1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDDY ALEXANDRE and 

EMINIFX, INC. 

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 hereby alleges as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. From at least September 2021 through the present (“Relevant Period”), Defendant 

Eddy Alexandre, individually and as principal and agent of EminiFX, Inc. (“EminiFX”), has 

fraudulently solicited, accepted, and pooled at least $59 million from hundreds of members of 

the general public (“participants”) to purportedly trade foreign currency exchange (“forex”) and 

cryptocurrencies as well as futures and options in an investment club, when in fact the 

Defendants misappropriated the vast majority of participant funds to pay participants in a Ponzilike scheme or for Alexandre’s personal expenses. 

2. Defendants, by and through Alexandre and other promoters, have been making 

misrepresentations of material fact when soliciting funds from existing and prospective 

participants, such as promising that participants were guaranteed a return of at least 5% “every 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 23
2 

single week” from trading commodity interests. In addition, Defendants have omitted material 

facts such as: (1) they traded only a portion of the participants’ funds; (2) Defendants suffered 

large trading losses in the funds that were actually traded on behalf of participants; 

(3) Defendants commingled and misappropriated participants’ funds; and (4) neither Defendant 

was registered with the CFTC as required by federal law. 

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

have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in violations of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, and CFTC Regulations (“Regulation”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 

(2021), including, but not limited to: solicitation fraud and fraud by misappropriation, in 

violation of Sections 4b(a)(1)-(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)-(2), and Regulation 5.2(b), 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b); fraud by a commodity pool operator (“CPO”), in violation of Section 

4o(1)(A) and (B), 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B); the employment, or attempted employment, of 

manipulative or deceptive devices and contrivances, in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2021). 

4. Furthermore, by engaging in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool 

and soliciting and accepting funds for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, EminiFX 

acted as a CPO without registering with the CFTC, thereby escaping regulatory scrutiny into its 

activities and violating Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6m(1), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2021). 

5. Similarly, Defendant Alexandre solicited funds for participation in a pooled 

investment vehicle for the purpose of trading in commodity interests while associated with 

Defendant EminiFX as an officer, employee, or agent, without being registered with the 

Commission as an associated person (“AP”) of EminiFX, in violation of Sections 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2 of 23
3 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2), and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2021). 

6. Unless immediately restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely 

to continue engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, and funds they 

fraudulently obtained are likely to be misappropriated or otherwise dissipated. Accordingly, the 

CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §13a-1, to enjoin 

Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel their compliance with the Act. The 

CFTC also seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary relief, including restitution to 

defrauded participants, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other equitable 

relief as this Court may deem necessary. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. 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 

Commission for injunctive and other relief or to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it 

shall appear to the Commission 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. 

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

§ 13a-1(e), because Defendants transacted business in this District, EminiFX has a business 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 3 of 23
4 

address 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 

9. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act and CFTC 

Regulations. 

10. Defendant Eddy Alexandre resides in Valley Stream, New York. Alexandre has 

never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. Alexandre has twice previously filed 

voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy actions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 

New York under the name Eddy Alexandre. See In re Eddy Alexandre, Pet. No. 8-19-71208-reg 

(Brktcy. E.D.N.Y.) (dismissed for other reason May 24, 2019), and In re Eddy Alexandre, Pet. 

No. 8-17-72196-las (Brktcy. E.D.N.Y.) (dismissed for other reason May 30, 2017). 

11. Defendant EminiFX, Inc. was incorporated in New York on September 20, 2021. 

During the Relevant Period, EminiFX operated out of Alexandre’s residence in Valley Stream, 

New York, and also out of an office in Manhattan, New York. EminiFX has never been 

registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

12. On September 21, 2021, Alexandre opened a business bank account at Bank A in 

the name of EminiFX. The account was opened identifying Alexandre as the main contact and 

identified Alexandre’s home address as EminiFX’s address. Alexandre was the sole signatory on 

the account. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 4 of 23
5 

13. Ultimately, EminiFX opened several bank accounts at Bank A (the “EminiFX 

Accounts”). Alexandre was the sole signatory on all of the EminiFX accounts until February 25, 

2022, when another individual was added as a signatory on some accounts. 

