UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAMIAN CASTILLA, DCAST CAPITAL 

INVESTMENTS LLC, and FIVE TRADERS 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:22-cv-21520 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, 

RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

1. Between at least January 1, 2014 and continuing through present day (the 

“Relevant Period”), Damian Castilla (“Castilla”), DCAST Capital Investments LLC (“DCAST”), 

and Five Traders LLC (“Five Traders”) (collectively, “Defendants”), engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme to solicit and misappropriate money given to them for the purpose of trading commodity 

futures contracts (“futures”) in commodity pools. DCAST and Five Traders were unregistered 

commodity pool operators (“CPOs”), and Castilla was an unregistered associated person of both 

CPOs. During the Relevant Period, Defendants fraudulently solicited over $3.4 million from 

over fifty individuals and entities (“pool participants”) to trade futures in commodity pools (the 

“Pools”) that did not exist. In total, Defendants caused pool participants to lose over 

$2.6 million. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 1 of 26
2 

2. During the Relevant Period, Defendants made various material misrepresentations 

to solicit pool participants, including that: (1) Defendants earned significant profits on behalf of 

pool participants by trading futures; (2) the returns Defendants paid to pool participants were 

generated from futures trading profits; (3) Castilla was an experienced and profitable trader; and 

(4) pool participants would have their own trading subaccounts with DCAST or Five Traders. 

3. Defendants’ representations were false. Among other things, Defendants’ trading 

was not profitable, the funds returned to pool participants were Ponzi payments sourced from 

later pool participants, and no separate trading accounts were ever created. In fact, Defendants 

conducted very little trading in futures accounts as promised. Instead, Defendants 

misappropriated the vast majority of the funds, issued false account statements that showed 

profitable trading in nonexistent trading accounts, and used a portion of the funds obtained from 

pool participants to pay fake profits to earlier pool participants. In total, Defendants 

misappropriated approximately $1.8 million of pool participants funds for personal use, 

including for car payments, home remodeling, lawn services, clothing, restaurants, and other 

personal expenses—in addition to making over $1.6 million in Ponzi payments to pool 

participants. 

4. Castilla also failed to disclose to over fifteen pool participants that provided over 

$700,000 in funds after March 19, 2020 that he had been charged by the Florida State Attorney’s 

Office, in Miami-Dade County Case No. 13-2020-CF-004700-0001, for fraud and grand theft in 

connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

5. Finally, Defendants made false statements of material fact to the Commission that 

Defendants knew or should have known was false or misleading. Specifically, Defendants 

submitted a list of five clients in response to a subpoena that Defendants, through counsel, 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 2 of 26
3 

represented was a complete list of all current and former clients since 2012. In a subsequent 

response, Defendants submitted an updated list that identified twelve clients—adding only seven 

clients to the original list. Both lists were incomplete and false. Defendants did not disclose 

nearly forty clients that provided almost $2 million to Defendants. 

6. By virtue of this conduct and the conduct further described herein, Castilla, 

DCAST, and Five Traders, either directly or as controlling persons, have engaged, are engaging, 

or are about to engage in acts and practices in violation of Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4k(2), 

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

6o(1)(A), (B), 9(2), and Regulations 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 (2021). 

7. During the Relevant Period, Castilla was an officer, employee, or agent of 

DCAST and Five Traders. Therefore, DCAST and Five Traders are liable for the acts and 

omissions of Castilla done in the scope of his employment or office, 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). 

8. Castilla was a controlling person of DCAST and Five Traders throughout the 

Relevant Period and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced DCAST’s and Five Traders’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations described herein. Therefore, Castilla is liable for 

DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of the Act and Regulations, pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

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

engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint and similar acts and practices. 

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

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 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 3 of 26
4 

any commodity related activity. In addition, the Commission 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 

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

question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that 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). 

12. Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), authorizes the Commission to seek 

injunctive and other relief against any person whenever it shall appear to the Commission 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. 

