary authority or obtaining written authorization to exercise 

written trading authority over accounts of persons who were not ECPs in connection with retail 

forex transactions.

70. Accordingly, Walsh violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(1) and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb), and 17 

C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i) by acting as a CTA while not being registered as a CTA with the 

Commission. 

71. Each instance during the Relevant Period in which Walsh acted as an unregistered 

CTA, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, and each day such 

unregistered conduct took place, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 

6m(1) and 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(i).

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 18 of 23
COUNT III

FRAUD BY A COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR

Violations of Section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (2018) 

72. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

73. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1), it is unlawful for a CTA to use of the mails or any 

other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly: 

(A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or 

participant or prospective client or participant; or 

(B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which 

operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective 

client or participant. 

74. Pursuant to Section 1a(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(12) (2018), a CTA is defined 

in relevant part as any person, who, for compensation or profit, engages in the business of 

advising others, either directly or through publications, writings or electronic media, as to the 

value or advisability of trading in, among other things, contracts of sale of a commodity for 

future delivery or retail forex transactions.

75. As alleged herein, during the Relevant Period, Walsh acted as a CTA by 

exercising discretionary trading authority in exchange for financial compensation or by obtaining 

written authorization to exercise written trading authority over any account for or on behalf of 

persons that were not ECPs in connection with leveraged forex transactions. 

76. Walsh violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) in that he employed or is employing a device, 

scheme, or artifice to defraud clients and/or prospective clients; and/or engaged or is engaging in 

transactions, practices, or a course of business which operated or operates as a fraud or deceit 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 19 of 23
upon clients or prospective clients, including without limitation: misrepresenting and/or omitting 

material facts in solicitations and communications with clients, and acting as a CTA without 

registering as such as required by the Act and Regulations. 

77. Each act of fraudulent solicitation and/or deception, including but not limited to 

those specifically alleged herein, and each day of such fraudulent solicitation and/or deception, is 

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

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 (2018), and pursuant to the Court’s inherent equitable 

powers, enter: 

A. An order finding Walsh violated Sections 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C), and 4o(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6o(1) (2018), and Regulations 5.2(b)(1) and (3), and 

5.3(a)(3)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(3)(i) (2019); 

B. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Walsh and any of his agents, 

servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, holding companies, alter egos, and persons 

in active concert or participation with him, from directly or indirectly: 

(i) engaging in conduct in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6o(1), 

6m(1), 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(bb); and 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1) and (3), and 

5.3(a)(3)(i);

(ii) 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. § la(40) (2018));

(iii) entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that term 

is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019)) for his own personal 

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

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 20 of 23
(iv) having any commodity interests traded on his behalf; 

(v) 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;

(vi) soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose 

of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

(vii) applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring 

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) (2019); 

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

§ 3.1(a) (2019)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any person 

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

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

(ix) engaging in any business activities related to commodity interests;

C. An order directing Walsh, as well as any third-party transferee and/or successor 

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

from the acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act and Regulations as described 

herein, and pre- and post-judgment interest;

D. An order directing Walsh and any successors thereof, to make full restitution to 

every person or entity who has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations described 

herein, including pre- and post-judgment interest;

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 21 of 23
E. An order directing Walsh and any successors thereof, to provide a full accounting 

of all client funds he has received during the Relevant Period as a result of the acts and practices 

that constituted violations of the Act and Regulations described herein; 

F. An order directing Walsh and 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 him and any clients whose funds were received by him as a result of the 

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

G. An order directing Walsh to pay a civil monetary penalty assessed by the Court, 

in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a–1(d)(1) (2018), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), title VII, 

Section 701, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2019), for each violation of the Act and 

Regulations, as described herein;

H. An order requiring Walsh to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 

and 2412(a)(2) (2018); and 

I. An order providing such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 

* * * * * 

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 22 of 23
Date: July 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581 

(202) 418-5523 (Facsimile) 

/s/ Tobias Fischer 

Tobias Fischer 

New York Bar No. 5207220 

(202) 418-6169 

tfischer@cftc.gov

Timothy J. Mulreany 

Maryland Bar No. 8812160123 

(202) 418-5306 

tmulreany@cftc.gov

Case 1:20-cv-00725 Document 1 Filed 07/07/20 Page 23 of 23