UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

Plaintiff,

v. 

William Thomas Caniff, 

Arie Bos,

Berkley Capital Management, LLC, 

BBOT 1, LP, and

Berkley II, LP, 

Defendants.

________________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 1:19-cv-02935 

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

Mag. Judge Jeffrey Cummings 

ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION,

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, AND OTHER STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE 

RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS WILLIAM THOMAS CANIFF, BERKLEY 

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, BBOT 1, LP, and BERKLEY II, LP

On May 1, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or 

“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint charging Defendants William Thomas Caniff (“Caniff”), Berkley 

Capital Management, LLC (“BCM”), BBOT 1, LP (“BBOT”), and Berkley II, LP (“Berkley II”) 

(or “Default Defendants”) with violating Section 4c(b) of the Act of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 32.4, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.4 (2021) for conduct from January 2016 until May 1, 2019 (“Relevant Period”). The 

Complaint also charged Defendant Arie Bos (“Bos”), with whom the Plaintiff has negotiated a 

settlement order which is pending approval by the Commission before presentation to this Court. 

On May 2, 2019, Default Defendants were properly served with the summons and 

Complaint. Default Defendant Caniff was served pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2)(A) of the Federal 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1959
2 

Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) by delivering a copy to him personally. Default 

Defendants BCM was served pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1)(B) by delivering a copy to Caniff, 

Managing Partner of BCM, and Defendants BBOT and Berkley II were served pursuant to Rule 

4(h)(1)(B) be delivering a copy to Caniff, Managing Partner of BCM, which is BBOT and 

Berkley II’s General Partner. 

On May 1, 2019, the Court entered a Statutory Restraining Order against Default 

Defendants that, among other things, authorized the freezing of assets held in the name of or 

under the control or management of the Default Defendants. On May 28, 2019, Defendant 

Caniff entered into a Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Preliminary 

Injunction against each of the remaining defendants was also ordered by the Court that day. 

Default Defendants BCM, BBOT and Berkley II have failed to appear and each of them 

along with Defendant Caniff have failed to answer the Complaint within the time permitted by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Accordingly, on March 16, 2020, the Commission filed a request for 

entry of a clerk’s default against Defendants and on May 18, 2020, the Clerk of this Court 

entered a default against Default Defendants. 

The Commission has moved this Court to grant final judgment by default against Default 

Defendants, order permanent injunctive relief, and impose a restitution obligation, and civil 

monetary penalty. 

The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the allegations of which are wellpleaded and hereby taken as true, the Commission’s memorandum in support of its motion, the 

record in this case, and the Court being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby: 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment by Default, Permanent 

Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief against 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:1960
3 

Defendants Caniff, BCM, BBOT and Berkley II is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court enters 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order of Final Judgment by Default for Permanent 

Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Statutory and Equitable Relief (“Order”) 

pursuant to Sections 6c and 6d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as set forth herein. 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Findings of Fact

The Parties 

1. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). 

2. Default Defendant William Thomas Caniff is a natural person who sometimes 

uses the alias “Thomas Caniff” and resides in Steubenville, Ohio. Caniff is a co-founder and 

General Partner and owned 50% of BCM Capital Management, LLC. Caniff was also a general 

partner of BBOT, LP and was authorized to act on behalf of BCM, the general partner of 

Berkley II. Caniff transacted business as the trader for BBOT at NADEX, which is located in 

Chicago, Illinois. Caniff has a criminal history as a felon, having been convicted of several 

financial crimes in the 1990s. Caniff has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

3. Default Defendant BCM Capital Management, LLC, formed in January 2016, 

is a Wyoming limited company with offices in Wintersville, Ohio and Rotterdam in the 

Netherlands. BCM is the general partner of BBOT and Berkley II. BCM acted as the “portfolio 

manager” for the BBOT fund. BCM has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. Caniff is the co-founder and General Partner of BCM. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:1961
4 

4. Default Defendant BBOT1 LP is a Delaware limited partnership, formed in 

January 2016, which has its principal place of business in Wintersville, Ohio and transacts 

business in the State of Illinois at NADEX. Caniff is a limited partner of BBOT and BCM is the 

General Partner of BBOT. BBOT has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity.

5. Default Defendant Berkley II LP is a Delaware limited partnership, formed in 

July 2017, which has its principal place of business in Wintersville, Ohio. BCM is the general 

partner of Berkley II. Berkley II has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

Other Relevant Individual and Entity

6. Individual A resides in, and is a citizen of, the Netherlands. Individual A is a cofounder and Managing Partner of BCM and is a limited partner of BBOT and Berkley II. 