13. 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 and certain 

transactions, practices, and courses of business in violation of the Act and Regulations occurred, 

are occurring, or are about to occur in this District, among other places. 

III. THE PARTIES 

14. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the independent federal 

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

Regulations promulgated thereunder. One of its core responsibilities is to protect the public 

interest by ensuring the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Act and Regulations 

and protecting market participants from fraudulent practices. Section 3(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 4 of 26
5 

§ 5(b). The CFTC maintains its principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20581. 

15. Defendant Damian Castilla is a resident of Miami, Florida and is the sole owner 

and sole managing member of DCAST and Five Traders. Castilla applied for registration with 

the Commission as a commodity trading advisor in August 2013, but withdrew that application 

in November 2013. 

16. Defendant DCAST Capital Investments LLC is a Florida entity with its last 

known place of business in Miami, Florida. DCAST previously claimed an exemption from 

registration with the Commission as a commodity trading advisor, but withdrew its exemption in 

April 2015. It has never been registered with the Commission. Castilla is the sole owner and 

manager of DCAST. 

17. Defendant Five Traders LLC is a Wyoming entity with its principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida. It has never been registered with the Commission. Castilla is the 

sole owner and manager of Five Traders. 

IV. FACTS 

A. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited Pool Participants for the Pools. 

18. During the Relevant Period, Defendants made material misrepresentations and 

omissions to pool participants and prospective pool participants about the Pools via telephone, 

in-person, video-conferencing, and electronic communications. 

19. Defendants misrepresented a long history of professional trading—claiming, at 

times, that Castilla had nearly twenty years of successful professional trading experience, over 

five years of futures trading experience, and that trading futures had become Castilla’s full-time 

job. In reality, Defendants engaged in very little trading of futures and the little trading 

Defendants engaged in was not profitable. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 5 of 26
6 

20. Defendants claimed that pool participants would have separate subaccounts 

connected to a master trading account that would automatically allocate trades that Defendants 

placed among Defendants accounts and the accounts of other pool participants. In reality, 

Defendants never established any subaccounts for any pool participants; rather Defendants 

provided pool participants with faked account statements showing fictitious trades and fictitious 

account balances that represented pool participants’ individualized shares of Defendants’ trading 

activity. 

21. Once Defendants obtained money from pool participants, Defendants continued to 

misrepresent their futures trading as profitable by providing pool participants with fake trading 

account statements that showed regular and consistent profits in purported subaccounts. 

Defendants regularly used the false trading history reflected in these fake subaccount statements 

to solicit additional funds from pool participants as well as to solicit new pool participants. 

22. Defendants often solicited friends and family of earlier pool participants that 

received fake account statements. For example, Defendants regularly claimed during oral 

solicitations that they typically earned profits between eight and ten percent per year for other 

pool participants. The returns were often consistent with the fake account statements that 

Defendants provided to pool participants. 

23. Additionally, Defendants made Ponzi payments to earlier pool participants, 

misrepresenting that the funds being returned were from profitable trading in futures account. 

Defendants used these Ponzi payments to further solicit friends and families of pool participants. 

For example, during solicitations of new pool participants, Defendants pointed to the Ponzi 

payments as proof that Defendants ran legitimate, profitable commodity pools. For example, 

Defendants made Ponzi payments of over $40,000 between July and October 2020 to Participant 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 6 of 26
7 

A. Shortly thereafter, Defendants obtained $200,000 from two pool participants that were 

acquaintances of Participant A. Within three weeks of receiving this $200,000 contribution, 

Defendants made additional Ponzi payments of over $150,000 to other pool participants. 

Defendants’ bank records show that on many occasions, Defendants would often dole out 

recently-received pool participant contributions to earlier pool participants within days of receipt. 

