UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COBY YOUNG and YOUNG EMERGING 

STRATEGIES LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:23-cv-15624 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) alleges as 

follows:

I. SUMMARY

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

Young Emerging Strategies LLC (“Young Emerging Strategies”), an unregistered commodity 

pool operator (“CPO”), and Defendant Coby Young (“Young,” collectively “Defendants”), a 

principal and associated person (“AP”) of Young Emerging Strategies, directly solicited 

individuals for participation in foreign-exchange trading classes through a website, social media, 

and in person. Defendants would then solicit certain class participants to participate in a 

commodity interest pool Defendants operated (“YES Forex Pool”) that would trade in leveraged, 

margined, or financed retail foreign currency transactions (“retail forex”). 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:1
2

2. Young, through a bank account in the name of Young Emerging Strategies, 

received approximately $300,000 from about twenty individuals or entities (“Pool Participants”)

through wire transfers, cash, and online payment applications. 

3. Defendants, through verbal misrepresentations, promised to double the 

investments of many or all of the Pool Participants through trading retail forex. Defendants then

misappropriated the majority of the funds for personal expenses and through cash withdrawals. 

Even though Defendants promised that they would establish subaccounts for some Pool 

Participants, Defendants pooled all funds in Young Emerging Strategies’ bank account and only 

utilized a single retail forex trading account (also in the name of Young Emerging Strategies) for 

the limited amount of funds traded by Defendants. 

4. While Defendants returned some funds to Pool Participants, those funds were 

from other Pool Participants. Defendants used less than thirty-five percent of Pool Participant 

funds for forex trading. The little trading that Defendants engaged in was not profitable. In 

total, Defendants caused Pool Participants to lose approximately $275,000. 

5. Additionally, during the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies failed to 

register as a CPO and Young failed to register as an AP of a CPO as required by the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“the Act”) and CFTC Regulations (“Regulations”). Defendants also failed to 

operate the pool as a separate legal entity, failed to provide Pool Participants with certain 

disclosures and statements, and failed to make and keep records concerning the commodity pool

and CPO as required by the Act and Regulations. 

6. Pool Participants were not eligible contract participants (“ECPs”), as defined in 

Section 1a(18) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18). 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:2
3 

7. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, Defendants, 

either directly or as a controlling person, have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in 

acts and practices in violation of Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A), (C), 4k(2), 4m(1), 

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

Regulations 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2), and 5.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 

4.22, 4.23, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2), and 5.4 (2022). 

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

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

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

any commodity interest-related activity, as commodity interest is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 

C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022). In addition, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary 

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

rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the Court may 

deem necessary and appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345, which provides that 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. Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), authorizes 

the CFTC to seek injunctive relief in any proper district court of the United States against any 

person whenever it shall appear to the CFTC that such 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.

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:3
4 

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

acts and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations have occurred within this District. 

III. THE PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2022). 

12. Defendant Young Emerging Strategies LLC is an Illinois limited liability 

company with its last known place of business in University Park, Illinois. Young Emerging 

Strategies has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

13. Defendant Coby Young is a resident of Illinois and is the sole owner and sole 

managing member of Young Emerging Strategies. Young has never been registered with the 

CFTC in any capacity. 

IV. FACTS

A. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited Pool Participant Funds for the YES Forex Pool. 

14. Young Emerging Strategies operates a website that claimed it was a “a 

consortium of experienced Forex consultants that are focused on taking [others’] trading 

strateg[ies] to the next level.” Through the website, Defendants solicited Pool Participants and 

prospective Pool Participants to sign up for trading classes that would teach attendees how to 

trade leveraged, margined, or financed forex. Once contacted by Pool Participants or prospective 

Pool Participants, Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions to solicit funds 

for pooled investments. Young, on behalf of Young Emerging Strategies, made the material 

misrepresentations and omissions in person, over the telephone, by text, and through other 

electronic communications.

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:4
5

15. Among other things, Defendants solicited individuals to attend classes purporting 

to teach them how to trade forex for fees ranging from $1000 to $6000. Defendants offered

some Pool Participants and prospective Pool Participants to attend the classes for no charge. 

This offer, however, had a catch. Defendants generally solicited much larger amounts from Pool 

Participants and prospective Pool Participants to trade leveraged, margined, or financed retail 

forex in exchange for “free” attendance in Defendants’ trading classes. 