14. Beginning in October 2021, Alexandre solicited participants to submit 

contributions to himself and/or EminiFX for the purpose of trading commodity interests in a 

purported investment club. On the EminiFX website, Defendants represented that funds would 

be used to trade forex and cryptocurrencies. In other promotional materials, Defendants also 

suggested that they would trade options and futures as well. 

15. Thus far, Defendants have accepted at least $59 million into the EminiFX 

Accounts from hundreds of participants. These contributions were made by participants 

depositing cash to an EminiFX Account in at least 99 separate Bank A branches, by participants 

writing checks to EminiFX, by wire transfer, by participants sending funds through Zelle to 

Alexandre’s personal bank account, and by other means. 

16. References for some of the participant deposits include “investment,” “business,” 

“other club investment,” “business matters,” “open account,” “repay loan,” “funding account,” 

“transfer for investment,” “capital investment,” “market investment,” “deposit into currency 

trading account,” “payment,” “group investment,” “services for club investments,” “services,” 

“Eminifx,” and “investment in cryptocurrencies,” and often included various participant user 

IDs. 

17. Despite Defendants’ representations that they would use participants’ funds to 

trade forex and cryptocurrency, only about $9 million appears to have been sent to a futures 

commission merchant (“FCM 1”) for trading purposes. The funds were deposited in an account 

in Alexandre’s name at FCM 1 but were not actually used to trade forex or cryptocurrencies. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 5 of 23
6 

Rather, they were used to trade stocks, broad-based index futures, including E-mini S&P 500 

futures contracts, E-mini Nasdaq 100 futures contracts, E-mini Russell 2000 futures contracts, 

and Dow Futures Mini contracts. 

18. Much of the remaining funds were used to pay expenses, including Alexandre’s 

personal expenses. At least $14,700,000 in participant funds was send to Alexandre’s personal 

checking account, and other amounts appear to have been sent to Alexandre’s associates. 

Misrepresentations, Omissions and False Statements 

19. Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants solicited prospective participants to 

contribute to the “investment club” through the EminiFX website, weekly Zoom webinars, inperson meetings and events, and through a network of promotors on YouTube and social media. 

20. According to the EminiFX website, participants could build wealth “with 

investments in the crypto and forex trading business by signing on with eminiFX.” The 

EminiFX website also touted its “Robo-Advisor Assisted account” that allowed for “automated 

trading.” 

21. Defendants promised potential participants that they would receive guaranteed 

returns of at least 5% “every single week,” on any amounts contributed to EminiFX. In fact, 

after participants created and funded accounts with EminiFX, each Friday their online accounts 

showed that the participants’ balances increased by between 5% and 9.99% over the prior week. 

22. The participants’ increasing account balances gave the impression that EminiFX 

was profitably trading the participants’ contributions. This was false. The vast majority of 

participants’ contributions were not traded, but rather were kept in EminiFX accounts at Bank A, 

spent by Alexandre, transferred to others, or transferred to accounts in the name of Alexandre. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 6 of 23
7 

23. Only about $9 million in participant contributions were transferred to an account 

in Alexandre’s name at FCM 1. Alexandre used these funds, transferred in December 2021 and 

January 2022, to trade securities futures and options and stock index futures with disastrous 

results. By April 27, 2022, Alexandre had lost nearly 70% of the amount he had transferred—

about $6.2 million—through unprofitable trading and fees. But Defendants did not inform 

participants that a large portion of their funds had been lost in unprofitable trading. Rather, 

Defendants continued to report to participants that their account balances were actually 

increasing by 5% to 9.99% every week. 

24. On at least one Zoom webinar on April 7, 2022, Alexandre encouraged potential 

participants to make large contributions to EminiFX in order to quickly become millionaires due 

to the weekly compounding interest. Alexandre reported, falsely, that 10 EminiFX participants 

had become millionaires in the past week and that Alexandre had called each of those 

participants personally to give them tips on how to live the “millionaire lifestyle.” 

25. Prior to founding EminiFX and misappropriating participant funds, Alexandre 

was not himself a millionaire. In fact, he had declared bankruptcy in 2019. According to 

Alexandre’s bankruptcy filing, his net worth was negative $122,838.92, and his total financial 

assets—including cash, checking accounts, accounts, and retirement accounts—amounted to 

only $6,000. 