24. The profits claimed were fake, and like all Ponzi schemes, Defendants became 

unable to repay all pool participants that requested redemptions. Defendants then resorted to 

even more false claims to pool participants who requested funds. In a number of instances, 

Defendants claimed that the money was available, but that Defendants’ bank accounts had been 

frozen by various government agencies. To some pool participants, Defendants claimed that the 

Office of Foreign Assets Control had frozen Defendants’ bank accounts due to issues with the 

funding source of another pool participant. To other pool participants, Defendants claimed that 

the Commission froze Defendants’ bank accounts during an investigation that Defendants were 

trying to resolve. Defendants’ bank accounts were never frozen by a government agency; 

Defendants simply did not have the funds available to repay pool participants. 

B. Defendants Misappropriated the Vast Majority of Pool Funds for Personal 

Expenses and to Make Ponzi Payments. 

25. Of the over $3.4 million that Defendants received from pool participants, 

Defendants paid over $1.6 million in Ponzi payments to pool participants, claiming that the 

payments were the result of profitable trading. 

26. Defendants misappropriated approximately $1.8 million for personal expenses. 

Defendants regularly used corporate bank accounts for Castilla’s personal expenses, which 

included car payments, home remodeling, lawn services, clothing, restaurants, and other 

withdrawals to Castilla’s personal bank accounts. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 7 of 26
8 

27. Defendants deposited only a small portion of pool participants’ funds for their 

intended purpose of trading futures—only $105,000 of the over $3.4 million received. Yet 

Defendants ultimately withdrew over $50,000 from trading accounts for personal expenses and 

to make Ponzi payments. 

28. The small amount of futures trading that Defendants engaged in was not 

profitable. 

C. Defendants Provided False Account Statements Misrepresenting the Value of Client 

Accounts. 

29. Defendants regularly provided pool participants with account statements that 

purportedly showed account values and trading activity for each pool participant’s subaccount. 

30. The account statements that Defendants provided showed regular and consistent 

growth in the value of the purported subaccounts for each pool participant. For example, in at 

least one instance, Defendants issued false account statements that, over time, showed consistent 

profits for an account showing growth from $50,000 to over $5 million. 

31. No accounts existed for any pool participants. Defendants never created 

subaccounts for pool participants and very little of pool participants’ funds were ever used for 

trading futures. 

32. During the Relevant Period, Defendants operated only three commodity interest 

trading accounts—two in the name of DCAST and one in the name of Five Traders. Despite 

receiving over $3.4 million from pool participants for the purpose of trading commodity 

interests, Defendants deposited a mere $105,000 to their trading accounts. Defendants lost about 

$50,000 in trading, and ultimately withdrew over $50,000 from the trading accounts—using the 

withdrawn funds for personal use or for Ponzi payments to pool participants. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 8 of 26
9 

D. Defendants’ Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, and Omissions Were 

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

33. Defendants intentionally or recklessly made material misrepresentations. Each 

solicitation of a pool participant was done with the intended purpose to obtain more funds for 

personal use or to make Ponzi payments to placate earlier pool participants. 

34. Defendants knew that their misrepresentations to pool participants were false and 

that the Pools did not exist.

35. Defendants never intended to trade pool participants’ funds.

36. As noted above, less than four percent of pool participants’ funds were deposited 

to futures trading accounts as promised and Defendants never used any pool participants’ funds 

to establish subaccounts as promised. 

37. Defendants issued false account statements to pool participants showing 

significant growth in pool participants’ subaccounts that never existed. 

38. On March 19, 2020, the Florida State Attorney’s Office charged Castilla, in 

Miami-Dade County Case No. 13-2020-CF-004700-0001, with fraud and grand theft in 

connection with his fraudulent investment scheme. In communications with pool participants 

after being charged, Defendants misrepresented the nature of the allegations against Castilla. 

Defendants claimed to some pool participants that the charges were due to a misunderstanding 

with an investor while reassuring pool participants that the account values in the statements 

Defendants provided were accurate and that Defendants had the funds to repay participants. 

