UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-20291-GAYLES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

NOTUS LLC d/b/a ROFX, et al., 

Defendants, 

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission’s (the “CFTC” or the “Commission”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against 

Timothy Stubbs (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 85]. In its Motion, the CFTC moves for entry of a 

preliminary injunction against Defendant Timothy Stubbs (“Stubbs”) for alleged violations of the

Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–27f, and accompanying CFTC Regulations 

(the “Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and 

is otherwise fully advised.

1

 The Court concludes that the Commission has made a sufficient

showing that Stubbs, through a common enterprise with his co-Defendants, violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 

6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6d(a)(1), 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1), (3), and 180.1(a) by accepting and 

misappropriating customer funds that customers intended to be used for trading in retail foreign 

1 At the Status Conference on August 30, 2023, the parties deferred to the Court as to whether a hearing was warranted. 

As set forth below, the evidence in the record is sufficient for the Court to make its findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 1 of 18
2

currency (“forex”) and by failing to disclose material facts to customers. Accordingly, a 

preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of this 

litigation.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2022, the Commission filed a three-count Amended Complaint against

Defendants Notus LLC d/b/a ROFX (“Notus”), Easy Com LLC d/b/a ROFX (“Easy Com”), Global 

E-Advantages LLC a/k/a Kickmagic LLC d/b/a ROFX (“GEA”), Grovee LLC d/b/a ROFX 

(“Grovee”), and Shopostar LLC d/b/a ROFX (“Shopostar”) (collectively the “Corporate 

Defendants”), and Jase Davis (“Davis”), Borys Konovalenko (“Konovalenko”), Anna Shymko 

(“Shymko”), Alla Skala (“Skala”), and Stubbs (the “Facilitating Defendants,” together with the 

Corporate Defendants referred to as “Defendants”). [ECF No. 55]. The Amended Complaint sets 

forth the following allegations:

1) In Count I, the Commission alleges that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), 

(C), and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3). 

a) 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A) and (C) make it unlawful “for any person, in or in connection 

with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity

for future delivery, or swap, that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf of, or with, 

any other person, other than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract 

market – (A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; 

[or] (C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive the other person by any means 

whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the disposition or execution of any 

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

order or contract for or, in the case or paragraph (2), with the other person.”

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 2 of 18
3

b) The regulations set forth at 17 C.F.R § 5.2(b)(1) and (3) make it “unlawful for any 

person, by use of the mails, or by any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly, in or in connection with any retail forex 

transaction: (1) [t]o cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; . . .

or (3) [w]illfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any person by any means 

whatsoever.”

2) In Count II, the Commission alleges that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 

C.F.R. § 180.1(a).

a) 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) makes it “unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or 

employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any swap, or a contract of 

sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject 

to the rules of any registered entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or 

contrivance, in contravention of” the rule and regulations promulgated by the 

Commission.

b) The regulations set forth at 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) make it unlawful “for any person, 

directly or indirectly, in connection with any swap or contract of sale of any 

commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to 

the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly:

(1) Use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative device, 

scheme, or artifice to defraud;

(2) Make, or attempt to make, any untrue or misleading statement of a material 

fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the 

statements made not untrue or misleading; [or]

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 3 of 18
4

(3) Engage, or attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, 

which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person . . . .”

3) In Count III, the Commission alleges that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) 

which makes it unlawful for any person to be a futures commission merchant unless 

such person is registered with the Commission as a futures commission merchant and 

that registration has not been suspended or revoked.

On October 3, 2022, the Clerk entered defaults against every Defendant but Stubbs for 

failure to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 75]. On 

October 11, 2022, Stubbs answered the Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 78].

On January 11, 2023, the Commission moved for a preliminary injunction against Stubbs. 

[ECF Nos. 85]. The Commission relies on the declaration of CFTC Investigator George H. Malas 

(the “Malas Declaration”), its 20 supporting exhibits, and 9 exhibits submitted in support of the 

Commission’s reply brief. See [ECF Nos. 85-1-85-3, 95-1-95-9]. In response, Stubbs relies on his 

own affidavit (the “Stubbs Affidavit”) and the exhibits attached thereto. See [ECF Nos. 90, 90-1-

90-3].

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Fraudulent Enterprise

The fraudulent scheme at issue is centered on the fictitious, web-based entity, ROFX.