26. In sum, Defendants made at least the following false statements to participants 

and potential participants: 

a. Trading would be done through a “Robo-Advisor Assisted account” that allowed 

for automatic trading; 

b. Participants were guaranteed returns of 5% per week; 

c. Participants’ account balances were actually growing; 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 7 of 23
8 

27. Defendants omitted the following information from participants and potential 

participants: 

a. Most of the amounts contributed would actually not be used to trade, but rather 

would be used to pay Defendants’ expenses, misappropriated by Alexandre sent 

to Alexandre’s friends and associates, or simply held in checking or savings 

accounts at Bank A; 

b. Alexandre did not have a history of financial success, and had declared 

bankruptcy in 2019; 

c. Alexandre was not registered to trade participant funds; 

d. Alexandre incurred enormous losses in the participant funds that he actually did 

trade; 

e. Any returns obtained by EminiFX would come from contributions of other 

participants in the manner of a Ponzi scheme; 

28. Defendants made these misrepresentations and omissions willfully or with 

reckless disregard for their truth and by use of the mails or other means or instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce. 

29. Defendants made these misrepresentations and omissions in order to solicit 

participants and potential participants to contribute funds to Alexandre and EminiFX. 

30. Based on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, hundreds of participants 

contributed tens of millions of dollars to Alexandre and EminiFX. 

Misappropriation of Participant Funds 

31. During the Relevant Period, Alexandre misappropriated participant funds by use 

of the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Among the 

unauthorized and improper uses of participant funds have been funds that he sent to his personal 

bank accounts, used to pay personal expenses, sent to associates, donated to charities of his 

choosing, and used to pay other participants in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 8 of 23
9 

32. At least $14,700,000 of participant funds deposited into and commingled in the 

EminiFX Accounts has been transferred to Alexandre’s personal accounts at Bank A (the 

“Personal Accounts”). 

33. Additionally, the participant funds transferred to FCM 1 for trading purposes were 

sent to an account in the name of Alexandre, not EminiFX or the names of any individual 

participants. 

34. Some participant funds were distributed to individuals, including at least 

$200,000 to one individual. Additional participant funds were donated to charities selected by 

Alexandre. 

35. Alexandre also used participant funds to pay for business and personal expenses. 

For example, Alexandre used participant funds to make payments to BMW, Mercedes Benz, 

Saks Fifth Avenue, flights, luxury hotels and apparel, and occupational and physical therapy. 

Alexandre also used substantial participant funds to rent and furnish office space for EminiFX 

and to throw “galas” on behalf of EminiFX, which Defendants used to solicit additional 

contributions from participants. 

EminiFX Acted as an Unregistered CPO, and Alexandre Acted as an Unregistered AP of a CPO 

36. During the Relevant Period, EminiFX, through Alexandre, acted as a CPO by 

operating or soliciting funds for a pooled investment vehicle and that engages in retail forex 

transactions without limiting participation to Eligible Contract Participants (“ECPs”). For an 

individual to qualify as an ECP, he or she must have invested on a discretionary basis at least 

$10 million, or at least $5 million if the investments are in order to hedge risk. Section 

1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act. 

37. During the Relevant Period, Alexandre acted in a capacity requiring registration 

as an AP of a CPO by soliciting customers and prospective customers for participation in a 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 9 of 23
10 

pooled investment vehicle, while associated with EminiFX as a partner, officer, employee, or 

similar agent. 

38. During the Relevant Period, EminiFX was not registered with the Commission as 

a CPO, and Alexandre was not registered with the Commission as an AP of a CPO as required 

by the Act and Regulations. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

COUNT I – AGAINST ALEXANDRE AND EMINIFX 

Violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A), (C) 

Fraud by Misrepresentations, Material Omission and Misappropriation in connection 

with a commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of a designated contract 

market 

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

40. Section 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C), in 

relevant part, makes it unlawful for 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, 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 such other person or (C) willfully 

to deceive or attempt to deceive such 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 such other person. 

41. Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C) during the Relevant Period by 

making misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to participants and prospective 

participants, including, among other things, mispresenting the expected profits and risk of loss; 

failing to disclose that Alexandre’s trading had resulted in large losses; and failing to disclose 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 10 of 23
11 

that Alexandre was misappropriating participant funds for personal benefit and that he used 

participant funds to pay other participants, in the manner of a Ponzi scheme; and failing to 

disclose that EminiFX was not registered with the CFTC as a CPO and Alexandre was not 

registered with the CFTC as an AP. 

42. Defendants also violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A) and (C) during the Relevant 

Period by misappropriating participant funds for personal benefit, including paying for luxury 

vehicles and apparel and using participant funds to pay other participants, in the manner of a 

Ponzi scheme. 

43. Alexandre directly or indirectly controls EminiFX, and did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, EminiFX’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for EminiFX’s violations pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

44. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Alexandre as alleged in this Count, 

and of all other agents of EminiFX, occurred and are occurring within the scope of their 

employment, office or agency with EminiFX; therefore, EminiFX is liable for these acts, 

omissions and failures 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). 

45. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, and each act of misappropriation, constitutes a 

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

COUNT II – AGAINST ALEXANDRE AND EMINIFX 

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

Fraud by Misrepresentations, Material Omission and Misappropriation in connection 

with forex other than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market 

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 11 of 23
12 

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

relevant part, makes it unlawful for 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, other than 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 such other person or 

(C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive such 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 such other 

person. 

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

three grants which make clear that the CFTC has jurisdiction over, and that certain antifraud 

provisions in the Act apply to, retail forex: 

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

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

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

Act; 

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

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

if” they were a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery; and 

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

Commission shall have jurisdiction over an account or pooled investment 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 12 of 23
13 

49. The foreign currency transactions offered by Defendants are retail forex 

transactions pursuant to Regulation 5.1(m), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(m) (2021). Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and 

(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2021), makes it unlawful “for any person, by use of the mails or 

by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, in or in 

connection with any retail forex transaction: (1) [t]o cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or 

defraud any person; or (3) [w]illfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any means 

whatsoever.” 

50. Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1) and 

(3) during the Relevant Period by, among other things, making misrepresentations and omissions 

of material fact to participants and prospective participants, including, among other things, 

mispresenting the expected profits and risk of loss; failing to disclose that Alexandre’s trading 

had resulted in large losses; and failing to disclose that Alexandre was misappropriating 

participant funds for personal benefit and that he used participant funds to pay other participants, 

in the manner of a Ponzi scheme; and failing to disclose that EminiFX was not registered with 

the CFTC as a CPO and Alexandre was not registered with the CFTC as an AP. 

51. Defendants also violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1), (3) during the Relevant Period by misappropriating participant funds for personal 

benefit, including paying for luxury vehicles and apparel and using participant funds to pay other 

participants, in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. 

52. Alexandre directly or indirectly controls EminiFX, and did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, EminiFX’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for EminiFX’s violations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 13 of 23
14 

53. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Alexandre as alleged in this Count, 

and of all other agents of EminiFX, occurred and are occurring within the scope of their 

employment, office or agency with EminiFX; therefore, EminiFX is liable for these acts, 

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

54. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, and each act of misappropriation, constitutes a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

COUNT III – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

Violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B): Fraud by a CPO and an Associated Person of a CPO 

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

56. Section 4o(1)(A)-(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), makes it unlawful for 

any commodity pool operator or associated person of a commodity pool operator, “by use of the 

mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly” (A) “to 

employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or prospective client 

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

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

57. During the Relevant Period, EminiFX, through Alexandre, acted as a CPO by 

being engaged in a business that is the nature of a commodity pool and in connection with 

soliciting funds for the purpose of trading in futures, options, and forex, and actually trading 

pooled funds in futures. 

58. Alexandre acted as an AP of a CPO because he was associated with a CPO as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent in a capacity that involved the solicitation of 

funds, securities, or property for participation in a pooled investment vehicle. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 14 of 23
15 

59. EminiFX, through Alexandre, and Alexandre in his individual capacity, violated 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) during the Relevant Period by making misrepresentations and omissions 

of material fact to participants and prospective participants, including, among other things, 

mispresenting the expected profits and risk of loss; failing to disclose that Alexandre’s trading 

had resulted in large losses; and failing to disclose that Alexandre was misappropriating 

participant funds for personal benefit and that he used participant funds to pay other participants, 

in the manner of a Ponzi scheme; and failing to disclose that EminiFX was not registered with 

the CFTC as a CPO and Alexandre was not registered with the CFTC as an AP. 