16. In total, about twenty Pool Participants (who were all non-ECPs) contributed 

approximately $300,000 to Defendants for participation in the YES Commodity Pool. 

17. In soliciting Pool Participants, Defendants presented themselves as successful 

forex traders. In reality, Defendants engaged in very little retail forex trading, and what little 

trading Defendants engaged in was not profitable. 

18. In soliciting Pool Participants, Young also failed to disclose that the State of 

Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department issued an order prohibiting him from trading 

securities or engaging in securities transactions, which Illinois defines to include foreign 

currency transactions. The order identified past instances of Young’s defrauding investors. 

19. Young often verbally represented that the Pool Participants could expect to 

double their investment within months. Young would typically enter into a “Limited 

Partnership Investment Contract” with Pool Participants in which Young stated he would trade 

“‘over the counter’ free market global trading financial instruments and precious metals, such as 

but not limited to currency contracts, gold contracts, etc.” and guaranteed the return of Pool 

Participants’ initial investments—regardless of the Pool’s performance. The Limited Partnership 

Investment Contract also explained that Young was “investing jointly along with [the Pool 

Participant] as limited partners for the duration of [the] agreement.” 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:5
6

20. In some instances, Defendants misrepresented that they would create subaccounts 

for Pool Participants’ funds, keep Pool Participants’ funds segregated, and trade Pool 

Participants’ funds separately from other accounts while the Pool Participant took Defendants’ 

trading classes. 

21. In reality, however, no such separate accounts were ever created and Defendants 

commingled all Pool Participants’ funds together. 

22. Pool Participants provided funds to Defendants by wires, cash, and through online 

payment applications. Defendants pooled most Pool Participant funds in a bank account held by 

Young Emerging Strategies—the commodity pool operator. From there, Defendants transferred 

less than thirty-five percent of funds to Young Emerging Strategies’ leveraged, margined, or 

financed retail forex trading account. 

23. For example, Pool Participant A met Defendants through a friend. Pool 

Participant A runs a youth mentorship program that assists low-income youth by providing 

sports equipment and introducing youth to local businesses for job placement opportunities. 

During an initial telephone call, Young told Pool Participant A that Young could teach him how 

to trade leveraged, margined, or financed retail forex. Defendants provided Pool Participant A 

with a link to Defendants’ online trading classes. Defendants also offered to trade Pool 

Participant A’s funds to help raise additional funds for Pool Participant A’s youth mentorship 

program while Pool Participant A attended Defendants’ trading classes. Pool Participant A 

provided Defendants with $28,000, through two wire transfers, for Defendants to trade retail 

forex in a separate subaccount in Pool Participant A’s name. Defendants promised that they 

would return $20,000 per month to Pool Participant A from trading retail forex. Defendants only 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:6
7

returned $3,000 to Pool Participant A, through a personal payment application. Defendants 

never established a trading account in Pool Participant A’s name. 

24. Pool Participant B met Defendants through a social media application. Young 

informed Pool Participant B that his company offered forex trading classes. After some 

communications, Pool Participant B and Defendants entered into an agreement that Pool 

Participant B would provide Defendants with $5,000 to trade leveraged, margined, or financed 

retail forex on Pool Participant B’s behalf. Defendants claimed that they would double Pool 

Participant B’s money while also guaranteeing that Pool Participant B would receive—at a 

minimum—the initial investment back. Pool Participant B never received any funds back from 

Defendants. Pool Participant B ultimately had to borrow money to pay medical expenses when 

Defendants did not return any of her funds. 

25. Additionally, Pool Participant C met Young in 2021 to discuss a potential 

business arrangement. While Young did not hire Pool Participant C, he informed Pool 

Participant C that Defendants traded leveraged, margined, or financed retail forex for others. 

Around September 2021, Pool Participant C and Defendants ultimately entered into an 

agreement that Pool Participant C would provide $30,000 to Defendants for trading leveraged, 

margined, or financed retail forex. Pool Participant C was also allowed to take Defendants’ 

trading classes at no charge. Pool Participant C wired $30,000 to Young Emerging Strategies’ 

bank account. Defendants misrepresented that they would provide the original $30,000 back to 

Pool Participant C the following month, with an additional $10,000 returned each additional 

month. Pool Participant C has not received any funds from Defendants. As a result, Pool 

Participant C’s plans to repay her student loans have been delayed. 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:7
8

26. In total, Defendants returned approximately $25,000 to some Pool Participants. 

As a result, Pool Participants suffered around $275,000 in losses from Defendants’ fraudulent 

conduct. 

