United States District Court

Southern District of Texas

ENTERED

June 30, 2021

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 24

i Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 24 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LAINO GROUP LIMITED D/B/A 

PAXFOREX 

) 

) . ORDEROF 

) FINAL JUDGMENT BY 

) DEFAULT,PERMANENT 

) INJUNCTION, AND CIVIL 

) MONETARYPENALTY 

) 

) Case No. 4:20-cv-03317 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

__________ ) 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 24, 2020, the Commission ( or "CFTC") filed its Complaint 

in this matter (Docket Entry ("DE") 1) charging Defendant Laino Group Limited 

d/b/a PaxForex ("PaxForex") with violating Sections 6(a) and 6d(a)(l), 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6(a), 6d(a)(l) (2018), of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act" or "CEA") for 

engaging in unlawful retail commodity transactions, and failing to register with 

the Commission as a futures commission merchant ("FCM"). On September 28, 

2020, Defendant's domain name, www.paxforex.com, was seized by the 

Department of Justice ("DOJ") through a seizure warrant issued in this District. 

On February 15, 2021, Defendant was served with the Summons and 

Complaint (DE 16). Defendant's response was due March 8, 2021. After 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 24 

Defendant failed to plead or otherwise defend Plaintiff filed a request for Clerk's 

ently of Default on March 12, 2021 (DE 17), which has subsequently been 

entered. Defendant has failed to appear or answer the Complaint within the time 

permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(l). 

The Commission has now moved this Court to grant final judgment by 

default against Defendant, order permanent injunctive relief, and impose a civil 

monetary penalty. The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the 

allegations of which are well-pled and hereby taken as true, the Commission's 

memorandum in support of its motion, the record in this case, and the Court being 

otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion 

for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant is GRANTED in all respects. 

Accordingly, the Court enters findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order of 

Final Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, and Civil Monetary Penalty 

pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l (2018), as set forth herein. 

II. FINDING OF FACT 

THE COURT FINDS 

A. The Parties 

1. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and 

2 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 24

;; Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 24 

enforcement of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1- 26 (2018), and the Commission's 

Regulations ("Regulations") promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 (2020). 

2. Defendant Laino Group Limited d/b/a PaxForex is registered as an 

international business company in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and claims on 

its website that its information technology infrastructure has been deployed to 

data centers in New York and London. PaxF orex operates an online trading 

platform previously accessed through www.paxforex.com, and now 

www.paxforex.org, which offers customers foreign currency exchange ("forex") 

and retail commodity transactions, among other products. PaxForex has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

B. Defendant's Conduct 

Defendant Engaged in Retail Forex and Unlawful Retail 

Commodity Transactions Without CFTC Registration 

3. From at least March 2018 through the present ("Relevant Period"), 

Defendant operated an online trading platform ("platform") accessed through its 

website, www.paxforex.com and later www.paxforex.org ("website"). Through its 

platform and website Defendant solicits or accepts orders from customers, 

including those in the United States, for transactions in "Contracts for Difference" 

("CFDs") referenced to the prices of commodities including certain foreign 

currencies such as the Euro and Australian Dollar, precious metals including gold 

3 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 24 

and silver, and digital assets including bitcoin, ether, and litecoin. Defendant also 

solicited customers through its PaxForex YouTube channel at www.youtube.com. 

4. A CFD is generally an agreement to exchange the difference in value 

of an underlying asset, such as a commodity, between the time at which the CFD 

trading position ("position") is established and the time at which it is terminated. 

5. CFD trading on the platform is settled in U.S. Dollars ("USD") and 

bitcoin, among other assets. 

6. Bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are digital representations of value that 

function as mediums of exchange, units of account, and/or stores of value, but that 

do not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. Bitcoin and other virtual 

cunencies are distinct from "real" cunencies, which are the coin and paper money 

of the United States or another country that are designated as legal tender, 

circulate, and are customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the 

country of issuance. 

7. To begin trading or open a position on Defendant's platform, 

customers complete a brief registration process through PaxForex's website. 

During the registration process, customers provide, among other information, their 

country, a physical address, email address, and phone number to which PaxForex 

sends email and text messages, respectively, for verification. 