60. Alexandre also violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) during the Relevant Period by 

misappropriating participant funds for personal benefit, including to make payments to BMW, 

Mercedes Benz, Saks Fifth Avenue, flights, luxury hotels and apparel, and occupational and 

physical therapy. 

61. Alexandre directly or indirectly controls EminiFX, and did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, EminiFX’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for EminiFX’s violations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

62. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Alexandre as alleged in this Count, 

and of all other agents of EminiFX, occurred and are occurring within the scope of their 

employment, office or agency with EminiFX; therefore, EminiFX is liable for these acts, 

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

63. Each act of misrepresenting and omitting material information, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, and each act of misappropriation, constitutes a 

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

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 15 of 23
16 

COUNT IV – AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

Violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2021): Fraud by use of a 

manipulative device or contrivance. 

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

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

directly or indirectly, to use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any swap 

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

to the rules of any registered entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, 

including in contravention of Regulation 180.1 (a)(1)-(c), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(c). 

66. The Regulations at 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) provide, in relevant part, that it shall be 

unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any contract of sale of any 

commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to the rules of 

any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: (1) use or employ, or attempt to use or 

employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) make, or attempt to make, 

any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary 

in order to make the statements made not untrue or misleading; or (3) engage, or attempt to 

engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or 

deceit upon any person. 

67. Defendants, directly or indirectly, in connection with contracts of sale of 

commodities in interstate commerce, and contracts for future delivery on or subject to the rules 

of a registered entity, intentionally or recklessly: used or employed, or attempted to use or 

employ, a scheme or artifice to defraud; including by making misrepresentations and omissions 

of material fact to participants and prospective participants, including, among other things, 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 16 of 23
17 

mispresenting the expected profits and risk of loss; failing to disclose that Alexandre’s trading 

had resulted in large losses; and failing to disclose that Alexandre was misappropriating 

participant funds for personal benefit and that he used participant funds to pay other participants, 

in the manner of a Ponzi scheme; and failing to disclose that EminiFX was not registered with 

the CFTC as a CPO and Alexandre was not registered with the CFTC as an AP 

68. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Defendants’ fraudulent conduct violated 

7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

69. Alexandre directly or indirectly controls EminiFX, and did not act in good faith or 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, EminiFX’s violations alleged in this Count, and is thus 

liable for EminiFX’s violations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

70. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Alexandre as alleged in this Count, 

and of all other agents of EminiFX, occurred and are occurring within the scope of their 

employment, office or agency with EminiFX; therefore, EminiFX is liable for these acts, 

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

71. Each use or employment or attempted use or employment of any manipulative 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; untrue or misleading statement of fact, omission of 

material fact necessary to make statements not untrue or misleading; or act of engaging, or 

attempting to engage, in acts, practices or courses of business that operated or would have 

operated as a fraud or deceit on participants and potential participants during the Relevant Period 

is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 17 of 23
18 

COUNT V – AGAINST EMINIFX 

Violations of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i):

Failure to Register as a CPO

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

73. Section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(10), defines the term “commodity pool” 

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

of trading in commodity interests, including any—(i) commodity for future delivery, security 

futures product, or swap; (ii) agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 

2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i); (iii) commodity option authorized under section 4c; or 

(iv) leverage transaction authorized under section 19 [of the Act].” 

74. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) defines a CPO as any person “engaged in a business that is of 

the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate or similar form of enterprise and 

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

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

75. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) makes it 

unlawful for any person, unless registered as a CPO, to operate or solicit funds for any pooled 

investment vehicle in connection with any forex contract that accepts non-ECPs. In addition, 

Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), makes it unlawful for any CPO, unless registered 

with the CFTC, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce 

in connection with its business as a CPO, and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i), 

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

transactions to register as a CPO. 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 18 of 23
19 

76. EminiFX acted as a CPO by soliciting potential pool participants to contribute 

funds to be used to supposedly trade commodity futures and retail forex transactions. EminiFX 

further acted as a CPO by actually using pooled participant funds to trade commodity futures, 

including E-mini S&P 500 futures contracts, E-mini Nasdaq 100 futures contracts, E-mini 

Russell 2000 futures contracts, and Dow Futures Mini contracts in the FCM A accounts. 

