UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

Plaintiff, 

v.

William Thomas Caniff, 

Arie Bos,

Berkley Capital Management, LLC, 

BBOT 1, LP, and

Berkley II, LP,

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

 )

Case No: 1:19-cv-02935 

Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ARIE BOS

I. INTRODUCTION

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

“CFTC”) filed a Complaint against Defendants William Thomas Caniff (“Caniff”), Arie Bos 

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

LP (“Berkley II”) (“collectively, “Defendants”) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as 

well as the imposition of civil penalties, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the Commission’s Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 

17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). The Court entered an ex parte statutory restraining order against 

Defendants on May 1, 2019 (ECF 12), and consent orders for preliminary injunction against all 

defendants on May 28, 2019. (ECF 25-26).

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:1979
2

On May 18, 2020, the Court entered a technical default order against Defendants Caniff, 

BCM, BBOT and Berkley II for their respective failures to answer or otherwise plead (ECF No. 

66). The Commission intends to seek default judgments against each of them prior to 

presentment of this Consent Order for entry. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Defendant Bos 

without a trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Defendant Bos: 

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil 

Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Bos (“Consent Order”);

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that no 

promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the Commission 

or any member, officer, agent, or representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce 

consent to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges service of the summons and Complaint;

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him and the subject matter of this action 

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

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission over the conduct and transactions at 

issue in this action pursuant to the Act; 

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e);

7. Waives:

a) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the rules promulgated by the 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:1980
3

Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 148 (2021), relating to, or arising from, this action; 

b) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, §§ 201–53, 

110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in 

scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, this 

action;

c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or the 

entry in this action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any 

other relief, including this Consent Order; and 

d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action;

8. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the purpose of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and for any other 

purpose relevant to this action, even if Defendant Bos now or in the future resides outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court; 

9. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on the ground, 

if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

hereby waives any objection based thereon; 

10. Agrees that neither he nor any of his agents or employees under his authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, 

or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is 

without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect his: 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:1981
4

(a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to which the 

Commission is not a party. Defendant Bos shall comply with this agreement, and shall 

undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of his agents and/or employees under his authority 

or control understand and comply with this agreement; 

11. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order without admitting or denying the 

allegations of the Complaint or any findings or conclusions in this Consent Order, except as to

jurisdiction and venue, which he admits; 

12. Agrees to provide immediate notice to this Court and the Commission by certified 

mail, in the manner required by paragraph 60 of Part VI of this Consent Order, of any 

bankruptcy proceeding filed by, on behalf of, or against him, whether inside or outside the 

United States; and

13. Agrees that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair 

the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy against Defendant 

Bos in any other proceeding. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good cause for the entry 

of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the 

entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction and equitable 

relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as set forth herein. The findings and 

conclusions in this Consent Order are not binding on any other party to this action. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:1982
5

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS:

A. Findings of Fact

The Parties to this Consent Order

14. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

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

Regulations.

15. Defendant Arie Bos is a natural person who resides in Rotterdam in the 

Netherlands and is a citizen of that country. Bos is a co-founder and Managing Partner of BCM 

and is a limited partner of BBOT and Berkley II. Bos was responsible for all “marketing” on 

behalf of BCM, and for “administration and reporting” to the fund limited partners and for 

“membership management” of BBOT and Berkley II and for the limited partnership’s offerings. 

Bos has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Overview of Binary Options

16. Binary options are financial products that allow customers to “buy” or “sell” cashsettled options on various commodities, indexes, or foreign currencies that predict whether the 

price of such commodity, index, or foreign currency will go “up” or “down” at a future date or 

time. Binary options may be offered on a variety of underlying assets, including currency pairs 

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

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

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

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

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

payout of a pre-determined amount of money, but if the customer has made an incorrect 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:1983
6

prediction, he or she is “out of the money,” loses the premium paid, and gets nothing. Binary 

options offered on designated contract markets (“DCM”) may also give the holder the option to 

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

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

17. There are only three DCMs currently authorized to offer binary options that are 

commodity options transactions to retail customers in the United States: Cantor Exchange LP, 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc., and NADEX. NADEX is the only DCM that Defendants 

engaged with in connection with any on-exchange binary options transactions. 