8. For entering personal information, Defendant provides customers with 

4 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 24 

a drop down menu with an option of selecting the United States as the customer's 

country of residence as well as an American flag symbol that corresponds to the 

customer's area code and phone number. 

9. After completing the registration process, U.S. customers deposit 

assets such as USD and bitcoin into an account or wallet controlled by PaxF orex as 

margin or collateral for the customers' trades. 

10. When a customer deposits bitcoin as collateral, Defendant credits the 

customer's trading account in USD in an amount that is purportedly equivalent to 

the market value of the bitcoin. 

11. Trades on Defendant's platfo1m are made using MetaTrader ("MT") 

trading platfo1m software, which U.S. customers can download from Defendant's 

website onto their desktop or mobile devices. For trading foreign currencies, MT 

presents customers with.currency pairs such as the Euro/USD (EUR/USD) and 

Australian Dollar/USD (AUD/USD) in which the first currency is the currency 

being "bought" or "sold," and the second currency is the currency in which the buy 

or sell price is quoted. 

12. Similarly, for trading digital assets, the platform's MT presents 

customers with pairs including ether/USD (ETH/USD), litecoin/USD (LTC/USD), 

and bitcoin/USD (BTC/USD). As is the case with trading foreign currencies on 

5 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 24 

Defendant's platform, the first asset is the asset being "bought" or "sold" with the 

price quoted in the second asset, USD. 

13. Using MT on Defendant's platform, U.S. customers can either buy or 

sell CFDs (go "long" or "short") referenced to the prices of foreign currencies, 

precious metals, and digital assets on margin with leverages potentially as high as 

1/500. 

14. In this case, "margin" means the assets a customer deposits with the 

Defendant as collateral, while "leverage" allows a customer to control a large 

amount of a commodity with a comparatively small amount of margin. Leverage 

also allows customers to significantly magnify profits or losses with a relatively 

small investment. 

15. In taking trading positions on Defendant's platfmm, U.S. customers 

speculate on the price movement of the underlying commodity and either profit or 

lose based on whether prices move in their favor or not. There is no actual 

delivery of the underlying commodity and customers close their positions by 

trading equal and opposite positions. Defendant automatically closes customers' 

positions when their losses reduce the value of assets they have deposited to equal 

to or less than five percent of the value of their open positions. 

16. When one of Defendant's agents was contacted by an individual who 

identified himself as a U.S. customer, Defendant's agent actively solicited that 

6 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 24 

individual in this District by email, and by phone through a U.S. phone number, to 

transact in CFDs referenced to the prices of foreign currencies, precious metals, 

and digital assets on Defendant's platform. 

17. Defendant subsequently accepted orders placed by this U.S. individual 

on its platform, from this District, and executed transactions, on a leveraged or 

margined basis using bitcoin as collateral margin, in CFDs referencing the price of 

commodities. In these CFD transactions, Defendant acted as the counterparty. 

18. Defendant used its YouTube channel as a further means of soliciting 

U.S. customers. It did this through a promotional video that instructs customers on 

how to open a trading account and by providing an "Open Trading Account" 

hyperlink to PaxForex's website. 

19. PaxForex's YouTube channel, along with PaxForex's website, also 

contained daily videos and analyses, narrated by one of Defendant's agents, which 

promote Defendant's forecasts and recommendations for making trades in specific 

commodities, and periodic videos and analyses that tout the purported profitability 

of Defendant's earlier trading recommendations and associated forecasts. 

20. Additionally, in a blogpost on its website, Defendant touts itself as 

"The Best Forex Broker for Beginners in the USA." 

21. Similarly, Defendant's website contained customer testimonials from 

two U.S. customers, one of whom the website identified as being from the United 

7 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 24 

States, and further purports to have a U.S. presence with its "IT Infrast1uctures 

[which] has been deployed within industry leading datacenters in London ... and 

New York." 

22. Finally, Defendant solicits customers, including those in the United 

States, through its "Affiliate" program. Through this program, Defendant 

incentivizes U.S. persons to become "affiliates" by providing them with 

commissions and other incentives to solicit customers to trade CFDs in forex and 

other commodities on Defendant's platform. 