77. During the Relevant Period, EminiFX, which was not exempt from registration as 

a CPO, acted as a CPO and made use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce in connection with its business as a CPO by operating or soliciting funds from nonECPs for a pooled investment vehicle. EminiFX engaged in this conduct without being 

registered with the Commission as a CPO in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 

6m(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i). 

COUNT VI – AGAINST ALEXANDRE 

Violations of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6k(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii):

Failure to Register as an AP of a CPO

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

incorporated herein by reference. 

79. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Alexandre acted as an associated person 

of a CPO by accepting or soliciting funds, securities, or property from non-ECPs for the 

EminiFX pooled investment vehicle, in connection with forex and commodity futures 

transactions. Alexandre engaged in this conduct without being registered with the Commission 

as an AP of CPO EminiFX, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6k(2), and 

17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii). 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 19 of 23
20 

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: 

A. Find that Defendants Alexandre and EminiFX violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 

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

§§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(1)(A), (C), 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6o(1)(A)-(B), 9(1) and 

Regulations 5.2(b)(1)-(3) and 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b) (1)-(3), 180.1(a)(1)-

(3) (2021); 

B. Find that Defendant EminiFX violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I) and 4m(1) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1), and 5.3(a)(2)(i), 17 C.F.R. 

§5.3(a)(2)(i) (2021); 

C. Find that Defendant Alexandre violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I) and 4k(2) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2021); 

D. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining, enjoining, and prohibiting 

Defendant Alexandre, and his affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, 

assigns, attorneys, and all persons or entities in active concert with him, who receive 

actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from engaging in the 

conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(1)(A) 

and (C), 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6o(1)(A)-(B), 6k(1), and 6(c)(1), and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 5.2(b) (1) and (3), 5.3(a)(2)(ii), and 180.1(a)(1)-(3); 

E. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining, enjoining, and prohibiting 

Defendant EminiFX, and its affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, 

assigns, attorneys, and all persons or entities in active concert with it, who receive 

actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from engaging in the 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 20 of 23
21 

conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(1)(A) 

and (C), 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C), 6o(1)(A)-(B), 6m(1), and 6(c)(1), and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 5.2(b) (1) and (3), 5.3(a)(2)(i), and 180.1(a)(1)-(3); 

F. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Alexandre and EminiFX, and their 

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

or entities in active concert with them, who receive actual notice of such order by 

personal service or otherwise, from directly or indirectly: 

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

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

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)) or digital assets for accounts 

held in the name of Alexandre or EminiFX or for accounts in which Alexandre or 

EminiFX has a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests or digital assets traded on Alexandre’s or 

EminiFX’s behalf; 

d. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or entity, 

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

interests or digital assets; 

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests or digital assets; 

f. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the CFTC 

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

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 21 of 23
22 

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 

g. 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). 

G. Enter an order directing Alexandre and EminiFX, 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; 

H. Enter an order requiring Alexandre and EminiFX, 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; 

I. Enter an order directing Alexandre and EminiFX, 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 of the 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; 

J. Enter an order directing Alexandre and EminiFX to pay a civil monetary penalty 

assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 

Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 22 of 23
Case 1:22-cv-03822-VEC Document 5 Filed 05/12/22 Page 23 of 23

6c(d)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(d)(l), 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 (2022), for each violation of the Act and Regulations, as described herein; 

K. Enter an order requiring the Alexandre and EminiFX to pay costs and fees as 

permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2); and 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Dated: May 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING J;;s10~ ~Jkm/2 

Elizabeth Streit 

Douglas Snodgrass 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

77 W Jackson Blvd, Suite 800 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(312) 596-0537 (Streit) 

(312) 596-0663 (Snodgrass) 

estreit@cftc.gov 

dsnodgrass@cftc.gov 

23