Caniff and Bos Formed BCM to Trade Binary Options

18. In January 2016, Caniff, a U.S. citizen, and Bos formed a partnership and created 

a new “investment and trading technology firm” as co-founders with Caniff the general partner 

of this entity called BCM. This new Wyoming limited liability corporation has offices near each 

of their residences, in Steubenville, Ohio and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, respectively, and 

purportedly “specialized in trading foreign-exchange binary options derivatives.” BCM became 

the general partner of a new investment pool fund called BBOT that was set up as a limited 

partnership for this pool of participants. 

19. Caniff was the designated trader for the fund, and Bos was responsible for 

soliciting, and reporting to, participants. 

20. Bos initially approached members of his family and friends in the Netherlands to 

solicit participation interest. Bos distributed an information packet to them and other prospective 

participants that described Caniff as having trading experience with a “proven track record” 

dating back to 2004. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:1984
7

21. Bos instructed prospective participants to wire their funds to the pools’ various 

bank accounts in the United States. 

22. Caniff opened and controlled all bank accounts for BCM, BBOT and Berkley II, 

and made all financial decisions for BCM, BBOT and Berkley II. He directed withdrawals of 

client funds from the BBOT and Berkley II bank accounts and deposits and withdrawals of funds 

from the BCM bank account and the BBOT trading account. Bos was not a signatory to any of 

the bank accounts, but he had online access to view the BBOT, Berkley II and BCM bank 

account statements.

23. Caniff also opened a binary options account at NADEX in the name of BBOT in 

June 2016. Caniff willfully made false statements on his application to open this NADEX 

account in February 2016, by responding in the negative to questions asking whether he had any 

felony convictions. In fact, Caniff had been convicted of several felony offenses including ones 

involving fraudulent conversion, forgery, and grand theft with a firearm. NADEX would have 

rejected Caniff’s application to open the trading account if it had known about these criminal 

convictions. Bos learned about Caniff’s criminal past in October 2016. 

Caniff Minimally Funded the NADEX Account and Misappropriated Most of the 

Participants’ Money to Benefit He and Bos

24. From February 2016 through the present, 58 participants, including one U.S. 

customer, paid $3,345,124 to fund investments to trade binary options through pools in the 

names of BBOT or Berkley II. 

Over the life of the BBOT NADEX account, Caniff only sent two payments to NADEX,

$35,000 in June 2016 and $50,000 in June 2017, for a total of $85,000. Thus, a mere fraction of 

BBOT or Berkley II participant funds were ever sent to NADEX for trading. Overall, Caniff’s 

trading in the BBOT NADEX account resulted in losses of $43,204.60. Caniff never opened a 

NADEX trading account for Berkley II participants nor were there any other NADEXaccounts 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:1985
8

under the direction or control of BBOT, BCM, Berkley II, Caniff or Bos.

25. Caniff misappropriated the remainder of participant funds, by sending $672,492 

as withdrawal payments to participants and to pay Bos and himself between $1.1 million and $1.2 

million each in purported fees. The sum of $2,598,632 is presently owing to participants. 

Bos Ignored Obvious Red Flags and Made Misrepresentations to Prospective 

Participants

26. Throughout their partnership, Caniff sent Bos emails reflecting his purported 

daily trading activity at NADEX, some of which included purported screen shots showing the 

NADEX account balance for the BCM pools. Caniff’s emails reflected implausible rates of 

return and consistently profitable trading. 