Individual A was responsible for all “marketing” on behalf of BCM, and for “administration and 

reporting” to the funds’ limited partners and for “membership management” of BBOT and 

Berkley II and for the limited partnership’s offerings. Individual A has never been registered 

with the Commission in any capacity. 

7. The North American Derivatives Exchange is a Commission designated 

contract market under Section 5 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 5. As such a designated contract market, 

NADEX also meets the definition of a “registered entity” under Section 1(a) 40 of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 1(a) 40. NADEX provides a platform for retail customers to trade binary options that 

are commodity option transactions. NADEX is located in Chicago, Illinois. 

Overview of Binary Options 

8. Binary options involve a variety of underlying assets, including currency pairs 

(e.g., EUR/USD); commodities such as oil, wheat, coffee, and gold; equity indices (e.g., the Dow 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:1962
5 

Jones Industrial Index); and stocks (e.g., Coke, Google, etc.). However, unlike other types of 

options, a binary option does not give the holder the right to purchase or sell the underlying 

asset. Instead, binary options are “cash settled.” When the binary option expires, if the customer 

has correctly predicted the asset’s movement, the customer is “in the money” and entitled to a 

payout of a pre-determined amount of money. Binary options offered at NADEX also give the 

holder the option to sell prior to expiration, which would allow the holder to reap a sum less than 

the premium if the position is in the money and suffer losses less than the premium if the option 

is out of the money. If the customer has made an incorrect prediction, he or she is “out of the 

money,” loses the premium paid, and gets nothing. 

9. There are only three designated contract markets currently authorized to offer 

binary options that are commodity options transactions to retail customers in the United States: 

Cantor Exchange LP, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc., and NADEX. 

Caniff and Individual A Formed BCM to Trade Binary Options

10. In January 2016, Caniff and Individual A formed a partnership and created a new 

“investment and trading technology firm” called BCM. This new Wyoming limited liability 

corporation has offices near each of their residences, in Steubenville, Ohio and Rotterdam in the 

Netherlands, respectively, and purportedly “specialized in trading foreign-exchange binary 

options derivatives.” 

11. BCM became the general partner of a new investment pool fund called BBOT 

that was set up as a limited partnership for pool participants. 

12. Caniff was the designated trader for the fund, and Individual A was responsible 

for soliciting new participants and reporting to existing participants.

13. Individual A solicited participants by initially approaching members of his family 

and friends in the Netherlands. Individual A distributed an information packet to prospective 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:1963
6 

participants that described Caniff as having trading experience dating back to 2004 with a 

“proven track record.” 

14. Individual A instructed prospective participants to wire their funds to the pools’ 

various bank accounts in the United States. A total of 58 participants wired approximately $3.3 

million to fund investments in BCM’s pools. 

15. In February 2016, Caniff set up bank accounts for both BCM and the pool, 

BBOT. In December 2016, he closed those accounts and opened new accounts for BCM and 

BBOT at a different bank. In April 2017, Caniff moved the BCM and BBOT bank accounts to a 

third banking institution and, in July 2017, opened an additional account for the new Berkley II 

pool at the third bank. 

16. During the Relevant Time, Caniff made all financial decisions for BCM, BBOT 

and Berkley II. He directed withdrawals of client funds from the BBOT and Berkley II bank 

accounts and deposits and withdrawals of fund from the BCM bank account and the BBOT 

trading account. 

Caniff Concealed his Criminal Background from NADEX and Opened a Trading 

Account

17. In June 2016, Caniff opened a binary options trading account for BBOT at 

NADEX, but, in doing so, hid his extensive criminal past from NADEX by falsifying his 

application for that account. In connection with his February 25, 2016 application to NADEX, 

Caniff willfully made a false statement to NADEX by intentionally responding in the negative to 

each of the following two questions: 

(a) Have you been convicted of, pled guilty to, or entered a plea of no contest 

or plea agreement to, any felony in any domestic, foreign, or military 

court? 

(b) Have you been convicted of, pled guilty to, or entered a plea of no contest 

or plea agreement to, a misdemeanor in any domestic, foreign, or military 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:1964
7 

court or military court which involves: Embezzlement, theft, extortion, 

fraud, fraudulent conversion, forgery, counterfeiting, false pretenses, 

bribery, gambling, racketeering, or misappropriation of funds, securities, 

or property? 