Through its website,2 www.ROFX.net, ROFX claimed to create and trade leveraged, margined, or 

financed agreements, contracts, or transactions in forex to U.S. and international customers using

a forex trading robot which “guarantee[d] coverage of losses.” [ECF No. 85-1 ¶ 6u(i). The ROFX 

website made several false and misleading claims such as:

2 Some customers were introduced to ROFX via social media and referrals from family and friends. ECF No. 85-1 ¶ 

6m.

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 4 of 18
5

• ROFX used the “best automated trading robot in the world.”

• ROFX “guarantee[s] the safety” of customer funds.

• “Negative results of trading are covered by [ROFX’s] Reserve Fund.”

• ROFX has “protections built into ROFX.net” that “significantly lowers the risk” for 

customers including a “stop-loss system” which “minimizes losses on a bad day.”

• “Guaranteed profits that average about .38% every day and in many cases about 10% in a 

single month.”

• ROFX investors “made 100.86% profit in 2017 alone.”3

Id. ¶ 6u i-ix. Defendants are not referenced on the ROFX website.

Customers opened ROFX trading accounts by providing their names and drivers licenses

through the website. The online application did not request information about a prospective 

customer’s net worth or inquire as to whether the prospective customer qualified as an eligible 

contracts participant (“ECP”) or had assets in excess of $5 million. After a customer created an 

ROFX account, she would receive a purported “payment invoice” with a corresponding invoice 

number via email from support@rofx.net with instructions to deposit funds into one of the 

Corporate Defendant’s bank accounts. Pursuant to ROFX’s payment instructions, each customer 

made a counter deposit via cashier’s check payable to one of the Corporate Defendants or a wire 

transfer to one or more of the Corporate Defendants’ bank accounts. Notations for customers’ wire 

transfers appeared on the Corporate Defendants’ monthly bank account statements as “ROFX 

account deposit,” “ROFX investment service,” “investment transfer to ROFX,” and “investment 

trading account.” Id. ¶ o.

3 This is just a sampling of the alleged misrepresentations on the website. See [ECF NO. 85-1 ¶ 6u].

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 5 of 18
6

Ultimately, customers deposited over $58 million into the Corporate Defendants’ bank 

accounts for forex transactions. However, the record reflects that those funds were never used for 

forex trading. ROFX was a fictitious company with a website designed to defraud customers. 

ROFX never traded forex for customers, customers never had forex trading accounts, there was no 

ROFX trading robot, and there were no ROFX domestic or international corporate offices as 

falsely advertised on the website. 

The reality was that the Facilitating Defendants, individually and as controllers of the 

Corporate Defendants, none of whom were registered with the CFTC in any capacity, used the 

ROFX website to misappropriate at least $58 million.

4 Rather than use the customer funds to 

margin, secure, or guarantee forex transactions as promised, the Defendants immediately 

transferred customer funds to various offshore entities as well as to the Facilitation Defendants’ 

personal accounts. Indeed, the Corporate Defendants’ bank accounts appear to have existed for the 

sole purpose of collecting and moving ROFX customer funds. The offshore entities that received 

most of the misappropriated funds are non-trading entities that have nothing to do with forex 

trading. In addition to sending funds to offshore entities, the Defendants operated a Ponzi scheme, 

forwarding funds from later customers to earlier customers who made repeated requests for 

withdrawals. 

B. Stubbs’s Role in the Scheme

Corporate Defendant Grovee accepted over $1.2 million in ROFX funds during the relevant 

time period. The record reflects that Stubbs controlled Grovee. Stubbs, a certified public 

accountant, is named as the sole member of Grovee in Grovee’s Operating Agreement.5 See ECF 

4 Notus accepted approximately $22.5 million, Easy Com accepted over $15 million, GEA accepted over $4 million, 

and Shopostar accepted approximately $13.5 in ROFX funds. 5 Stubbs signed Grovee’s Operating Agreement as sole member on October 15, 2020. ECF No. 95-1.

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 6 of 18
7

No. 95-1. The Operating Agreement empowers Stubbs with “the right and authority to manage the 

business and affairs of [Grovee].” Id. As sole member, Stubbs took several actions on behalf of 

Grovee, including submitting a U.S. Postal Service application for delivery of mail through 

Grovee’s Delaware agent, entering into a Mailbox Service Agreement, applying for and obtaining

an employer identification number (“EIN”) from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for 

Grovee6, and opening an account at Bank of America for Grovee (“Account 9293”). 