23. Defendant fails to check the eligible contract participant ("ECP") 1 

status of its customers during the customer registration process. Moreover, 

Defendant solicits customers to open an account with an initial deposit of as little 

as the equivalent of $10 to incentivize trading by retail customers who would not 

qualify as ECPs. 

24. Through the above-described conduct, Defendant offers to enter into, 

or enters into, and/or executes leveraged, margined or financed transactions in 

foreign currencies, precious metals, and digital assets with non-ECP customers in 

the United States. 

1 ECP is defined in in relevant part, as an individual: (a) who has amounts invested 

on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which exceeds $10 million, or (b) $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 

incmTed, by the individual." 7 U.S.C. § la(l8)(A)(xi) (2018). 

8 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 24 

25. Defendant's platform is not a designated contract market or 

derivatives transaction execution facility, exempt board of trade, or a bona fide 

foreign board of trade as those terms are defined in the Act. Indeed, in the "Terms 

and Conditions of business PaxForex MT4," which Defendant provided to 

customers, Defendant acknowledges that its platform is "the sole Execution Venue 

[ for customers' orders and trades] which is a nonregulated market." 

26. During the Relevant Period, PaxForex has not been registered with the 

Commission as an FCM. 

27. After the Commission's Complaint was filed on September 24, 2020, 

and Defendant's domain name, www.paxforex.com, was seized on September 28th 

by DOJ, Defendant appears to have restored access to its trading platform through 

www.paxforex.org, sometime in October 2020. 

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

A. Jurisdiction and Venue 

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

(2018) (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (jurisdiction 

over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly 

authorized to sue by Act of Congress). Further, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018) provides 

that district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought by the Commission for 

injunctive relief and to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it shall appear to 

9 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 24 

the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in 

any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, 

regulation, or order thereunder. 

29. The Commission has jurisdiction over the conduct and transactions at 

issue here pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C), 2(c)(2)(D) (2018) as further 

discussed below. 

30. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(e) 

(2018), because at least some of the acts and practices in violation of the Act 

occun-ed within this District. 

B. The Commodity Exchange Act 

31. In analyzing the Commission's motion, the Court recognizes that 

"The intent of the congressional design [of the Act] is clear; persons engaged in the 

defined regulated activities within the commodities business are not to operate as 

such unless registered ... Registration is the kingpin in this statutory machine1y, 

giving the Commission the information about participants in commodity trading 

which it so vitally requires to carry out its other statutory functions of monitoring 

and enforcing the Act." CFTC v. British Am. Commodity Options, 560 F.2d 135, 

139-40 (2nd Cir. 1977); CFTC v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 280 (9th Cir. 1979) 

(same); see also CFTCv. Southern Tr. Metals, Inc., 894 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 

2018) ("The CEA imposes registration requirements on commodities traders and 

10 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 24 

the exchanges where they trade ... Together, these provisions [7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l) 

and 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)] require that only registered traders handle transactions and 

that they do so on a registered exchange."). 

C. Defendant's Failure to Properly Answer or Defend Warrants Entry 

of a Default Judgment 

32. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 authorizes a default judgment when "a party against 

whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend .... " Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); see New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 

137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996) ("A default occurs when a defendant has failed to plead or 

otherwise respond to the complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules.") 

( emphasis in original). 

3 3. A default judgment, issued by a court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(b)(2), while disfavored, is within the Court's sound discretion. See Mason v. 

Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977)). 

34. However, there must be greater reason to grant the default judgment 

than the defendant's failure "to meet a procedural time requirement." Lacy v. Sitel 

Corp., 227 F.3d 290,292 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Instead, "There must 

be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered" while "The 

defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations of fact," 

and so these allegations are taken as tlue at default judgment. Nishimatsu Constr. 

11 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 24 

Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). 