18. The responses Caniff gave to NADEX were false because Caniff had been 

convicted of several felony offenses including ones involving fraudulent conversion, forgery, 

and grand theft with a firearm. According to NADEX, it would have rejected Caniff’s 

application to open the BBOT trading account if it had known about these criminal convictions. 

Caniff Minimally Funded the NADEX Account and Misappropriated Most of the 

Participants’ Money

19. From February 2016 through the present, 58 BCM participants, two of whom 

were U.S. customers, paid more than $3.3 million to fund investments to trade binary options 

through pools in the names of BBOT or Berkley II. 

20. Over the life of the account, Caniff only sent two payments to NADEX, $35,000 

in June 2016 and $50,000 in June 2017, for a total of $85,000. Thus, a mere fraction of BBOT 

or Berkley II participant funds were ever sent to NADEX for trading. Caniff never opened a 

NADEX trading account for Berkley II participants. 

21. Caniff misappropriated the remainder of participant funds, by sending funds to 

repay other participants and to pay Individual A and himself between $1.1 and $1.2 million each 

in purported fees. $2,598,632 is presently owing to participants. 

Caniff Made Misrepresentations and Omissions to Individual A Who Used Them to 

Solicit Prospective Participants and Report to Existing Participants

22. Caniff routinely sent Individual A emails with false reports of daily trading 

activity and profits, including purported screen shots from the BBOT NADEX account that 

consistently showed profitable trading and implausible rates of return. For example, Caniff sent 

Individual A emails reporting the following:

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:1965
8 

(a) On July 29, 2016, Caniff reported profits of $38,571 and an account ending 

balance of $696,022 for the period July 26-29, 2016. In reality, the profits for that period were 

only $956 and the ending account balance was $34,839.50; 

(b) On October 29, 2016, Caniff reported profits of $429,199 and an ending account 

balance of $3,321,265 for the period October 24-28, 2016. In reality, during that period the 

account actually sustained losses of $434.45 and the ending account balance was $32,338.20; 

(c) On April 29, 2017, Caniff reported profits of $1,187,545 and an ending account 

balance of $11,858,836 for the period April 24-28, 2017. In reality, during that period the 

account actually profited by the sum of $65 and the ending account balance was $25,230.15; 

(d) On December 1, 2017, Caniff sent Individual A a screen shot of BBOT’s NADEX 

online trading platform that reported an account value of $314,232. In reality, the actual account 

balance on that date was $13,165.90. 

23. Caniff sent Individual A a purported IRS Form 1099-B issued by NADEX 

showing aggregate profits for 2016 for the BBOT NADEX account of $5,043,386.60. In fact, 

the 1099-B issued by NADEX for 2016 for the BBOT pool shows that the account actually lost 

$2,135.60. 

24. Caniff gave these false reports of profitability to Individual A knowing that the 

latter would use the false reports to solicit new participants for the pools and to report profits to 

existing participants.

25. In fact, Individual A used the false profitability reports he received from Caniff to 

make reports to prospective participants and existing participants that included the information in 

these false reports. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:1966
9 

26. Caniff omitted telling Individual A and any participants or prospective 

participants that he had simply withdrawn the majority of participant deposits into BCM’s pools 

and used those funds to pay himself and Individual A “fees” amounting to more than $2.3 

million. Caniff also omitted telling Individual A and any participants or prospective participants 

that he had used participant deposits into BCM’s pools to pay participant withdrawals in the 

manner of a Ponzi scheme. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

Jurisdiction and Venue

27. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 , which provides that 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 promulgated thereunder, the 

Commission may bring an action in the proper district court of the United States against such 

person to enjoin such act or practice, or to enforce compliance with the Act, or any rule, 

regulation or order thereunder.

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

Default Defendants transacted business in this jurisdiction and the acts and practices in violation 

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

Default Defendants Violated the Act and Regulations

Default Defendants Violated Section 4c(b) of the Act and Regulation 32.4: 

Commodity Option Fraud

29. By the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 28 above, the Default 

Defendants, in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of 

the execution of, any commodity option transaction, directly or indirectly: (a) cheated or

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:1967
10 

defrauded, and attempted to cheat and defraud, participants and prospective participants; (b) 

made or caused to be made to participants and prospective participants false reports or 

statements; and (c) deceived or attempted to deceive participants and prospective participants, in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2021). 