27. Bos combined the NADEX account value information that he received from 

Caniff with the information Bos obtained from his online access to the pools’ bank accounts to 

calculate the pools’ overall profitability and individual participants’ returns. Bos inserted his 

profit calculations into statements sent to participants and into promotional packets of 

information that he prepared and distributed to prospective participants without any independent 

verification of these profits. For example, Bos told prospective participants: 

(a) For the period January 2016 through May 2016, BCM reported monthly 

net return on investments (“ROIs”) of 3.9%, 17.3%, 23%, 11.6% and 17.3%; 

(b) BCM’s fund grew to a size of $5,500,000 by the end of calendar year 

2016;

(c) BCM’s average monthly ROI for 2016 was 10%;

(d) Berkley II had an ROI of 14.4% in April 2018; and

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:1986
9

(e) Berkley II had an overall average monthly return on invested capital of 

13.9% between August 2017 and April 2018. 

28. Each of the aforementioned representations that Bos made to prospective 

participants was false, in that:

(a) BCM’s reported monthly profits for the period from January to May 2016 

were false in that BBOT’s account at NADEX was not even opened and 

funded until June 29, 2016; 

(b) BCM’s fund did not have a value of $5,5000,000 by the end of 2016; 

rather, the BBOT account value combined with balances in BBOT’s bank 

account was $277,961.89 at December 31, 2016; and 

(c) BCM did not average a 10% ROI for 2016; rather the average ROI for 

2016 was a negative, specifically -0.88%; 

(d) Berkley II did not have an ROI of 14.4% in April 2018 because BCM 

never opened an account at NADEX for Berkley II and, thus, there were no 

profits earned for this pool; and 

(e) Berkley II did not have an overall average monthly return on invested 

capital of 13.9% between August 2017 and April 2018 because BCM never 

opened an account at NADEX for Berkley II and, thus, there were no profits 

earned for this pool. 

29. In sum, all of Bos’s claims of BCM’s multi-million-dollar account values and 

high profitability to prospective participants earned through binary options trading were 

fraudulent in light of the actual deployment and misappropriation of participant funds. Berkley 

II never had an account at NADEX and the only other BCM account at NADEX, BBOT, resulted 

in an overall loss of $43,204.60. Further, the trading in the BBOT account at NADEX generated 

an overall net rate of return of -5.54% and its highest account balance at any given time was only 

$89,764.90. Instead, the vast majority of the $3,345,124of participant deposits into BCM’s 

BBOT or Berkley II pools were simply withdrawn to pay Bos and Caniff fees or to pay 

participant withdrawal requests in the manner of a Ponzi scheme. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:1987
10

30. Throughout the relevant period, Bos willfully or recklessly ignored red flags that 

should have prompted him to seek some corroboration of BCM’s incredible pool returns at 

NADEX. Bos committed fraud in failing to do so and, instead, distributed the absurd profit 

figures to existing participants and used them to solicit new participants. Among the red flags 

that Bos ignored: 

(a) Bos knew that, in 2016, participants had invested total capital of $1.74 

million. In or around January 2017, Caniff gave Bos a copy of a purported 

NADEX IRS Form 1099 showing that BBOT’s total invested capital of $1.8 

million had made total profits in 2016 of $5,043,386.60. 

(b) When Bos told Caniff to withdraw a “substantial part” of the more than

$5 million in profits from NADEX in January 2017 and return them to the BBOT 

bank account, Caniff told Bos that the funds could not be withdrawn from 

NADEX and gave Bos a number of transparently bogus explanations. 

(c) In March 2017, Bos requested that Caniff arrange for him to have online 

access to personally view the NADEX account balances. Caniff said that such 

arrangements could not be made.

(d) Bos routinely accessed the pools’ bank account statements and, thus, he knew 

that they had only deposited a total of $85,000 with NADEX over the life of the 

NADEX accounts. Yet, Bos accepted the patently absurd rate of return on a 

statement dated May 2, 2017 sent to him by Caniff showing that the BBOT 

account at NADEX had earned a balance in excess of $11.8 million through the 

trading of participants’ funds. 

(e) In June 2017, Caniff falsely told Bos that he had initiated a lawsuit on behalf 

of BBOT against NADEX’s bank claiming that NADEX was illegally 

withholding BBOT’s funds. 