35. Comis consider six factors to determine whether a default judgement 

is appropriate: ( 1) material issues of fact; (2) existence of substantial prejudice; (3) 

clarity of the grounds for default; ( 4) default caused by good faith mistake or 

excusable neglect; (5) harshness; and (6) "whether the comi would think itself 

obliged to set aside the default on the defendant's motion." Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 

161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 

36. Consideration of these factors warrants default judgment here. Because 

Defendant has failed to respond to the Complaint, its well-pled factual allegations are 

taken as true. See Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd., 515 F.2d at 1206. Consequently, 

there are no material issues of fact. See China lnt'l Marine Containers (Group) 

Ltd. v. Jiangxi Oxygen Plant Co., Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-01887, 2017 WL 6403886, at 

*3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2017). 

3 7. Defendant was properly served, and has chosen not to respond before 

this Court, but rather appears to have moved its unlawful activity to a different 

domain name. Thus, a default judgment against it is neither substantially prejudicial 

nor harsh. See id. Conversely, delaying judgment would prejudice the public 

interest generally by frustrating the Commission's mission of enforcing registrationrelated provisions in the Act that protect market integrity and customers. See British 

Am. Commodity Options, 560 F.2d at 139-40; Savage, 611 F.2d at 280; Southern 

12 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 24 

Tr. Metals, Inc., 894 F.3d at 1324. 

38. Grounds for default are clearly established in that Defendant was 

properly served and has not answered the Complaint, and the Clerk has properly 

entered default against it. See China lnt'l Marine Containers (Group) Ltd., 2017 

WL 6403886, at *3. 

39. As further shown below, Plaintiffs well-pled claims, taken as true, 

establish that Defendant engaged in foreign currency and unlawful retail commodity 

transactions, without registration and thus violated CEA provisions. 

D. Defendant Offered to Enter Into or Entered Into Retail Forex 

Transactions With U.S. Customers Under 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C) 

40. Retail forex transactions are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I), which in relevant part applies to "any 

agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency" that is offered to, or 

entered into with, a person that is not an ECP-i.e., a person who is a retail 

customer-"on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the 

counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a 

similar basis." See, e.g., CFTCv. GID Grp., Inc., No. 3:11-cv-03068, 2013 WL 

709308, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2013); CFTC v. Ramirez, No. 4: 19-cv-140, 2019 

WL 4198857 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2019). Here, Defendant offered to, or entered 

with non-ECP U.S. customers, transactions in foreign currency pairs such as the 

13 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 24 

Euro/USD (EUR/USD) and Australian Dollar/USD (AUD/USD) with leverages 

potentially as high as 1/500 and thus engaged in retail forex transactions. 

E. Defendant Offered to Enter Into or Entered Into Retail Commodity 

Transactions With U.S. Customers Under 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D) 

41. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(i), retail commodity transactions are 

defined as "any agreement, contract, or transaction in any commodity" that is 

entered into with, or offered to (even if not entered into with), a non-ECP "on a 

leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a 

person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis." 

42. In addition to forex, Defendant offered CFDs referenced to the prices 

of gold, silver, bitcoin, ether, and litecoin to non-ECP U.S. customers on a 

leveraged basis. Gold and silver are "commodities" pursuant to Section la(9) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C § la(9) (2018). See CFTC v. Int'! Monetary Metals, Inc., No. 14-

62244-CIV, 2016 WL 8256852, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2016) ("The precious 

metals, including gold and silver, described herein are commodities as defined by 

Section la(9) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § la(9)."); CFTC v. Smithers, No. 9:12- CV81165-KAM, 2013 WL 4851684, at *7 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2013) (same). 

43. Similarly, bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are "commodities" pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § la(9). CFTC v. Reynolds, No. 1-19-cv-05631, 2021 WL 796683, at *5 

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2021) (slip copy) ("Virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are 

14 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 24 

encompassed in the definition of 'commodity' under Section la(9) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § la(9) (2018).") (citations omitted); CFTC v. McDonnell, 287 F. Supp. 3d 

213, 228 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Virtual currencies can be regulated by CFTC as a 

commodity. They fall well-within the common definition of 'commodity' as well 

as the CEA' s definition of 'commodities' as 'all other goods and articles ... in 

which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in.'"); CFTC 

v. McDonnell, 332 F. Supp. 3d 641, 650-51 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (entering judgment 

against Defendant following bench trial); CFTC v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc., 334 F. 