When Stubbs opened Account 9293, he identified himself as the “Manager” of Grovee and 

certified that he was authorized to open the account on behalf of Grovee. Stubbs identified himself 

as the “Individual Owner/Sole Proprietor/Single Member LLC” and as Grovee’s “Manager” on 

the account’s signature card. Stubbs was also the only person authorized to accept deposits into 

Account 9293. Monthly statements for that account were sent to Stubbs’s residence in Atlanta, 

Georgia. Stubbs accepted deposits totaling $153,000 into Account 9293. Some of the deposits 

contained notations indicating that they were for “ROFX Deposit” or investment accounts. Funds 

deposited in Account 9293 were never used for forex trading. Rather, customer funds were 

transferred to offshore non-trading corporate entities. 

On January 20, 2021, Stubbs closed Account 9293. His connection to Grovee, however, 

continued. On February 6, 2021, Tedi McLendon (“McLendon”) opened another account at Bank 

of America for Grovee (“Account 5659”). Stubbs’s address was also used as the mailing address 

for Account 5659. Over $1 million in customer funds were deposited into Account 5659.7

6 The IRS Letter assigning Grovee an EIN is addressed to “Grovee LLC, Timothy F. Stubbs, Sole MBR.” ECF No. 

95-1. 7 While Stubbs contends that he was not involved with Account 5659 and did not authorize McLendon to use his 

address, there is evidence in the record that Stubbs was connected to McLendon. Indeed, on January 25, 2021, before 

McLendon opened the account, Stubbs mailed a cell phone to her address in New York. See ECF No. 95-5. 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 7 of 18
8

Stubbs’s participation in the common enterprise does not appear to be limited to Grovee. 

Stubbs’s Mississippi residence was used as a mailing address for Corporate Defendants Notus and 

Shopostar as well as Facilitating Defendants Davis, and Konovalenko. [ECF No. 85-1 ¶¶ 6a, 6e, 

6g-6h]. In addition, there is evidence in the record suggesting that Stubbs assisted Davis with the 

opening of two of Easy Com’s bank accounts used to misappropriate customer funds, including 

preparing Davis for, and transporting him to, in-person bank meetings in Atlanta.

8 See [ECF No. 

95-4]. 

In response, Stubbs contends that he was duped by Nataliya Los (“Los”) into opening 

Account 9293 and that he had no idea that the account was being used to filter ROFX customer 

funds. He also blames Los for the use of his mailing address. The issue with Stubbs’s response, 

however, that it is based almost entirely on his self-serving affidavit and text messages between 

Stubbs and Los that are not clearly exculpatory. Stubbs disregards that his name and addresses 

repeatedly show up in the record with respect to several of the Corporate Defendants and 

Facilitating Defendants well before he opened Account 9293. Moreover, Stubbs conveniently 

disregards that, pursuant to the Operating Agreement, he had sole control over Grovee and 

controlled Account 9293 which accepted funds clearly designated for ROFX investments.

The record supports a finding that Stubbs knew about the Fraudulent Enterprise, his role in 

it, and the misappropriation of Customer Funds. At a minimum, the evidence supports a finding

that Stubbs deliberately or recklessly avoided obtaining knowledge about the fraudulent activities 

of Grovee and the other Corporate Defendants. As Stubbs is a CPA, it is reasonable to conclude 

8 In its Reply, the CFTC states that McLendon was only twenty-one years old when she opened Account 5659 and 

that Stubbs was only twenty-two years old when he opened the two Easy Com’s accounts. While the evidence suggests 

that Stubbs was clearly connected to both McClendon and Davis when they opened the accounts, the record does not 

reflect their ages.

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 8 of 18
9

that he either knew about the Fraudulent Enterprise or stuck his head in the sand to manufacture 

plausible deniability. 

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Legal Standard

Generally, a party must demonstrate four criteria to obtain a preliminary injunction: “(1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the 

relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on 

the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel 

Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). However, the 

standard to obtain a preliminary injunction under the Commodity Exchange Act is lower. 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 749 F.3d 967, 974 (11th 

Cir. 2014). “[T]raditional standards applicable to private parties seeking injunctive relief do not 

apply [to the CFTC.]” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Sterling Trading Grp., 605 F. Supp. 

2d 1245, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2009); accord Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Muller, 570 F.2d 

1296, 1300 (5th Cir. 1978) (“In actions for a statutory injunction, the agency need not prove 

irreparable injury or the inadequacy of other remedies as required in private injunctive suits. A 

prima facie case of illegality is sufficient.”). Under the Act, the CFTC is entitled to a preliminary 

injunction when it shows (1) a prima facie violation of the Act has occurred or is occurring; and 

(2) that there is a “reasonable likelihood” of future violations. Sterling Trading Grp., 605 F. Supp. 