31. Despite all of these red flags during the relevant period, Bos, inexplicably, 

continued to solicit individuals to invest new monies to be sent to NADEX. Bos could have 

contacted NADEX directly to verify the account balances at any time, but he did not do so until 

September 2018. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:1988
11

Bos Issued False Account Statements

32. In addition to the false solicitations, Bos issued false account statements to at least 

one participant. Participant M.Y. is a U.S. citizen who invested $100,000 with BBOT in January 

2017. From January 2017 through July 2018, Bos prepared and sent M.Y. multiple “Individual 

Account Statements” that falsely reported profits, or neglected to report losses incurred in her 

account at BBOT and never reported a losing month of trading. For example, an account 

statement dated August 10, 2018 indicated that participant M.Y.’s $100,000 investment had 

increased to $146,035.21 by July 31, 2018. In fact, between January 2017 and July 2018, the 

BBOT pool actually lost a net total of $40,569. Similarly, in the months of August and 

September 2017, Bos reported a 0% ROI to M.Y. when, in fact, the BBOT pool actually had an 

ROI for those months of -31.06% and -23.13%. 

When the Money Ran Out, Caniff Blamed NADEX and Bos Continued to 

Solicit Participants

33. After Bos made several requests for Caniff to distribute funds from the NADEX 

account in early 2017, Caniff informed Bos that he was not able to withdraw funds from 

NADEX and indicated that NADEX was wrongfully holding the pools’ funds. 

34. In May 2017, Bos informed M.Y. that BBOT had suspended trading because of 

problems that had been encountered with NADEX. Although no fees were being earned from 

trading during this time, Bos knew that funds continued to be withdrawn from the BBOT pool 

bank account during this period, and that the funds were being used to pay fees to Caniff and 

himself and to repay some investors. Nonetheless, Bos failed to report those expenses as 

deductions from the participant’s account value and continued to report unchanged balances to

M.Y. on her account statement.

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:1989
12

35. In June 2017, Caniff told Bos that he had initiated a lawsuit in Chicago on behalf 

of BBOT against NADEX’s bank claiming that NADEX was illegally withholding BBOT’s 

funds. In reality, Caniff never filed a lawsuit. Rather, Caniff sent Bos fabricated pleadings and 

forged correspondence from an attorney purportedly representing BBOT in the dispute with 

NADEX. After Bos received the fabricated pleadings, Bos, inexplicably, continued to solicit 

individuals to invest new monies to be sent to NADEX for trading, while ignoring that BBOT 

purportedly could not withdraw its participant funds already deposited there and this legal 

entanglement with NADEX.

36. Over a year later, in September 2018, Bos finally contacted NADEX directly and 

learned that the true balance of the NADEX trading account was approximately $6,824.00. 

37. Bos eventually told participant M.Y. that Caniff had reported incorrect NADEX 

trading results and that the total remaining participant funds were significantly less than 

participants’ overall deposits. Participant M.Y. lost her entire investment of $100,000. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

Jurisdiction and Venue

38. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that U.S. district courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency 

expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress). Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), 

provides that the Commission may bring actions for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance 

with the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder in the proper district court of the United 

States whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:1990
13

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. 

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

Defendant Bos has transacted business in the Northern District of Illinois, and the acts and 

practices in violation of the Act and Regulations have occurred within this District, among other 

places.