Supp. 3d 492, 495-98 (D. Mass. 2018) ( denial of motion to dismiss; determining 

that a non-bitcoin virtual currency is a "commodity" under the Act). 

44. Accordingly, Defendant by offering to enter into, or entering into 

transactions in gold, silver, bitcoin, ether, and litecoin with non-ECP U.S. 

customers2 on a leveraged or margined basis engaged in retail commodity 

transactions subject to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(i). 

F. Defendant Violated 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) by Offering to Enter Into or 

Entering Into Illegal Off-Exchange Retail Commodity Transactions 

45. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(iii), the retail transactions in gold, 

silver, ether, litecoin, and bitcoin at issue here are subject to 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018) 

as if they are contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery. In relevant part, 

2 Nor were the U.S. customers eligible commercial entities as defined under 7 

U.S.C. § la(l 7) (2018). 

15 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 24 

7 U.S.C. § 6(a) makes it unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, enter into, 

execute, confirm the execution of, or conduct any office or business anywhere in 

the United States for the purpose of soliciting, accepting any order for, or 

otherwise dealing in any transaction in, or in connection with, a contract for the 

purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery unless the transaction is 

conducted on or subject to the rules of a board of trade which has been designated 

or registered by the Commission as a contract market or derivatives transaction 

execution facility for such commodities. 

46. Defendant's platform is not a designated contract market or 

derivatives transaction execution facility or bona fide foreign board of trade. 

Further in its "Terms and Condition of business PaxForex MT4" provided to 

customers, Defendant acknowledges that its platform is "the sole Execution Venue 

[for customers' trades] which is a nonregulated market." · 

47. Accordingly, Defendant violated 7 U.S.C. § 6(a), by offering or 

entering into in the United States, including in this District, retail commodity 

transactions as defined under 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)(i) (2018). See, e.g., CFTC v. 

lpool Ltd., Case No. l:18-CV-2243, 2019 WL 1605201, at *4-5 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 

2019) (consent order) (finding foreign defendants violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a), 

6d(a)(l)). 

16 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 24 

G. Defendant Violated 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l) by Failing to Register as an 

FCM 

48. 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l) (2018), provides that it shall be unlawful for any 

person to act as an FCM unless such person is registered with the CFTC as an 

FCM. PaxForex acted as an FCM, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § la(28) (2018), by: (a) 

soliciting or accepting orders for retail forex transactions as described by 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(i), and retail commodity transactions as described by 7 U.S.C. § 

2( c )(2)(D)(i); or (b) acting as a counterparty for retail forex transactions as 

described by 7 U.S.C. § 2( c )(2)(C)(i) or retail commodity transactions as described 

by 7 U.S.C. § 2( c )(2)(D)(i); and, ( c) in connection with these activities, accepting 

money, securities, or property ( or extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin trades 

or contracts that result or may result therefrom. While doing so, Defendant failed 

to register with the CFTC as an FCM, and thus violated 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l). Id. 

H. Defendant is Liable For The Acts of Its Officers, Employees, And/Or 

Agents Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 

49. The acts and omissions of PaxForex's officers, employees, and/or 

agents described in the Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, and/or agency with PaxForex. Therefore, pursuant to Section 

2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) (2018), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 1.2 (2020), PaxForex is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of 

17 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 24 

its officers, employees, and/or agents acting for PaxForex, constituting violations 

of 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) and 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l). 

IV. ORDER FOR RELIEF 

A.PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

50. The Commission is authorized to seek, and the Court to impose, 

injunctive relief. Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(a) (2018). Such relief 

may be sought against any person whenever it shall appear to the Commission that 

such person has engaged in any act or practice that violates the Act. 

51. As described above, the well-pled facts of the Commission's 

Complaint, and the evidence submitted, establish a reasonable likelihood that 

Defendant will be a repeat violator of the Act unless permanently restrained and 

enjoined by the Court. 

52. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-l, Defendant is permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly: 

a. Engaging, directly or indirectly, in conduct in violation of Sections 

6(a) and 6d(a)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a), 6d(a)(l) (2018); 

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

is defined in Section la(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2018)); 

18 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 19 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 19 of 24 

c. Entering into any transactions involving "commodity interests" (as 

that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2020)), for its 

own account or for any account in which it has a direct or indirect 

interest; 

d. Having any commodity interests traded on its behalf; 

e. 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; 

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

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

g. 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) (2020); and/or 

h. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.l(a), 17 

C.F.R. § 3.l(a) (2020)), or agent of any person (as that term is defined 

in 7 U.S.C. § la(38) (2020)), 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). 

19 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 20 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 20 of 24 

B. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

53. Under Section 6c(d)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(d)(l), and 

Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2020), the Commission is authorized to seek 

a civil moneta1y penalty equal to the higher of triple Defendant's monetary gain 

from each violation of the Act or up to $187,432 per violation.3 

54. Defendant: (i) offered or accepted orders from U.S. retail customers in 

commodities (precious metals· and digital assets) constituting violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6(a); and (ii) acted as an FCM without being registered with the Commission in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(l). 

55. Defendant's violations involve core provisions of the Act, and the 

Defendant has made no attempt to cure its violations while continuing to engage in 

its unlawful conduct. The Court finds that these circumstances warrant imposition 

of a significant monetary penalty. 

56. Based on Defendant's conduct, the Court finds that a civil monetary 

penalty reflecting the maximum permissible amount ($187,432) for each of its two 

violations is warranted in this circumstance. 

57. Accordingly, Defendant shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the 

3 This is the inflation-adjusted CMP for CEA violations occurring after Nov. 1, 

2015. See CFTC Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect 

Inflation-2021, 86 Fed. Reg. 7802 (Feb. 2, 2021) (codified at 17 C.F.R. § 143.8). 

20 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 21 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 21 of 24 

amount of $374,864 (three hundred seventy-four thousand eight hundred sixty-four 

dollars) ("CMP Obligation"). If the CMP Obligation is not paid immediately, then 

post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date 

of entry of this Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate 

prevailing on the date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2018). 

58. Defendant shall pay its CMP Obligation and any post-judgment 

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

cashier's check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made other than by 

electronic funds transfer, then the payment shall be made payable to the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address below: 

MMAC/ESC/ AMK.326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 181 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

( 405) 954-6569 office 

(405) 954-1620 fax 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendant shall contact Marie 

Thome or her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and 

shall fully comply with those instructions. Defendant shall accompany payment of 

the CMP Obligation with a cover letter that identifies Defendant and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. Defendant shall simultaneously transmit copies 

21 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 22 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 22 of 24 

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

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

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581. 

59. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission of any partial 

payment of Defendant's CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of its 

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

Commission's right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance. 

V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

60. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and 

equitable relief provisions of this Order shall be binding upon Defendant, upon any 

person under the authority or control of Defendant, and upon any person who 

receives actual notice of this Order, by personal service, e-mail, facsimile or 

othe1wise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with 

Defendant. 

61. Notices: All notices required to be given by any provision of this 

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

Notice to the Commission: 

Harry E. Wedewer 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

Three Lafayette Centre 

22 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 23 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 23 of 24 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Notice to Defendant: 

Laino Group Limited, d/b/a PaxForex 

c/o Wilfred Services Ltd. 

Suite 305, Griffith Corporate Centre 

Beachmont Business Centre 

P.O. Box 1510 

Kingstown 

St. Vincent and The Grenadines 

62. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant satisfies in 

full its CMP Obligation as set forth in this Order, Defendant shall provide written· 

notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to its telephone number 

and/or mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

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

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

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

affected by the holding. 

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

jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other 

purposes related to this action, including any motion by Defendant to modify or to 

seek relief from the tenns of this Order. 

23 
Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 21 Filed on 06/30/21 in TXSD Page 24 of 24

Case 4:20-cv-03317 Document 18-1 Filed on 06/07/21 in TXSD Page 24 of 24 

65. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court is hereby 

ordered to enter this Order of Final Judgment by Default, Permanent Injunction, 

and Civil Monetary Penalty forthwith and without further notice. 

SO ORDERED, this '3D day of~, 2021, at Houston, Texas. 

~~----

David Hittner 

United States District Judge 

24