2d at 1290. Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following conclusions of law.

B. Prima Facie Showing of Violations of the Act

The Commission has met its burden of showing prima facie violations of the Act. The 

CFTC’s evidence shows that since at least January 2018 through September 2021, Defendants, 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 9 of 18
10

acting as a common enterprise and through the web-based entity www.ROFX.net, accepted and 

misappropriated at least $58 million in funds that customers intended to be used for trading in 

forex. The Commission has presented evidence showing that the Corporate Defendants, through 

the acts of Facilitating Defendants, engaged in fraud, including by misappropriating customers’ 

funds and failing to disclose material facts to customers. The CFTC also presented evidence 

showing that the Corporate Defendants failed to register with the CFTC as futures commission 

merchants, in violation of the Act. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Commission 

has made a sufficient showing that Defendants have engaged in, are engaging in, or are about to 

engage in violations of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1), (3), and 

180.1(a), and there is good cause to believe that the Corporate Defendants have engaged in, are 

engaging in, or are about to engage in violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1). 

C. Reasonable Likelihood of Future Violations 

The Commission has established a reasonable likelihood of a risk of future violations. 

District courts in the Eleventh Circuit consider several factors to determine the likelihood of future 

violations including: “the egregiousness of the defendant’s actions, the isolated or recurrent nature 

of the infraction, the degree of scienter involved, the sincerity of the defendant’s assurances against 

future violations, the defendant’s recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct, and the 

likelihood defendant’s occupation will present opportunities for future violations.” U.S. 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. K.B. Concepts Grp., LLC, No. 16-CIV-24022, 2017 WL 

3085088, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2017) (citing SEC v. Carriba Air, Inc., 681 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th 

Cir. 1982)). The likelihood of future violations may be inferred from past conduct. U.S. Commodity 

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Gutterman, No. 12-21047, 2012 WL 2413082, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 

26, 2012). 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 10 of 18
11

Having considered these factors, the Court finds that the Commission has established a 

reasonable likelihood of future violations. This was not a one-time violation; rather, Defendants, 

though their common enterprise, committed a massive fraud over a multi-year period in deliberate 

pursuit of financial gain. See U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Hunter Wise 

Commodities, LLC, No. 12-CIV-81311, 2013 WL 718503, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2013), aff’d, 

749 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding a reasonable likelihood of future violations because “[t]his 

is not a one-time fraud. This is a careful and calculated system designed to maximize profits by 

taking advantage of ill-advised investors.”); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Rubio, 2012 

WL 13014711, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2012) (granting injunction based on “the egregious nature 

of Defendant’s long conduct of fraud”). Further, because Stubbs denies any wrongdoing in the 

face of this evidence, there is a reasonable likelihood that he will continue to engage in the same 

acts and practices alleged unless enjoined. Accordingly, the Commission has met its burden of 

showing a reasonable likelihood of future violations. 

D. Requested Relief 

1. Preliminary Injunction

The Commission moves the Court for an order of preliminary injunction against Stubbs 

enjoining him from committing further violations of the Act. The Court finds, as detailed above, 

that the Commission has met its burden and is entitled to the requested injunctive relief.

2. Accounting of Assets and Asset Freeze

The Commission also seeks an accounting of Stubbs assets and an asset freeze. An asset 

freeze is appropriate where, as here, the Commission seeks disgorgement and restitution. See 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Levy, 541 F.3d 1102, 1114 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding in 

the context of an injunction pending satisfaction of judgment that “a district court may freeze a 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 11 of 18
12

defendant’s assets to ensure the adequacy of a disgorgement remedy”) (citing SEC v. ETS 

Payphones, Inc., 408 F.3d 727, 734 (11th Cir. 2005) (permitting asset freezes “as a means [to]

preserv[e] funds for the equitable remedy of disgorgement”)); Commodity Futures Trading 

Comm’n v. E-Metal Merchants, Inc., No. 05-CIV-21571, 2005 WL 8155180, at *10 (S.D. Fla. July 

27, 2005) (“The Act clearly permits district courts to issue restraining orders and asset freezes and 

the legislative history of the Act clearly demonstrates that Congress intended an asset freeze to 

preserve the status quo pending trial”). The “burden for showing the amount of assets subject to 

disgorgement (and, therefore available for freeze) is light: a reasonable approximation of a 

defendant’s ill-gotten gains . . . .” ETS Payphones, Inc., 408 F.3d at 735 (internal quotation 

omitted). In addition, the Commission does not need to present evidence that the assets will be 

dissipated; rather, it need only show a concern that the Defendants’ assets will disappear. See Fed. 