30. During the Relevant Period, Default Defendant Caniff violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) 

and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 by: (a) misappropriating $2,598,632 of participant funds; (b) by sending 

Individual A emails that included representations about false daily trading activity and 

nonexistent trading profits that he knew Individual A would use to solicit participants and to 

make false reports to existing participants; and (c) by omitting to tell Individual A that he had 

simply withdrawn the majority of the $3,345,124 of participant deposits into BCM’s pools and 

used those funds to pay himself and Individual A “fees” amounting to more than $2.3 million 

and that he had used participant deposits into BCM’s pools to pay participant withdrawals in the 

manner of a Ponzi scheme.

31. Default Defendant Caniff committed the acts and practices described herein 

willfully, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

32. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Caniff occurred within the scope of 

his employment, office or agency with BCM; therefore, 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), BCM is liable for Caniff’s 

acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

33. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Caniff occurred within the scope of 

his employment, office or agency with BBOT; therefore, 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), BBOT is liable for Caniff’s 

acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:1968
11 

34. The foregoing acts, omissions and failures of Caniff occurred within the scope of 

his employment, office or agency with Berkley II; therefore, 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), Berkley II is liable for 

Caniff’s acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

Default Defendant Caniff Violated Section 9(a)(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4): 

Making a False Statement to a Registered Entity

35. 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4) makes it a violation for any person willfully to falsify, conceal, or 

cover up by any trick, scheme, or artifice, a material fact, make any false fictitious, or fraudulent 

statements or representations, or make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to 

contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry to a registered entity, board of trade, swap 

date repository, or futures association designated or registered under the Act in furtherance of its 

official duties under the Act.

36. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1 through 34, Default Defendant 

Caniff, in connection with his February 25, 2016 application to NADEX, a registered entity under the 

Act, where he was seeking to open the trading account for BCM’s pool, BBOT, willfully made false 

statements to NADEX by falsely and intentionally responding in the negative to questions about 

whether he had a criminal record, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4). 

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

Default Defendants will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint 

and in similar acts and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

II. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 Default Defendants Caniff, BCM, BBOT and Berkley II, and their 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:1969
12 

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, are permanently 

restrained, enjoined and prohibited from directly or indirectly cheating or defrauding, or 

attempting to cheat or defraud, other persons 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 with, any other person in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

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

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 Default Defendant Caniff, and his 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, are permanently restrained, enjoined and 

prohibited from directly or indirectly, willfully to falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, 

scheme, or artifice, a material fact, make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or 

representations, or make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry to a registered entity, board of trade, swap data 

repository, or futures association designated or registered under the Act in furtherance of its 

official duties under the Act, in violation of Section 9(a)(4) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(4). 

 40. Default Defendants are also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

directly or indirectly: 

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

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

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:1970
13 

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

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)), for their own personal account 

or for any account in which they have a direct or indirect interest; 

c. Having any commodity interests traded on their behalf; 

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

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

interests; 

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

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

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and/or 

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 (as that 

term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38)), 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)(2021). 

III. RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTY 

A. Restitution

41. Default Defendants shall pay, jointly and severally, restitution in the amount of 

Two Million Five-Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Six-Hundred and Thirty-Two Dollars 

($2,598,632) (“Restitution Obligation”). If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately, 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:1971
14 

post-judgment interest shall accrue on the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry 

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

entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

 42. To effect payment of the Restitution Obligation and the distribution of any 

restitution payments to Default Defendants’ pool participants, the Court appoints the National 

Futures Association (“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive restitution 

payments from Default Defendants and make distributions as set forth below. Because the 

Monitor is acting as an officer of this Court in performing these services, the NFA shall not be 

liable for any action or inaction arising from NFA’s appointment as Monitor, other than actions 

involving fraud. 

43. Default Defendants shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any postjudgment interest payments, under this Order to the Monitor in the name “Caniff Restitution 

Fund” and shall send such payments by electronic funds transfer, or by U.S. postal money order, 

certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank money order, to the Office of Administration, 

National Futures Association, 300 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60606 

under cover letter that identifies the paying Default Defendant and the name and docket number 

of this proceeding. Default Defendants shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter 

and the form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

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

 44. The Monitor shall oversee the Restitution Obligation and shall have the discretion 

to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to Default 

Defendants participants identified by the Commission or may defer distribution until such time 

as the Monitor deems appropriate. In the event that the amount of Restitution Obligation 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:1972
15 

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

administrative cost of making a distribution to eligible pool participants is impractical, the 

Monitor may, in its discretion, treat such restitution payments as civil monetary penalty 

payments, which the Monitor shall forward to the Commission following the instructions for 

civil monetary penalty payments set forth in Part III. B. below. 