Options Fraud in Violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and 

Regulation 32.4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2021) 

40. By the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 39 above, Defendant Bos, in or 

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

any commodity option transaction, directly or indirectly: (a) cheated or defrauded, and 

attempted to cheat or defraud, customers and prospective customers; (b) made or caused to be 

made to customers and prospective customers false reports or statements; and (c) deceived or 

attempted to deceive customers and prospective customers, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and 

17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

41. Bos violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 by, among other things, 

recklessly telling or omitting to tell prospective participants:

(a) For the period January 2016 through May 2016, BCM reported monthly net return 

on investments (“ROIs”) of 3.9%, 17.3%, 23%, 11.6% and 17.3%;

(b) BCM’s fund grew to a size of $5,500,000 by the end of calendar year 2016;

(c) BCM’s average monthly ROI for 2016 was 10%;

(d) Berkley II did not have an ROI of 14.4% in April 2018 because BCM never 

opened an account at NADEX for Berkley II and, thus, there were no profits earned for 

this pool; and 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:1991
14

(e) Berkley II did not have an overall average monthly return on invested capital of 

13.9% between August 2017 and April 2018 because BCM never opened an account at 

NADEX for Berkley II and, thus, there were no profits earned for this pool. 

42. Defendant Bos violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 by, among other 

things, sending at least one participant numerous false statements reporting that her account was 

profitable when it was not profitable and, at times, failing to report withdrawals from her 

account balance.

43. Defendant Bos committed the acts and practices described herein willfully, 

orwith reckless disregard for the truth. 

44. Each act of misrepresentation, misappropriation and omission of material fact 

constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4. 

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

Bos will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint and in similar acts 

and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 Defendant Bos is permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly:

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, customers and 

prospective customers, making or causing to be made to customers and 

prospective customers false reports or statements, and deceiving or attempting to 

deceive customers or prospective customers, in violation of Section 4c(b) of the 

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

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:1992
15

47. Defendant Bos is also permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

directly or indirectly:

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

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

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

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

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

c. Having any commodity interests traded on his behalf;

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

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

interests;

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

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

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

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

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except as 

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

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

§ 3.1(a) (2021)), agent or any other officer or employee of any person (as that 

term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38)), registered, exempted from registration or 

required to be registered with the Commission except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.14(a)(9).

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:1993
16

V. RESTITUTIONAND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

A. Restitution

48. Defendant Bos shall pay, jointly and severally with Defendants Caniff, BCM, 

BBOT1 and Berkley II, restitution in the amount of Two-Million Five-Hundred and Ninety-Eight 

Thousand Six-Hundred and Thirty-Two Dollars ($2,598,632) (“Restitution Obligation”). 

49. Defendant Bos is a debtor in a proceeding captioned, Arie Cornelis Bos, 

Bankruptcy Proceeding, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Insolvency number F. 

10/20/37, Supervisory Case Number NL:TZ:0000129502:F001 (“Bankruptcy Action”). On 

January 26, 2022, the District Court of Rotterdam ratified the composition of the bankruptcy and 

ordered that a distribution in Euros equivalent to $653,425 be made to Bos’s participantcreditors, all but one of whom are in the Netherlands. For amounts disbursed to Defendant Bos’s 

customers as a result of any disbursement by the curator in this Netherlands bankruptcy 

proceeding, Defendant Bos shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution 

obligation.

50. The sum of $111,805.02 is held in several bank accounts controlled by certain of 

the Defendants and those funds have been frozen pursuant to court order. Subsequent to the 

resolution of the claims against the remaining Defendants in this matter, the asset freeze on these 

accounts shall be lifted and these sums transferred to the curator in the Netherlands bankruptcy 

for distribution to Bos’s customers with Bos receiving a dollar-for-dollar credit against the 

Restitution obligation. 

51. In this litigation, the sum of $6805 is held in an account at NADEX in the name 

of BBOT and have been frozen pursuant to court order. Subsequent to the resolution of the 

claims against the remaining Defendants in this matter, the asset freeze on that account shall be 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:1994
17

lifted and these sums transferred to the curator in the Netherlands bankruptcy for distribution to 

Bos’s customers with Bos receiving a dollar-for-dollar credit against the Restitution obligation. 

52. Defendant Bos shall execute any documents necessary to release funds that he has 

in any repository, bank, investment or other financial institution, wherever located in the United 

States, in order to make partial or total payment toward the Restitution Obligation.