Trade Comm'n v. Simple Health Plans LLC, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1346, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2019), aff'd, 

801 F. App'x 685 (11th Cir. 2020).

The Commission’s evidence provides a sufficient basis believe that immediate and 

irreparable damage to the Court’s ability to grant effective final relief for customers in the form of 

monetary or other redress will occur from the withdrawal, transfer, removal, dissipation, or other 

disposition of assets, and/or the destruction, alternation, or disposition of books and records and 

other documents by Stubbs, unless Stubbs is immediately restrained and enjoined by Order of the 

Court. Moreover, there is good cause for the Court to freeze assets owned, controlled, managed, 

or held by Stubbs, or in which he has any beneficial interest, and to order transfer and repatriation 

of assets and funds which derive from funds obtained in connection with the fraudulent scheme. 

Additionally, there is good cause for the Court to prohibit Stubbs from destroying, altering, or 

disposing of records, and/or denying CFTC access to inspect records. Finally, there is good cause 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 12 of 18
13

to require an accounting by Stubbs to determine the location and disposition of customers’ funds 

and ill-gotten gains. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Commission has shown prima facie violations of the Act and a reasonable likelihood 

of future violations by Defendants. Thus, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is necessary 

to preserve the status quo, protect customers from further loss and damage, and enable the 

Commission to fulfill its statutory duties. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [ECF No. 85], is GRANTED as follows: 

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

For purposes of this Order, the following definitions and instructions apply: 

1. The term “assets” encompasses any legal or equitable interest in, right to, or claim 

to, any real or personal property, whether individually or jointly, directly or indirectly controlled, 

and wherever located, including but not limited to: chattels, goods, instruments, equipment, 

fixtures, general intangibles, effects, leaseholds mail or other deliveries, inventory, checks, notes, 

accounts (including, but not limited to, bank accounts and accounts at other financial institutions), 

credits, receivables, lines of credit, contracts (including spot, futures, options, or swaps contracts), 

insurance policies, and all funds, wherever located, whether in the United States or outside the 

United States.

2. The term “records” encompasses “documents” and “electronically stored 

information” as those terms are used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), and includes, but is not limited to, 

all writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or 

other data compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained or 

translated, if necessary, into reasonable usable form. The term “records” also refers to each and 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 13 of 18
14

every such item in Defendant’s actual or constructive possession, including but not limited to: (i) 

all such items within the custody or control of any agents, employers, employees, or partners of 

Defendant; and (ii) all items which Defendant has a legal or equitable right to obtain from another 

person. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate item within the meaning of the term. A record 

also includes the file and folder tabs associated with each original and copy. 

3. “Defendant” means and refers to Defendant Stubbs as described above and any 

person insofar as he or she is acting in the capacity of an officer, agent, servant, employee, or 

attorney of Defendant, and any person who receives actual notice of this Order by personal service 

or otherwise, insofar as he or she is acting in concert or participation with Defendant. 

RELIEF GRANTED

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

I. ASSET FREEZE

1. Defendant is immediately restrained and enjoined, except as otherwise ordered by 

this Court, from directly or indirectly withdrawing, transferring, removing, dissipating, or 

otherwise disposing of any assets, wherever located, including Defendant’s assets held outside the 

United States, or as otherwise ordered by the Court. 

2. Assets obtained after the effective date of this Order are not subject to the terms of 

this Order unless they are derived from or related to the activities alleged in the Amended 

Complaint.

3. Defendant shall immediately transfer and repatriate all assets and funds which 

directly or indirectly derive from funds obtained in connection with the scheme alleged in the 

Amended Complaint, wherever located, to the registry of the Clerk of the Court. 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 14 of 18
15

II. MAINTENANCE OF AND ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORDS

4. Defendant is restrained from directly or indirectly destroying, mutilating, erasing, 

altering, concealing, or disposing of, in any manner, directly or indirectly, any documents that 

relate to the business practices or business or personal finances of any Defendant.