45. Default Defendants shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide 

such information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify Default Defendants 

participants to whom the Monitor, in its sole discretion, may determine to include in any plan for 

distribution of any Restitution Obligation payments. Default Defendants shall execute any 

documents necessary to release funds that they have in any repository, bank, investment or other 

financial institution, wherever located, in order to make partial or total payment toward the 

Restitution Obligation.

 46. The Monitor shall provide the Commission at the beginning of each calendar year 

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Default Defendants’ participants during the 

previous year. The Monitor shall transmit this report under a cover letter that identifies the name 

and docket number of this proceeding to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures 

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

47. The amounts payable to each participant shall not limit the ability of any 

participant from proving that a greater amount is owed from Default Defendants or any other 

person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the rights of 

any participant that exist under state or common law. 

 48. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each participant of 

Default Defendants who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended third-party beneficiary of 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:1973
16 

this Order and may seek to enforce obedience of this Order to obtain satisfaction of any portion 

of the restitution that has not been paid by Default Defendants to ensure continued compliance 

with any provision of this Order and to hold Default Defendants in contempt for any violations 

of any provision of this Order. 

49. To the extent that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of Default 

Defendants’ Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor for 

disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above. 

B. Civil Monetary Penalty 

 50. Default Defendants shall pay, jointly and severally, a civil monetary penalty in the 

amount of Three Million Six-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,600,000) (“CMP Obligation”). If 

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

CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Order and shall be determined by using 

the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

51. Default Defendants shall pay their CMP Obligation and any post-judgment 

interest, by electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s 

check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, 

then the payment shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and 

sent to the address below: 

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Default Defendants shall contact Tonia King 

or her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:1974
17 

those instructions. Default Defendants shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a 

cover letter that identifies Default Defendants and the name and docket number of this 

proceeding. Default Defendants shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the 

form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 

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

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions

 52. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission or the Monitor of any partial 

payment of Default Defendants’ Restitution Obligation, Disgorgement Obligation, or CMP 

Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver their obligation to make further payments pursuant to 

this Order, or a waiver of the Commission’s right to seek to compel payment of any remaining 

balance.

 53. Asset Freeze: On May 1, 2019 the Court entered an asset freeze order prohibiting 

the transfer, removal, dissipation and disposal of Default Defendants’ assets (“Asset Freeze 

Order”). The Court hereby lifts the Asset Freeze Order.

D. Miscellaneous Provisions

 54. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Order shall be 

sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows:

Notice to Commission: 

Robert T. Howell

Deputy Director, Division of Enforcement

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Metcalfe Federal Building 

77 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 800 

Chicago, IL. 60604 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:1975
18 

Notice to Defendant Caniff: 

William Thomas Caniff

132 Caravel Place

Wintersville, OH 43953 

Notice to Defendant BCM

c/o William Thomas Caniff, BCM Managing Partner 

132 Caravel Place

Wintersville, OH 43953 

Notice to Defendant BBOT

c/o General Partner BCM, via William Thomas Caniff, Managing Partner of BCM 

132 Caravel Place

Wintersville, OH 43953 

Notice to Defendant Berkley II

c/o General Partner BCM, via William Thomas Caniff, Managing Partner of BCM 

132 Caravel Place

Wintersville, OH 43953 

Notice to NFA: 

Daniel Driscoll, Executive Vice President, COO

National Futures Association

300 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800 

Chicago, IL 60606-3447 

All such notices to the Commission or the NFA shall reference the name and docket number of 

this action.

 55. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Default Defendants satisfy in full 

their Restitution Obligation, and CMP Obligation as set forth in this Order, Default Defendants 

shall provide written notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to their telephone 

number and mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

 56. Invalidation: If any provision of this Order or if the application of any provision 

or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this Order and the application of the 

provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the holding. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:1976
19 

 57. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this 

action to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to this action, 

including any motion by Default Defendants to modify or for relief from the terms of this Order. 

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

provisions of this Order shall be binding upon Default Defendants, upon any person under the

authority or control of any of the Default Defendants, and upon any person who receives actual 

notice of this Order, by personal service, e-mail, facsimile or otherwise insofar as he or she is 

acting in active concert or participation with Default Defendants.

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

Order for Final Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalties, and 

Other Statutory and Equitable Relief Against Defendants William Thomas Caniff, Berkley 

Capital Management, LLC, BBOT 1, LP, and Berkley II, LP, LP, forthwith and without further 

notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 29th day of August, 2022. 

 _________________________________ 

 Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 132 Filed: 08/29/22 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:1977