39. After Castilla was charged criminally, Defendants continued soliciting new pool 

participants to keep the fraudulent scheme alive, using new funds to continue making Ponzi 

payments. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 9 of 26
10 

40. In total, Defendants solicited over $700,000 from pool participants after Castilla 

was charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office. Defendants used these funds for personal 

expenses and for Ponzi payments. 

E. Defendants Failed to Operate the Pools as Separate Legal Entities or Receive Pool 

Funds in the Pools’ Name. 

41. Defendants did not operate the Pools as separate legal entities. Defendants never 

created separate legal entities to receive contributions from pool participants. Although 

Defendants solicited money on behalf of the Pools, Defendants failed to open bank or futures 

trading accounts for the Pools. Rather, Defendants received pool funds in the name of DCAST 

or Five Traders, the CPOs, before the funds were then misappropriated for Castilla’s personal 

use, misappropriated to make Ponzi payments, or transferred to Castilla’s personal bank account. 

42. By transferring pool funds to Castilla’s personal bank accounts, Defendants also 

commingled pool funds with non-pool funds. 

43. Defendants did not even treat the CPOs as separate entities, but instead 

commingled funds between DCAST and Five Traders treating both entities as interchangeable. 

For example, in some instances, Castilla used funds received by Five Traders to make Ponzi 

payments to pool participants that had previously provided funds to DCAST. 

F. Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders Failed to Register with the Commission. 

44. During the Relevant Period, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders acted as CPOs 

in that they engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, 

syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and they solicited, accepted, or received funds, 

securities, property, or capital contributions for the purpose of trading in commodity interests. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 10 of 26
11 

45. Defendants DCAST and Five Traders used emails, wire transfers, internet video 

messaging, text messaging, and other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to 

solicit, accept, and receive pool participants’ funds for the purpose of trading futures. 

46. During the Relevant Period, Defendants DCAST and Five Traders were never 

registered as CPOs and were not exempt or excluded from registration as CPOs. 

47. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Castilla was associated with DCAST and 

Five Traders 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. 

48. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Castilla was never registered as an 

associated person of DCAST or Five Traders. 

G. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Relevant Documents. 

49. DCAST and Five Traders, while acting as the CPOs of the Pools, failed to provide 

pool disclosure documents and other documents required by Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21, 4.22 (2021), including but not limited to required cautionary statements, risk 

disclosures, fees and expenses incurred by the Pools, past performance disclosures, a statement 

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

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

public accountant. 

H. Defendants Made False Statements of Material Fact to the Commission. 

50. On June 21, 2021, the Commission’s Division of Enforcement issued a subpoena 

to Defendants requiring, among other things, that Defendants produce “[d]ocuments sufficient to 

show the names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail address, and any other contact information of 

all current and former customers or clients” of Defendants since 2012. On August 27, 2021, 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 11 of 26
12 

after retaining counsel, Defendants produced a document that included a list identifying five 

clients. 

51. On August 31, 2021, Defendants, through counsel, confirmed that Defendants had 

completed their response to the subpoena’s request for information concerning current or former 

customers or clients. 

52. Defendants response identifying only five customers or clients was a false 

statement of material fact. As alleged above, Defendants had at least 50 clients during the 

Relevant Period. 

53. On September 23, 2021, Defendants submitted a supplemental list identifying an 

additional seven customers or clients. This list, containing twelve customers or clients, was also 

a false statement of material fact. 

54. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their responses to the 

subpoena were false or misleading. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose over forty clients 

that provided, collectively, almost $2 million. Defendants communicated with at least one 

undisclosed client as recently as October 2021 concerning repayment of funds—with Defendants 

making false statements to the pool participant that funds were available in trading accounts or 

bank accounts but that Defendants were having temporary delays in accessing those funds. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND 

COMMISSION REGULATIONS 

COUNT I – Solicitation Fraud, Misappropriation, and False Account Statements 

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

55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

56. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful: 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 12 of 26
13 

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

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

person . . . 

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

person; 

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

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

for the other person any false record; [or] 

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

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

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

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

for . . . the other person[.] 