B. Defendants Misappropriated the Majority of Pool Funds for Personal Expenses and 

To Make Ponzi Payments.

27. Defendants misappropriated the majority of pool funds for Young’s personal 

expenses. 

28. In the same bank account for Young Emerging Strategies that Defendants 

received funds from Pool Participants A, B, and C, Defendants also used Pool Participants’ funds 

for personal expenses, including payments for online purchases, restaurants, entertainment, 

clothing, and medical expenses. 

29. No Pool Participant received their full initial investment back from Defendants, as 

promised. Some Pool Participants, however, received partial payments, which were paid from 

other Pool Participants’ investments. 

C. Defendants’ Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, and Omissions Were 

Intentional or Reckless and Operated as a Fraud on Pool Participants.

30. Defendants intentionally or recklessly made material misrepresentations. Each 

solicitation of a Pool Participant, including claims that Defendants were experienced and 

profitable traders, was done with the intended purpose to obtain more funds for personal use or 

to make Ponzi payments to placate earlier Pool Participants. 

31. Defendants knew that their misrepresentations to Pool Participants were false, as 

the Pool did not exist and Defendants never had a history of profitable forex trading. 

32. Defendants never intended to trade most of the Pool Participants’ funds as 

demonstrated by their immediate misappropriation of most Pool Participants’ funds.

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:8
9

33. As noted above, less than thirty-five percent of Pool Participants’ funds were 

deposited to retail forex trading accounts as Defendants promised Pool Participants. 

34. Further, Defendants never used any Pool Participants’ funds to establish 

subaccounts as promised, instead pooling all funds together.

35. When Pool Participants would request the return of their investments, Young 

regularly misrepresented that he would make payments by a certain date. After the date passed, 

Young offered excuses and eventually refused to return telephone calls, texts, and emails to most 

Pool Participants, while continuing to solicit new prospective Pool Participants through the 

operation of Defendants’ website. 

D. Defendants Failed to Register with the CFTC. 

36. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies acted as a CPO in that it 

engaged in a business of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar 

form of enterprise, and it solicited, accepted, or received funds, securities, property, or capital 

contributions for the purpose of trading in leveraged, margined, or financed retail forex

transactions. 

37. Young Emerging Strategies used emails, wire transfers, text messaging, and other 

means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to solicit, accept, and receive Pool 

Participants’ funds for the purpose of trading retail forex. 

38. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies was never registered as a 

CPO and was not exempt or excluded from registration as a retail forex CPO. 

39. During the Relevant Period, Young was associated with Young Emerging 

Strategies as a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent in a capacity that involved the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for a participation in a commodity pool. 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:9
10

40. During the Relevant Period, Young was never registered as an associated person 

of Young Emerging Strategies. 

E. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required Relevant 

Documents to Pool Participants, and Failed to Make and Keep Records Concerning 

the Commodity Pool and CPO

41. Young Emerging Strategies, while acting as the CPO of the YES Forex Pool, 

failed to provide pool disclosures and other documents required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22 (2022). Specifically, Young Emerging Strategies failed to provide Pool 

Participants, among other things, the required cautionary statements and risk disclosures. Young 

Emerging Strategies also failed to provide, on at least a quarterly basis, detailed reports to Pool 

Participants showing gains, losses, fees, and expenses incurred by the YES Forex Pool, as well 

as the total amount of withdrawals from the YES Forex Pool. Additionally, Young Emerging 

Strategies failed to provide Pool Participants with an annual report containing financial 

statements certified by an independent public accountant.

42. Young Emerging Strategies, while acting as the CPO of the YES Forex Pool, 

failed to make and keep records concerning the commodity pool and the CPO as required by 

Regulation 4.23, 17 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)-(b) (2022), including but not limited, statements of 

financial condition of the pool, all receipts and disbursements of money or other property, and 

books and records of all other transactions in which the pool operator engaged. 

F. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required Relevant 

Documents to Pool Participants

43. Defendants did not operate the Pool as separate legal entity. Defendants never 

created a separate legal entity to receive contributions from Pool Participants. Although 

Defendants solicited money on behalf of the Pool, Defendants failed to open bank or retail forex 

trading accounts for the Pool. Rather, Defendants received pool funds in the name of Young 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:10
11 

Emerging Strategies, the CPO, before the majority of funds were then misappropriated for 

Young’s personal use, misappropriated to pay other Pool Participants, or transferred to Young’s 

personal bank account. 

44. By transferring pool funds to Young’s personal bank accounts, Defendants also 

commingled pool funds with non-pool funds. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND CFTC

REGULATIONS

COUNT I—Forex Fraud by Misappropriation and Misrepresentations 

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

and Regulation 5.2(b)(1), (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3) (2022) 

(All Defendants) 

45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

46. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), “[a]greements, contracts, or transactions” 

in retail forex “shall be subject to . . . [7 U.S.C. §] 6b,” except in circumstances not relevant here. 

Moreover, under 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv), 7 U.S.C. § 6b applies to forex transactions described 

herein “as if” they were a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery because they were 

“offered to, or entered into with, a person that is not an” ECP. 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). 

47. As noted above, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(A)(xi), defines an ECP, in relevant part, as an 

individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which exceeds 

$10 million, or $5 million if the individual enters into the transaction to manage the risk 

associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, 

by the individual. None of the Pool Participants is an ECP.

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:11
12

48. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) makes it unlawful:

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

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

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

behalf of, or 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 . . . the other person[.]

49. 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) makes it 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. 

50. Defendants, by use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly, in connection with leveraged, margined, or financed retail forex 

transactions, knowingly or recklessly: 

(1) made material misrepresentations and omissions about—

• Defendants’ past success trading forex; 

• the profitability of trading retail forex with Defendants;

• how Pool Participant funds would be treated, i.e., that Pool Participants would 

have their own separate trading subaccounts; 

• the State of Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department’s order 

prohibiting him from trading, among other things, foreign currency and 

identifying his past conduct in defrauding investors; and 

• guaranteeing the return of Pool Participants’ initial investments; and

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:12
13 

(2) misappropriated Pool Participant funds. 

51. By reason of the foregoing, Young and Young Emerging Strategies LLC violated 

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

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

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

53. When Young committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3), he was acting within the scope of his 

agency, employment, and office at Young Emerging Strategies; therefore, such acts, practices, 

omissions, or failures are deemed to be those of Young Emerging Strategies 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 (2022).

54. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ 

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

55. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact or misappropriation, including, 

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

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

COUNT II – Fraud by a Commodity Pool Operator and Its Associated Person

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

(All Defendants)

56. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

57. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in relevant part, as any person “engaged 

in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:13
14

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, including any

. . . agreement, contract, or transaction described in [S]ection 2(c)(2)(C)(i) [of the Act] or 

[S]ection 2(c)(2)(D)(i) [of the Act].”

58. Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1), and subject to certain exceptions not relevant 

here, any person who operates or solicits funds, securities, or property for a pooled investment 

vehicle and engages in retail forex transactions is defined as a retail forex CPO. 

59. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), “[a]greements, contracts, or transactions” 

in retail forex and accounts or pooled investment vehicles in retail forex “shall be subject to . . . 

[7 U.S.C. §] 6o,” except in circumstances not relevant here. 

60. Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2), any person associated with a retail forex CPO 

“as a partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent (or any natural person occupying a similar 

status or performing similar functions), in any capacity which involves: (i) [t]he solicitation of 

funds, securities, or property for a participation in a pooled investment vehicle; or (ii) [t]he 

supervision of any person or persons so engaged” is an AP of a retail forex CPO. 

61. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies solicited funds, 

securities, or property for a pooled investment vehicle for the purpose of engaging in leveraged, 

margined, or financed retail forex transactions; therefore, Young Emerging Strategies acted as a 

CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1). 

62. During the Relevant Period, Young was associated with Young Emerging 

Strategies, 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 commodity pool. Therefore, 

Young was an AP of a CPO as defined by 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(2). 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:14
15

63. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered with the 

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

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

participant or prospective client or participant, or (B) engaging in transactions, practices, or 

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

prospective client or participant. 