5. Representatives of the CFTC shall be immediately allowed to inspect any records 

that, in part or in whole, contain, relate, or refer to the business activities or business or personal

finances of Defendant, including, but not limited to, both hard-copy documents and electronicallystored information, wherever they may be situated and whether they are in the possession of 

Defendant or others. To ensure preservation and facilitate meaningful inspection and review of 

these records, Defendant shall allow representatives of the CFTC to make copies of these records, 

including complete forensic images of any devices containing any such records, and if on-site 

copying of these records and/or forensic imaging of these devices is not practicable, 

representatives may make such copies and/or forensic images off-site. After any such off-site 

copying and/or forensic imaging, Plaintiff shall promptly return the original documents and 

devices upon which electronic information is stored.

6. To further facilitate meaningful inspection and review, Defendant shall, absent a 

valid assertion of his rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, promptly 

provide CFTC staff with: 

a. the location of all records relating or referring to the business activities and business 

and personal finances of Defendant; 

b. all identification numbers and other identifying information for websites, cloud 

storage services, email and smartphone accounts, online chat and messaging services, and all 

accounts at any bank, financial institution, or brokerage firm (including any introducing broker or 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 15 of 18
16

futures commission merchant) owned, controlled, or operated by Defendant, or to which 

Defendant has access; and 

c. all passwords to, and the location, make and model of, all computers and/or mobile 

electronic devices owned and/or used by Defendant in connection with his business activities and 

business and personal finances. 

7. When inspecting and reviewing records and/or contents of forensic images that are 

subject to this Order, including those contained on computers and/or other devices, the CFTC 

should undertake reasonable measures to prevent review of Defendant’s privileged 

communications and/or other non-business, non-financial materials by the CFTC’s attorneys and 

other staff who are part of the litigation team in this matter. Moreover, Defendant or his counsel 

shall promptly contact Plaintiff’s counsel to assert any claims of privilege relating to the inspection 

and review of any records or contents of forensic images that are subject to this Order and promptly 

cooperate with Plaintiff’s counsel to develop reasonable protocols to isolate and prevent disclosure 

of claimed privileged and/or other non-business, non-financial materials to the CFTC’s attorneys 

and other staff who are part of the litigation team in this matter. However, nothing herein shall 

excuse Defendant from full and immediate compliance with this Court’s Order permitting Plaintiff 

to inspect and review the records and contents of forensic images which relate to Defendant’s 

business activities and his business and personal finances.

III. NOTICE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS THAT HOLD OR 

CONTROL ASSETS OR RECORDS

8. To ensure the effectiveness of the asset freeze, and pending further Order of this 

Court, any financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person that receives actual notice 

of this Order and holds, controls, or maintains custody of any account or asset or other property of 

Defendant shall not, in active concert or participation with Defendant, permit Defendant, or other 

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 16 of 18
17

persons to withdraw, transfer, remove, dissipate, or otherwise dispose of any of Defendant’s assets, 

except as directed by further order of the Court.

9. Any financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person that receives actual 

notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, shall not, in active concert or participation 

with any Defendant, directly or indirectly destroy, alter, or dispose of, in any manner, any records 

relating to the business activities and business and personal finances of any Defendant. 

10. Furthermore, any such financial or brokerage institution, business entity, or person 

that receives actual notice of this Order and holds, controls, or maintains custody of any account 

or asset titled in the name of, held for the benefit of, or otherwise under the control of any 

Defendant, or has held, controlled, or maintained custody of any such account or asset of 

Defendant at any time since January 2018, shall not, in active concert or participation with 

Defendant, deny a request by the CFTC to inspect all records pertaining to every account or asset 

owned, controlled, managed, or held by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of Defendant, including, 

but not limited to, originals or copies of account applications, account statements, signature cards, 

checks, drafts, deposit tickets, transfers to and from the accounts, all other debit and credit 

instruments or slips, currency transaction reports, 1099 forms, and safe deposit box logs. As an 

alternative to allowing inspection of records, a financial or brokerage institution, business entity 

or other person may provide copies of records requested by the CFTC.

IV. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS

11. Defendant is preliminarily enjoined from violating the Act and Regulations as 

charged in the Amended Complaint during the pendency of this action.

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 17 of 18
18

V. PERSONS BOUND BY THIS ORDER

12. This Order is binding on any person who receives actual notice of this Order by 

personal service or otherwise and is acting in the capacity of an officer, agent, servant, employee, 

or attorney of Defendant, or is in active concert or participation with Defendant.

VI. BOND NOT REQUIRED OF PLAINTIFF 

13. As Plaintiff CFTC has made a proper showing under 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(b), it is not 

required to post any bond in connection with this Order. 

VII. FORCE AND EFFECT

14. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of this Court, and 

this Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for all purposes.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of September, 

2023.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-20291-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 18 of 18