57. Defendants engaged in a fraud by, among other things: (1) misrepresenting that 

Defendants earned significant profits on behalf of pool participants by trading futures; 

(2) misrepresenting that the returns Defendants paid to pool participants were generated from 

futures trading profits; (3) misrepresenting that Castilla was an experienced and profitable trader; 

(4) misrepresenting that pool participants would have their own trading subaccounts with 

Defendants DCAST or Five Traders; (5) misappropriating pool participants’ funds for Castilla’s 

personal expenses; (6) issuing false account statements to pool participants; and (7) failing to 

disclose that Castilla had been charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office for fraud and grand 

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

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

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

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

cheat or defraud pool participants; and/or (2) deceived or attempted to deceive pool participants 

by any means whatsoever. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 13 of 26
14 

59. By reason of the foregoing, Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders violated 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C). 

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

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

61. When Castilla committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), he was acting within the scope of his agency, employment, and 

office at DCAST and Five Traders; therefore, such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are 

deemed to be those of DCAST and Five Traders 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). 

62. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C). 

63. Each misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or false report or statement, 

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

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

COUNT II – Fraud by Commodity Pool Operators and Their Associated Person 

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

64. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

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

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

in commodity interests, . . . . ” 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 14 of 26
15 

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

relevant part, as any person: 

[E]ngaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, 

investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, in 

connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the 

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

trading in commodity interests, including any— 

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

67. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders engaged in a business, for 

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

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

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

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

interests; therefore, DCAST and Five Traders acted as CPOs, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

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

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

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

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

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

pool or 

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

69. During the Relevant Period, Castilla was a partner, officer, employee, consultant, 

or agent of DCAST and Five Traders (or occupied a similar status or performed similar 

functions), in a capacity that involved the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for 

participation in the Pools. 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 15 of 26
16 

70. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered 

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

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

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

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

prospective client or participant. 

71. Defendants engaged in a fraud by, among other things: (1) misrepresenting that 

Defendants earned significant profits on behalf of pool participants by trading futures; 

(2) misrepresenting that the returns Defendants paid to pool participants were generated from 

futures trading profits; (3) misrepresenting that Castilla was an experienced and profitable trader; 

(4) misrepresenting that pool participants would have their own trading subaccounts with 

Defendants DCAST or Five Traders; (5) misappropriating pool participants’ funds for Castilla’s 

personal expenses; (6) issuing false account statements to pool participants; and (7) failing to 

disclose that Castilla had been charged by the Florida State Attorney’s Office for fraud and grand 

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

72. 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. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 16 of 26
17 

74. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B). 

75. When Castilla 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 DCAST and Five Traders; therefore, such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to 

be those of DCAST and Five Traders pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

76. Each act of misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or false report or 

statement, 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 Commodity Pool Operators 

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

77. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

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

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

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

such . . . [CPO] . . . .” 

79. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders 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 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 17 of 26
18 

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

interests; therefore, DCAST and Five Traders acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(11). 

80. DCAST and Five Traders, while using the mails or means of interstate commerce 

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

81. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders acted as unregistered CPOs 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

82. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1). 

83. When Castilla committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 

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

DCAST and Five Traders; therefore, such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to be 

those of DCAST and Five Traders pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2. 

84. Each instance that DCAST and Five Traders acted as a CPO but failed to register 

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

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

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

85. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

86. 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[.]”

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 18 of 26
19 

87. 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[.]” 

88. During the Relevant Period, Castilla was associated with DCAST and Five 

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

Castilla solicited funds for participation in the Pools. 

89. Castilla was never registered with the CFTC as an AP of DCAST or Five Traders. 

90. By reason of the foregoing, Castilla acted as an unregistered AP of DCAST and 

Five Traders, CPOs, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6(k)(2). 

91. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders knew that Castilla acted as 

an unregistered AP of DCAST and Five Traders, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

92. When Castilla failed to register with the Commission as an associated person, he was 

acting within the scope of his agency, employment, and office at DCAST and Five Traders; therefore, 

such acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to be those of DCAST and Five Traders 

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

93. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five Traders, 

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

DCAST’s and Five Traders’s failure to register as CPOs alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of 

7 U.S.C. §§ 6k(2). 

94. Each instance that Castilla acted as an unregistered AP of DCAST and Five Traders but 

failed to register with the CFTC as such is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6k(2). 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 19 of 26
20 

COUNT V – 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 Regulation 4.20, 17 C.F.R. § 4.20 (2021) 

95. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

96. 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. 

97. 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. 

98. 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. 

99. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders, while acting as CPOs for 

the Pools, failed to operate the Pools as a legal entity separate from themselves and from Castilla 

as an individual. Defendants received pool participants’ funds in their own names rather than the 

name of a legally cognizable commodity pool. Defendants commingled pool participants’ funds 

with Castilla’s funds in Castilla’s personal bank accounts. 

100. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders violated of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20(a)(1), (b), and(c). 

101. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20. 

102. Each act of failing to operate the Pools as separate legal entities, receiving pool 

participants’ funds in the name of DCAST or Five Traders rather than in the name of the Pools, 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 20 of 26
21 

and commingling pool funds with non-pool funds is alleged as separate and distinct violation of 

17 C.F.R. § 4.20. 

COUNT VI – Failure to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents 

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

103. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

104. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

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

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

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

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

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

105. Upon information and belief, during the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five 

Traders 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. 

106. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

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

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

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

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. 

107. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders 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 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 21 of 26
22 

total amount of net gain or loss from all other transactions in which the Pools engaged during the 

reporting period. 

108. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 

and 4.22. 

109. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s conduct alleged in this Count; therefore, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.21 and 4.22. 

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

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

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

4.22. 

COUNT VII – Making False Statements to the Commission 

Violation of Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) 

111. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

112. 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person to make any 

false or misleading statement of a material fact to the Commission . . . if the person knew, or 

reasonably should have known, the statement to be false or misleading.” 

113. By submitting false and misleading statements that Defendants knew or 

reasonably should have known were false, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

114. When Castilla made false statements of material fact to the Commission, he was acting 

within the scope of his agency, employment, and office at DCAST and Five Traders; therefore, such 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 22 of 26
23 

acts, practices, omissions, or failures are deemed to be those of DCAST and Five Traders pursuant to 

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

115. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST’s and Five Traders’s failure to register as CPOs alleged in this Count; 

therefore, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, Castilla is liable for DCAST’s and Five Traders’s 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

116. Each false statement of material fact to the Commission is alleged as a separate 

and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(2).

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 violated Sections 4b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 4k(2), 4m(1), 4o(1)(A) 

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

6o(1)(A), (B), 9(2), and Regulations 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 

4.22 (2021); 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 the conduct described above, in violation 

of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 6k(2), 6m(1), 6o(1)(A), (B), 9(2) and 

17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22; 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 23 of 26
24 

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), for accounts held in 

the name of any Defendant or for accounts in which any Defendant has a 

direct or indirect interest; 

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

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

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

involving commodity interests; 

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

purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests; 

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

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

registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC except as 

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

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

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2021)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 24 of 26
25 

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. 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; 

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 and Regulations 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 (2015), tit. VII, § 701, see Regulation 

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

described herein; 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 25 of 26
26 

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

necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

May 17, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

PLAINTIFF COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

s/Thomas L. Simek 

Thomas L. Simek (S.D. Fla. Bar # A5502134) 

Nicholas S. Sloey (S.D. Fla. Bar # A5502824) 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: 816-960-7760 (Simek) 

816-960-7728 (Sloey) 

Facsimile: 816-960-7751 

E-mail: tsimek@cftc.gov 

nsloey@cftc.gov 

Case 1:22-cv-21520-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 26 of 26