64. Defendants, by use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly, in connection with leveraged, margined, or financed retail forex 

transactions, knowingly or recklessly: 

(1) made material misrepresentations and omissions about—

• Defendants’ past success trading forex; 

• the profitability of trading retail forex with Defendants; 

• how Pool Participant funds would be treated, i.e., that Pool Participants would 

have their own separate trading subaccounts; 

• the State of Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department’s order 

prohibiting him from trading, among other things, foreign currency and 

identifying his past conduct in defrauding investors; and 

• guaranteeing the return of Pool Participants’ initial investments; and

(2) misappropriated Pool Participant funds.

65. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, through use of the mails 

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

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

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

upon Pool Participants or prospective Pool Participants, by misappropriating Pool Participant

funds and making material misrepresentations to Pool Participants. 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:15
16 

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

67. When Young committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B), he was acting within the scope of his agency, employment, and office 

at Young Emerging Strategies; therefore, such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed 

to be those of Young Emerging Strategies pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2.

68. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B). 

69. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact or misappropriation, 

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

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

COUNT III - Failure to Register as a Commodity Pool Operator 

Violations of 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), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) (2022) 

(All Defendants)

70. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

71. 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), prohibits any person, unless registered, from 

operating or soliciting funds, securities, or property for any pooled investment vehicle that is not 

an eligible contract participant in connection with agreements, contracts, or transactions 

described in 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i). 

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

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

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:16
17 

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

such . . . [CPO] . . . .”

73. Similarly, 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) requires “any commodity pool operator, as 

defined in § 5.1(d)(1)” to be registered with the Commission. 

74. By reason of the foregoing, Young Emerging Strategies engaged in a business, for 

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

similar form of enterprise, and in connection therewith, solicited, accepted, or received from 

others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of 

stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in leveraged, 

margined, or financed retail forex transactions; therefore, Young Emerging Strategies acted as a 

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

75. Young Emerging Strategies, while using the mails or means of interstate 

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

76. By reason of the foregoing, Young Emerging Strategies acted as an unregistered 

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

77. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:17
18 

COUNT IV – Failure to Register as an Associated Person of a Commodity Pool Operator

Violations of Sections 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 

Regulation 5.3(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii) (2022) 

(All Defendants) 

78. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

79. 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), prohibits any person, unless registered, from 

operating or soliciting funds, securities, or property for any pooled investment vehicle that is not 

an eligible contract participant in connection with agreements, contracts, or transactions 

described in 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i).

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

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

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

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

81. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) makes it “unlawful for any commodity pool operator to permit 

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

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

82. Similarly, 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(ii) requires “any associated person of 

a commodity pool operator, as defined in § 5.1(d)(2)” to be registered with the Commission. 

83. During the Relevant Period, Young was associated with Young Emerging 

Strategies as a member, partner, officer, employee, consultant, agent, or in a similar capacity, 

and Young solicited funds for participation in the YES Forex Pool. 

84. Young was never registered with the Commission as an AP of Young Emerging 

Strategies. 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:18
19 

85. By reason of the foregoing, Young acted as an unregistered AP of Young 

Emerging Strategies, a CPO, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

86. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies knew that Young acted 

as an unregistered AP of Young Emerging Strategies in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

87. When Young failed to register with the Commission as an AP, he was acting 

within the scope of his agency, employment, and office at Young Emerging Strategies; therefore, 

such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to be those of Young Emerging Strategies 

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

88. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ violations of 

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

COUNT V – Failure to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents, and Failure to Make and Keep Records Concerning the 

Commodity Pool and CPO

Violation of Regulations 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and 5.4 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 

5.4 (2022) 

(All Defendants) 

89. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

90. 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 states that 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 applies to any person required pursuant 

to 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 to register as a retail forex CPO, and that “[f]ailure by any such person to 

comply with the requirements of part 4 will constitute a violation of this section and the relevant 

section of part 4.”

91. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:19
20

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

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

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

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

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

92. Upon information and belief, during the Relevant Period, Young Emerging 

Strategies did not provide to prospective Pool Participants a Disclosure Document with the 

necessary disclosures in accordance with 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24 and 4.25. 

93. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

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

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

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

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

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

which the pool engaged during the reporting period.

94. 17 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)-(b) requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or 

required to be registered) must make and keep certain books and records concerning the 

commodity pool and the CPO. Among other things, CPOs must make and keep records of 

statements of financial condition of the pool, all receipts and disbursements of money or other 

property, and books and records of all other transactions in which the pool operator engaged.

95. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies did not provide periodic 

account statements to Pool Participants that itemized the total amount of realized net gain or loss 

on commodity interest positions liquidated during the reporting period, the total amount of 

unrealized net gain or loss on commodity interest positions during the reporting period, and the 

total amount of net gain or loss from all other transactions in which the YES Forex Pool engaged 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:20
21 

during the reporting period. Young Emerging Strategies also did not make and keep records 

concerning the YES Forex Pool, including all receipts and disbursements of money, securities, 

and other property, statements of the YES Forex Pool’s financial condition, or books and records 

of all other transactions in which Young Emerging Strategies engaged.

96. By reason of the foregoing, Young Emerging Strategies violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 

4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.4. 

97. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.4. 

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

and reports to prospective Pool Participants and Pool Participants, and failure to make and keep 

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

violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.4. 

COUNT VI – Failing to Operate a Pool as a Separate Entity, Failing to Accept Funds in the 

Name of the CPO, and Commingling Pool Property 

Violation of Regulations 4.20 and 5.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 5.4 (2022) 

99. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

100. As noted above, 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 states that 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 applies to any person 

required pursuant to 17 C.F.R. pt. 5 to register as a retail forex CPO, and that “[f]ailure by any 

such person to comply with the requirements of part 4 will constitute a violation of this section 

and the relevant section of part 4.”

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:21
22

101. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to operate its 

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

102. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from receiving 

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

103. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(c) requires that a CPO may not commingle the property of any 

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

104. During the Relevant Period, Young Emerging Strategies, while acting as CPOs

for the Pool, failed to operate the Pool as a separate legal entity separate from the CPO and from 

Young as an individual. Defendants received Pool Participants’ funds in the name of the CPO—

Young Emerging Strategies—rather than the name of a legally cognizable commodity pool. 

Defendants commingled Pool Participants’ funds with Young’s funds by sending Pool funds to

Young’s personal bank account. 

105. By reason of the foregoing, Young Emerging Strategies violated 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c), 5.4. 

106. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Young controlled Young Emerging 

Strategies, directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Young Emerging Strategies’ conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Young is liable for Young Emerging Strategies’ violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.20, 5.4.

107. Each act of failing to operate the Pool as a separate legal entity, receiving Pool 

Participants’ funds in the name of Young Emerging Strategies, and commingling pool funds with 

non-pool funds is alleged as separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 5.4.

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:22
23 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the CFTC 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 violated Sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4b(a)(2)(A), (C), 

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

(C), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1), and Regulations 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 

5.3(a)(2), and 5.4, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2), 

and 5.4 (2022); and

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

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

active concert with them, who receive actual notice of such order by personal 

service or otherwise, from engaging in conduct described above, in violation of 7 

U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1), and 17 

C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 5.2(b)(1), (3), 5.3(a)(2), 5.4; 

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

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

persons in active concert with them, from directly or indirectly:

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

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

2. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that 

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)), for accounts 

held in the name of any Defendant or for accounts in which any Defendant 

has a direct or indirect interest; 

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:23
24

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

4. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account 

involving commodity interests;

5. Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests;

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

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

registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2022); and

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2022)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

person registered, exempted from registration, or required to be registered 

with the CFTC except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

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

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

order, all benefits received including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, 

loans, fees, revenues, and trading profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts 

or practices which constitute violations of the Act as described herein, including 

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

E. An order requiring Defendants, jointly and severally, to make restitution to 

persons who have sustained losses proximately caused by the violations described 

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

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:24
25

F. Enter an order directing Defendants and any of their successors, to rescind, 

pursuant to such procedures as the Court may order, all contracts and agreements, 

whether implied or express, entered into between them and any of the clients 

whose funds were received by them as a result of the acts and practices which 

constituted violations of the Act as described herein;

G. Enter an order directing Defendants, jointly and severally, 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), as adjusted for inflation 

pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements 

Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, tit. VII, § 701, see Regulation 143.8, 

17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2022), for each violation of the Act, as described herein; 

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

28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2413(a)(2); and

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:25
26 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Dated: November 3, 2023 

 Respectfully submitted, 

PLAINTIFF COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION

s/ Monique M. McElwee 

Nicholas S. Sloey (VA Bar #75438)

Monique M. McElwee (MO Bar #64018) 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: 816-960-7700 

Facsimile: 816-960-7751 

nsloey@cftc.gov

mmcelwee@cftc.gov

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:23-cv-15624 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:26