53. The amounts payable to each customer shall not limit the ability of any customer 

from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendant Bos or any other person or entity, 

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

that exist under state or common law. 

54. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each customer of 

Defendant Bos who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended third-party beneficiary of this 

Consent Order and may seek to enforce obedience of this Consent Order to obtain satisfaction of 

any portion of the restitution that has not been paid by Defendant Bos to ensure continued 

compliance with any provision of this Consent Order and to hold Defendant Bos in contempt for 

any violations of any provision of this Consent Order, but may only do so in courts within the 

United States.

B. Civil Monetary Penalty

55. Defendant Bos shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of Five-Hundred 

Thousand Dollars $500,000 (“CMP Obligation”). 

56. Defendant Bos shall pay his CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest, by 

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

money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:1995
18

shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address 

below:

MMAC/ESC/AMK326

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Bos shall contact Tonia King or her successor 

at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with those 

instructions. Bos shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that 

identifies Bos and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Bos shall simultaneously 

transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20581. 

C. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions

57. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission of any partial payment of 

Bos’s Restitution Obligation, or CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of his obligation 

to make further payments pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the 

Commission/CFTC’s right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance. 

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

the transfer, removal, dissipation and disposal of Defendants’ assets (“Asset Freeze Order”). The 

court hereby lifts the Asset Freeze Order as it pertains to Defendant Bos’s assets.

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:1996
19

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

59. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Consent Order 

shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows: 

Notice to Commission:

Robert T. Howell

Deputy Director, Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Metcalfe Federal Building

77 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 800

Chicago, IL. 60604

Notice to Defendant Bos:

Arie C. Bos

s-Gravendijkwal #67

Rotterdam, The Netherlands 3021EE 

And to: 

Anthony M. Montemurro 

Attorney at Law

6097 N. Northwest Highway 

Chicago, IL 60631 

Email: amm5732@sbcglobal.net

All such notices to the Commission shall reference the name and docket number of this action.

60. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Bos satisfies in full his Restitution 

Obligation, and CMP Obligation as set forth in this Consent Order, Bos shall provide written 

notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to his telephone number and mailing 

address within ten calendar days of the change.

61. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This Consent Order incorporates all of the 

terms and conditions of the settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to 

amend or modify this Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to writing;

(b) signed by all parties hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court.

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

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:1997
20

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

application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the 

holding.

63. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any customer at any 

time to require performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no manner affect the 

right of the party or customer at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of this 

Consent Order. No waiver in one or more instances of the breach of any provision contained in 

this Consent Order shall be deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of such 

breach or waiver of the breach of any other provision of this Consent Order. 

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

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

action, including any motion by Bos to modify or for relief from the terms of this Consent Order.

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

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Bos, upon any person under his authority 

or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Consent Order, by personal 

service, e-mail, facsimile or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Bos.

66. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be executed in 

two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall 

become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto 

and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood that all 

parties need not sign the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other signature to this Consent 

Order that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as constituting good and 

valid execution and delivery by such party of this Consent Order. 

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:1998
21

67. Contempt: Bos understands that the terms of the Consent Order are enforceable 

through contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings he may not challenge the 

validity of this Consent Order. 

68. Agreements and Undertakings: The parties to this Consent Order shall 

comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

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

Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief 

Against Defendant Arie Bos forthwith and without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 14th day of September, 2022.

Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:1999
22

CONSENTED TO ND APPROVED BY:

Defendant Arie Bo 

s-Gravendijkwal #6

Rotterdam, The etherlands 302 lEE

Rotterdam, The etherlands

/s/ Susan B. Padove

Susan B. Padove

Senior Trial Attorney

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100

Chicago, Illinois 60661

(312) 596-0544

Date: Au g;e. u_st_4-'-, _20_2_2 Dated September 14, 2022 _

Anthony M. ontemurro 

Attorney for Defendant Arie Bos 

6097 . Northwest Highway 

Chicago, IL 60631

Case: 1:19-cv-02935 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/14/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:2000